HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.23.1985EX, D
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
SITE DATA:
WATER:
SEWER:
ACCESS:
EXTSTING ZONING:
ADJACENT ZONING:
PROJECT INFORIVIATION AND STAFF CO}'IMENTS
Modification of SPeciaI Use
for extraction, sE,orage andprocessing facilities,
impoundments, mineral
disposal and access
wholesale/retail sale of
water pump.
permits
I imi ted
water
waste
routes.
coa1,
for
I.RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed Special Uses are located in OisLrict B,
Subdivisions/nural Serviceable Areas, L/2 to I mile radius, moderate
environmental constraints. Under the District B classification, the
area fa1ls within the sub-category Ib, which is an area witnin one (I)
mile of a subdivision with central water and sewer and moderate
environmental constraints. This sub-category classification is based
on the Riverbend P.U.D location.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
site Description: The mine site sits
ffi and at the base of
Ridge). The portions of the site
irrigated hay land, with the uPper
sagebrush and mountain shruo as the
area of the site that includes the
very steep slopes in excess of 40t
sits at the base of the hogback and
158.
New Castle EnergY CorPoration
(Storm King Mines, Inc. )
A tract of land located in Portionsof the N L/2 of Section 6, T65,
R90Wi more practically described as
a tract located I L/2 mLLes east of
New Castle off of CountY Road 335.
A 292 acre tract of land to be used
for coal mining activities and
support facilities.
-Portao1e water containers
domestic use.
-WeII - industrial make-uP water.
remporary non-discharging holding
tank.
County Road 335.
Planned Unit Development
North - PUD, A/R/RD
South - A/R/RD
East - O/5, PUD
West - A/R/RD
on a bench south of the
the Grand uogback (Coal
nearest to the river are
sections of the site having
predominant veget,ation. The
Grand Hogback formation has
but the majority of the site
has gentle slopes of 5 to
rr.
A.
e /23/8s
^7-
B.
L,wffi
project DescriPEion New Castle Energy Corporation (NCEC)
proposes to mod-E-the.Special Use permits-Lo develop a coal mine
io 'pro.r" t.h; i'"t=ibility of the hyoraulic mining technique,
provide coal ior-washabiliiy and combustion tests and to provide
small shipments to the west6rn coal spot markets. It is proposed
thaL the mine will eventually produce 2.2 million tons annually'
This permit, trrough, would oirry u" for a pilot-mine that projects
a maximum of 9601700 tons o-e coal being produced in L987 ' The
following is the projected production by guarter:
Quarter 1 2 3 4 Total
1986
I9B7
-0-
283,800
2L,612 80 t724 262,278
283,800 252,500 r40,600
364,6L4
960,700
The major reason for the reguested modification is a result of
the desire of NcEc to move the tunnel portals- and associated
facirities 140o feet west of the originar 10cation. The
relocation oi--tr," portals will reduce the length of the tunnels
from 2500 ft. to 1750 ft. Additionally, the portals will be
separated, rather than be parallel, reducing the size of the cut
into the mountain. Each tunnel wiII be 10 feet high and 16 feet
wide. The same blasting techniques wiII be utilized to bore the
ne\^, tunnels.
The following is a list to compare the associated facilities
approved in tie previous aPptication and the reguested modified
application:
1984 ApPlication
2 mine portals
sediment Ponddewatering PIant
slurry ponds
sizing station
shop and trailers
water treatment Plant
par k ing
coal storage Pile
access road
L985 ApPlication
2 mine portals
dewatering P1antsizing station
sediment Pond
shop and trailers
coal storage Pileetectrical substation
access road
2 Lay down Yards2 powoer magazines
temporary tunnel muck
storage
water storage tanks
rock handling Yard
The dewatering plant will be sized to meet the needs of the
of"ration, ,6ilr, is approximately I50 ft. Iong, 60 ft. wide and
60 ft,. tall. The slurry ponds from the previous -application have
been elinrinated as a result of redesigning the dewatering plant
to take the backfl0w from tne mine witrrin the structure' The
dewatering plant will also inclucie a sizing station' Large
iopsoif sloc-kpiles will be used as visual buffers.
The proposed access road has been moved, each approximately I100
i""t Lu=t, in an effort to avoid a large number of culverts that
woulcl be required in the previous location'
Initial mining of coal will require the Lrucking of the material
to a loadout, iicifity in clenwo6d Springs. It. *t. anticipated
that this loadout woita only be used during the initial stages of
the operation for somewhere between 20r000 to 30r000 tons of coal
per quarter. - In the interim, various alternatives for a
permanent IoadouL are being analyzeo. Separate permits wilI be
ieguested for the permanent facility'
-f,-
This permit would result in a maximum employment- Ievel of 165
"*pioy"." the third quarter of I986. The initial employment
level would be 51 in March of 1986, peaking in August and going
down to 47 by the end of 1987. Since the employment level will
not exceed 2oo at any time during the permit, NcEc is asking tnat
lr,"v-ne rerievea of any responsioility for . revision of the
pi"iriou" fiscal impact analysis and mitigation program
requirements.
III.MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Staff Comments
On December 27 , 1984, the Board of County Commissioners aPProved
conditions of aPProval:Resolut,ion No. 84-264, with the followrng
That aII verbal and written representations of the
ippficants shall be considered conditions of approval,
u'r.,i."" specif ied otherwrse by the Board of County
Commissioners.
That any permits issued wiLl be valid until July 1, 1988.
That prior to the issuance of any Special Use permits:
A. The applicant will revise the storm King Mines. Fiscal
ImpactAssessmenttoreflectthecurrentplanofoplrations, and that the revised Fiscal Impact
Assessment wiII be reviewed by the affecteo
governmental entities and a mitigation plan estaolished
[f,ut is acceptable to the Board of County
Commissioners.
B.Thatthecopiesofallotherpermitsfromother
governmental lgencies required for tne proposed Special
6".s be submitled to the Department of Development.
c. That the applicant submit a landscaping, lighting and
color ""r,"*L' plan for the facilities which minimizes
visual imfacts io the extent reasonably feasible for
the prop-osed uses and is acceptable to the Board of
CountY Commissioners.
That prior to the issuance of special use permits for
extraltion, storage, water impoundment and mineral waste
disposal, the following condrtions be met:
A. That the applicant agree to limit blasting activity to
daytime rro-u?s if the noise impacts to nearby residents
is determined by the Board of county commissioners to
be greater than Projected.
B. That written verification from the Dlvision of Water
Resources of a }egal water source be provicied to the
Department of oevelopment/Planning oivision'
c. That written verification from the Town of New castle
of their ability to accept the sewage effluent rrom the
project be submitteS to the Department of-Oevetopment/Planning Oivis ion'
1.
2.
2
4.
- ?-
5. That prior to the issuance of Special Use permits for
industrial suPPort facilities, retail/wholesale sale of
coal, and the access routes, the following conditions be
met:
A. That the applicant agree to pay for a traffic safety
analysis of tfre proposed haul road and that the traffic
safely engineer be hired by Garfield county. That the
conclusions of the traffic safety analysis wiIl be
rncorporated into the design and improvement of the
haul ioad. That, dt a minimum, the analysis study:
1. Present. traffic volumes on cR 335, New Castle I-70
Interchange and st. Hwy 6 & 24 at the interchange.
2. erojected volumes for a specifieo perioo of time.
3. Establishes Iimits to traffic volumes'
4. Identifies measures necessary to mitigate
congestion and circulation problems.
B. That the proposed haul road be designed based upon a
pavement tfriit ness design performed by an engineer
iualrfied to perform such a study. Further, that thq
Board of Counly Commissioners review the document and
reguire the applicant to build the haul road in
accordance with- the specifications contained in the
report.
C. That based on the traffic safety analysis, a maximum
number of truck trips per day be establrshed for the
hauling of coal and that a limrted size of the
oepration be established, but in no case will the test
mine exceed 5001000 tons of coal Per year or an average
of 54 round trip truck trips per day on a monthly
basis.
The following comments will address the above noted conditions of
approval in seguence.
I. This is a stanoard condition of approval and would be
appropriate for any modifieo approvar.
2. This same condition could be applied given NCECrs
intention to re-permit a larger scale facility.
3. A. Given the fact that the maximum employment level
for the pilot mine is only 165 employees, it is
not necessary to revise the fiscal impact
assessment or oevelop a fiscal impact mitigation
plan. IE is assumed that a new fiscal impact
assessment and mitigation plan would be prepared
as a part of any new permits to be reguested, if
employment will exceed 200 employees.
B. This is a standard condition of approval that
would be appropriate for a modified permit.
C. The applicant had proposed to design ano implement
a landscaping plan within the next planting season
once permanent strucLures are completeo- It would
seem appropriate, given concerns of neighbors, to
develop a conceptual landscaping plan that
generally indicates the locat,ion of revegetated
areas, types of trees and shrub material,
suggested sizes and an estimated schedule of
completion. It is recognized that the plan may be
modified after all facilities are in p1ace.
-/o-
It has been proposed to paint structures a "desert
tan with one horizontll white stripe. " A color
sample will be Provided.
rhe Iisht,ins plan states fh?:. 1i?l:?^-":}+, l:;'i;"J':,.n"inli-!n.- i;::;-:l 1ll:T::?:l:',::1+, ?:5:;:Htii"ioitru.a and at the appropriate facilitv
-s5^n^$ tri I I }reor area.It is stated that eveiy attempt will.be
made to avoid off-site impacts.To sPecifY
$;;ifi; irruminatiol, ?"9-1o:?:i?":-:f-:::T::"?:i:=";;i" p;;;;bi" untir the rinal ensineerins is
completed.
The aPPIicant
of apProval
activities.
preliminarY findings has
more than adeguate water
mine. I{LRB does have the
verifY the.water rights'
the necess it,Y f or this
should agree to
with regard
the same conditions
to the blasting
The previous application included : -1?tt"r
from
the Town of New Castle exPressing their
willingness to woif with the then Storm King Mines
to dumping ="*"t" into the. Townrs sewage treatment
system. The T;il t"tunugtt has indicated that they
are still wifiing to w5rk with NCEC on this issue'
(1-4) The traffic safety analysis - has been
submitted to Lh; Planning -o"puttment. In general'
the traffic =ii"tv analysis concludes that "there
is consideraole excess capacity available't' on the
County and State raodways analyzed'. The analysis
evaluated C.R: 335, the t-70 interchange and St'ate
Highway 6 & za-wlst of the I-70 inLerchange into
New Castle. et tfre time of the analysis' it was
issumeo that NCEC would be building a temporary
Ioadout on fanA just west of the I-70 interchange
or on D & RG; raia inside New castle' Present
plans are to haul to a loadout facility in
Glenwood Springs on a temporary oasis' as noted
pi""iou"ly. -T;; study adequately. acidresses the
traffic safety issues as if'ey exist and analyzes
the proposed maximum amount of truck hauling
allowed unoei tfris permit appfication' The actual
structural
-ae-ig"- of ti'" haul road should
incorporate the r6levant recommendations contained
in the ."poii -iegaraing guard rails' turn-out
iit"" and sight dislance considerations'
The IvILRB in the ir
determined that NCEC has
rights to develoP !l'stite Engineer's office
This would eliminate
condition.
This condition may
proposed maximum
Loal in L987. rf
point, a Permanentplace, which may
ifre same condition
the interim Period.
The pavement thickness design
;t ; gualified engineer and
piiot to issuance of tne sPecial
is oeing PerformedwilI be submitted
, Use Permit.
need to be changed given the
production of 960r700 tons of'production levels reach this
I'oadout facilitY wiII be in
not reguire trucking the coal'
of approval maY be adeguate for
- / l-
o
A.4.
B.
C.
A.5.
B.
C.
r
B.Other Comments
b)
c)
d)
3. That t,he ProPosed land
permitted land uses in
of approval are met;
RECOMMENDAT]ION
On Septembelr 11
an incremental
1. That all
shall be
otherwise
l.At. the Planning Commisslon meeting (see enclosed draft
minutes), the following issues were discussed:
a)That a landscaping plan be developed that better
defines the si}e, type and location of trees, shrubs
and revegetated areas. Tnat a general commitment to
completing the Iandscaping and revegetation within an
acceptable time frame oe developeo-
That a lighting plan be developed that generally
minimizes the off-site imPacts.
That a color scheme for the ouildings be developed that
is acceptable to the Board.
The mine t s venirlation fan hras a concern of the
neighbors, as far as the potential negative noise
implcts. NCEC agreed to use state of the art noise
sulpression technology to mitigate the potential noise
impacts.
As a result of various cornments, NCEC agreed to meet
with neighbors in the Riverbend subdivision, north of
the mine iite and the Town of New Castle to discuss the
modified operations.
Regarding concern about the potential danger to nearby
reiiaenti resulting from an accidental detonation of
the explosives migazines, NCEC stated they will
adeguately protect the explosives magazines.
e)
f)
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
I. That the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
was extenlive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and
issues were submitted and that all interesteo parties were heard
at the hearing;
Z. That the proposed Special Use conforms tso Section 5. 03,
concerning the - approval or disapproval of a petition for a
special uie, of t.he Garf ield county Zoning Resolution;
use wiII be compatible witn existing and
all direcLions provided certain conditions
4. That the proposed lano use is generally consistent with the
Garf ield County Comprehensive Pl-an.
5. That f:or the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special
Use permits are in the best interest of the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order , prosper ity and welfare of the
citizens of GarfieLd CountY.
v.
, 1985, the Planning commission recommended approval on
basis with the following conditions:
verbal and written representations of the applicant
considered conditions of approval, unless specified
by the Board of County Commissioners.
That any permits issued will- be valid urrtil Juiy 1, 1988.2.
-/2-
3.
4.
Prior to granting any approval of the Special Use permits, the
applicant present evidence that they have met with
representatives from Nevi, Castle residents, north of river within
a one mile radius, and the Riveroend Homeowners Association.
That prior to the issuance of any Special Use permits:
A. That the copies of all other permits from other governmental
6gencies reguired for the proposed Special Uses be submitted
to the Planning DePartment.
B. That a conceptual landscaping plan oe developed and be
approved by the Board of county cornmissioners that:
I. Identifies the general location of revegetation, tree
ancl shrub Planting and berming.
2. That identifies the types of material to be used in
revegetation and planting. The minimum size of the
trees and shrubs.
3. That identifies the anticipated time schedule for
completing revegetation and planting.
C. That any on site lighting minimize to the degree possible
any off-site imPacts.
D. 'Ihat a color scheme for all ouildings be approved by the
Board of CountY Commissioners.
E. ,Ihat the applicant agree to Iimit blasting activity to
daytime hours if the noise impacts to nearby residents is
determined to be greater than projected by the Board of
County Commissioners.
5.
F. That the applicant utilized the state of
suppression technology to mitigate the
associated with the mine ventilation fan.
That prior to the issuance of special luse permits
support facilities, retail/wnolesale sale of coa1,
routes, the folJ-owing conditions be mec:
A. That the applicant provioe a traffic safety analysis of the
proposed haul road ano that the traffic safety engineer be
icceptable to Garfield County. That the conclusions of the
traff ic safety analysis wiIl be in,corporated into the oesign
an<l improvement of the haul road. That, dt a minimum, the
analysis study:
the art noise
noise impacts
for industrial
and the access
I.
2.
Present traffic volumes on CR 335, New Castle T-70
Interchange and St. Hwy 6 & 24 at the interchange-
Projected volumes for a specified period of time.
Establishes limits to traffic volumes.3.
4.Identifies measures necessarY
and circulation prooJ-ems.
to mitigate congestion
B. That the proposeO haul road De designed based upon a
pavement thickness design performed by an engineer gualified
to perform such a study. Furtner, that the Board of County
Commissioners review the document and require tne aPplicant
build a haul road in accordance with the specifications
contained in the rePort.
C. That based on the traffic safety analysrs, a maximum number
of truck trips per oay be estaolished for the hauling of
coal and that a limited size of the operation be
established. But, in no case, will the test mine exceed
9601700 tons of coal per year or an average of 54 round trip
truck trips per day on a monthly basis.
-/3-
li lrl tr
ri a4/
lC. ,
'[3trr rrirrg M ou nlairr
1 BBB
TOWN Ot NI.W CASI I t
Ir, llti4?JIl
Mr. Peter }4atthies, Pres. and CLD i-':!
New Castle Energy Corporation .. - :
9137 East }ainerli Circle ,.'1"" ':''''
Engler^nod, Co. 80112
RE: IrpacE mitigation
Dear },lr. Matthies:
Your projecE will inpact our Tc,vJn and Connn-u-rity. I'4rosc of the irrpact will
be positive and welccnned by aII. Hovrever, initially chere will be some irrpacts
ttrat witl have an adverse effect on our Tcrc.m budget. Rather Ehan writing a
fuIl accotrnt and explanation of these irrpaccs, we ask tlrac you respect vfrat we
lcnour to be tn:e.
If we could define to the psrrry exactly Ehe cost of negacive inpacts, that
is all we would ask for. l.Ie do not want a Lr,and-out or an opportulity to
bleed you. I^Ie are srnply asking for an effort on your conpany's part to
respect and contribute to otr needs.
Your help will be gerruinely aclcrcrviledged if you can contribute in any or all
of the follcnring ways:
1. Prepaynent of severance taxes2. Ongoing asses$rrcnt of inpacts
3. Agreanent to contribute to identified ongoing negative irpacts
4. Bond or other security in the event of 'bailout" inpacts
5. "Agreanent to agree" to contribute to the Lnexpected inpacc(s)
l.Ie o<pect ttrat after Er,.Jo years all inpacts will be positive barring any
rnisfortr:ne in the economy. Hcnrever our Tovln cannot afford Eo cover the
costs of iupacts upfront and fher receive paybacks later. Our budget carnot
handle any additidnf ocpenditures without- aaditional revenues. Ttrerefore
we need a comnittment on your part prior to our support for your requested
change in Ehe Special Use Permit before the Garfield Coulty Conmissioners
September ,23, 1985.
We r,sould welcqre your questions and inmediate response. Our noct Courcil
rneeting is Eo be held on Septernber 18.
Sincerery, r% W *ry/L, / et 76* R rtou,t t.4*)z;- /L
Torm Board of Trustees
Itdayor
cc: Garfield Cor:nty Conmissioners
EXE
8ox .l 66 New Cirstlc, Coloratlo 81647
Septenrber 16, 1985
, ,,::.i__t
-i- )
1 '. ,ll' -' ) ir ij,j)
1,,,:{.:._l Lj
C[)UNTY CC|II i,4ISSi()NERS
O,/Q"^,v,t
*,F
September L5, TgB5
It{ark Bean, Planning Director
Garfield County
109 Bth Street
Glenvood Springs, CO B:-6Of
RE: Stor:n King Mine Proposal
Dear Mark:
f have dis,:ussed your inquiry on the impact of Stor:m King Mi-ne truckingthrough Gl=nwood sprlngs with various staff members. As you know" werecently cr:mpleted major repairs on Deveroux Road. This road was de-
signed. for light density/light industrial traffic.
We have a number of q.uestions we need ansvered, before we can ad,equately
respond. to the pro,posal .
1. Wh;r is this loading point being used? What are the other a]terna-
t i.res ?
2. What f-70 exi-t is proposed for use?
3. Wh:rt is the loaded axle weight of these tru':ks? hhat size trucks
are prolosed?)+. what number of trips are proposed and vhen? Days per week? Hoursper day?
5. Wh:rt is the exact route proposed? What are the alternatives and
vhat vere reasons behind the sefection of the proposed route?
(p,Lease provid.e a map vith designated routes )6. Ho'vr long vill the "tlmJ,orurytt use be?
T . Hov r"rifl this oleration effect our current .1;raffic patterns?
806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRTNGS, COLORADO 81601 3O31945-2575
We vould ap?reciate your response soon as
presentation to our City Council on this
rre are planning
item.
to make a
Thank you
'"':..=.,'Ml;:*",_^
Planning Director
cc: Mike Copp
Kevin Kadfec
David Broadwell
Bob Hal-bert
LAH:pkd
A. LANDSCAI'E GUIDELT
E(q
1. Notwlthstandlng that constructlon may occur in the Fa1l of 19g5, themlne developers shall submlt the lnitlal landscaping plan on or before March I,1986. In the ev-ent
-
of any constructLon actlvl-ty on- ttre slte, whlch activity!,'111 result :[n the dLsturbance of an area "*c""dirrg 250 square feet, the m{agdevelopers strall submlt a landscaping plan for approval by the Board of counryconrmissloners wltttln thlrty (30) aays of the start of constructlon. copies ofthe proposed landscaping plan also sha1l be furnlshed to the president of theRiverbend Houreownerrs Associatlon and a representaElve of the owners of privatelands located north of the colorado River and within one (1) mile of the mlnesite at the time of the subnittal to the County.
2. The ]-andscaping plan sha1l be drawn to a minimum scale of one lnch(1") for each flfty feet (50'1; and indicate rhe square footage of each plantingarea; tabulate the square footage of all landscaped areas "od per".ntage of thedisturbed site devoted to landscaping; ldenttfy within the planting area thetype of plants; list the botanlcal and cosrrmon nanes of al-l plants with thequantity of each and their respective contfiner slze; and c]-earry portray theirrigation system to be utilized.
3' Lan'dscaplng shaLl conslst of a combinatlon of berming trees, shrubsand live ground covers wl-th careful conslderatLon given to eventual sl-ze andspread, and sufficient to mltlgate vlsual lmpact produced by sL3e disturbanceand the construction of mLne facilLtles, suscepttbility to ii""r". and pests,durablllty an.d adaptability to exlsting soll and clinatic conditions. TreesshalL have an average caliper of two and one-half inche s (21\ measured one foot(1t) from ground level. No tree shall be less than two lnches (2") in caliper.In addltion, conifers shall be a mlnimum of six feet (6') ln height. Eachunused area resulting from the deslgn or layout of parklng spaces or structuresshall be used for planting purposes lf over 50 sqr.r"r" fe&. A11 planted areasshall contaLn an irrLgatlon systeu, except that a1r areas wlth naiural grassesshall contain an irrlgation system as need.ed..
4' Slope stabilization, eroslon protection u.easures and broadcast seedingof grasses w1.11 occur in the Sprlng of 1986, and approxlmately one-half (ra oftree and shrub plantlng wLLl occur in the FalI of ig8o, and one-half (L) willoccur in the spring of 1987. Landscape and lrrigation systems as requlred forthe disturbed areas shall be conpleteiy l-nstalled and Ln operatlon on or beforeJune I , 1987.
5' Landseaping and irrigation systems shall be malntained in goodcondLtion in accordance wlth the plans approved by the Board. All planted areassha11 be water:ed sufficiently to promote growth or rrr trees, shrubs and groundcover Plants. Pl-anting areas shall be naintalned ln a weed free condltion. AlIplantlng shal.l be periodlcally pruned, trinmed, edged and fertilized inaccordance with g-enerally accepted hortlcultural practlces. A11 trees, shrubsand plants whl-ch have been planted and whlch, due to accident, damsge, disease,or other cause, fail to show healthy growth, shal1 be replaced. -Replacepent
plants shall conform to all standards that govern th; original prantinginstallation.
B. NOISE ATTENUATION
I. The developers of the mine shallsuppressLou tr:chnology to mitigate noticeconveyor and processing systems and equipment
utillze state of the art noiseimpacts producted by ventilation,
used at the mlne site.
oVBlEc.COLOR OF IMPRO'NTS
1. The developers of the mine shall subnlt a color plan for all bulldingsfor approval by the Board of County Conrmissloners. The developers sha11 consultrrith homeowners in Rl-verbend Subdivlsioa and landowners located north of theColorado Rj.ver and within a one (1) nlle of the mine sl,te after consultatlonwlth such ohrners, shall provide plywood mock-ups demonstratLng four (4) colorsfor evaluation not later than October 15, 1985. The mock-ups shall be elghtfeet by eight feet (8t x 8t). The developers and owners shall select the mostappropriate color(s) and shall subnit same for final approval by the Board ofCounty CorrmissLoners. The color scheme approved shaIl apply to the wa1ls androofs of improvements constructed at the mine slte.
D. LIGHTING STANDARDS
1. The developers of the mine sha1l Beet all applicable governmeDtregulations and standards for the llghting of the proJect and sha1l l-nclude suchaddltional lightlng as may be prudent for safe worklng conditlons. SubJect tothe forego{ng, all lighting shalL be installed so as to minimize off-siteimPacts to the extent reasonably feasl-ble. By way of example and not as alimltation, lights llluminating areas of the project shal1 be dlrected downwardand toward the surface of the proJect by appropriate reflectors. In addition,the develoPers of the mine shaIl not illuminate the mine or lts facillties with
any cosmetia or dramatlc lightlng. No lighting shall be requlred on County Road
335.
E. POI^IDER MAGAZINES
1. To the extent permisslble under regulations of the governmental
agencies having jurJ-sdictlon, the developers shall locate the Powder Magazinesat minluum separation dlstances as provided by such regulations and shallrelocate the westerly Powder Magazine to a point at the minimum permissLbledistance fron the easterly Powder Magazlne, whlch is antlclpated as belng notgreater than forty-one feet (41t). Any teuporary Powder Magazines may exceedthe above-referenced separatlon distance.
F. DUST MITIGATION
1. The developers, to the extent reasonably feasible, shall prevent the
emanatlon crf dust and other alr borne partLculates from the project slte.Without lln.ltlng the foregoing, the developers agree to have all loads of coalcovered wltlh tarps or other acceptable nethods to prevent the dlssemlnatlon ofcoal dust a-Long truck routes.
rl,E/
Septenrlcer 23, I9B5
Mr. Bob Richardson, Chairrnan
Garfietd County Contnissioners
109 Bth Street
Gtenrarcod Springs, CO 81601
Dear I{r. Richardson:
At the Glenr,rood Springs City Cor:nci1 neeting Septenrlcer 19, the Council
discussed thLe Special Use perrnit for New Cast1e Energy Corporation that
is no,v corning before you. The Cor:ncit is very concerned about the pro-
posed loading and r:nloading facitity that will- take place directly behind
the 84 Lr-unber Conpany, which is located just off of Devereux Road. Because
tkre City ,.= .r.rl oi tf,e facility only two days before the Councj-I neeting,
we for:nd it a very tough item to discuss. Hcx,vever, after a lengthy review
of the issue:, the Glenvood Springs City Council had tlre follotuing ccnrrents
wLrich I woul.d like to pass along to the Board of County Ccxunissioners.
We are concerned about tlre irryact that ttris nnny trucks (an average of 54
round trips per day) will cause the residents, particularly the hotel and
notelcnvr'e'sialon9l&rryz.6and,24.Asyouareawarewearearnajortourist
area, and we have-tried to irrprove this route to nnke it nore desirable for
our visitors. We are also concerned about repair of Devereux Road which the
City just recently built. TLris road caru:ot handle the heavy trucks that
Uew Cistte frrergy Corporation is proposing. We also are concerned a-bout dust
control and the 1""gti. of tine tfre Ne, Castle Energy Corporation will be using
ttrat railroerd site.
Ttrerefore, tJ:e City Council passed a nptiorr that states it would like the
Cor:nty Cormnj-ssioners to loolr hard at this proposal and help us rnitigate our
concerns by nnking sure that:
De\/ereux Road, if danaged, is repaired;
Thrt tLre Connfssioners allcns New Castle Energly Corlrcration
no flrcre than the maxjmr.rn of twelve (12) nonths on this site;
Thurt all their trucks be covered;
TLrat we work with the state Highway Departrrent and trlz to
acl:ieve direct access frcrn Interstate 70 to the site.
Fina11y, we would grge the County Conrnissioners arrd the New Castle B,tergty
Corpor-ation to look it .ft possible alternatj-ve sites to find one that is
nore suitab.Le to ttris tlrpe of use.
I)
2)
3)
4)
806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 3O31945-2575
I{r. Bob Ri-chardson, Chairnan
Septerrber 23, 1985
Page tvro
Ttre Glenvood Springs Citlz Council fu1ly suplrcrts tlre New Castle ffIergy
Corlrcration in ttreir developnent of coal mining. Thris letter j-s not
neant to be negative tcxrards tLreir operation, as it is needed to help spur
tlre econcnrlr of ttris area but ratlpr to ensure safe crcnditions for all
citizens of Glenvpod Springs. We l-ook for:vsard to working with the County
and tlre New Castle Ercrgy CorSrcration in having a good, safe, and clean
industqz in our area.
Ihank you for yor:r tirre and consideration and if you should have any
questions or cffirrrents, please feel free to contact. this office at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
llh;ft"Aqp
Michael- Copp, City l4anager
CiQz of Glerpvood Springs
Mc/ks
ce: Glenvpod Springs City Cor:nci1
.l -
tff ffi [:::i;tiltiliiittlt:::ii;;
New Castle Energy Corporation ExHBo Z
September lB, I985
The llonorable DeI Dawson
Ilayo r
Tovrn of NeryP.O. Box 166
Nerv CastIe,
Dear Del:
Cast 1e
co 81647
Reference is made to your letter of septenrber L6, 1985.
we do not disagree vrith your statement that our project wirlhave impacts on your comniunity. soniu- i.npacts ,iii be positive,some will be negative; r hope ilrat the posi.tives out-weigh thenegatives.
we are not back.ing .off any commiLrnent vrhich ilris company has madeto Irlew castle in the pas[. Ho'ever, the impacts *irr go beyondyour town, to the enLire county. tr{e ui""t iriry'-committed tominimiz ing these impacts. _ .I{ot ont y through our df f orts to givel-ocal contractors "lg suppriers u -$r"rurentiar treatment on workto be done, - providecr [r,ey are competitive ;- -- tuC arso to thetovrn as such as- long as we are withj.n the legal fia*eworx of theState of Colorado and Garfield County.
But we also understand that similar impacts wil.I be experiencedby the neighboring communit.ies such u=
-lii.rl" or crenwooa springs,your neighbors to the west and east.
our. p-rimary commitment remains to the county of Garfield. ourwork force, regardl-ess of size, wifr come frofr the entir" couniy,1ld not- j ust Nerv cast,1e. A rarge percentage wir] come f,romGl-enwood springs, Rifle, sirt, cainon.iare and others. There isno way to assess today who and how many vrill corr.r€ from where. Aswith our policy, of s-upporting rocii'contractors and suppriers,residents of Garfietd counLy wi.ll. be con6idered first foremployment before we start looi<ing elsewhere.
consequentry, the .impact of our project, posi-tive or negative,wil} be on the entire county.
New Castle Energy corporation . 9137 East Mineral circle . Englewood, co 80112 . (3og) 792-2625
I
Therefore, mitigation of these impacts should be discussed withthe qoqnt'y administration and not ruith the individualcommunities.
tr{e are invest igat i_ng as to what extent we can legarry prepayseverance taxe_s and any other- steps v,re can take Lo hltp.- irs irouknowr our budgeL is rimited. F6r budgetary p;ipo""" we havealready set aside certain amounts of *oni"" io Le-'piepaia to ir,ecounty f or road- improvements, etc. Adclit, ionaf f ro jects wfricfry9urd. -qualify for prepayment of severance taxes need to beidentified by the county. -
It is our intention ancl commitment to do whatever we can to themaximum extent of the law, but stj.Il wittrin our restrictedbudget, to assist in the miti.gati.on of the impacts our projectwill create. r envision f rjnds vrhich vle can advance, to beturned over to the county. who knows better than your ownelected government what impacts within the county wiIl be feltand where assistance is needed to mitigate such imiacts.
r.t is your responsibility as mayor of your Lown, to impress onthe county government ae to the extenC of the needs of youitoln. I am sure they are very f anr j-Iiar with your circumstancesand will listen to your concefns. The proper allocation of theavail.able monies wirr then be d6ne' uy -- the county r sadministrat ion. -- r
I realize, that thishope, agree that morethe effects of ourentire county shouldfunds.
I am ready to discussanytime you so desire.Superintendent, is nowexplain any matter with
Sincerely,
is not the ansvrer you want. But you do, Icommunities than just }lery CastIe wiff feelprolect. And consequently peopte of thedecide on the distribution-of-an! available
this matter with youFurtl:er, John Malysa,
ou r t'on-s ite man " andyou.
and your councilour nev/ Generalcan discuss and
{ EL/**.,:-
E. Peter Matthies
Pres iden t
Board of CountyGarfield County,
cc:Comrnissioners
Colo rado