HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Correspondence•
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3567
FAX: (303) 832-8106
February 9, 2006
Garfield County Planning Department
Planning Director
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3355
Re: Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine (Permit No. C-1984-065)
Permit Renewal Application No. 5 (RN -5)
Dear Garfield County Planning Department:
STATE (1k' cnTORApp
RECEIVED
FEB 1 3 2006
CAr HLL D COUNTY
BUILDING & PLANNING
COLORADO
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
R E CIA M ATIO N• MI NI NG
SAFETY•SCIENCE
Bill Owens
Govemor
Russell George
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
Natural Resource Trustee
The Division of Minerals and Geology hereby issues notice, in accordance with Title 34, Article 33, Section 118,
Paragraph 3, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, that on February 9, 2006, an application to renew an existing permit to
conduct coal mining operations at the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine was considered complete for the purposes of filing. All
this date of filing.
review and comment periods as provided in the Colorado Surface Mining Reclamation Act and the Rules initiate from
C.B. Minerals Company, LLC has applied for renewal of the DMG permit for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. The mine
is in permanent cessation status and no reinstatement of coal production or further disturbance have been proposed.
The renewal will allow continuation of approved reclamation work and monitoring activities. The underground coal
described as follows:
mine is on land located approximately 7 miles west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado. The permit area is further
T6S, R91 W; Portions of Sections 1 and 12
T6S, R9OW; Portions of Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16
The above-mentioned tracts of land are shown on USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle map of Storm King Mountain & New
Castle.
A copy of the renewal application is available for public inspection at the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder, 108
8th Street, Ste 200, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. For additional information, to provide written comments, or
request an informal conference, contact the Division of Minerals and Geology, Room 215, 1313 Sherman Street,
Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-3567, within thirty days (30) after the last public notice in the Glenwood Springs
Post Independent.
Sincerely,
> R. Burnell
Environmental Protection Specialist
JRB/Jrc
C -RN -04 .84065 JRB 20060209_14552
yttice of
Mined Land Reclamation
Office of
Active and Inactive Mines
Colorado
Geological Survey
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3567
FAX: (303) 832-8106
July 23, 1999
•
STATE OF COLORADO
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
Planning Director
109 8th St Ste 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine (Permit No. C-84-065)
Technical Revision Application No. 16 (TR -16)
Removal of a Strip of Ground form the Permit Area
Dear Mr. Bean:
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
Bill Owens
Governor
Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director
Michael B. Long
Division Director
The Division of Minerals and Geology hereby issues notice, in accordance with Title 34, Article 33,
Section 116, Paragraph 4, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, that on July 23, 1999, an application to
revise coal mining operations at the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine was considered complete for the purposes of
filing. The revision was submitted by NCIG Financial, Inc.. All review and comment periods as provided
in the Act and the Regulations initiate from this date of filing.
This proposed technical revision (revision) provides for removal of an approximately 400 -foot -long by
25 -foot -wide strip of ground from the permit area. This action reduces the permit boundary to areas
south of County Road 335. This area was a corridor for a water pipeline from the Colorado River to the
facilities area of main permit area. There was no disturbance to soils or vegetation in this area of the
permit.
The underground coal mining operation is on land located approximately 7 miles West of Glenwood
Springs, Colorado. The permit area is further described as follows:
T6S, R91W; Portions of Sections 1 and 12
T6S, R9OW; Portions of Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16
The above-mentioned tracts of land are shown on USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle map of Storm King
Mountain and New Castle.
A copy of the technical revision application is available for public inspection at the Garfield County
Courthouse, 109 8th St Ste 200, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601, and at the Division office. For
additional information or to provide written comments, contact the Division of Minerals and Geology,
Room 215, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-3567. In order for us to comply
with regulatory time frames, we request that comments be submitted within fifteen (15) days of this
letter. If no comments are received by then, we will proceed on the assumption that you have no
concerns with, or objections to, the applicant's proposal.
Sincerely,
Byron G. Walker
Environmental Protection Specialist
BGW/JRC
Et ED JUL 2 9 1999
M:\OSS\JRC\TEMO\R0306504
• 0
SCHENK, KERST & deWINTER, LLP
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAM J. deWINTER, III
CAROLYN M.STRAUTMAN
Loyal E. Leavenworth
Leavenworth & Associates, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
302 EIGHTH STREET, SUITE 310
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2447
TELECOPIER: (970) 945-4767
November 17, 1999
Re: CB Minerals Company LLC/Grand Hogback Coal Reserves
Dear Lee:
As we had previously advised in our letter dated October 19, 1999, our firm represents CB
Minerals Company LLC. We also represent NCIG Financial, Inc. CB Minerals Company is not only
a lessee of Leonard E. Rippy, but is also the holder of all of the coal and other mineral rights
formerly owned by CF&I from Leonard Rippy's property west across the Colorado River up to
Harvey Gap. NCIG Financial, Inc. owns or controls most of the remainder of the coal reserves in
the Grand Hogback formation eastward from the Rippy lease to beyond the Riverbend Subdivision.
NCIG Financial, Inc. and CB Minerals Company LLC, together, own or control about 8 miles of the
strike. The executive officers of NCIG Financial, Inc. and the managers of CB Minerals Company
LLC requested that I write this letter to you, as legal counsel to the Town of New Castle, as a means
of calling appropriate attention to the long-standing and persistent intent of the owners and lessees
of the Grand Hogback coal reserves to mine this valuable natural resource when coal prices warrant
a mine operation.
Since 1976, activities on this project have included assembling the reserves, obtaining coal
samples from drill cores, testing the quality of the coal, securing water rights, conducting engineering
studies, preparing alternative mine plans and obtaining federal, state and county permits for a mine
operation. The owners recognize that local permitting must be renewed or obtained anew, but also
note the state permit remains in effect, though requiring some amendment. They have been
involved, since 1980, initially as small investors in Storm King Company, and since 1990, as sole
owners or controlling parties of the project.
It should be emphasized that NCIG Financial, Inc. and CB Minerals Company LLC do not
oppose other residential, commercial or industrial developments in the vicinity of their properties.
In fact, at some point in the future, it is possible that residential housing development would be
sought for portions of NCIG Financial's surface property appropriate for such use. However, the
first priority of both companies has been and continues to be the extraction of the coal from the
Grand Hogback. The companies have been diligent and steadfast in the pursuit of this objective and
intend to protect their interests and the substantial expenditures of money and time committed to the
mine project since 1980. Therefore, they have asked that these facts be clearly stated for the record
and carefully considered by the Town Board in any deliberations on rezoning in the vicinity of the
1:\i\CB M'vieealslfuve,rvoM 2 - v2.wpd
RECEIVED NOV 1 8 1999
Page 1 of 2
n its considerations of
Grand Hogback. Both companies encourage the Town Board include by Garfield County. the
new
Comprehensive Plan, the existing Coal Ridge PUD which approved
PUD allows mining activity in that zone. Without li limiting intra e choices, the companies may
ng area approximately one mile
request some changes to this PUD including shifting
to the west. Such future possibilities should not be neglected in the Comprehensive Plan
considerations.
These companies are committed to a mine operation that is highlyopr
operly
sitivedbothwill beo
environmental issues, and to communitycommun y. Theybelieve
pay is the highest, on average, of any
of significant value to the New Cas
employment sector in the State of Colorado. That pay a� vseverance tel
esb ota$59,$216,000000.00
ng ,$2 6,OOOe00 per
year.
A mine producing 2,000,000 tons per year will genera
ons
rable portion
year. The State of Colorado will receive 50% of the tax annually, but ac of idemine were to of the
e
balance will accrue to the benefit of New Castle if most of theemployees
in New Castle. In addition, the mine will guarantee significant property tax revenue for the various
local governments in the New Castle area. From a property aa tioneistnot being proposed ve, it would be atfinancially
this
advantageous for the city to annex the mine, although such
an time. Purchase of goods and services in New Castle by the mine and its employees will also produce
sales tax revenue.
In summary, the officers and managers of NCIG1Fienaon ll, Inc. and as CB Mas inets rals
Company
LLC believe that the Grand Hogback is a resource for
asset has figured prominently in the history of New Castle and s ould not zbe dg d deor ignored t
as a potential future source of general benefit in the land u p g
approval decisions made by the Town of New Castle. Thank you for s your
and the Planning Co muni taon.
We assume you will share this viewpoint ease advise. Board of
If further information is desired, p
Very truly yours,
JOHN R. SCHENK
JRS/clh
cc: Rushton O. Backer
Dennis Stranger
Pat Fitzgerald
Mark Bean
1:\I\CB MuienlaVsaveuwurth? - v2.wM1
Page 2 of 2
•
cvci
r7
g
w
0
z
0
0
z
z
0
4
Q
111
0
1
•
STATE COLORADO
COLORADO DEP,ENT OF HEALTH
Dedicated to protect) improving the health and
environment of the r.,of Colorado
4300 Cherry Creek D. oratoryBuildng
Denver, Colorado 802'10
L4Denver,
E. lith Avnue
Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorao 80220-3716
(303) 691-4700
January ; 1993
CERTIFIED "EL NO. P 145903 940
Lacy Loadot� iacility
Coal Ridge ;#] Mine
E. Peter hathlies
7476 E. irka,sas Ave.,t104
104
Denver, CO 8)217
Re:
Lacy boadout FaLlity
Permit No. Co -650025
Garfield Count}
03 Q3199
Roy Romer
Govemor
Patricia A. Nolan, MD, MPH
Executive Director
Dear Mr. Matthies:
This letter is to aknowledge receipt of your annual discharge permit fee for
fiscal year 1993 in the amount of $360.00.
Effective January Nr 1993, the suspension of your permit, which was imposed ue
to non-payment of ees, has been lifted. If your facility discharges, you
may
now resume dischat3ing per the conditions of your permit.
Thank you for
yoiC cooperation in this matter.
�S�incerely,
it
Seth M. Golds-ein `G�-
c -
Fiscal Offic4r
Water Quali$Y Control Division
SMG/CRM/dqJ
xc: Louann Gaines, Permits & Enforcement, WQCD
Janet Fujita, Environmental Protection Agency
Garfield County Health Department
Dwain Watson, District Engineer, WQCD
Office of the Attorney General
MS -3 File
suspenlift.crm
From : BACKER 213-82704
NCIG-FLNANCIAL, INC.
VIA FAX
July 15, 1991
Mr. Mark Bean
Planning Department
Garfield County
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
•
Post Office Box 92401
Los Angeles, CA 90009
Telephone 213/827-1934
Fax 213/H27,1934
JUL 16 1991111
GARFIELD COUNTY
P02
Dear Mark:
NCIG Financial,
Inc. has decided, after careful
consideration, to withdraw its Supplemental ApplicatiQn
for a Special Use Permit to simplify
n
simpl and
clarify
ifceai
elements of the Application and to provide back-upreference
or authority for certain statements or assertions made
in the application. The company expects the refinements
to the Application to facilitate theease of subsequent
processing-
The Application will be re -submitted in the near future.
Sincerely,
NCIG FINANCIAL, INC.
Rushton O. Backer, President
ROB:ap
k�
COLORAD( )
H:PARTmH:r
OFA HEALTH
ROY RON4ER
Governor
JOEL KOHN
Interim Executive Director
June 11, 1991
[lift3711if
{ JUN 12 1991
GARFIELD CUUNTY
CERTIFIED MAIL: P 330 088 629
E. Peter Matthies
President Inc.
NCIG Financial, #1047476 East Arkansas Avenue,
Denver, CO 80231
RE: Transfer of ownership
New Castle Energy Corporation
Permit No.: COG -850025
Garfield County
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 Mat thi es •
The above-referencedchange
Phone (303) 320-8333 Dear Mr. .
permit has been modif e to reflect
owners p
anrom New Castle Energy Corporation to
Enclosed, for your
permit for which you have assumed
responsibility, coverage
records, is a copy of the ourelf with tme and liability. Please familiarize y
eats of the permit to ensure that all terms and conditions are
requirements
complied with. permit, Please contact
If you have any questions about this matter or your
this office at (303) 331-4761.
Telefax Numbers'
Main Building/Denver
(303)322-9076
Ptarmigan Place/Denver
(303)32_0-1529
First National Bank Building/Denver
(303) 355-6559
Grand Junction Office
(303) 248-7198
Sincerely,
printed on recycled paper
Louann Gaines
Staff Assistant
Permits and Enforcement Section
Water Quality Control Division
Environmental Protection Agency
cc: Permits Section,
Local Health Departmentort Section, WQCD
Stan May, Field Supp ort Section, WQCD
Dwain Watson, D.E., Field Supp WQCD
Anne Ihlenfeldt, Permits and Enforcement Section,
Connie Moreno, Administration Section,
WQCD
Enclosure
COLORADO DEPARTMENT 0 EALTH
Water Quality Control Division
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
I.
II.
CERTIFICATION
NCIG FINANCIAL, INC.
LACY LOADOUT FACILITY
PERMIT NUMBER: COG -850025, GARFIELD COUNTY
TYPE OF PERMIT:
FACILITY INFORMATION:
A. Facility Type and
Fee Category:
B. SIC No.:
C. Legal Contact
and
Facility Contact:
(Operator)
(Owner:)
E. Facility Location:
F. Discharge Point:
G. Discharge Flow:
Coal Mining (Surface Runoff Only)
Category 7, Subcategory 5 - General Permits:
Coal Mining - Current fee $360/year per CRS
25-8-502
1222 (Butuminous Coal Underground Mining)
E. Peter Matthies, President
New Castle Energy Corporation
7476 East Arkansas, No. 104
Denver, CO 80231
(303)+337-3877
Denver Rio Grande Land Company/James Holt
P.O. Box 5482
Denver, CO 80217
(303)+595-2339
The Lacy Loadout facility is located in the SW
1/4, NW 1/4, Sec 23, T6S, R94W west of Rifle,
Colorado, as shown in figure 1 of the permit.
001 - the discharge from the facility
containment pond, and prior to mixing with the
Colorado River, as shown in figure 2 of the
permit.
001 = unknown
The sedimentation pond was designed to contain
and treat the 10 -year, 24-hour precipitation
event.
Permit No. COG4115 0000
Facility No. COG -8500025
CDPS GENERAL PERMIT
FOR COAL MINING FACILITIES (SURFACE RUNOFF ONLY)
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control.Act
(25-8-101 et. seq., CRS, 1973 as amended), facilities engaged in mining
and
processing of coal are authorized to discharge surface runoff from approved
locations throughout-the
be inaccordancewithconditionsofthis permit.
tate of rado tdaState.
Such discharges shall
This permit specifically authorizes. NCIG FINANCIAL, INC.
to discharge from facilities identified as Lacy Loadout facility
located in the SW 1/4, NW 1/4, Sec. 23, T6S, 8946,1, west of Rifle, Colorado
to the Colorado River
as of this date March 6, 1991
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
June 30, 1992.
Signed this 8th day of March, 1988
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
caul Ferraro, Director
Water Quality Control Division
This facility permit contains 25 pages.
CERTIFIED LEVIER NO r 33° o f 6 g
DATE S1GED & " 0' -P r
EFFECTIVE DATE fa
PERMIT a 3
Corrected 06/11/91
• •
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Water Quality Control Division
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303)+320-8333, Ext. 3740
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER
AND ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
OF A COLORADO PERMIT
1 for transfer to me of this Colorado Permit No. CO -9-8500025
I hereby apply Corp I have reviewed this
which was issued to New Castle Ener9ce and liability,
1 991
permit and accept respo 1ities,overa g
effective April 18,
NEW OWNER/OPERATOR NCIG Financial Inc .
Coal Ridae No. 1 Mine
Facility Name
Mailing Address 7476 East Arkansas Avenue . 1
State CO
Zip Code 80231 County,
City Denver
Telephone Number (303) 337
Area Code
Authorized Agent E. Peter Matthies
rint)
4.4
Signature
Titlepresident. NCIG Financial. Inc.
Date J n
AS previous owner, I hereby agree to the transfer of the above referenced
permit and all responsibilities thereof.
PREVIOUS OWNER/OPERATOR
New Castle Energy Corpoartion
Facility Name
Authorized Agent E. Peter Matthies
(Print)
Title
Date
•
...
ation
LOLORALX)
DEPARTMENT
OFA HEALTH
ROY ROMER
Governor
JOEL KOHN
Interim Executive Director
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220-3716
Phone (303) 320-8333
Telefax Numbers:
Main Building/Denver
(303)322-9076
Ptarmigan Place/Denver
(303)320-1529
Fust National Bank Building/Denver
(303)355.6559
Grand Junction Office
(303) 248-7198
June 11, 1991
0 printed on recycled paper
CERTIFIED MAIL: P 330 088 629
E. Peter Matthies
President
NCIG Financial, Inc.
7476 East Arkansas Avenue, #104
Denver, CO 80231
RE: Transfer of Ownership
New Castle Energy Corporation
Permit No.: COG -850005
Garfield County
Dear Mr. Matthies:
The above -referenced permit has been modified to reflect an ownership change
from New Castle Energy Corporation to NCIG Financial, Inc.
Enclosed, for your records, is a copy of the permit for which you have assumed
responsibility, covere���n�o ty. P
familiarizee yourself � the
requirements of the p ensure that alltermsand eonditionsare
complied with.
If you have any questions about this matter or your permit, please contact
this office at (303) 331-4761.
Sincerely,
aid
Louann Gaines
Staff Assistant
Permits and Enforcement Section
Water Quality Control Division
cc: Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency
Local Health Department
Stan May, Field Support Section, WQCD
Dwain Watson, D.E., Field Support Section, WQCD
Anne Ihlenfeldt, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD
Connie Moreno, Administration Section, WQCD
Enclosure
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF-EiEALTH
Water Quality Control Division
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
CERTIFICATION
NCIG FINANCIAL, INC.
COAL RIDGE #1 MINE
PERMIT NO. COG -850005 (formerly CO -0040894)
GARFIELD COUNTY
FACILITY TYPE:
FEE CATEGORY:
SIC NO.:
LOCATION:
LEGAL AND
LOCAL CONTACT:
RECEIVING WATERS:
SUB -BASIN, SEGMENT:
CLASSIFICATION:
DESIGN CAPACITY:
Coal Mining (surface runoff only)
Category 07, Sub -category 5 - General Permits,
Coal mining - Current fee $340/year per CRS
25-8-502
1211
In the NW 1/4, NE 1/4, Sec 6, T5S, R9OW;
approximately 3 miles east of New Castle, CO.
E. Peter Matthies
President
7625 East Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
(303)+779-5901
Unnamed tributaries to the Colorado River
Segment 4, Lower Colorado River sub -basin and
basin
Recreation, Class 2
Aquatic Life, Class 2 (Cold)
Agricultural Use
Ponds are designed to contain the 10 -year,
24-hour precipitation event.
Permit No. COG -650000
Facility No. COG -85000b
CDPS GENERAL PERMIT
FOR COAL MINING FACILITIES (SURFACE RUNOFF ONLY)
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act
(25-8-101 et. seq., CRS, 1973 as amended), facilities engaged in miningand
processing of coal are authorized to discharge surface runoff from approved
locations throughout
the
State
accordanceColorado
withto conditionsspecified
fwaters
this permit.
State.
Such discharges shall be in
This permit specifically authorizes NCIG FINANCIAL, INC.
to discharge from facilities identified as the Coal Ridge #1 Mine;
the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 6, T5S, R9OW
to unnamed tributaries to the Colorado River
as of this date July 24, 1989
located in
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
June 30, 1992.
Signed this 8th day of March, 1988
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
aul Ferraro, Director
Water Quality Control Division
This facility permit contains 25' pages.
CERTIFIED LETTER NOZ1 74ss 7
DATE Sir -VD a1./
EFFECTIVE. DATE
PERMIT ' at
Corrected 06/11/91
9
• •
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Water Quality Control Division
4210 East lith Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303)+320-8333, Ext. 3740
APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER
AND ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
OF A COLORADO PERMIT
I hereby apply for transfer to me of this Colorado Permit No. CO- G-8500005
which was issued to New Castle Energy Corp . I have reviewed this
permit and April responsibilities,
po sibilities, coverage and liability,
r
effective p
NEW OWNER/OPERATOR NCIG Financial, Inc
Facility Name
Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine
Mailing Address
City Denver
7476 East Arkansas Av. #104
State CO
Telephone Number (303) 337 3877
Area Code
Authorized Agent E. Peter Matthies
Signature
Title
Zip Code 80231 County
Print)
?rf.•�• v1'!
President, NCIG Finacial, Inc.
Date June 5, 1991
AS previous owner, I hereby agree to the transfer of the above referenced
permit and all responsibilities thereof.
PREVIOUS OWNER/OPERATOR New Castle Energy Corporation
Facility Name Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine
Authorized Agent F;_ pptpr MatthiPs
(Print)
1Gl'�i
Signature
Title
former President, New Castle Energy Corpoartio
Date
June 9. 1941
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT
OFARE ALTH
ROY ROMER
Governor
JOEL KOHN
Interim Executive Director
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220-3716
Phone (303) 320-8333
Telefax Numbers:
Main Building/Denver
(303)322-9076
Ptarmigan Place/Denver
(303) 320-1529
First National Bank Building/Denver
(303)355.6559
Grand Junction Offia
(303) 248-7198
May 3, 1991
Gerald M. Grewe
Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson
Suite 2800
One Tabor Center
1200 Seventeenth Street
Denver, CO 80202
RE:
Transfer of Ownership
New Castle Energy Corp.
Permit No.: COG -850005 & COG -850025
Garfield County
Dear Sir:
Enclosed is a transfer of ownership form which must be completed and
returned to this office before we can proceed with your request to
transfer the above -referenced permit. Please ensure that both the former
owner and the new owner complete and sign the form. The new owner should
provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of both a legal and
local contact. The legal contact may serve as local contact. Please
return the completed form within thirty days.
Section 6.9.3. (3) of the Colorado State Discharge Permit Regulations
state: "The permit shall not be transferred to another party without
prior notification to the Division and requirements of section 6.9.6 and
6.16.0 have been met." This means that before the Division will process
the transfer, the annual administrative fees must be paid and all
discharge monitoring reports up to the date of transfer must be received
by the Division.
If you have further questions with regard to the transfer process please
contact me at (303)+331-4761. Questions relating to the annual fee can
be directed to Ms. Connie Moreno at (303)+331-4539 .
Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
pnnted on recycled paper
Louann Gaines, Staff Assistant
Permits and Enforcement Section
Water Quality Control Division
cc: Permit Section, Environmental Protection Agency
Dwain Watson, D.E., Field Support Section, WQCD
Connie Moreno, Administration Section, WQCD
MS -3
Enclosures
•
Carter & Sands, P.C.
=201 West Third St., Suite 201
P.O. Box 192 Rifle, Colorado 81650-0192
Facsimile: (303) 625-3989
Telephone: (303) 625-1075
May 20, 1991
Attorneys at Law
Stephen L. Carter
Edward P. Sands
Mr, Don K. DeFord
Garfield County Attorney
FAX (303) 945-2379
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
SUBJECT: NCIG Financial, Inc., Request for Amendments
to Special Use Permits
Dear Don:
This letter is written on behalf of the Garfield Citizens
Alliance and certain residents living in the Riverbend area.
Needless to say, my clients are extremely disappointed that the
Board of County Commissioners failed to heed the sound legal advise
you rendered and now desire to entertain NCIG Financial's request for
amendments to its special use permits. Unfortunately, once again it
appears we may be involved in an adversarial relationship.
In order to prepare for the upcoming hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners on NCIG Financial's request to amend the terms
and conditions for the issuance of the subject special use permits, I
would appreciate it if you could provide me with information regarding
the following questions and legal issues:
1. What is the basis for jurisdiction? I can find no provi-
sions in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution which specifically
authorizes the amendment of the terms of a special use permit or the
conditions for the issuance thereof, nor the procedure for doing so.
Moreover, my clients are particularly concerned that the Board is
considering amending certain conditions which have already expired
without compliance by the applicant.
As you are aware, Colorado's vested property rights statutes,
Section 24-68-101, et seq., C.R.S., expressly apply to conditional or
special use plans. Section 24-68-103, C.R.S., provides that a local
government may approve a site specific development plan upon such
terms and conditions as may reasonably be necessary to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare. Although such conditional
approval results in a vested property right, the statute provides that
failure to abide by such terms and conditions will .result in a
forfeiture of vested property rights. It is clear the applicant
obtained vested property rights, subject to the conditions contained
Don K. DeFord
• •
May 20, 1991 Page 2 of 4
in the authorizing resolution, when Resolution No. 90-083 was adopted.
Thus, even if the Commissioners approve the requested amendments, does
section 24-68-103, C.R.S., mean the revised special use permit will
not- be a vested property right because the applicant failed to abide
by' -previous conditions? Section 24-68-104, C.R.S., provides the
vesting period shall not be extended by any amendment to a site
specific development plan unless expressly authorized by the local
government. Is the applicant requesting an extension of the vesting
period?
Has the County requested the applicant to submit supporting
documentation for the proposed amendments including information
concerning impact mitigation? If not, why not? Has the Board
considered submitting the amendments to the Planning Commission? If
not, why not?
Is the hearing on the requested amendments considered a quasi-
judicial hearing for purposes of review under Rule 106(a)(4),
C.R.C.P.? Clearly, the Board's handling of the requested amendments
could not have been anticipated at the time of filing our original
action.
2. Who is permitted to seek amendments to a special use permit.
and what legal basis are you relying on? My clients are perhaps
interested in requesting a number of amendments to Resolution No. 90-
083 as well. Is it the position of the County that only the applicant
may request amendments? May the Board on its own motion amend a
special use permit and, if so, how does that affect the applicant's
vested rights? Once the applicant requests amendments, in your
opinion is the applicant waiving his vested rights which then allows
surrounding property owners affected by the development to request
amendments? In responding, I would appreciate it if you could
indicate what legal basis you are relying on in rendering these
,:prions .
3. What is the deadline for the applicant to submit materia].
for the Board of County Commissioner's review. In reviewing the May
10, 1991, letter from David R. Sturges on behalf of NCIG Financial,
Inc., it appears the applicant is requesting changes that were not
before the Board when the Board set the hearing. For example, the
applicant now desires to phase landscaping and not construct the off-
site road improvements until the commencement of mine activities.
Moreover, the applicant now desires to commence on-site road
improvements within one year of commencement of on-site construction
activities. Finally, the requested amendments would permit the County
at its sole discretion to issue separate special use permits for each
land use. A11 of these changes are very substantive in nature and
constitute much more than extending time deadlines. Will the
applicant be allowed to continue to request new amendments up to and
during the hearing? Is the Garfield Citizens Alliance and surrounding
property owners permitted to submit documents to the County for
consideration up to the hearing?
Don K. DeFord May 20, 1991
Page 3 of 4
4. What issues may be raised at the hearing? My clients
believe the amendments requested by NCIG Financial constitute much
more than extending time deadlines because of litigation and the
applicant'sfailure to obtain a Mined Land Reclamation permit for the
Lacey load -out. The proposed amendments are very substantive in
nature. Because of the applicant's failure to exercise due diligence,
is' -.the applicant's ability to perform once again an issue for
discussion? Because the applicant now desires three years to complete
off ;site road improvements, is the performance bond still sufficient?
Has.', inflation been taken into account? If the applicant obtains a
special use permit for mine activities, without a Lacey load -out
permit, will the applicant be permitted to mine? If so, does the
issae of storage capacity for the mined coal on site need to be
revisited? Since the applicant now desires to substantively change
the landscaping provisions, are any issues concerning landscaping or
mitigation of aesthetics relevant? Since the special use permit for
mining activities may no longer be tied to construction of the Lacey
load -out, are issues concerning whether or not the applicant still
desires to construct a load -out in Riverbend relevant? Does the
County even have the power to increase the performance guarantee
because of inflation considerations, since the applicant hasn't
requested an amendment to that provision?
5. What are the procedural "ground rules" that will be followed
b 'the Bo- d of Count Coumissioners at the hearin•? Will either the
applicant or others desiring to testify be limited as to time? What
kind of evidence can surrounding property owners submit? Will
interested property owners in the surrounding area be permitted
directly, or through counsel, to cross-examine the applicant and its
witnesses? will this cross-examination have to be directed through
the chair?
In conclusion, as you know from the original hearings on the
.;applicant's request for special use permits, it is my clients' desire
to -advise the County up front regarding their legal concerns in order
to avert possible litigation. My clients have never believed the best
way to- settle land use disputes in Garfield county is through the
courts. Nevertheless, my clients believe it is important for the
rules to be followed.
Thus, I wish to advise you at this time that my clients do not
believe the Board of County Commissioners have jurisdiction to amend a
resolution on an ex post facto basis when the terms of said resolution
have expired by their own terms. We see no legal distinction between
the special use permit itself, which you have advised cannot be
amended, and a resolution that contains strict time deadlines for the
effectiveness of the authorizations contained therein. The County
Zoning Resolution apparently contains no authorization for the
amendments requested, and we do not believe such powers are inherent
in the Board. My clients believe that once an authorization for a
permit has expired, the applicant must apply for a new permit, meeting
all requirements for the application of a special use permit contained
Don K. DeFord
• •
May 20, 1991 Page 4 of 4
in the County's land use regulations. For example, since the
applicant now desires to delay construction of off-site road
improvements until the commencement of mining activity, the impacts
generated by construction activity must be considered. Unfortunately,
the- full impacts cannot be known without requiring the applicant to
sub'iit an impact statement as provided by the County Zoning
Resolution.
Last year, when the applicant desired amendments to its special
use permit, the county determined the applicant would have to follow
all procedures set out for the issuance of a new permit. We believe
the applicant again must be required to follow those procedures.
Ali.nough my clients intend to participate in the scheduled hearing, we
do not believe there is any legal basis for the hearing at this time,
under the County Zoning Resolution and applicable law.
Thank you very much for your consideration and cooperation.
By
EPS1i dkn
XC•.G. McKennis
V. VanEngelenberg
Yours truly,
CARTER & SANDS, P.C.
Ibt -,(9iA)\e
May'22, 1991
• •
4212 Pin Oak Drive
Loveland, CO 80538
303-669-4172
JUN 4 1991
__ L couNry uN1miSu
S• oNERS
Route
Lam:
mold
uckey
Marian
111
Board of County Commissionersv w1)1V7-Y
Garfield County Courthouse Suite 301
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Sirs:
I have received notice of the hearing to take place at
1:30 p.m., May 28, 1991 concerning Garfield County Resolution
No. 90-083. I will not be able to attend the meeting in person
but I would like to register my support for approval of the
requested amendments to that resolution.
I sincerely hope that you will continue to give every
encouragement to NCIG Financial, Inc. in the development of the
mine and adjunct facilities referred to in Resolution No. 90-
083.
Sincerely yours,
kZe_t_)
Verlene B. White
CC: NCIG Financial, Inc.
IRA C. ROTHGERBER (1878-1956)
WALTER M APPEL (1879-1961)
IRA C. ROTHGERBER, JR
COUNSEL
GERALD M. GREWE
RSERBER, APPEL, POWERS & JOHNS*
SUITE 2800
ONE TABOR CENTER
1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE (303) 623-9000
April 30, 1991
Colorado Department of Health
Water Quality Control Division
Attention: Mr. Robert J. Shukle,
Chief Permits & Enforcements Section
4210 East Eleventh Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
Our -1 r1,
DENVER TECHNOLOGICAL CENTER
5251 OTC PARKWAY
SUITE 1400
ENGLEWOOD. COLORADO 8011?
(303) 796-2200
TELECOPIER
(303) 623.9222
CABLE ADDRESS
APROPO. DENVER
MAY 0 2 :t;91
WrIrn
Re: NPDES Permit Nos. COG -850005 (Coal Mine Site)
COG -850025 (Loadout near Rifle in
Garfield County)
Dear Mr. Shukle:
This firm represents NCIG Financial, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation ("NCIG"). Please be advised that NCIG has purchased
the assets of the New Castle Energy Corporation Bankruptcy Estate
and NCIG has taken an assignment of the above -referenced water
discharge permits.
For your convenience I enclose a copy of the Trustee's Special
Warranty Deed and the Assignment relating to the water discharge
permits, among other things.
At your earliest convenience, please acknowledge, in writing,
the transfer of these permits, and please inform the undersigned if
there are any additional steps which must be taken in order to
completely transfer the water discharge permits from New Castle
Energy Corporation to NCIG.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any
questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call the
undersigned.
Very truly yours,
ROTHGERBER, APPEL, POWERS & JOHNSON
Gerald M. Grewe
GMG:bc
Enclosures
• •
Agreement
Between
NCIG Financial, Inc.
and
Greg McKennis and Jill C. McKennis,
Whereas, NCEC, as the predecessor -in -interest to NCIG Financial, Inc., applied to
Garfield County for the authorization and issuance of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for their
proposed underground coal mine; and the Garfield Citizens Alliance (GCA), Greg McKennis and
other individuals who were reported to be members of the GCA or to be residents of the
Riverbend Subdivision or persons who may be affected by the proposed underground coal mine
voiced their questions, concerns, and opposition to this project during the public meetings and
public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners of Garfield County; and
Whereas, Garfield County, after consideration of the matters raised and discussed on the
record at these public hearings, voted on October 16, 1990 to issue the requested SUP pursuant
to the terms of Garfield County Resolution No. 90-083; and
Whereas, the GCA and certain named individuals filed a Rule 106 appeal and § 1983
civil rights complaint against Garfield County and the individual commissioners for their actions
in approving this SUP; and
Whereas, NCEC and NCIG filed a Rule 106 appeal against Garfield County challenging
certain terms and conditions of this resolution; and
Whereas, the GCA also filed a Rule 106 appeal against the Colorado Mined Land
Reclamation Board (CMLRBd) and Division (CMLRD) and NCEC for the CMLRBd's decision
upholding the CMLRD's proposed decision to approve a permit for NCEC's proposed
underground coal mine; and
Whereas, NCIG, having purchased the assets of NCEC and thereby becoming NCEC's
successor -in -interest in these matters, and Greg McKennis believed that it would be more
productive for everyone involved if these parties could settle their differences in a less costly and
1
• •
litigious manner, and that a developer could be responsive to the concerns and questions of
citizens of the community within the limits of existing laws and regulations and the economic
realities of launching a project of this magnitude and scope which might provide some economic
opportunity to the residents of the community; and
Whereas, the parties identified or referenced above by and through their avowed
representatives have entered settlement negotiations concerning these matters of litigation and
permitting for the purpose of settling all disputed matters arising between these parties while
preserving the role and authority of legally constituted land use and permitting entities to deal
with those matters under their legal jurisdiction
Whereas, the parties hereto wish to enter this agreement for the purpose of settling all
past and current disputed matters between themselves and affecting these specified local and state
government entities.
Now therefore the parties hereto agree that so long as NCIG has a special use permit or
operates its property for coal mining as follows:
1. Noise Suppression.
NCIG will provide that all above -ground mining equipment and operations will
be fitted and operated with the best commercially available noise suppression devices and
techniques at the time such equipment or operations are originally acquired or as malfunctioning
devices are replaced, but no later than two (2) years after such equipment or operations become
commercially accepted and available for equipment and operations. NCIG will consult with
noise suppression specialists and landscaping specialists concerning noise suppression and visual
impact mitigation structures and will provide for the construction of such dual purpose structures
where and when such appreciable levels of noise suppression and visual impact mitigation goals
can be reasonably and economically achieved by such structures. NCIG will provide to
McKennis copies of all noise studies and data collected on or for NCIG's permitted coal mining
and railroad loadout operations.
2. Truck Coal Hauling.
NCIG will delay commencement of coal hauling until 7:00 a.m. and cease coal
hauling at 8:00 p.m. until validated projections demonstrate that annual production will exceed
400,000 tons per year at which time the authorized hours of hauling under this agreement can
commence at 6:00 a.m. and extend to 10:00 p.m. NCIG will assess off-site adverse noise
impacts from its coal truck hauling operation between the hour of 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. and the
hours of 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. and NCIG will implement the measure(s) which can best achieve
the desired goal of minimizing the off-site adverse noise impact. For the purpose of this
agreement "coal hauling" includes truck preparation and truck loading at the mine site. No
hauling will take place on weekends or holidays. Notwithstanding the restrictions on hauling
hours set forth herein, NCIG will be allowed to increase the hauling hours Monday through
2
• •
Friday for a three year period of time, but only if coal production exceeds one million tons per
year and providing that the right to do so is obtained from the County by means of modification
of the SUP, and provided that NCIG has no other permitted loadout, other than the Lacy
loadout. The three years may be consecutive or intermittent at NCIG's discretion. In the event
that NCIG obtains approval for extended hour hauling, NCIG will assess the off-site noise
impacts and implement the measures which best achieve the desired goal of minimizing the off-
site adverse noise impacts.
3. Landscaping.
NCIG will provide for the planting of 1-1/2 times the number of tree types and
sizes currently set forth in the approved and required landscaping plan under Resolution No. 90-
083. Such future planting of trees shall seek to locate such trees on a ground elevation which
maximizes its ultimate visual impact mitigation effect while considering its access to manmade
or natural irrigation sources. NCIG shall implement, as provided above in section 1, the
construction and use of wooden fence visual impact mitigation structures with noise suppression
values to provide additional visual impact mitigation, consistent with applicable laws and
regulations and subject to any applicable permitting requirements. Construction and use of such
walls will be employed on an intermittent basis in conjunction with the placement of trees to
achieve and maximize aesthetic relief. Approximately 700 lateral feet of eight (8') foot fence
will be employed across the combined north faces of levels 2 and 3 upon which are constructed
certain surface facilities, in addition to the requirements of Special Condition 2.I. of the
of Resolution No. 90-083. All lighting on site shall only be the minimum necessary to meet
federal standards for mine safety and that all lighting be focused inward toward the mine site.
4. Use of NCIG Real Property for Coal Mining Only,
NCIG agrees that its real property shall only be used for activities necessary to
conduct coal mining and coal loading while it is permitted for coal mining and coal loading,
except that NCIG and its successors shall not be precluded by this provision from the use, lease
or sale for use of its lands for agricultural or recreational purposes, consistent with and subject
to applicable land use requirements. While so permitted or operated by NCIG, or its successors,
this real property shall not be used as the location of or access to an electrical power plant. This
restriction on primary and accessory land use shall terminate upon NCIG's or its successor's
termination of a coal mining operation on this real estate and expiration and/or surrender of the
special use permits and completion of reclamation through the planting of vegetation.
5. Surface Use.
NCIG will not use nor permit the use of the surface of its real property between
the northern boundary of CR 335 and the Colorado River for coal mining activities, except that
NCIG may utilize an electrically powered water pump in this area for the utilization of NCIG's
water rights.
3
• •
6. Expense Reimbursement.
NCIG will reimburse the above identified or referenced parties for their actual
costs, up to $45,000.00 for legal fees, costs, and expenses paid or incurred by these parties in
their efforts related to these litigation or permit matters, per the attached Exhibit A. Such
reimbursement shall not be distributed from its escrow account to any of the parties until all
litigation cases have been dismissed with prejudice on the parties' motion or stipulation and the
pending permit amendment request issue before the Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners is approved as posted in the public notice of May 13, 1991. In consideration
of this agreement for reimbursement, the parties identified or referenced herein agree not to
oppose directly or indirectly or unnecessarily delay NCIG's pending permit matters before the
CMLRD.
7. Future Coal Loadout.
If NCIG proposes to locate and permit a railroad coal loadout for its Coal Ridge
mining operation on its property east of the Riverbend Subdivision NCIG will do so subject to
the following standards. The parties agree not to oppose such permit(s) before the appropriate
land use and permitting agencies or entities if the following mutually agreed upon standards are
complied with in the permitting of such a facility:
A. The railroad coal loadout would be located east of Riverbend
Subdivision and behind the rock outcrop in such a manner as to avoid or
minimize any visual or noise impact upon the Riverbend Subdivision or its
residents and would be operated with all then applicable environmental and safety
laws and permit requirements.
B. The coal from the mining operation shall be delivered to the railroad
by means of a liquid slurry or mechanized conveyor which would be aligned and
constructed entirely underground to avoid or minimize any visual or noise impact
upon the Riverbend Subdivision and its residents and would be operated with all
then applicable environmental and safety laws and permit requirements. If this
conveyor must be accessible from the surface for safety, environmental, or
maintenance reasons, then NCIG would commit to providing mitigation measures
to avoid or minimize any visual or noise impact.
C. The coal loadout's storage and loading facility will utilize design
and construction concepts which most minimize the visual impact of the facility.
D. The railroad coal loadout facility will be designed and operated to
incorporate the most advanced noise suppression equipment and procedures for
such facilities and operations that are commercially available. The railroad coal
4
• •
loadout facility will be designed and operated in compliance with all then
applicable environmental and safety laws and permit requirements.
E. NCIG will protect the groundwater wells for domestic use now
owned by the Riverbend Water Company at the railroad coal loadout site from
any diminution or degradation caused by its operations and facilities.
F. NCIG will design, construct, and operate this railroad coal loadout
facility so as to minimize the traffic and any resulting impacts upon the Riverbend
Subdivision and its residents of employees, contractors and invitees of NCIG.
The parties commit their best efforts to identify, assess, negotiate, and where appropriate
mitigate the off-site impacts of this railroad coal loadout facility and operation in the spirit of
good neighbors who seek the protection of their own quality of life and economic opportunity.
It is expressly provided that each party shall have the right to determine for itself whether the
above standards are being, or have been adhered to.
8. NCIG, commits that while its property is permitted or operated as a coal mining
operation, it will not seek to permit or operate a railroad coal loadout to be located east of New
Castle on the north side of the Colorado River in the vicinity of the I-70 exit.
9. It is expressly acknowledged that certain of the commitments herein are in excess
or in addition to those currently required in the applicable permits and that the parties will
cooperate in every way to have these additional commitments considered and recognized in some
appropriate manner by the permitting authority. Nonetheless, NCIG agrees to be legally bound
by these commitments. In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the applicable permits
as they currently exist shall be in full force and effect on the permitted lands and operations.
In addition to its rights under applicable laws and regulations, each party and individual party
shall have its own right under this agreement to determine for itself whether the terms of the
agreement are being complied with and to pursue legal recourse if not being adhered to.
10. Upon execution of this document of Principles of Agreement, the parties commit
to cooperate with each other and their respective legal counsel to effectuate the principles and
spirit of this agreement. Specifically, the GCA and related parties agree not to oppose the
amendments being requested by NCIG before the Garfield County Commissioners, as posted in
the public notice of May 13, 1991, as long as they are consistent with the principles set forth
herein. Further, the parties agree not to oppose or unnecessarily delay the processing and
approval of the permit revisions pending before the CMLRD and potentially before the
CMLRBd. Upon the payment of the estimated $45,000.00 legal fees, costs, and expenses
specified above into an escrow account, the parties and their respective counsel will cooperate
to have filed as quickly as possible stipulated motions to dismiss with prejudice all pending
actions by and involving these parties relative to all legal disputes now existing and claimed
between these parties and the respective permitting authorities at which time the funds shall be
disbursed pursuant to Exhibit A.
5
•
11. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, and assigns.
12. This agreement shall terminate and all rights and claims arising solely from herein
shall be extinguished when NCIG, or its successor(s), cease to operate a coal mining operation
and/or railroad coal loadout and complete reclamation through the planting of vegetation on this
permitted real property. This document shall be recorded by NCIG and Greg and Jill McKennis
in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders Office on their respective real property owned by
them, as described in the attached exhibits, and shall be appurtenant to and run with the real
property of NCIG (as described in Exhibit B) and of Greg McKennis and Jill C. McKennis (as
described in Exhibit C), and incorporated herein by reference. This agreement's termination and
the release of the recording shall be accomplished by NCIG, or its successor, filing a verified
affidavit in the Clerk and Recorder's Office stating that its coal mining and/or coal loadout
operations have ceased, that its special use permit has expired or has been surrendered and
forfeited, and that reclamation of the permitted area has been completed through the planting of
vegetation along with a written affirmation as to termination of operations by the Garfield
County Planning Department. Copies of this affidavit shall be sent to the signatory parties at
their last known address.
Executed this day of May, 1991 by:
Rushton O. Backer Greg McKennis
President 1270 County Road 240
NCIG Financial, Inc. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Jill C. McKennis
a/k/a Jill C. Williams
1270 County Road 240
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
The foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of May, 1991, by
Rushton O. Backer.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
6
• •
The foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of May, 1991, by
Greg McKennis.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
The foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of May, 1991, by
Jill C. McKennis.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
7
• •
We, the undersigned, as parties to Civil Action No. 90 CV 306-3, and in some instances
as Intervenors in Civil Action No. 90 CV 308-3, do hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of
an agreement entitled "Agreement Between NCIG Financial, Inc. and Greg McKennis and All
C. McKennis" dated and executed May 24, 1991. Further we swear the we have read this
document and understand its terms and conditions. By our execution of this document, we
hereby consent to the dismissal with prejudice of our individual and collective claims in the these
above identified cases and our eligibility to submit claims for reimbursement under the terms of
Section 6 and 10 of this agreement described herein.
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Randy Corry
P.O. Box 314
Silt, CO 81647
Oleta Corry
P.O. Box 314
Silt, CO 81652
Gwendolyn Colby
0068 Riverbend Dr.
New Castle, CO 81647
John Colby
0068 Riverbend Dr.
New Castle, CO 81647
Elizabeth Doll
0050 Riverbend Dr.
New Castle, CO 81647
8
Dated:
• •
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Gregory A. Doll
0050 Riverbend Dr.
New Castle, CO 81647
Dale Edward Knighton
0143 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, CO 81647
Suzanne Marie Knighton
0143 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, CO 81647
Jon Robert Krick
0091 Riverbend Dr.
New Castle, CO 81647
Leslie Jean Krick
0091 Riverbend Dr.
New Castle, CO 81647
Donald McGirr
1652 County Road 240
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Patricia McGirr
1652 County Road 240
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dated:
• •
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Ray D. Tenney
0156 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, CO 81647
Sharon E. Tenney
0156 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, CO 81647
Linda M. Schultz M.D.
0492 County Road 240
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Greg Tonozzi
0492 County Road 240
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Randy Lee VanEngelenberg
0059 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, CO 81647
Victoria A. VanEngelenberg
0059 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, CO 81647
Cheryl L. Glover
0161 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, CO 81647
10
Dated:
• •
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Danny E. Glover
0161 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, CO 81647
Henry H. Nall
3226 Poinsettia Dr.
Colorado Springs, CO 80907
11
• •
The Garfield Citizens Alliance, as Plaintiffs in Civil Actions Nos. 90 CV 306-3 and 91
CV 08-1 and as Intervenors in Civil Action No. 90 CV 308-3, do hereby acknowledge receipt
of a copy of an agreement entitled "Agreement Between NCIG Financial, Inc. and Greg
McKennis and Jill C. McKennis" dated and executed May 24, 1991. We swear that we have
read this document and understand its terms and conditions. By our execution of this document,
we hereby consent to the dismissal with prejudice of our claims in these above identified cases,
our agreement to support NCIG's current permitting efforts before Garfield County and the
CMLRD and NCIG's future permitting efforts if consistent with the terms of this agreement, and
our eligibility to submit claims for reimbursement under the terms of Section 6 and 10 of this
agreement described herein.
Dated:
Witness:
Dated:
Witness:
Randy Corry
Chairman
Garfield Citizens Alliance
Greg McKennis
Vice -Chairman
Garfield Citizens Alliance
12
• •
Exhibit A
Expenses : NCEC
1. Greg McKennis Consultants mining $ 7,224.00
Noise consultants $ 3,485.00
Glenwood Post $ 315.00
Grant, McHendrie P.C. $ 9,379.00
Travel, phone, etc . $ 1,853.00
Carter & Sands P.C. $ 5,136.00
$27,392.00
2. GCA
Glenwood Post
Consultants mining
Carter & Sands P.C.
$ 315.00
$ 2,700.00
$ 6.695.00
$ 9,710.00
3. McGirr
Landscape expert $ 3.800.00
$ 3,800.00
4. Riverbend
Parkes testimony $ 4,100.00
$ 4,100.00
$45,002.00
Prepared and submitted by Greg McKennis on May 23, 1991.
•
Exhibit B
NC/0 PI .)iCIAL0 INC.
Section 33, 4o eahih S Sooth, fins?a 9C weeAB of the 6th Principal Meridien:
that part of the S.81/4SE1/4 lying Southerly of the centerline of the Colorado Fiver.
EoCtlon_34,4Tbwnehi 5`5out1:,
R&!.1.11_20 West of the kith Princl a1
p Meridian:
b'ei/46111/4: 5E1/4 and that part of the S147./4Sf11/4, flW1/4S111/4, kE1/4614/4, and
tt1/01E.1/4 lying Southerly of the centerline of the Colorado River.
Section,35t.towethin S South, Ran ya 90 Weet of the 6t11 Princiur.l Meridian:
That part of the SW114l1W7J4, H81/4SW3,/4 and the Ni/2561/4 lying southerly of
centerline of the Colorado lover, and the W1./254/4.
6pctinn 5, township,6 South, Rinne 90 West of the 6th Principal Meridian:
Lot 4 and the 6i/264/4
3F2nio ._fu_.TQae'11111!1.p.-Lfestsallt—NoIlt<-2.Q1Kt t.,,.id the 6th PringISSil—titia.111111
Lb,
Lots
and 61
and that2pa_-t of iot53/lying46 utherly4of4, /the law water mark ofN/2 SA/4, andtthesA/4 SAM
Northerly
bank of the Colorado River.
!t•ct,ion s,� Townhhip 6 South tenon 90 Wank of the 6th Principal Meridian:
n1/2114/4 and the 61/21i1/4.
Excepting from the a oove d escxi}„ed property the following parcels of property,
dr_ecrjlied in the Rule and order entered in the District Court for Garfield County
Jen Civil Action Ho.. 6635,, entitled Doard of County Commissioners, •t al va. Dory;
C.een Anderson, et al, recorded Woven:bar 6, 1972, in Book 437 at page 707 as
Reception no. 255941, and Civil Action 110. 6657 recorded October 18, 1972 in
Renk 437 et Page 1 and Amended robruary 23, 1973 in lao.tok 441 at Page 111, Recep-
tiot: $on. 255774 and 257131 respectively.
Parcel no. 143
A tract or p.nrcal of land No. 143 of the State Department of Highway, Division of
1119hways, states of Colorado, Project No. x 70-1(12)89 Sar. 7, in the WW1./4 of the
SWI/4, end the Nrl/4 of the SW1/4 and the SE1/4 of the Hw3./4 of Sect.lon 34, Town -
*hip 5 South, Range 90 Wast of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in Garfield County,
Colorado, said tract of parcel being more particularly deScribtd as follows!
Dagimaing ata point on the centerline of the Colorado River from which point the
Vett 1/4 corner of Sac. 34, TSS, 1190W, 6th P.x. beard ;6.62 5S'W. a distance et
1,494.6 fee 1
thence N.21 10'E., along thce centerline of the Colorado River, a distance of 80,2
'rats
thence 1.1.49°47't., along the centerline of the Colorado River, p distance of 556.8
feel:
thenen n.61o4S' ., along the centerline of the Colorado, giver, a distance of 617.2
feet:
tethaanC1es S.8So78'}., along the centerline of the Co3aredo River, a distance of 266.6
thence $.74°29'30•W, a diseased of 146.6 teat'/
thane* along the arc of A curvy to the left having a vigil= of 2,764.8 fest, a diy•
t*nae of 1,000.2 fent. (Lies chord of this arc bears 6.62 07'W., a distance of 394.7
feet))
thence S.49°44'70`W, .i diet/snot! of 294.7 feet,
thenas 6.48°45'w. a diitatce of 26.9 feet, more or .lens, to the point of beginning.
•
Fnrestl. Ivo. 142.2
i tract or ira.roal of land Teo. 143-A of the State Department of fighoeys, Divi ion of
Highways, State Of Colorado, Project Mo. 170.1(12)99 Seo. 2, in the tE1/4 of tha 8E1/4
of Soct.1on 34, Towomhip 5 tooth. Range 90 West, of the Sixth principal )acedias, in
Cariiald County, Colorado, sold tract, Or parcel. lotting more particularly described ae
follows,
baginninq at• a point on the, coot.oxline of,thy Ce1e:•rado x.iver from vhich the nt corner
of Sac. 34, 759, 1t909t', 6th 1+.I), boars tt.7d42'1;., a dietanca of 2,106.8 Leets
thence a.lanq the axe of a curse to the, left baying s gadiva of 4,403,1 feet, a disc
tone* of 194.4 foot (thn chord of this tire locks S.84 35'30"W. i 4ietauca of 294.3
teat), try tl,n cantarlinee of thee Colorado Rivers
t.hehce N.70 30'E., Along the centerline of the Colorado River, a distetnce of 73.3 feet!
thence t.rlf°02')., along the centerline of the Colorado River, a distance of 213,8 feet!
thence, S.60°20'L., along the eanteriina of the Colorado )river, a r1istanco of 11.0 feet,
taora or 1enn, to the point of beginning.
J' i1xS,:4tl _ P 2.L.A.L A
A tract er perool of l tad ho. 143-8 of the State Deportment of Highways, Division
of tii571tHay,t, State, of Colorado, Project Ido. Y 70-1(12)09, sec. 10 in tho SW/4 of
the int/4, in thu, SE/4 of the 1rW/4 and in the, NE/4 of the SW/4 of vection 35,
Township 5 south, Range 90 Root of the Sixth Principal M*ridian, in Garfield
County, Colorado, **id treat or portal being sora particularly dasori.bod as
four+& )
89ginning at ,t point ,on the c0ntar1i.tto of the Colorado River, from which point
the NW comfit' 0f Sec. 35, T58, R9041, 6th P.M. bass (4,27.13' 30"w. a di,vtence of
2,615.7 t'iott thenne H.73•89't., albnp the cant°trline of the C.olorsdo River, e
diatancs of 162.8 foot, thence 3.10.43'kt., along the Centerline of the ColorAdO
/liver, a dietance of 640.8 foot; thanes S.40•16'R., along the Canterllne of the
Colorado River, a diotance of 223.6 fast/ thence 8.33°S2'E „ along tho center
line of the iroloredo River, a distance, of 119.8 fotti therm* along the axe of a
curve; to the, loft having a radius of 4,4113.7 foot; t distance of 1,090.9 feet,
mono or lees, to the point of bTginninq (the chord at this art boars
8.67.23'30'x. R dietanat of 1,070.3 foot).
1'Arte1 No. 341-.0
A tract or Lottcol of Land nes. 143-C of the Stott Deportmoot of 8ightaayet, Division of
niglnrw.y>r, &tate of Colorado, project U. 170-1;12)2 Sta. 2, in the r;'E1/4 of tie SW1/4
of Section 3S, Township 5 South, Range 90 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in
Garfield Cottoty, Colorado, halal tract: or parcel being more particularly described as
fol low -o t
eogisning at a point °r, the thread of the Colorado Rives in the N'!..1/4 of that 8x1/4 o1
Gee. 38, T52, RO6i+, (SLh r,8. fsom vhich Dint the S1/4 corner of S. 35 boars
2.21036'30"2. & distance, of 2,796.8 feet;
thence, 9.11°47°W. a distance of 104.9 Leet;
th'tn.n 9.59001'E, a diotonce of 176.3 feet, to the thread of the Colorado Rivers
thanes N.33°52'W., along tiro thread of the CQloXadooRiver, *distance of 232.4 fret,
rope �r lento, to the point of l+ettinrti.na.
Z 14 OP =CAPTIONS TO PARCEL A. TRC POLLOVilm PAAcl L I1 CONTET15b I T mUrtrQR.
Section GL T mahip 6 SuuthL 5!,142 e' 90 Nest of the 6th Prince al Neridient
All that: part of Lit 4 of 5eation 6, Township 6 South, Range 90. Nest of. tha Sixth
Principal Meridian, lying, Southerly of the centerline brae Colorado River, said
pJrca1 of land in dettcr._ibod as follovet
Degirtninq at thea Soutltxeot Corner of said Lot 4, thauee fortn along tha Keateray limo
of said Lot 4, 211.00 foot to A point in the, otonte.t of said river; thence 8.63 45'00"E.
466.00 foot along the corner of raid river; thence 8.56°35'00"t. 345.00 feet along the
cantor of skid river; thanco 8.50°35'00"L. 690.00 feet along the cuter of said river;
thanes 8.53 111'00"r, 147,1.6 feet along the center of sold river to a point on the
t.++atarly lioo of said Lot 4; thnnr_a South along the Eatsterly line of veld Lot 4, 1255,68
tenet to the, Southneut Cotoor of skid Lot 4; thenen 8.89"49°44"w. 1135,55 toot along the
oouthuriy lista of maid Lot 4, to Oho touthweot corner of said Lot 4, the point of
beginning,
i e 'trxft PROM PATtCM J1 J,tk)VI". t i'UAT PORT108 CONVO1'L"b tli Rh$I2.7txt h. btMICAH, J. AS
T'RUSTEE, DF`..SCAT15rn IN wooD R£'CJSOLD 1M EO()K 459 AT PAGE 174 es 1tEt'EPT2OU NO. 262991.
(c0N'rINUED)
• •
rA)cm A
NOTA, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN BOOR 459 AT PACE 174 EXCEPT D PROM PAAC1y A 25 THE
SAKE A5 TEE LAND BEING CONVEYED rN PARCEL B BELOW.
A parcel of lend iitueted in the tE1/4, the £1/25141/4 and the sw1/4sw1/4 of Section
ad, Toweehip 5 South, A nge 00 Weet of the Sixth Prinoipal meridian, also in the
R1/2N1~A/4 of section 6 and in Lot 4 of Scctior* 5, all in Township 6 south, Range 00
West of rho sixth Principal Haridiae, said parcel of land ii deecribad as follows:
Begivinq At a point whence the Southeast Corner of said Section 34 bears:
5.88 50'269£. 1797.11 fret; thence 5.64°20'00"W. 152.55 feet, the.:*ce 32.40 feet along
the are of a curve to the right, having a radius of 21.86 feet, the chord of which
heart: N.73°12'30"1t• 29.51 feet; thence N.30°45'00"W. 202.55 Leet; thence 213.32 feet
along the ere of v tuxva to the left, having a radius of 239.65 feat, the chord of
which bearer N.5615'00"W. 206,34 feet; thence N.81 45'00"U. 183.00 feet; thence
111,25 feet alohg the ere of a curve to tht left, having a radius of 262.76 tett, the
chord of which beers* 5.75°00'00"W• 207.45 feet: thence 5.51°45'00"W. 485.00 feet;
thence 176.95 feet along the axe of a curve to the right, having a radius of 304.91
lett, the chord. of which bears 5.68°22130" W. 174.47 feet; thence 5.8500o'00"H.
45.00 fest; thence 201.11'feet along the arc of a curve to the left, havibq a radius
of 467.50 feat, the chord of vhieh bea;s; 5.72°07'30"W. 208.34 fest: thence 5.59°15'00"w
325.0.fee_t; t ence183.1.4 feet along the are of a curve to the right, having a radiu.S of
407:30 feet, the chord of whiuh bears: 5.72°07'30"W. 181.60 feet; thence 5.85°00'00''4,
45.00 feet; thence 211.23•feot along the arc oof a curve to the left, having a radies
of 396.80 fent, the chord of whicli ),eases 5.69 45'00"W, 208.74 feet; thence 5.54°30100';4
20.3 feet
13 ; thence 31.42 feet along the ass of a curve to the right, having a radius of
the chord of which bearer N.8o'3o'00"W. 28,28 feet; thence N.35 30'00"W.
817.85 feat; t!*ence31.51 feet along the arc ofaa curve to the right, having a radius
of 20.06 feet, the chord of which bears: N.09 29'58'£. 28.37 stet: thence 250.70 feat
along the arc of 8 cnrroe to the left, having a radius o! 12,930.95 feet, the chord of
which hearer N.53 43'20"F. 250.70 feet, thence N.53°10'00"E. 2,918.20 feet. thence
31.54 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 20.23 feet, the
chord of which :,ears; 5.82°09'58"1. 28.44 tact; thence 5.37°30'00"E. 176.34 feet along
the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 211.06 feet, the chord of which
hearer 6,57°45'00"E. 215.33 feet: thence. 5.78°00'00"£. 408.00 feet; thence 68.50 feet
along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 346.00 feet, the chord •,f
Which bears* L83°40'18'1. 68.39 feet; thence 37.66 feet along the arc of a curve to
the right betting a radio. of 26.51 feet, the chord of. which bears: 5.50°31'57'x.
34.58 feet; thence S.09°50'00"£. 704.79 feet; thence 135.31 feet along the ars of a
curve to the right, haw Og a radius of 211.43, the chord of which bears: 5.08 30.00"W.
133.01 fent: thence 5.26 50'00"W. 20.00 feet, thanes 151.55 feet along the arc of a
curve to the'right, havieg a radius of 598.85 feet, the chord of which tears;
8.34°05'00"W. 151.15 teat; thence 5.41°20'00"W, 70.00 feet; thence 202.80 feet along
the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 2050.55 feet, the chord of which
beer�'t 5.38°10'00"W. 202.72 feet; thence $.35°40'00"W. 25.00 feet; thence 288.33 feet
along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 606.94 feet, the chord of
whioh bears: 5.25°50100"W. 207.31 fent: thence 5.16°00'00"W. 170.00 feet; thence
167.69 feet along the ,pre g*f a intoe to the tight, having t' radius of 192.116 feet, the
chord of which bourn: 5.40 10'r*0"W. 157.91 tent, to the point of beginning.
XftEPP174d rPSkS PA1tCEI,S A AND !
That portion of subject property Parcels A And 8 platted at Rivtrbend Subdiviniob
riling 11, Riverbend•Subdlvision Filing 12 Amended, and Riverbend Ranthettes rival
Plat, ar,d tiled thereof with the Garfield County Clerk end Recorder; and also except -
Leg the conveyance to the Board of County Cotraaiseioners of Garfield County recorded
August 31, 1979 in Book 534 at Page 416; also excepting the property and easement
conveyance to Cunningban construction 4 Development Co. recorded May 20, 1980 In
nook 1.49 at Paga 172; alto excepting the conveyance to The Colorado Midland Railway
Copeey recorded November 1, 1886 in Book 8 at Page 184 (affects Lot 4, Sac. 6, t63,
19010; and also excepting the conveyeece to Cunningham Conetru,tion a Development
co. recorded July 10, 1981 in Book 576 at Page 534, as described therein each in5tty-
nent en*m,er:ated .bova.
TOTAL P.03•
• •
Exhibit C
Real Property
of
Jill C. McKennis a/k/a Jill C. Williams
All the real property and rights described in the document recorded in Book 491, Page
791 of the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office, except those portions previously
conveyed prior to the date of this agreement (May 24, 1991). This property is also described
in the Garfield County Assessor's Office in Parcels Nos. 013208, 013201 and 030072.
Prepared and submitted by Greg McKennis on May 23, 1991.
9Ai
• •STATE OF COLORADO
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 866-3567
FAX: 303 832-8106
May 15, 1991
W.(
MAY 221991
� �k
GP* it1-GUUKCIV
MAY 2 0
COUNT' cf,,
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
109 8th Street - Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Re: Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine (C-84-065), Permit Renewal
Dear Board of Commissioners:
Roy Romer,
Governor
Fred R. Banta,
Division Director
Please be advised that the notification letter from the Colorado Mined Land
Reclamation Division to your office. dated April 16, 1991 concerning the
permit renewal for Coal Ridge No. 1, included errors in the accompanying legal
description of the permit area. The correct legal description is as follows;
T6S, R91W, Section 1: Those lands in the NE/4 yet south of County Road
335, lots 3 and 4, S/2, S/2 NW/4.
T6S, R9OW, Section 6: All lands south of County Road 335.
T6S, R9OW, Section 5: All lands in S/2 SW/4.
T6S, R9OW, Section 8: All lands in N/2, N/2 SE/4, and NE/4 SW/4.
T6S, R9OW, Section 9: All lands in S/2 NW/4, and SW/4.
T6S, R9OW, Section 15: All lands in NW/4,
T6S, R9OW, Section 7: All lands in NE/4 and N/2 NW/4.
T6S, R91W, Section 12: All lands in N/2 NE/4.
T6S, R9OW, Section 16: All lands in N/2 NE/4, NE/4 NW/4 being
2,525 acres more or less.
• •
Coal Ridge No. 1, Permit Renewal -2- May 15. 1991
The above-mentioned tracts of land are shown on USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle map
of Storm King Mountain. A copy of the application is available for public
inspection at the Garfield County Courthouse. 109 8th Street. Suite 200,
Glenwood Springs. Colorado. Written comments, objections or requests for an
informal conference on the application may be submitted to, and additional
information obtained from Mined Land Reclamation Division, Room 215.
1313 Sherman Street. Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-3567. Written
comments, objections or requests for an informal conference must be filed at
the Division by 5:00 p.m., within thirty days after the last public notice in
the local newspaper.
Sincerely.
William B. Crick
Reclamation Specialist
WBC/ern
CC: Jim Stevens, MLRD
5548F
kr)
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 866-3567
FAX 303 832-8106
•
STATE OF COLORADO
rd) Fid[95?5-7),
MAY 2 2 1991
May 16, 1991 UL`
Ca th1 .tu ti,c)0+v1Y
Garfield County Commissioners
109 8th Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear County Commissioners:
2 P
MY 1;11
Roy Romer,
Governor
Fred R. Banta,
Division Director
Pursuant to Title 34, Article 35, Paragraph 3, of the Colorado Revised
Statutes, the Mined Land Reclamation Division hereby issues notice that on May
16, 1991, a technical revision application for a permit to conduct coal mining
operations, File No. C-84-065 (TR - 07), by New Castle Energy Corporation,
7476 E. Arkansas Avenue - #104, Denver, CO 80237, was deemed complete for the
purposes of filing. All reviews and comment periods as provided in the Act
and Regulations promulgated thereunder initiate from this day of filing.
The applicant proposes to revise underground coal mining operations in Section
6, Township 6 South, Range 90 West. The revision proposes to add a small
strip of land, located between County Road 335 and the Colorado River, to the
permit area. The revision also incorporates a pre-existing water supply
pipeline into the permit area.
The above-mentioned tracts of land are shown on USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle map
of Storm King Mountain. A copy of the technical revision application is
available for public inspection at the Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th
Street, Suite 200, Glenwood Springs, CO. Written comments may be submitted
and additional information may be obtained from the Mined Land Reclamation
Division, Room 215, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303)
866-3567.
Sincerely,
William B. Crick
Reclamation Specialist
1986G
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 866-3567
FAX: 303 832-8106
May 15, 1991
° -7.2P-ritg.
MAY 201991
Gritir SLLu Luui'. TY
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: New Castle Energy Corporation
Technical Revision #6, Permit Revision #2
(File C-84-065)
Dear Mr, Bean:
Roy Romer,
Governor
Fred R. Banta,
Division Director
On December 21, 1990 New Castle Energy Corporation filed a Technical Revision
to the approved permit. This revision proposed to incorporate a water supply
pipeline into the permit area. The pipeline crossed through a culvert under a
county road. As the pipeline crossed under the county road, it intersected
the road right -of --way:
On February 26, 1991 New Castle Energy Corporation filed a Permit Revision to
the approved permit. This revision proposed to incorporate a loadout facility
into the permit area. The boundary of the loadout area may come to within 100
feet of a county road right -of --way.
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iv)(b), the Division published notice
of a proposed public hearing to be held in the vicinity of the operation. The
purpose of the hearing was to obtain information from the public pertaining to
potential impacts to the public and affected landowners given that the revised
permit areas, as proposed, would come to within 100 feet of each road
right -of --way. On April 18, 1991 the Division held the hearing as provided for
in Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iv)(C). Public input was solicited from and provided by
the public.
Rule 2.07,6(2)(d)(iv)(D) requires that the Division make a written finding
based upon information received at the public hearing. The finding must
specify whether or not the interests of the public and affected landowners
will be protected.
No information was submitted at the public hearing which demonstrated that the
interests of the public or of affected landowners would be adversely
affected. Therefore, the Division makes the finding that the interests of the
public and affected landowners will be protected. This finding is consistent
with the Division's analyses of the revision proposals, conducted
independently of the public hearing.
•
New Castle Energy
2 May 15, 1991
Please contact me if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Steven G. Renner
Coal Program Supervisor
SGR/yj b
cc: Fred Banta
Jim Stevens
David Berry
5594F
May 14, 1991
COM v c.('';;
Arnold Mackley, Chairman
Marion Smith
Buckey Arbaney
GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Commissioners:
It is in extreme frustration that I am writing to you today
about New Castle Energy Corporation (NCEC) now known as New
Castle Investment Group's (NCIG) application for a special
use permit to mine coal east of New Castle. I have attended
nearly all public hearings both County and State and have
done research on my own to find out what kind of impact this
proposed mine would have on my life, both personal and
business. At the past two commissioners meetings to
consider issuing NCIG's permit, NCIG made statements that do
not reflect the actual situation.
They led you to believe that they did not know a public
hearing would be required for their proposed Lacy loadout
permit before it would be issued by MLRD. They neglected to
tell you why this is required. They changed the proposed
loadout in the MLRD permit application after the public
hearing required for their permit. Are they saying they did
not think the public should be allowed to have input
regarding any material changes made to their application?
They led you to believe that this put them in a situation
not anticipated by you when you issued your resolution
requiring all permits to be in place by April 15, 1991 and
therefore should be taken into consideration by you. It is
perfectly clear to me that NCEC/NCIG is in the position they
are in only because they have caused themselves to be in
that position. Your resolution was based on information
presented to you by NCEC/NCIG and Garfield County residents.
Your resolution is for the protection of the citizens of
this county. Asking you to change your resolution in any
way, including extending deadlines is not in the best
interest of the citizens.
Mr. Sturges repeatedly stated that they (NCIG) have taken
this permitting process seriously, they have spent a lot of
money and that this is not a game. Are those reasons to
give NCIG their permit? In my opinion they are playing
games, and it is with my life. I am sure there is not one
single person involved in this process that is 100% happy
with your resolution, including yourselves. That is called
COMPROMISE. I am not here asking you to change your
resolution, I am trying to live with it and make adjustments
• .
to my life as necessary. NCIG should not be asking you to
change your resolution. A brief history of SKM (Storm King
Mines), NCEC and NCIG would show that this is the manner in
which they operate, constantly trying to change what has
been given them to suit their needs without regards to other
effected parties. A good example is their permit
application - it was changed almost on a daily basis,
including changing the controversial Riverbend loadout. I
personally feel these changes were done only to get their
permit approved with the intention of getting the changed
items later.
Mr. Sturges continually brought up their district court
appeal of the time frames in the resolution. Although the
judge denied the appeal, Mr. Sturges continued to try to use
it as if it was valid.
Mr. Sturges asked you to use discretion in enforcing your
resolution. The resolution speaks for itself very clearly,
any "discretion" would be a change and that is not in the
public's best interest. Although he used the word
discretion, he was asking for a change. How much abuse do
we as citizens have to take from NCIG? It is amazing to me
that Mr. Sturges and NCIG would ask you to do something as
illegal as change your resolution.
Mr. Sturges mentioned potential jobs to this county. We
cannot depend on any promises made by NCIG based on their
past performance. To bend over backwards for this
organization would not be in the best interests of the
citizens of this county. They should be made to follow the
rules just like anybody else if not more so because of their
past performance.
Mr. Sturges used the word "bizarre" regarding the County's
enforcement of this resolution. I find it bizarre that he
would ask our elected officials to do an illegal act by
changing their resolution.
Mr. Sturges stated that "tolling" was an accepted government
policy. I would like to remind him that the judge denied
his appeal on this item.
Mr. Sturges informed you that the MLRD Board overturned a
staff recomendation on a technical revision, and that that
was unprecedented it was minor and of no significance. Why
does he think it is not OK for MLRD to set a precendence and
in the same breath ask you to set a precedence by changing
your resolution.
Mr. Sturges brought several letters and cases to your
attention trying to persuade you that the time frames you
used in your resolution are oppresive. The resolution was
put together using NCIG's application and other information
• •
presented to them. It was an informed decision, I am sure
that if you wanted a time frame of 3 years versus the 180
days you gave them you would have done so at the time of
your decision.
I sincerely hope that you will stand by your resolution. A
lot of time and effort was put into the application and
public hearings by, both the applicant and the public before
you carefully made your decision. The resolution is to
protect the publics interest, any change would not be in the
public's best interests.
Sincerely,
ClAtj
Diane R. Boat
0064 Pinon Run
New Castle, Colorado 81647
P.O. BOX 101
Glenwood Springs,
Coloiado 81602-0101
May 10, 1991
• DAVID R. STURGES IP
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Commissioners:
Telephone (303) 945-5748
RE: Resolution No. 90-083
NCIG Financial, Inc.
Following your public meeting on April 29th, 1991, it appeared that our letter of April
12, 1991, needed some clarification as to our requested changes, particularly as to Condition
No. 2.0. Please accept this letter as our clarification of the changes we are requesting in
Resolution No. 90-083.
Based on your action on April 29th, 1991, it is apparent that our requested language
change for Condition No. 2.0. requires some further consideration. Because of the past delays
in getting some of these permits, due to substantial efforts to block or appeal the issuance of
such permits, we believe that the 180 day "compliance period" should be replaced by a three
year compliance period from the time of the resolution's approval.
In order to facilitate the review of our request we have retyped the conditions of approval from
Resolution 90-083 indicating additions in bold type and deletions by strikeout. It is understood
that the Board may wish to modify the proposed language and we look forward to discussing this
with the Board.
The request as proposed now reads as follows:
2 G. Landscaping shall be sufficient to mitigate the impact produced by site disturbance and
the construction of mine facilities. All landscaping shall be adaptable to soil and climatic
conditions, able to withstand disease and pests common to this area. Trees shall have an
average caliper of two and one-half inches (2 1/2") measured one foot (1') from ground
level. No tree shall be less than two inches (2") in caliper. No conifer shall be less than
six ft. (6') in height. All planted areas shall have a working irrigation system that has
Page 1 of 3
sufficient quantities of water available to maintain the plant materials. Any tree that dies
shall be replaced as soon as practical depending on the season of the year, but in any
case within six (6) months, by a tree of the same size and type.
Further, that no later than May 1, 1991, the applicant shall initiate the planting of trees
July 31, 1991.
The applicant shall initiate the planting of trees along the eastern and northern
periphery of the site as the first phase of the landscaping. All such "first phase"
plantings shall be completed within six (6) months of commencement of any on-site
construction activities. Remaining landscaping specified in the landscaping plan
submitted with the application shall be completed within six (6) months of
completion of on-site construction activities.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 84-261, the Board reserves the right to require an increase
in the number of trees by a factor of 200%, the type and size of trees planted, if it is
deemed by the Board that the landscaping planted is inadequate to mitigate the impact of
the mining operation.
Prior to the issuance of any special use permit, the Board will require security to
guarantee the completion and maintenance of all landscaping in the amount of Twenty -
Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for the life of the permit.
2. H. The applicant shall rebuild County Road 335 by the addition of a minimum of two (2)
inches of 3/4" base material and four (4) inches of asphaltic pavement from the entrance
of the mine to intersection with the I-70 Interchange. The road improvements shall result
in a 24 ft. (24') wide driving surface, with a 6 ft. (6') wide, two inch (2") thick asphaltic
surfaced shoulders with ditches 3 ft (3') wide and 1 ft. deep; and a 150 ft. long and 10
ft. wide (150' X 10') paved deceleration lane at the entrance to the mine site. The
asphaltic surface from the mine site entrance to the intersection of County Road 335 and
I-70 Interchange shall be striped in a manner to delineate driving lanes and shoulders.
The remainder of County Road 335 will be chip and sealed to the first intersection within
the Riverbend Subdivision. The road construction shall comply with the additional
recommendations of the Road and Bridge Supervisor as noted in his recommendations
to the Board and the guard rail recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis labeled
Exhibit C-2 at the public hearing.
All on-site roads to and including the parking lot, the coal truck loading facility and
administration/processing facilities shall be paved within one (1) year of the
commencement of on-site construction activities. All other internal roads and lay
down areas shall be treated with a dust retardant on an as needed basis to be determined
by the Board.
Page 2 of 3
That The applicant be -required -to shall complete all off-site road improvements by June
• , prior to commencement
of mining activities with the exception of that portion of County Road 335 between
the entrance to the mine site and Riverbend Subdivision which shall be chip and
sealed, as specified above, prior to commencement of on-site construction activities.
Prior to issuance of any special use permits, the applicant shall provide Garfield
County with security in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00)
to guarantee the completion of the off-site road improvements. Such security shall be in
a form acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners and may include a bond, letter
of credit or cash. Additionally, based upon the representations of the applicant at the
public hearing, Garfield County, at its election, may require that such security be
received from financially secure third parties unrelated to this applicant.
2. 0. The applicant shall have 180 dam three (3) years from the approval of this resolution
to comply with all conditions of approval for initiating mine activity. Further, the
applicant shall have 120 days from the issuance of any special use permit to initiate
• ' = ' = - - The applicant shall initiate construction activities
or establish a land use authorized by Resolution No. 90-083 and the issuance of a
special use permit within 120 days of issuance of the special use permit for the
specific land use. The County, at its sole discretion, may issue separate special use
permits for each land use or may elect to issue a single special use permit for all of
the uses authorized by Resolution No. 90-083.
.. •
• .
If you have any questions or require additional information, do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely yours,
CVL
David R. Sturge
Page 3 of 3
TO:
FROM: DON K. DEFORD, COUNTY ATTORNEY
RE: NCIG PERMIT REQUEST - EXTENSIONS OF 'TIME
DATE: May 2, 1991
• •
MEMO
MARK BEAN, DIRECTOR OF REGULATORY OFFICES
MAY 2 1991
Jtjj
Ciew; iLLiL LLIUI TY
In order to provide direction for future County actions, I feel it
is important to reduce to writing the opinion rendered on the 29th
day of April, 1991 concerning the ability of the Board to extend
a time limit established by Resolution No. 90-93.
Prior to consideration of the NCIG request, the practice of the
Board of County Commissioners has been to deny all requests for
extensions of Board established time limits unless such extensions
could be accomplished within the original time period. I believe
this policy has been followed pursuant to both your recommendations
and my own. Within the matters presented by NCIG, the question has
arisen as to whether or not this practice is one to which the Board
of County Commissioners is bound. As set forth below, after
extensive consideration of that request, I believe that there are
instances in which the Board is bound to deny requests for
extensions and others in which they have discretion to apply or not
apply their previous practice.
In regard to the foregoing, it was my position that where the Board
has established a time certain during which a land use activity
will be permitted and such time frame is self-executing, such time
frame may not be extended after its expiration. Specifically, this
would apply to permits, plats, and other activities permitted for
a specific period of time after which, by the terms of the permit,
such activities are no longer permitted without further approval
of the Board. Permission for those activities expires on the last
date of permission and, therefore, cannot be renewed after that
date, as there is simply nothing to renew.
In distinction to those types of permitted activities are time
frames for compliance established by resolution. In those
instances, so long as the resolution itself remains valid and
unrepealed, there is no activity whose lawful undertaking expires
on a date certain. Additionally, unless the time frames are self-
executing and stated to be jurisdictional, they may be amended so
long as the resolution remains in effect. However, it is still my
recommendation that those time frames be adhered to rigidly in
order that we not become involved with situations where an extreme
amount of time is allowed to pass before renewal is requested. It
is my recommendation that all time frames be treated equally,
although the Board is allowed to make exceptions in the latter
cases.
• •
It is the latter case that was involved in Resolution No. 90-83.
In that instance, the resolution remained valid and was unrepeaied.
The time frame set forth in the resolution was not by its terms
self-executing, and therefore a bar to issuance of a permit after
the 180 day time period. No permit had been issued under that
resolution, and, therefore, no permitted land use was made unlawful
after that time period. It was, therefore, my opinion that if the
Board found grounds for an exception to their general practice in
this case, they were legally permitted to amend the existing
resolution.
In the above -noted case, the Board found that existing litigation,
as well as alterations accomplished by Mine Land Reclamation
Division in the applications submitted to that division
substantially altered the nature of the application which they were
consideration as of October, 1990. Therefore, they felt it would
be appropriate to consider amendments to the resolution that would
alter the various time frames set forth in Resolution No. 90-83.
They specifically did not grant a request for extension of time,
but merely granted a request to consider such alterations.
I believe the foregoing summarizes the position I stated to the
Board of County Commissioners at the public meeting wherein they
considered issuance of a permit to NCIG.
DKD:mis
/ SCH R GORDON MEYER INC
April 25, 1991
Mr. Rushton 0. Backer
NCIG Financial, Inc.
7476 East Arkansas Avenue, Unit 4
Denver, CO 80231
•
/tt,)aut%.
N t�P1
�i��i CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6727
Fax (303) 945-5948
RE: Construction Schedule for County Road 335
Dear Mr. Backer:
Please find enclosed a proposed construction schedule for County Road 335. The enclosed
schedule indicates a 20 -week schedule from beginning of engineering to final acceptance by
the County.
To date, approximately 65% of the final engineering drawings are complete. It will take us
approximately three weeks to finalize drawings ready for construction level drawings.
We have riot allowed for any bad weather days. In addition, several of the items on the
schedule are a function of third party time, including county review, right-of-way acquisition
and utility relocation which may require additional time. Therefore, I would suggest a 24 -
week or six month schedule is appropriate for this project.
If we can provide any additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Louis Meyer, P.E.
LM:Ic/90158
Enclosure
•
—+—+—+-4—+-4-4-4— t—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+ Z +—+
N
O
Co
V
P
u1
t
0
'O
Co
V
a
W
A W N -•
o -4
m
x
33NV1d333V 1VNIHI
c
r
N
-1
N
(INV NO11V1I93A3H1
— +—+—
r
N
V
L7
Sf10NIWf1118 lOH j
v
m
m
m
C
70a_
✓
CO
m
v
m
.Q
diad 30VH9811S
n
730
A
0
z
n
m
S33NVN I 1MlddV
m
O
a
C
0,
— + — 4 —m
+ —
c)) z m <
z m
z
D CO
o -4 o
z en m
cn
--I 0 CO
A
C G
n
-y
0
NOW/3013H Alllllfli
NOIlISIf1b3V N011l
— +— +—
n n z
Z 0)
m
70 < -.
< m z
C c)
m
0
m
+— +—
-- + —
— +— +— +— +—
r X r
X
X
r , X r , N,
X
— +— +— +— +— +— +— t— +— +— +— +— +— .!'--.1—.1'71.7.< +— +— + X +— +— +
r r , , X X ' ' , X r , W ,
, X X X ,
— +—+—+—+—t—t—+—t--t—+—t—t—t.-.1“-.1.7
—t-4 X} X t X} X+ -4-f-+
,Xr X, Xr Xr .,
, X' X r X, X a, ,
IX
' X i X , , , : v) r
xrxx'
io
, X, X r X r ' U'
X X ' X ' '
- 4- 4- 4-+- +-+-+-+-+- 4-- 4-4- 4-- t- 4.* +- 4-+-+-+-+-+
I X,
, X ' r . r , V ,
— +— +— 4— +— +— +— +— +— +— +— +— 4 —. 4 -- 4 --.• + — 4 — 4— +— +— +— +— +
,
'X'X; CO
— +— +— 4— +— 4— +— +— +— 4— +— +— +— +— t— +— +— +— +— 4— +— 4— +
IX , , , , , r , X NO ,
X
+— +— +— 4— +— +— +— +— 4— +— +— +— +— +— +— +— 4— +— + C
r , r X r r ..-• ,
X o m
Xx
— 4
— +—
,<, X r , , r r r r , 1 N,
X X
— +— +-- +— +— +— +— +— 4— +— +— 4— +— +— 4— +— +— +— +— +— +— +— +
, X , W ,
.X
X , r , , , , , ,
— +— +— +— 4— +— +— +— +— +— +— +— +— +— 4— 4— +— +— 4— +— +— +-- +
I X r 1 -7
rX r , , r r r
X , , r , r , i r
— +— 4— 4— +— +— 4— 4— t— 4— +— 4— 4— +— t— +— +— +— +— 4— 4— 4— +
1 r r ;-
I r i , r r , X, X r
i r r X, X r
I X' X r r
-+-+-4-4-+-+-+-4—+-4—+—+-4-- 4—+-4-4—t-4—+—+—+
1 X , OS ,
X 1
4+--4-+--4JC+-4—+—+--+—+—+--4—+—+—+--4--t--+-4--+—+
I X 1 r i V i
X
I , r r , r
X CO
X ' X , X '
X X X
X X X
— +-- +— +-4-4—+— 4—+—+—+—+-- t—+—+—+—+— t—+—+-4— +-
X
- +— + — + — 4 — +
'O
4- 4-- f-+-+- f-+-+-+-+-+- t- t
I (NJ +
O ,
ovn
C o z
111 r- V)
.'O m -4
n 73
C
n
G) -1 0
rz
m
n
n
=
go
Z C
-4 r-
-< -<
0
O
W
tr
n
0
N
1
C
n
0
• •
REVIEW OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-083
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared for:
NCIG
April 29, 1991
• •
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to review Garfield County Resolution No. 90-083 and compare
the conditions of the resolution to past practices of the County. Resolution 90-083 contains
ambiguous language and is internally inconsistent. The question of inconsistency will be
addressed in the course of the report utilizing tests of past practices and the logical patterns
of development of industrial operations in Garfield County. In other words, lacking specific
statements from the Board of County Commissioners, an attempt will be made to discern
if a fundamental policy shift has occurred that has altered the traditional permitting
approach of the County.
The report is divided into five major sections. The first four sections: Preamble; Findings;
Conditions of Approval; and Permits From Other Agencies; parallel the structure of
Resolution 90-083. The final section is a Summary of the report.
RESOLUTION PREAMBLE
The first two paragraphs set the stage for subsequent sections of the Resolution. The
paragraphs read as follows (emphasis added).
"WHEREAS, an application has been submitted by New Castle Energy
Company for special use permits for the purpose of constructing and
operating a coal mine and associated facilities and a coal loadout facility in
substantial compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978,
as amended, and under authority granted under Section 30-28-101, et seq.,
C.R.S. 1973, as amended on property fully described in ATTACHMENT A
to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing
as required by the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, on September 17,
1990 and continued said public hearing to October 1, 1990, in the Garfield
County Courthouse, Commissioner's Meeting Room, regarding the question
of whether special use permit applications should be granted, and, if granted,
whether any conditions should be imposed on such special use permits, and,
during the public hearing received extensive testimony and other evidence
from the applicant and interested parties."
This section of the Resolution clearly anticipated the possibility of the issuance of multiple
permits for the project. The first paragraph identifies at least two specific land uses (the
coal mine and related facilities and a coal loadout) that might be issued separate permits.
This distinction is reinforced by the separate neighborhood definitions for the principal land
uses which will be further noted below.
1
• •
It is logical for the Board of County Commissioners to anticipate the issuance of multiple
permits for the project since such phased permitting is typical of mine development which
is usually phased and also because the County often issues separate permits for such
industrial land uses.
Past resolutions of the County were reviewed to determine if the concept of multiple
permits has been a County practice for extractive operations. County resolutions and
permitting actions support the conclusion that the County typically has authorized the
issuance of numerous permits for industrial operations although the mechanical details have
evolved over time.
For example, the Colony Project and the Union Oil Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program
(the 10,000 barrel per day operation often referred to as Phase I) were issued numerous
special and conditional use permits. Resolution 78-130, which addressed the application of
Union Oil Company, was used as the basis for the issuance of several conditional and
special use permits for the construction of the Unocal oil shale project.
Resolution 85-01 addressed the application Of Union Oil Company for Phase II of the
Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program. Resolution 85-01 authorized the issuance of twelve
separate special and conditional use permits encompassing literally hundreds of land uses
which were itemized in the resolution. It is significant to note that the actual Phase II
extractive operations and associated facilities were covered under a single conditional use
permit and transport (e.g. roads, pipelines) were included in other permits authorized by the
resolution. The concept is basically the same as that of Resolution 90-083 which indicated
that permits may be issued for "a coal mine and associated facilities and a coal loadout
facility".
Another instance of multiple permits for multiple land uses is Resolution 90-032 A
RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE REISSUANCE OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR
ALBERT FREI AND SONS, INC., in which the Board authorized issuance of permits for
an asphalt batch plant, a concrete batch plant, a casting plant and a casting storage area.
The Board had previously issued separate resolutions and permits for the Frei uses. The
reason for the separate resolutions is not clear although the concept of multiple permits for
what is essentially a unified operation does allow an applicant to permit only those uses that
are needed at a given time and also allows the County to phase the development approvals.
RESOLUTION FINDINGS
The Findings in the resolution also support the concept of multiple project permits. Finding
G. specifically refers to multiple permits. Finding G reads as follows (emphasis added).
"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
2
• •
special use permits and, further, the Board has determined that, except as
otherwise noted herein, the affected neighborhood is that area of Garfield
County, Colorado, consisting of properties within one (1) mile of the proposed
coal mine site of the applicant, and one-half (1/2) mile of the proposed coal
loadout facility."
The Board made the distinction between the mine and the loadout. The next finding, H.,
refers to the special use permit in contrast to the preceding finding and the preamble of the
resolution.
RESOLUTION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Resolution 90-083 contains seventeen conditions of approval. Unfortunately, the conditions
of approval are not consistent in terms of reference to single or multiple permits authorized
by the resolution. Condition B refers to both "The permit" and "all land use permits" as well
as "a new special permit application" (in the event that mining activity ceases for more than
one year).
Condition C refers to "The only loadout approved by this application...". It is presumed that
the correct wording should indicate "approved by this resolution". It appears that such
scrivener's errors may have occurred in other parts of the resolution.
Condition G, which deals with the landscaping requirements, states that 'Prior to the
issuance of any special use permit, the Board will require security...". If the Board had
envisioned the issuance of a single permit it is most likely that the phrase would have been
" Prior to issuance of the special use permit,...". Condition H, addressing road impacts, and
Condition J, regarding other state and federal permits, also include the same reference to
issuance of "any special use permits". The distinction between "any special use permits" and
"the special use permit" is significant since the preamble clearly anticipated the issuance of
multiple permits. It is only in Condition B that the concept of a single land use permit is
introduced. Other findings and conditions refer to multiple permits either explicitly or
implicitly.
PERMITS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
The preponderance of references from Resolution 90-083 cited above indicate that the
Board anticipated that the applicant may request the issuance of more than one special use
permit for the land uses authorized by Resolution 90-083. In fact, the applicant has
requested that the Board of County Commissioners issue a permit only for a coal mine and
associated facilities.
The applicant has not requested the issuance of a special use permit for the Lacy loadout
and will only do so when the applicant has determined that the Lacy loadout is necessary
3
• •
for the mining operation and when any permits required from other agencies are acquired
for the Lacy loadout. Once again, this request is not inconsistent with the terms of
Resolution 90-083 or previous county practices.
Much discussion has centered around condition J of Resolution 90-083 which reads:
"That copies of all other permits from other governmental agencies required
for the proposed special uses be submitted to the Planning Department prior
to issuance of any county special use permits. Further that the applicant shall
comply with all State and Federal regulations."
The most restrictive interpretation of condition J is that all permits from other governmental
agencies must be issued for potential land uses identified in the application whether or not
the land use is desired by the applicant. Such an interpretation is illogical for the simple
reason that an applicant would not request permits for land uses that are considered by the
applicant to be either unnecessary or perhaps not required at a specific time. Merely
because an application lists potential land uses which are subsequently authorized by the
Board, it does not follow that a permit will be requested for every land use particularly if
development plans are changed in the normal course of project development. That is the
reason why multiple permits are authorized for a project. The applicant is in the best
position to determine which land uses are essential to the successful development and
operation of a project. A loadout is not necessarily essential to the operation of a coal
mine.
The notion that the requirement of all permits for all facets of the operation as insurance
that the Lacy loadout will not be relocated is a specious argument. Resolution 90-083
specifically authorizes only one loadout, the location of which is defined in the Resolution.
The County has total control over the establishment of the loadout as a land use with or
without other agency approvals. Prior to requesting the Lacy loadout (if desired), the
applicant must acquire all permits from other agencies that may be required for the loadout.
It must be understood, however, that the applicant may or may not ever request a special
use permit for the Lacy loadout. In any event, the applicant must establish a land use within
120 days of issuance of the special use permit. The applicant does not desire to establish
the Lacy loadout at this time nor does the applicant have the permits from other agencies
that must precede issuance of a Garfield County special use permit for the loadout.
The Board acknowledged the practice of issuing multiple land use permits in the very
preamble of Resolution 90-083 as well as in several other provisions of the resolution. It
is not logical to require that all "other agency" permits be issued for land uses that are not
going to be established in the near future, if at all. To that extent, the wording in Condition
J is inconsistent with other provisions of the resolution as previously noted. It has not been
the practice of Garfield County in the past to require issuance of "other agency" permits for
all aspects of a project, but only for those land uses subject to a specific permit.
A very clear example of the concept of appropriate permit acquisition is found in the second
condition of approval for Phase II of the Unocal Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program which
reads as follows (emphasis added).
4
• •
"Prior to issuance of a special or conditional use permit, the applicant must
demonstrate that the permitted use is or will be in conformance with all
provisions imposed by other government regulatory authorities including the
receipt of any required permits."
It is useful to recall that the Phase II Resolution 85-1 authorized issuance of many permits
for a massive industrial operation. Nevertheless, the "other agency" permits were required
only of the specific land use permit being requested. The scale of the oil shale and the
subject coal mine projects may differ, but the permitting process is essentially the same.
The public interest was adequately protected in the Unocal case and will be protected in
all other multiple permitted industrial operations if the same policy prevails.
The question to be resolved is whether the wording in approval condition J of Resolution
90-083 represents a policy shift from past practices or is the result of inadequate attention
to detail as the resolution was drafted. The latter interpretation is most likely considering
the inconsistencies previously addressed, although it is not certain that the restrictive
interpretation noted above is correct or that it represents the Board's intentions concerning
the issuance of multiple permits and the acquisition of other permits. It seems obvious that
the Board anticipated the need to issue more than one permit for the coal mine and for the
loadout and that common sense and past county practices would indicate that only those
"other agency" permits required for a specific special use would need to be acquired by the
applicant.
SUMMARY
• Resolution 90-083 authorized the issuance of multiple County land use permits for
the New Castle Energy project.
• NCIG has requested that the County issue a special use permit for the coal mine and
associated facilities and has acquired all of the permits required from other
governmental agencies for the requested land uses.
• Past Garfield County practice has been to require permits from other governmental
agencies only for those land uses to be established by a specific conditional or special
use permit - not for every potential land use authorized by a resolution.
• The restrictive interpretation of condition J is not necessarily consistent with the
other parts of Resolution 90-083 or past County practice. The phrase "all other
permits from other governmental agencies required for the proposed special uses"
from condition J, is most reasonably read in the context of the other parts of the
resolution and past County practices. It may be assumed that "proposed special uses"
means exactly those uses allowed by a specific special use permit.
5
April 25, 1991
SCHMU GORDON MEYER INC. at o
117 CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
Mr. Rushton 0. Backer
NCIG Financial, Inc.
7476 East Arkansas Avenue, Unit 4
Denver, CO 80231
•
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6727
Fax (303) 945-5948
RE: Construction Schedule for County Road 335
Dear Mr. Backer:
Please find enclosed a proposed construction schedule for County Road 335. The enclosed
schedule indicates a 20 -week schedule from beginning of engineering to final acceptance by
the County.
To date, approximately 65% of the final engineering drawings are complete. It will take us
approximately three weeks to finalize drawings ready for construction level drawings.
We have not allowed for any bad weather days. In addition, several of the items on the
schedule are a function of third party time, including county review, right-of-way acquisition
and utility relocation which may require additional time. Therefore, I would suggest a 24 -
week or six month schedule is appropriate for this project.
If we can provide any additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Louis Meyer, P.E.
LM:Ic/90158
Enclosure
•
• •
0
N 1 1 i r 1
O .O • I O i.4• Os - ▪ 1 VI 1 t I W I N▪ . 1 0 1 , . V 1 P 1 1 1 lil 1 N '; 1
T—
-n
C
C
z z
a n
r x
33NV1d333V
SW31I 1511
O
1
1N3W3AVd Sf10NIWfll18
0
v
XI
C
COCCI
N
m
72
m
v
— + — + — + — + — + — t — + — + — + — t — + — + — + — + — +
N m 0 C) W n 0 a C .� C7 Z m L
C a a r m 0 "0 O y p m z 0
W 7o M m 0 Z rn p
< C .W-. 70
GI -a a -4 z m r
» =� z 70 z a -I a -zi z x
m 700 m Z O 1 o N j 0 70 < a T
'V 7S a 0 N a CO m m CO < m z ;
IT
"Cl C c S o 0 -4 - III
G7
70 W C) Z N a 0
-4 -4 -1 Z
Y 0 0
n
m
N
O
t-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 X 1
1 1 1 1 1 x 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ X 4-
x 7C
-4 -+— 4.--.+ — +-4--.4 -+-.+ -+-4 -+-+--+ — +— +-4.4 -+ x +-
X .
l X
, 1 X 1
-+-+-+-+-t-+-+-t-+-4-t-4-t-4-+-+-+-+-+-+-
' X$ XIXIX
I1
i X X. X X
. X 1 X 1 X 1
X 1 X 1 X
IN
VI
- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-t-t-+-42142-(42-.C4 -+-+-+-. I1+
- +-+-+-4-+-+-4-+-4-+-4-+-+- +x +x+xt-+-+-t-+-+
i . 1 X
$ X. I I iV
—+—+—+—+—+—+—+--41.-..4—+—+--41.-....+--+-4.....t—+—+—+—+—+—+
i $ I I X I X I
— +—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—t—t-4x+x+—+—+—+-4—t—+-4
.X.
I I I , X $ $ $ .O
— +— +— +— +— +— +— +— 4 4
— +— +— — + x +— t— +— 4— +— 4— +— +— +— + c
1 x, i 1 m
X 0 m
— +— +— +— +— 4— +— t— +— +— +— + X +— +— +— 4— +— +— +— +— +— +— + N
X i
—+—+—+-4—+—+—+—+-4—+—t—t—+—t—+—+—t—+—+-4—+—+
X X N
- +-+-t-t-+-+-+-t-+x 4X +-+-+-t-t-+-t-+-+-+-+-+
X W
X
—+ —
+- +—
X 1
X
X
X X
— +—+—+—+—+—+—+ +X
1 X $
X
- X.
X
X
X
t- +-
+- +- +
- +-+-t-+-
+-+-
- t t - t - t - t - + - + +-
+-4 -
+- +- 4
P
+- t -
-4-+-t-+-
t -+-
V
-+-t-+-+-+-
X.
t
- +-
+- t-
co
-t-+-+-4-+-t-+-t-+-t-+-+-t-t-+-t-4-t-+-+-+-+
X 10
X
- + YC t X 4.- +- t- t- +- t- +- t- +- +-- t- t- t- +- t- t- +- +- +- +
x , x . x N
X X X 0
-+-+-+-+-t-+-+-+-t-+-+-+-+-+-t-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
.41 z 0
Z O Z
m c-
72 m ti
-4a
Z C)
C) --1 -i
O r z
m
y
per_
C
m
C
- r-
- , m
70
0
0
w
v,
C)
0
N
a
C
0
,V* \,),1\*Id/j\
STATE OF COLORADO
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 866-3567
FAX: 303 832-8106
, rr-,i,-- r_r_r_-_, _7.......,,r)
.... ..
tI,_11-,,,,
MI n
i� I E 2 I d d l
Apri 1 16, 1991 (idfWFU)
COUNTY t;ti;;SiONERS
Roy Romer,
Governor
Fred R. Banta,
Division Director
Garfield County Board of Commissioners
109 8th Street - Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Garfield County Commissioners:
Pursuant to Title 33, Article 34, Paragraph 3, of the Colorado Revised
Statutes, the Mined Land Reclamation Division hereby issues notice that on
April 15,1991, an application for renewal of a valid, existing permit to
conduct coal mining operations, Permit No. C-84-065, by New Castle Energy
Corporation, 7476 E. Arkansas Avenue - #104, Denver, CO 80237, was deemed
complete for the purposes of filing. All reviews and comment periods as
provided in the Act and Regulations promulgated thereunder initiate from this
day of filing.
The applicant proposes to continue conducting underground coal mining
operations on
T6S, R91W, Section 1: Those lands in the NE/4 yet south of County Road
335, lots 3 and 4, S/2, S/2 NW/4.
T6S, R90W, Section 6: All lands south of County Road 335 and a strip
of land (25 feet wide by appr. 400 feet long)
which extends north from the county road to the
Colorado River, just eat of the mine entrance
road.
T6S, R90W, Section 5: All lands in S/2 SW/4.
T6S, R90W, Section 8: All lands in N/2, N/2 SE/4, and NE/4 SW/4.
T6S, R90W, Section 9: All lands in S/2, NW/4 and SW/4.
T6S, R90W, Section 15: All lands in NW/4.
T6S, R90W, Section 7: All lands in NW/4 and N/2 NW/4.
T6S, R91W, Section 12: All lands in N/2 NE/4, NE/4 NW/4.
T6S, R90W, Section 16: All lands in N/2 NE/4, NE/4 NW/4.
being 2,525 acres more or less.
• •
Garfield County Board -2- April 17, 1991
The above-mentioned tracts of land are shown on USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle map
of Storm King Mountain. A copy of the application is available for public
inspection at the Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street - Suite 200,
Glenwood Springs, CO. Written comments, objections or requests for an
informal conference on the application may be submitted to, and additional
information obtained from. the Mined Land Reclamation Division, Room 215, 1313
Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-3567. Written comments,
objections or requests for an informal conference must be filed at the
Division by 5:00 p.m., within thirty days after the last public notice in the
local newspaper.
Sincerely,
e Lz4
William B. Crick
Reclamation Specialist
1723G
• DAVID R. STURGES •
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 101
Glenwood Springs,
Colorado 81602-0101
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Commissioners:
lblephone (303) 945-5748
April 15,1991
RE: Resolution No. 90-083
New Castle Energy Corporation
and NCIG Financial, Inc.
As you consider NCEC/NCIG's request to issue a special use permit for the Coal Ridge
No. 1 mine's reopening, you will have to consider the meaning of Special Condition 2.J. of
Resolution No. 90-083. The particular section which is found in most if not all permits issued
by the County provides as follows:
J. That copies of all other permits from other governmental agencies required for
the proposed special uses be submitted to the Planning Department prior to
issuance of any county special use permits. Further that the applicant shall
comply with all State and Federal regulations.
We have submitted to Mark Bean copies of all other permits from agencies who have
determined for themselves what permits are required from their agencies for the proposed uses.
There is no permit that has been yet issued by the MLRD for the Lacy loadout. We are aware
from reviewing Ed Sands letter dated March 18, 1991 to Don DeFord that Mr. Sands' clients
believe that the County's special use permit should not be issued "until all necessary permits
from the MLRD have been obtained by NCEC and submitted to the Planning Department". We
understand that GCA believes that the MLRD permit for the Lacy loadout is a "necessary permit
from the MLRD". The MLRD and the MLR Board have each considered this issue previously
as raised by the GCA. See page 30 of the MLRD proposed decision of October 19, 1990 where
the MLRD specifically finds "that a mine can be permitted without a loadout". This issue was
specifically appealed by the GCA and the MLR Board affirmed this finding by the MLRD. See
fording #3 on page 1 of the MLR Board's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, And Order
issued by the MLR Board on December 18, 1990. Thus, we submit that the MLRD and the
MLR Board have spoken to this very issue of what permitted uses are necessary in order to have
a mining and reclamation permit issued.
The County has never in my knowledge required an applicant to demonstrate that it has
1
• •
obtained all permits which might be needed over the life of the project, but only those "other
agency" permits that are required to establish a land use authorized by a specific special use
permit. Additionally, it is our understanding that the County has issued multiple and sequential
permits for various uses that were authorized under one resolution. Based on this understanding,
we have not requested a special use permit for the Lacy loadout at this time and will only do so
when the MLRD permit has been issued and the Lacy loadout is necessary for our mining
operation.
There are real and legitimate questions and issues which need to be addressed in the
public permitting process. We have tried to respond to those questions and issues as they have
arisen. We have tried to accord our opponents with due process while pursuing our permitting
goals. We have reviewed the transcripts of the public hearings and can find no support for the
meaning and interpretation that the GCA urges upon you at this time.
Sincerely yours,
David R. Sturg
2
• •
DAVID R. STURGES
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 101
Glenwood Springs,
Colorado 81602-0101
Mr. Mark Bean
Planning Department
Garfield County
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
Dear Mark,
Dtj'el ti'.t �fV�' :Zvi F
APR 12 1991 j
`.kjj
Emil-ILLD COUNTY
Telephone (303) 945-5748
April 12, 1991
RE: Resolution No. 90-083
New Castle Energy Corporation
and NCIG Financial, Inc.
As a follow up to my letter to you dated April 8th, 1991, I am submitting this letter and
the following attachments to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of approval set forth
in Resolution No. 90-083 for the issuance of the approved special use permit. The documents
submitted are described as follows:
1. Landscaping and Road Improvements Agreement which covers the two bonds
required in Conditions 2.G. and 2.H of this resolution. I have tried to draw up this agreement
along the lines of past agreements which the County has accepted. I hope, with the County's
concurrence in the form of this agreement, to be able to present the actual bonds to the County
at its consideration of our request on Monday, April 15th.
2. Copies of all other permits from other governmental agencies required for the
special uses requested. Specifically, these permits are the following:
a. CMLRD Permit C-84-065, issued on October 19, 1990 and affirmed by
the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board on December 18, 1990.
As this CMLRD permit does not authorize the use of the Lacy loadout and
because this Lacy loadout is currently the subject of a pending permit
revision with the CMLRD, this special use permit being requested
does not need to cover the Lacy loadout. Once the CMLRD issues
a permit revision which covers the Lacy loadout, we will ask the County
to issue a subsequent special use permit for this loadout site which was
fully considered and approved in Resolution 90-083.
b. CDH Air Emission Permits 84GA323F (1, 3-12) and 85GA335 (1-
3) which were approved for extension on May 8, 1990.
•
c. CDH NPDES Permit No, COG -850005 (formerly CO -0040894) issued on
July 24, 1989.
3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Laws, and Order Authorizing and Approving
Sale of All The Estate's Assets to NCIG Financial, Inc. Pursuant to Section
363(b) and (f) and For The Assumption and Assignment of Certain Unexpired
Leases Pursuant to Section 365 issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court (
Judge Donald E. Cordova) on March 29, 1991.
This court order, which orders that the sale of the these assets to NCIG Financial,
Inc. to be free and clear of all liens, claims, and encumbrances, requires the
Interim Trustee to consumate the sale. The closing is currently scheduled for
Monday, April 15th. I have tried to get this closing resheduled to an earlier date,
but have been advised that it cannot occur sooner than this date because of the
number of documents that must be prepared for it and due to some schedule
conflicts between the various parties necessary for the closing. Before actually
issuing this permit, I trust the County would like to review the Bill of Sale
executed in this sale to assure itself that NCIG Financial, Inc. is the legal
successor to NCEC's interest in this special use permit. I will submit this Bill
of Sale and any other documents requested by the County as soon as they are
available following the closing. I have contacted Paul D. Stuber, the Interim
Trustee, to request him to provide me with some written verification that he
authorized me to seek the issuance of this special use permit in the name of NCIG
Financial, Inc. under the authority of this Court order and in anticipation of this
closing.
While we maintain the position that the pendency of litigation against the County
challenging its approval of Resolution No. 90-083 "tolls" the running of the time frames or
specific dates in the this resolution, we take this action to request the issuance of this special use
permit only out of a position of extreme legal caution. To resolve the question of the
appropriateness and legal effect of certain specific dates currently in this resolution, we are
making a separate submission to the Board of County Commissioners to modify the language
of these specific dates to reflect more appropriately the public interest concerns reflected in the
public hearings.
Please contact me as soon as possible with any questions you or Don DeFord may have.
cc: Don DeFord
Rush Backer
Sincerely yours,
2
David R`Sturg-s
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
COLORADO DIVISION OF MINES
Hamlet J. Barry III, Commissioner
Mr. Mark Bean
County Planner
Garfield County
Dear Mr. Bean:
Roy Romer, Governor
This is to inform you that Coal Ridge #1 is entitled to both diesel and
explosives permits. These specific permits are in an inactive status
time. The division will wait for the formal change in ownership
updated permits. Diesel permits are only issued after the
on site, and like motor vehicle registration, is meant for
specific piece of equipment. Explosives
use is formally indicated, and a division
location, and use.
at
before
this
issuing
equipment is brought
a designated,
permits are not issued until their
inspector reviews the site, storage
If you have any questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
J.W. Nugent
G " Chief Inspector
1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203 866-3401
P.O. BOX 101
Glenwood Springs,
Colorado 81602-0101
Mr. Mark Bean APR 8 1991
Planning Department ;
Garfield County GARFIELD COUNTY
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
DAVID R. STURGES
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Dear Mark:
Telephone (303) 945-5748
April 8, 1991
Re: Resolution No. 90-083
New Castle Energy Corporation
As you know, the Board of County Commissioners on October 16, 1990, approved the
above specified resolution which authorized the issuance of a Special Use Permit for the further
development of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. As was discussed in those proceedings, it was then
New Castle Energy Corporation's (NCEC) intention to file for some form of financial
reorganization under the bankruptcy laws in the period following the approval of this resolution.
NCEC did file for reorganization under Chapter 11 in December, 1990. To accomplish its goals
more expeditiously this case was voluntarily converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation in late January,
1991. Shortly after this conversion, NCIG Financial, Inc. (NCIG) submitted an offer to the
interim trustee to purchase the assets of NCEC which included the assets comprising the Coal
Ridge No. 1 Mine. This offer was accepted by the interim trustee, Paul D. Stuber, who filed
the appropriate notices and disclosures and requested the Bankruptcy Court to approve this sale
of NCEC's assets to NCIG. On March 29th, 1991, the Bankruptcy Court signed and entered
its order approving of this sale to NCIG. A formal closing of this sale is being scheduled for
early next week. I have been asked by NCIG to seek in their behalf the issuance of this Special
Use Permit and ask that you treat this letter as NCIG's formal request to issue this permit.
I am currently making copies of the permits mentioned in paragraph 2.J. for your office's
files. I am working with your office and with Don DeFord to finalize the terms of an agreement
that will specify the terms of the performance bonds required and which NCIG intends to submit
in conformance with paragraphs 2.G. and 2.H. for the issuance of this permit. Lastly I am
putting together for your files copies of the documents which demonstrate NCIG's acquisition
of the assets of NCEC. I hope to have these documents (with the exception of the final closing
documents) to your office within a few days. I would ask now, in affirmation of my earlier
requests, that you schedule this matter for any necessary action on the Board's agenda for April
8th and 15th of April.
Please advise me of anything else you think is necessary or helpful for your issuance of
this permit.
Si cerely your
pk\tri
a'dR.S r
P.O. BOX 101
Glenwood Springs,
Colorado a1602 -010t
Garfield County Board of County
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Commissioners!
DAVID It. SPURGES
AY I'ORNEY AT LAW
Commissioners
lt~lephone (303)144g-5748
April 12, 1991
fg_PaTig
4:55 PM.
I APR 12 1991
GARFIELD COUNTY
RE: Resolution No. 90-083
New Castle Energy Corporation
and NCIG Financial, Inc.
Garfield County Resolution No. 90-083 authorized the issuance of special use permits for
the purpose of constructing and operating a coal mine and associated facilities and a coal loadout
facility on property near New Castle, Colorado which has been owned or leased by New Castle
Energy Corporation (NCEC) but now is (or shortly to be) owned or leased by NCIG Financial,
Inc. (NCIG), the successor -in -interest to NCEC's interests. The purpose of this letter is to
request that certain conditions of Garfield County Resolution No. 90-083 be amended to reflect
the principal that the required public and private improvements associated with the development
and operation of the mine are necessitated solely by the construction and operation of the mine
and that without such construction and operation the improvements are not needed.
NCEC and NCIG do not question the appropriateness of the conditions stated in
Resolution No. 90-083, but is concerned that the time deadlines specified in the Resolution are
not closely associated with the practical development of the mine and associated facilities. This
is particularly so in light of the uncertainties surrounding the outcome of the current litigation
involving the Garfield County and State of Colorado approvals of this project.
NCEC and NCIG respectively requests that the Board of County Commissioners
reconsider the conditions of Resolution No. 90-083 that specify time deadlines that are not
reasonably associated with the actual construction and operation of the coal mine and associated
facilities. It is requested that the following relevant conditions of approval be amended to read
as follows. [he numbers reference the section numbers of Resolution No. 90-083]
2.G. Landscaping shall be sufficient to mitigate the impact produced by site disturbance
and construction of mine facilities. All landscaping shall be adaptable to soil and
climatic conditions, able to withstand disease and pests common to this area. Trees shall
have an average caliper of two and one -•half inches (2 1/2") measured one foot (1') from
ground level. No tree shall be less than two inches (2") in caliper. No conifer shall be
less than six ft (6') in height. All planted areas shall have a working irrigation system
that has sufficient quantities of water available to maintain the plant materials. Any tree
that dies shall be replaced as soon as practical depending on the season of the year, but
• •
in any case within six (6) months, by a tree of the same size and type.
The applicant shall initiate the planting of trees along the eastern and northern periphery
of the site as the first phase of the landscaping . All such "first phase" plantings shall
be completed within six (6) months of commencement of any on-site construction
activities. Remaining landscaping specified in the landscaping plan submitted with the
application shall be completed within six (6) months of completion of on-site construction
activities.
Pursuant to Resolution No. 84-261, the Board reserves the right to require an increase
in the number of trees by a factor of 200%, the type and size of trees planted, it is
deemed by the Board that the landscaping planted is inadequate to mitigate the impact of
the mining operation.
Prior to the issuance of any special use permit, the Board will require security to
guarantee the completion and maintenance of all landscaping in the amount of Twenty -
Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for the life of the permits authorized by this resolution.
2.11. The applicant shall rebuild County Road 335 by the addition of a minimum of two (2)
inches of 3/4" base material and four (4) inches of asphaltic pavement from the entrance
of the mine to the intersection with the I-70 Interchange. The road improvements shall
result in a 24 ft (24') wide driving surface, with a 6 ft. (6') wide, two inch (2") thick
asphaltic surfaced shoulders with ditches 3 ft (3') wide and 1 ft. deep; and a 150 ft. long
and 10 ft. wide (150' X 10') paved deceleration lane at the entrance to the mine site.
The asphaltic surface from the mine entrance to the intersection of County Road 335 and
1-70 Interchange shall be striped in a manner to delineate driving lanes and shoulders.
The remainder of County Road 335 will be chip and sealed to the first intersection within
the Riverbend Subdivision. The road construction shall comply with the additional
recommendations of the Road and Bridge Supervisor as noted in his recommendations
to the Board and the guard rail recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis labeled
Exhibit C-2 at the public hearing.
All on-site roads to and including the parking lot, the coal truck loading facility and
administration/processing facilities shall be paved within one (1) year of the
commencement of on-site construction activities. All other internal roads and lay down
areas shall be treated with a dust retardant on an as needed basis to be determined by the
Board.
The applicant shall complete shall complete all off-site road improvements prior to
commencement of mining activities with the exception of that portion of County Road
335 between the entrance to the mine site and the Riverbend Subdivision which shall be
chip and sealed , as specified above, prior to commencement of on-site construction
activities. Prior to issuance of any special use permits, the applicant shall provide
Garfield County with security in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars
2
• •
($500,000.00) to guarantee the completion of the off-site road improvements. Such
security shall be in a form acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners and may
include a bond, letter of credit or cash. Additionally, based upon the representations of
the, applicant at the public hearing, Garfield County, at its election, may require that such
security be received from financially secure third parties unrelated to this applicant.
2.0. The applicant shall have 180 days from the approval of this resolution to comply with
all conditions of approval. The applicant shall initiate construction activities or establish
a land use authorized by Resolution No. 90-083 and the issuance of a special use permit
for the specific land use. The County, at its sole discretion, may issue separate special
use permits for each land use or may elect to issue a single special use permit for all of
the uses authorized by Resolution No. 90-083.
It is understood that the Board will schedule a public hearing to consider the clarifying
amendments requested above. Please advise me of the time and date of the public hearing as
soon as possible in order that public notice requirements can be met. The time constraints of
Resolution No. 90-083 make it imperative that the public hearing be held as soon as possible.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me.
cc: Don DeFord
Mark Bean
Rush Backer
3
Sincerely yours,
David R. Sturges
• •
BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD
STATE OF COLORADO
File No. C-84-065
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
NEW CASTLE ENERGY CORPORATION, PERMIT REVISION NO. 1
THIS MATTER having come before the Mined Land Reclamation
Board ("the Board") on December 13, 1990 for a hearing pursuant
to 534-33-119, C.R.S. (1984), the Board hereby makes the follow-
ing findings for fact and conclusions of law, and enters the fol-
lowing order:
1. On March 9, 1990 New Castle Energy Corporation ("NCEC")
submitted an application for permit revision no. 1 for its mine
located in Garfield County.
2. On March 19, 1990 the Mined Land Reclamation Division
("Division") determined that the application was complete,, and
NCEC caused a notice of the application to be published in a
local newspaper beginning on April 5, 1990. The notice did not
include a description of the precise location and the boundaries
of a proposed load out area as required by 534-33-118(2), C.R.S.
(1984).
3. Section 34-33-119(1), C.R.S. authorizes the Division to
approve of an application in part. Approval of the application
without the Lacy load out does not deprive any person of the
opportunity to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the mining
operation because such impacts must be evaluated prior to the
approval of an application to permit the load out.
4. NCEC is a corporation and is the applicant. NCEC has
not formed a partnership with any other entity to perform surface
coal mining operations under this permit. Accordingly, NCEC is
not required to submit the information specified in 55
34-33-110(2) (d), (e) and (f), 34-33-114(3), and Rules 2.03.4(4)
and 2.03.5(3) for any other person or entity.
5. This application for a permit revision is not made
• •
incomplete by a failure to include a description of an existing
pipeline that extends off of the permit area because NCEC does
not now seek approval of the pipeline. Rather, the construction
of the pipeline constitutes a violation enforceable pursuant to S
24-33-123, C.R.S. (1984). Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(1)(b)(i)(8),
the Board may approve an application notwithstanding a current
violation provided the applicant submits proof, prior to the
issuance of the permit, that the violation is in the process of
being corrected. NCEC has submitted proof that it is in the pro-
cess of correcting the violation by preparing an application for
a technical revision to bring the pipeline within the permit
area.
6. The application provides that mine site roads will be
graveled and sealed. The existence of a conflict between the
special use permit issued by Garfield County and this application
is not a grounds for denial of the application. It is the appli-
cant's duty to comply with both permits and to amend the permits
as required before constructing any facility that will violate an
existing permit term.
7. The current application seeks to revise an existing
permit. This application does not propose new roads not already
approved under the existing permit. Garfield Citizen's Alliance
("GCA") alleges that the application does not include a descrip-
tion of the roads on the site as required by Rule 2.05.3(3)(c).
However, the roads in dispute have already been approved and have
been built according to such approval. The decision approving of
the original permit cannot now be reversed in this proceeding on
a permit revision.
8. The application for a permit revision clarifies that
portion of the existing permit that allows a portion of the
access road to be left in place following reclamation. Such
clarification provides that the only portion of a road that may
be left in place following reclamation is 2800 feet, beginning at
the county road, of the road between the county road and the
eastern edge of the surface facilities area.
9. The performance bond is sufficient to assure the com-
pletion of the reclamation plan in the event of forfeiture. The
cost of reclaiming the pipeline shall be included in the applica-
tion for a technical revision to include the pipeline in the
permit area.
10. The application for the original permit included a map
demonstrating the timing and sequence of the mining operations
over the life of the mine. Such timing and sequence has not been
-2-
materially altered by this permit revision. Accordingly, the
applicant was not required to submit a new map of the anticipated
sequence of mining and reclamation.
11. Rule 2.05.2(2) does not require the applicant to
submit a map and description of each possible future load out
unless the applicant anticipates that a new, separate, five-year
permit will be obtained for such facility. The applicant has not
yet determined the site of a future load out, if any, and does
not anticipate a new, separate, five-year permit for any such
load out.
12. The Division's finding that the reclamation plan is
feasible assumes that 13 inches of topsoil will be available.
The availability of additional topsoil will only enhance recla-
mation.
13. GCA has not been denied the opportunity to submit its
comments. GCA did not submit any written comments to the Divi-
sion following the informal conference, except those comments
that have been submitted as part of this hearing. GCA has had a
full and fair opportunity to present both the Board and the Divi-
sion with its comments.
14. GSA complains that it was not afforded an opportunity
for a site visit. However, such complaint refers to a visit to
the Lacy load out, which is not approved. GSA had an opportunity
to visit the mine site.
15. Stipulations Nos. 16 and 21 are reasonable and are
necessary to ensure that all affected areas will be reclaimed in
a timely manner as required by Rule 4.16.1.
16. The attached Errata Sheet is necessary to make several
editorial changes to the Division's proposed decision.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Division's proposed deci-
sion, as amended by the attached Errata Sheet, is affirmed.
DATED thig 126- day of December, 1990.
FOR THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD
-3-
JAM'S !- COOLEY
Cha
Mined Land Reclama'ion Board
AG Alpha No. NR LR ICABU
AG File No. E9016915.88
• •
List of Stipulations Resulting from this Permit Revision Approval:
STIPULATION N0. 16
IN THE EVENT THAT NEW CASTLE ENERGY CORPORATION'S (NCEC) LAND USE PERMITS
ARE INVALIDATED. NCEC SHALL COMPLETE RECLAMATION OF THE SITE WITHIN SIX
MONTHS OF THE DATE OF INVALIDATION UNLESS THE DIVISION MAKES A WRITTEN
FINDING TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF TEMPORARY CESSATION. THE DIVISION'S
FINDING SHALL BE BASED UPON INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY NCEC TO THE DIVISION
DEMONSTRATING THAT GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO ALLOW FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF
TEMPORARY CESSATION.
STIPULATION N0. 17
FOLLOWING DIVISION INSPECTION OF THE AREA OF WELL OW -4L, THE APPLICANT
SHALL WITHIN 60 DAYS EITHER A) IF THE WELL HAS NOT BEEN LOCATED, SUBMIT A
REPORT IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 4.07.3(3) WHICH DESCRIBES THE
CIRCUMSTANCES BEHIND LOSS OF THE WELL. OR B) RECLAIM THE WELL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH 4.07.3.
STIPULATION N0. 18
THE APPLICATION PROVIDES FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF 16 INCHES OF TOPSOIL.
WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THE PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL RESURVEY ALL
EXISTING TOPSOIL PILES AND DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF TOPSOIL ACTUALLY
AVAILABLE. BASED ON SUCH SURVEY THE RECLAMATION PLAN MAY BE MODIFIED,
BUT SUCH PLAN SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF LESS THAN
13 INCHES OF TOPSOIL.
STIPULATION N0. 19
SPECIES DIVERSITY ON AREAS RECLAIMED TO NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE DEEMED
SUCCESSFUL IF THE PERMITTEE ESTABLISHES AT LEAST FOUR (4) COOL SEASON
GRASSES AND TWO (2) FORBS WITH EACH SPECIES NOT REPRESENTED BY MORE THAN
THREE (3)% RELATIVE COVER OR MORE THAN 40% RELATIVE COVER. COVER TO BE
DETERMINED BY MEASUREMENTS MADE FROM VEGETATIVE COVER DATA ASSEMBLED
DURING SAMPLING FOR MONITORING OR REVEGETAIION SUCCESS DETERMINATIONS.
STIPULATION N0. 20
WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE FINAL APPROVAL DATE OF THIS REVISION, THE
PERMITTEE WILL SUBMIT A DETAILED DESIGN PLAN FOR THE COAL MINE WASTE
DISPOSAL STRUCTURE AS REQUIRED BY RULE 2.05.3(8)(ii). CONSTRUCTION OF
THE STRUCTURE WILL NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE DIVISION HAS APPROVED THE DETAILED
DESIGN, IN WRITING.
STIPULATION NO. 21
IN ORDER TO MONITOR THE VOLUME OF COAL MINE WASTE MATERIAL DISPOSED OF IN
THE APPROVED PILE. THE STRUCTURE WILL BE SURVEYED BY A QUALIFIED
REGISTERED ENGINEER DURING EACH QUARTERLY SITE INSPECTION REQUIRED BY
RULE 4.10.2. THE PERMITTEE WILL SUBMIT A COMPLETE PERMIT REVISION
APPLICATION ADDRESSING ALTERNATIVE COAL MINE WASTE DISPOSAL PLANS BEFORE
THE VOLUME OF MATERIAL IN THE APPROVED PILE EXCEEDS 10,000 CUBIC YARDS.
IF NO ALTERNATIVE WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN IS APPROVED. MINING OPERATIONS WILL
CEASE WHEN THE APPROVED DISPOSAL PILE VOLUME REACHES 15.000 CUBIC YARDS,
ANO THE PERMITTEE WILL INITIATE AND COMPLETE RECLAMATION OF THE ENTIRE
MINE SITE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE CESSATION OF MINING.
STIPULATION NO. 22:
FIGURE 4.2-2 SUBMITTED ONACTOBER 31, 1984 AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
TO SHOW THE TIMING AND SEQUENCE OF MINING, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER INFORMATION IN
ANY WAY RELATING TO THE LIFE OF THE MINE MINING PLAN WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR PURPOSES OF DEMONSTRATING
SUCH TIMING AND SEQUENCE, AND IS INCORPORATED INTO THIS REVISED PERMIT. SUCH
FIGURE 4.2-2 SHALL NOT BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE THE PERMIT AREA`AS REVISED,OR
THE AREA APPROVED FOR DISTURBANCE. THE AREA APPROVED FOR DISTURBANCE AS
REVISED, HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN FIGURE 4.2-3. THE PERMIT AREA AS REVISED, IS
DESCRIBED IN FIGURE 2.1-1.
Errata Sheet
a. page 1, paragraph 1, 1st sentence - rewrite the end of the sentence to
read "... Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine, Permit Revision No. 1."
b. page 4, paragraph 4, 2nd sentence - rewrite to read "Because of the many
unresolved'issues remaining from the originally proposed mining and
reclamation plan ..."
c. page 10, 2nd line from the top - substitute the word "west" for "east" so
that the phrase now reads "... previously proposed load -out site west of
Riverbend subdivision ..."
d. page 10, paragraph 1 under VII, 2nd sentence - delete the phrase "which
owns a portion of the coal to be mined."
e. page 13, paragraph 4, 3rd sentence - rewrite to read "While this refuse
pile is designed to'be placed on a V-shaped low permeability pad with a sump
collection system,'it will be located over unconsolidated colluvial material,
and there is some potential for leaching ..."
f. page 14, paragraph 2, 2nd sentence - delete entire sentence, "The life of
mine areas of these mines are plotted on Figure 3."
g. page 17, Table 3 - substitute "NCEC Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine" for "Storm
King Mines."
h. page 20, paragraph 2, 2nd sentence - rewrite to read "... consume
300 acre feet."
i. page 20, paragraph 2. 3rd sentence - rewrite to read "... flow of
0.42 cfs."
j. page 24, sentence under Section XVI - rewrite to read "The applicant
states that no further surface blasting is to take place at the site."
k. page 25, paragraph 1, 4th sentence - rewrite to read "The Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MRSA) has indicated that they do not consider the
proposed backstowing plan to be approvable."
1. page 27, paragraph 1 under Section XXII, 1st sentence - rewrite to read
"The applicant has performed an investigation to identify renewable resource
lands which could be impacted by subsidence."
m. page 30, 7th item. entitled "NCEC has no permitted load -out,"
2nd sentence - rewrite to read "see Section XIX of this document ..."
n. pages 2 and 21, Stipulation No. 18, is reworded to read:
THE APPLICATION PROVIDES FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF 16 INCHES OF TOPSOIL.
WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THE PERMIT ISSUANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL RESURVEY ALL
EXISTING TOPSOIL PILES AND DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF TOPSOIL ACTUALLY
AVAILABLE. BASED ON SUCH SURVEY THE RECLAMATION PLAN MAY BE MODIFIED,
BUT SUCH PLAN SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF LESS THAN
13 INCHES OF TOPSOIL.
/ern
2022F
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 866-3567
FAX: 303 832-8106
March 8, 1991
Mr. Dennis Stranger
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Mr. Stranger:
STATE OF COLORADO
f rl
MAR 2 0 1991
of �4t
*1876
Roy Romer,
Governor
Fred R. Banta,
Division Director
Pursuant to Title 34, Article 35, Paragraph 3, of the Colorado Revised
Statutes, the Mined Land Reclamation Division hereby issues notice that on
March 8, 1991, an application to revise a permit to conduct coal mining
operations File No. C-84-065 (PR - 0021, by New Castle Energy Corporation,
7476 E. Arkansas Avenue - #104, Denver, CO 802.37, was deemed complete for the
purposes of filing. This revision proposes to incorporate an off-site rail
load -out facility into the permit. All reviews and comment periods as
provided in the Act and Regulations promulgated thereunder initiate from this
day of filing.
The applicant proposes to incorporate a rail load -out facility in the SW1/4
NW1/4 Section 23, Township 6 South, Range 94 West.
The above-mentioned tract of land is shown on the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle
map titled Rifle. A copy of the permit revision application is available for
Public inspection at the Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th Street - Suite
200, Glenwood Springs, CO, Written comments, objections or requests for an
informal conference on the permit revision application may be submitted to,
and additional information obtained from, the Mined Land Reclamation Division,
Room 215, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 802.03, (303) 866-3567.
Sincerely,
William B. Crick
Reclamation Specialist
1280G
• •
LANDSCAPING AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS LANDSCAPING AND ROAD IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement"),
dated April , 1991, is between NCIG Financial, Inc., a Minnesota corporation ("NCIG")
and the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado ("County").
RECITALS
A. New Castle Energy Corporation ("NCEC") submitted an application for special
use permits for the purpose of constructing and operating a coal mine and associated facilities,
including a coal loadout facility, 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., as amended, relating to the real property described in Exhibit A attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
B. The County conducted a public hearing as required by the Zoning Resolution of
1978, as amended, on September 17, 1990 and continued said public hearing to October 1,
1990, 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 permits, and, during the public
hearing received extensive testimony and other evidence from the applicant and interested
parties.
C. After considering this application and the matters submitted in the public hearing,
on October 16, 1990 the County made the required findings and granted NCEC's application and
request for special use permits, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Garfield County
Resolution No. 90-083.
D. NCEC filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado, on or about December 19, 1990.
E. The NCEC bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding on or about
January 28, 1991.
F. NCIG submitted an offer to acquire all of the assets of the NCEC bankruptcy
estate. On March 29, 1991 Bankruptcy Court Judge Donald E. Cordova issued his findings of
fact, conclusions of law, and order authorizing and approving the sale of all of the NCEC
bankruptcy estate's assets to NCIG. Among the specified assets of NCEC's bankruptcy estate
and specified in the offer to purchase were the special use permits authorized in Garfield County
Resolution No. 90-083.
G. NCIG has requested the County to issue to NCIG the special use permits
previously approved for NCEC, for the purposes of constructing and operating a coal mine and
associated facilities.
1
• •
H. The County has agreed to grant to NCIG the special use permits previously
approved for NCEC, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the Resolution, which
requires, among other things, NCIG's agreement to enter into this Agreement in order to assure
completion of the landscaping plan approved by the County and the upgrading of Garfield
County Road 335 as approved by the County.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, representations,
warranties, covenants, conditions, and agreements contained in this Agreement, the parties,
intending to be legally bound by the terms of this Agreement, agree as follows:
1. NCIG shall implement the landscaping plan approved by the County as set forth
in Condition 2.G. of Resolution No. 90-083, or as it may be modified by the County.
2. NCIG shall upgrade County Road 335 according to the plan specifications as set
forth in Condition 2.H. of Resolution No. 90-083, or as it may be modified by the County.
3. In order to assure the completion of the landscaping plan and the road upgrade
plan set forth herein, NCIG has obtained and shall deliver to the County two bonds as set forth
below:
a. A bond in the amount of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) to
guarantee the completion and maintenance of the landscaping plan required and approved by the
County.
b. A bond in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00)
to guarantee the completion of the County Road 335 upgrade required and approved by the
County.
4. NCIG, or its primary landscaping or road construction contractor, may at any time
or from time to time submit to the County one or more certificates stating that one or more of
the improvements has been completed according to the applicable specifications, and therein
allocate to such improvement sums representing their statement as to the cost thereof. Such
certificates shall be known as "Certificates of Completion". Such Certificate may relate to
partial completion and partial cost allocation of the costs of the improvement completed in
relation to the whole improvement specified in the particular plan as approved by the County.
The County, at its option, may inspect the completed work, but must within 30 days thereof
notify NCIG in writing of the County's acceptance or rejection of the certification of the
completion of the specified work. Notice of rejection shall specify in detail the reasons for such
rejection and specify any corrective measures acceptable to the County.
5. Upon the County's acceptance of the Certificate of Completion of any of said
improvements and statement of the cost allocated to such improvement, NCIG may apply to
2
• 1
surety, by tender of the written acceptance as set forth above, for a reduction in the face value
of the surety bond in an amount equal to the sum allocated for the cost of the completion as
specified in the Certificate. Upon full and final completion of the improvements required herein,
the bond shall be returned to NCIG for surrender to its issuer.
6. Unless otherwise provided by law, if the County believes there may be a violation
of any special use permit or the resolution authorizing the grant of same, the County shall give
NCIG written notice of the alleged violation at least 30 days prior to any scheduled public
consideration of the alleged violation. If there is some allegation but independent verification
by the County that the alleged violation is or is likely to cause some immediate and irreparable
harm to the public health, safety, and welfare, then the County may give a shorter notice to
NCIG, but in no case shorter than three (3) days notice.
7. Upon full execution of this agreement, the filing of the copies of all other permits
pursuant to Condition 2.J. of the resolution, and the delivery to the County of these two bonds,
NCIG shall be entitled to receive the special use permits authorized by Resolution No. 90-083.
8. Notices required to be given hereunder shall be sufficient if personally delivered
or placed in the United States mail, with first class postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
To NCIG:
With a copy to:
To County:
Rushton O. Backer
NCIG Financial, Inc.
P. O. Box 92092
Los Angeles, CA 90009
David R. Sturges, P.C.
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0101
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
9. This Agreement shall be enforced and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Colorado.
10. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties
hereto, and their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first above mentioned.
3
• •
ATTEST:
Clerk to the Board
4
NCIG Financial, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation
By:
Its:
Board of County Commissioners for
Garfield County, Colorado
By:
Chairman
• •
Carter & Sanas, P.C.
201 West Third St., Suite 201
P.O. Box 192 Rifle, Colorado 81650-0192
Facsimile: (303) 625-3989
Telephone: (303) 625-1075
March 18, 1991
Attorneys at Law
Stephen L. Carter
Edward P. Sands
Mr. Don K. DeFord
Garfield County Attorney
,VIA FAX: (303) 945-2379
SUBJECT: New Castle Energy Corporation's Special Use Permits
Our file No. 82/90
Dear Don:
As you may remember, during my closing arguments on New Castle
Energy Corporation's ("NCEC") Motion for Preliminary Injunction, I
argued to the Court that the County could not issue any special use
permits to NCEC until the company obtained all necessary State
permits, specifically a permit from the Colorado Mined Land Reclama-
tion Board ("MLRB") for its Lacey load -out facility. As you know,
Judge DeVilbiss, in the telephone conference of Friday, March 15,
1991, indicated that the Court need not decide that issue in order to
reach a decision on NCEC's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Thus, 1 would like to clarify the position of my clients, the
named Plaintiffs in 90 CV 306-3, regarding this matter.
Section 2(J) of Garfield County Resolution No. 90-083 states
NCEC's application is granted subject to the following condition of
approval:. "That copies of all other permits from other governmental
_agencies required for the proposed special uses be submitted to the
Planning Department prior to the issuance of any County special use
permits. Further, that the applicant shall comply with all State and
Federal regulations." (Emphasis added).
' The Garfield Citizens Alliance and the other Plaintiffs in 90 CV
306-3 believe Section 2(J) means precisely what it says. There is no
need to assign some convoluted :interpretation to these plain words.
No special use permit shall be issued to NCEC, for either the mine
facility or the load -out facility, until all necessary permits from
the MLRB have been obtained by NCEC and submitted to the Planning
Department.
My clients believe there is ample support in the hearing record
for this interpretation. As you may remember, much testimony and
evidence was presented concerning the load -out facility. Many of
those who testified or submitted written comments were concerned the
Lacey load -out facility would not be adequate to handle full produc-
tion at the mine of 1,000,000 tons per year. These persons suspected
Mr. uon h. D Ford
• •
March 18, 1991 Page 2
the company still desired to construct a load -out facility capable of
handling lull production from the mine at a different location,
possibly the Riverbend Subdivision, as originally proposed by the
company.
Additional concerns were raised by those testifying and submit-
ting written comments for the record about the size of the storage
pile on the mine site. I believe the record indicates representatives
of NCEC assured the Board of County Commissioners that coal would
regularly be hauled to the Lacey load -out, thus reducing the need to
store coal at the mine site.
In order to alleviate theses concerns of surrounding property
owners, and in order to be assured the applicant would adhere to its
representations concerning the storage of coal and where and how it
would be loaded onto rail cars, my clients believe the Board of County
Commissioners adopted conditions 2(C) and 2(J). The Board wanted to
be assured that only the Lacey load -out would be used to service the
coal mine, and that the Lacey load -out would be permitted and in place
prior to the opening of the mine.
I recognize that at the time of the hearings, NCEC had one
application for both the load -out facility and the mine facility
pending before the MLRB. I also distinctly remember that Dave Sturges
assured the Board both permits would be granted. However, Greg
McKennis, in his oral and written comments introduced into evidence,
put into question whether or not the Lacey load -out would indeed be
permitted. Although not admitted into evidence, Exhibit N, a letter
from the Office of Surface Mining, was offered to show the Lacey load-
out would likely not be permitted. See also, Exhibits AW, AX, and AY.
Thus, my clients believe the Board of County Commissioners was
fully aware that NCEC might very well not receive a permit for the
Lacey load -out simultaneously with the permit for the mine facility.
Nevertheless, the Board adopted as a condition of permit approval that
all permits from other governmental agencies be acquired for the
proposed special uses prior to the issuance of any special use
permits.
If the Board of County Commissioners has now adopted a position
contrary to my clients' position as stated in this letter, and if the
Board intends to issue a special use permit to NCEC for the mine
facility only prior to NCEC's acquisition of the necessary permit from
MLRB for the Lacey load -out facility, I would very much appreciate it
if you would notify me of these facts as :coon as possible.
My clients would like to resolve this issue on an amicable basis
without the necessity of yet further litigation. Moreover, as z have
indicated to you on several occasions, if the County adopts the
position stated in this letter concerning Section 2(J), and if the
County prevails in NCEC's action against the Board of County Commis-
sioners, my clients will happily dismiss their Rule 106 action against
Mr. bon K. DeFord
March 18, 1991 Page 3
the Board. Believe it or not, the last thing my clients desire to do
it to instigate more litigation and increase the level of apparent
animosity between them and member:- of the Board. Nevertheless, my
clients do believe the language of Condition 2(J) could not be clearer
and is subject to only one reasonable interpretation, as stated in
this letter.
Thank you very much for your cooperation regarding this matter.
By
EP.; : dkn
XC: Greg McKennis
Yours truly,
CARTER & SANDS, P.C.
r •
MAR 11991 1J I,
l'.STATE OF COLORADO
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 866-3567
FAX: 303 832-8106
February 25, 1991
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County
Director of Regulatory Services
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Re: Coal Ridge NO. 1 Mine (C-84-065), Technical Revision 6
Dear Mr. Bean:
Roy Romer.
Governor
Fred R. Banta,
Division Director
The Division is currently reviewing a revision to New Castle Energy
Corporation's mining and reclamation permit which incorporates an existing
water supply pipeline into the permit. A 25 -foot wide corridor which crosses
County Road 335, extending from near the mine entrance north to the
Colorado River, is being added to the permit area. The 2 -inch steel pipeline
currently passes through a culvert under the county road, however New Castle
has committed to rerouting or burying the pipeline when they perform the road
work stipulated by the Garfield County Commissioners in Resolution No.
90-083. The Division would appreciate any comments that you or your staff
might have on this arrangement.
Sincerely,
%f
William B. Crick
Reclamation Specialist
WBC/ern
CC: Mike Savage, MLRD
3637F
41A) \(!ittri)).(iN-
•
STATE OF COLORADO
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 866-3567
FAX: 303 832-8106
January 25, 1991
Garfield County Commissioners
109 8th Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dear Garfield County Commissioners
„rr,li,,I;.;i,:
6 FEB 1 1991
1,3
6P,RHL.LD COUNT(
Roy Romer,
Governor
Fred R. Banta,
Division Director
Pursuant to Title 34, Article 35, Paragraph 3, of the Colorado Revised
Statutes, the Mined Land Reclamation Division hereby issues notice that on
January 24, 1991, a technical revision application for a permit to conduct
coal mining operations, File No. C-84-065 (TR - 06), by New Castle Energy
Corporation, 7476 E. Arkansas Avenue - #104, Denver, CO 80237, was deemed
complete for the purposes of filing. All reviews and comment periods as
provided in the Act and Regulations promulgated thereunder initiate from this
day of filing.
The applicant proposes to revise underground coal mining operations in Section
6, Township 6 South, Range 90 West. The revision proposes to add a small
strip of land, located between County Road 335 and the Colorado River, to the
permit area. The revision also incorporates an existing water supply pipeline
into the permit.
The above-mentioned tracts of land are shown on USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle map
of Storm King Mountain. A copy of the technical revision application is
available for public inspection at the Garfield County Courthouse, 109 8th
Street - Suite 200, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. Written comments may be
submitted and additional information may be obtained from the Mined Land
Reclamation Division, Room 215, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203,
(303) 866-3567.
Sincerely,
Aif)
William B. Crick
Reclamation Specialist
cc: Mike Savage, MLRD
0779G
• STATE
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DIVISION
TELEPHONE: (303) 3314576
DEC,8„tPLORADO
1` 1990P:
{
Gh 'O VELU Lu ivy lj
EMISSION PERMIT
PERMIT NO: 90GA253
DATE. ISSUED: NOVEMBER 19, 1990
ISSUED TO: MEW CASTLE ENERGY CORPORATION
INITIAL APPROVAL
FINAL APPROVAL
pci
• 1
s 76
THE SOURCE TO WHICH THIS PERMIT APPLIES IS DESCRIBED AND LOCATED AS FOLLOWS:
Coal storage facility located in the Clough Industrial Park,
south of 1-70, Lacy, Garfield County, Colorado.
THE SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT OR ACTIVITY SUBJECT TO THIS PERMIT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:
Coal hauling, dumping, storage, and rail car loadout.
THIS PERMIT IS GRANTED SUBJECT TO ALL RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE COLORADO AIR
QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION AND THE COLORADO AIR QUALITY CONTROL ACT C.R.S.
(25-7-101 et seq), TO THOSE GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH ON THE REVERSE
SIDE OF THIS DOCUMENT AND THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. The Fugitive Particulate Ejnission Control Measures listed on the
attached page (as proposed in the Fugitive Particulate Fjaission Control
Plan submitted to the Division) shall be applied to the fugitive
particulate emission.producing sources as required by Regulation No.1.
M
...continued
880/79/01
tt(J6/(( •
RECEIVED
DEC 1 0 I9Y0
Co..lNot of HsaIth
Graf Jot 0111.24)
NEW CASTLE E11EfdGY OGRICATUTIGN
Emission Permit No. 90GA253
Initial Approval
Page 2
2. The Division's approval of the proposed control plan is based on the
submitted production level as listed below. Prior to any increase in
daily or annual production rates, the applicant shall submit a Revised
Air Pollution Daission Notice and Control Plan which will be subject to
Division review and approval to ensure compliance with the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter. Annual records
of the actual production rate shall be maintained by the applicant and
made available to the Division for inspection upon request.
Coal handling shall not exceed 500 tons/hour or 880,000 tons/year.
3. Construction of this source must commence within 18 months of initial
approval permit issuance or within 18 months of the start -up -date
stated in the application. If commencement does not occur within the
stated time the permit wi11 expire on MAY 19, 1992.
(See General Condition No. 6., Item 1 on the reverse side of the
first page of this permit) .
By:
Review Engineer
Tam Tistinic
P/90/dle
By: J./ear,-
James S. Geier, P.E., Chief
New Source Review Section
Stationary Sources Program
Air Pollution Control Division
0
NEW CASTLE E DIRGY OORMRATION
Emission Permit No. 90GA253
Ini tial Approval
FLCITIVE PARTIalLATE HlISSIa is CaVTROL PLAN
THE FOLLOWING FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE
USED FC»? EN.TORCE`iE7VT PURPOSES ON THE' SOURCES UOVERED BY THIS PEWIT, AS
REQUIRED BY THE AIR QUALITY QGW'1ROL CONISSIAW REGULATION NO. 1.
This source is subject to no off -property transport and 20% opacity
guidelines of fugitive emission limitations of Regulation No. 1
Sec.III D. The following control plan is designed to limit emissions
to comply with regulation requirements.
1. Fugitive emissions from stockpiling coal shall be controlled by water
spray (sprinkler system) to maintain a moisture content of 10-12%.
2. Fugitive emissions from loading coal into railcars shall be
controlled by water spray and by minimizing drop height.
3. Vehicle speeds on unpaved roadways shall be limited to 10 m.p.h. and
this limit shall be posted.
4. After loading, rail cars will be sealed with Latex.
5. This permit for a temporary coal load out facility shall expire upon
startup of acti vi ties permitted under 84GA323-9.
P HINARY ANALYSIS
(ieJiap-ki
APPLICANT'S NAME: ()GEC- PERMIT NUMBER: °GZs3
REVIEW ENGINEER: YT DATE: /a2C f'
CONTROL ENGINEER: z -G PAGE OF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
SUMMARY OF PROJECT
IM u, U /c.oJ),m.N," err -1U ,mGt13Z3-9
c.o,,,. km, (wax.. 199z)
SOURCES OF EMISSIONS: S L i,.. -t-
t)
THROUGHPUTS: 500 �I� 8o,000 t/1?s1
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS: 2 u'/ a' — /` nm r 6
SPECIFIC EMISSION STANDARD: f) .,
PROPOSED CONTROLS:
•
SOURCE OF FACTORS: ,29 - Z
MODEL:
RESULTS: SOURCE: 4 ug/m3 at 0,25 Kms AVERAGING TIME 2 �^
BACKGROUND: 9 0 SOURCE OF BACKGROUND DATA I Skn�Y
TOTAL: I3 1
ATTAI`MEN NON -ATTAINMENT - FOR:
RAC T
ug/m3
1J G E
Kt
utIgulI
o-r
` 1 G,A3Z3 -9
5061;2,53
•
1 j
e5
i\L 0. Axi'...h
U.4,0 o�xn Nl�n Ace, -4 &-X-Oc
5 coo .....4- o 70 a 2 xi b c// -fin s ,;Doo it.„„/r
G I
d, c7., .+o y DL 0,-(3D .k
S� n`,"^`-- 10 -12 i
FP -12 t.C1-2
5.1924-x
_ 4.8 2 c. A�.9 (w 85`70 c. i - ,Y,�a jce
I .62 o -w_
FE L t Cotio
g• c 0,4 Ail4 )= 3.5 a",
$.. 9 >! x20004^ ��) = 5.4
.1 J1.3
W/ki _ (x.35 C 5
2 )
0 6o !lb- _
AYtA
WV? (15)=(5.0.60 Ur
/o.B7
3 urU�
T
d (kms, d. )
"* pM%o
F . = 0.0051 (,)5 = / 6. /3 ,1,u /v rnT X 0,15— / 2.73 .th-/U MT
$�a000
x
x p.2 _ 8533 k /2.23 _ 60, Gi/r.,/7, wwc
C,4.6cg / K 25 (NO, Q to -_ _ /5. a 7 _ /5.2
= Z1.0 Ur /,1.., o—D 2 9.0 kr,m / — 9 .,. a, , �.-�., ,r., inr. ,;.
<IL CO' Q %,,,. (J :k (sici) _0 /E. / /k. /L /
14
4501
-2.Z loo
ac.•..o
90
44
auk / 3q
r=i6 A 3
3 -9
A323-
Z
00
m
0
c
r
0 r1n
_ O
Z Q
o 0 C
C
r*� 0 r cD
D Z
.Z7 O
as
W
V-7
z
z
w
0
z
0
0
z
ri
En
New Castle Energy Corporation
Nav C, 191)0
Savoie Excavating
1181 Grand Street
Silt, CO
Dear Mr. Savoie:
New Castle Energy Corpction (NCC) will be filinq for
bankruptcy by the and of this month. Prior to filing, the com-
pany is attempting to settle all of its existing trade creditor
obligations.
.i:!e have been able to raise a limited amount of funds and we are
not able to settle all of the accounts at their face value, but
only at a discount. All creditors have been offered the same
percentage of their claims.
1.4 At the present time 1CC is able to offer vou $ o
f:
Lor
vour outstanding claim. To receive payment, you must sign the
enclosed Release of Claim and send it to John C. F3lailey, E. at
Sherman & Iloward in thc, c2lf addr(=ed envelope enclosed
herewith. Upon receipt of the proi)arly executed release form,
Mr. Smiley will forward to your attention a cashier's check in
the appropiate amount.
Also, please return the original Promissary Note to filr. Smiley
together with the executed release form. In case vou cannot lo-
cate the original note, please sign the affidavit as shown below.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincoriy,
d4e'
E. Peter Eatthics
•
hereby ackowledge there was a Promissary Notc, between
and New Castle Energy Corporation, but
cannot be located. T. hereby acknowledge and represent that this
note is cancelled by my acceptance of the above cJescr
settlement.
ny:
New Castle Energy Corporation • 9137 East Mineral Circle • Englewood, CO 80112 • (303) 792-2625
0947/90 15:.02
f2303 83(1653
WILLIAM GRANT
PETER J. GROUSE
.JOHN N. LJAHL.
▪ ALBERT QEfALO
DONALD M. BURKHARDT
SAIL E. OPPENNEER
DONALD 9 GENTRY
K rITM TEMPEL
JAMES E. BROWN
PATRICK A. GRANT
JULIA O. ROBINSON
WALTER J. DOWNING
MICNAGL S. RENNICH
J IJ6ITH 6. JUDD
DAVID S. HARMON
OMB C NORTH
•
GRANT, McHENDRIE, HAINES AND CROUSE
PR Ore69IONAL CORPORAriQN
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
ONE UNITED QANK CENTER
1700 LINCOLN STREET, SUITE 3000
DENVER, COLORADO 80203-1088
TELEPHONE (.303) 83Z-7$00
TELECORIER (303).63Q-2394
September 17, 1990
VIA FAX TO 9.4S-7712 fcWo Greg McKennis)
Don DeFord, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
Re: New Castle Energy Corporation
Dear Don:
R1002/004
LINDA L. 815HOP
MICHAEL W. CALLAHAN
GYNTNIA J. MCLtAN
MARK N. THCHETTER
WILLIAM R; KELSO
JEREMY R COH,GN
PAMELA C. BROWN
O► COVNacL
DOUGLAS MCHCNDR,G
CHARLES H. HAINES, JR.
(1914-1988)
Pursuant to our telephone conversation late last week, I write to set forth concerns
1 have in light of the anticipated bankruptcy of New Castle Energy Corporation (NCEC).
While I agree with J. Smiley's conclusion in his September 10, 1990, letter to you that
the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. §362 would not prevent the County from
enforcing a special use permit given NCEC, I don't believe this is dispositive of all
questions. To begin with, even if the automatic stay does not prevent the County from
enforcing the provisions of any Special Use Permit, the Debtor could easily seek special
injunctive relief under 11 U.S.C. *105 to prevent the County from enforcing the Special
Use Permit. Under these circumstances, the Debtor would argue that literal enforcement
of the Special Use Permit frustrates the "fresh start" purposes of the Debtor's Chapter 11
filing. As the Court stated In Re Kaiser Steel Corp,, 87 B.R. 662 (Bkrtcy. D. Colo.
1988), "Enforcement actions by Utah may effectively place in jeopardy the fresh start
which the debtor would hope to achieve by way of its reorganization plan. If so, the
debtor may have a remedy under the injunctive provisions of 11 U.S.C. $105 ... Thus,
in a properly commenced and prosecuted adversary proceeding, this court can consider
whether the purported enforcement of police or regulatory powers by Utah is violative
of the broad policies of the bankruptcy code." N., at 666. Although the County could
seek a pre -filing waiver of this position from NCEC, there is substantial doubt as to
whether such an agreement would be enforceable.
As we discussed on the telephone last week, I am particularly concerned that
NCEC's rights under the executory contracts section of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.
*365) could jeopardize the County's position in a number of different ways. First, as
noted in Mr. Smiley's September 13, 1990, letter to you, pursuant to *365 of the
Bankruptcy Code, NCEC would have the right to reject any sublease with NCIG
Financial, Inc. ("NCIG"). If any financial security posted by NCIG for the County's
benefit is contingent on NCIG maintaining a relationship with NCEC (e.g., the sublease
Don DeFord, Esq.
September 17, 1990
Page 2
remaining in place), NCEC may have the power to avoid such a relationship under §365
of the Code thereby jeopardizing the financial security being posted by NCIG.
Furthermore, if the Special Use Permit issued by the County was construed an executory
contract within the meaning of §365 of the Code, it, too, could be rejected by the
Debtor. The courts have held that an executory contract is one in which the obligations
of both the bankrupt and the other party to the contract are so far unperformed that
failure of either to complete performance would constitute a material breach excusing
the performance of the other. In Re Government Securities Corp, 111 B.R. 1007
(Bkrtcy. S. D. Fla. 1990), citing Countryman, Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy. Part I,
57 Minn. L. Rev. 439 (1973). Being so new to this case, I am unfamiliar with the
precise terms of the contemplated Special Use Permit, and therefore have no opinion as
to whether or not it would fall within the foregoing definition. If any Special Use Permit
were deemed an executory contract under §365, the County's ability to enforce the terms
of the Special Use Permit would be severely limited. Moreover, even if the Special Use
Permit were not an executory contract, any claim the County had for violation of the
Special Use Permit prior to the filing of bankruptcy would simply constitute another pre-
petition bankruptcy claim, to be dealt with by the Debtor in the regular course of the
bankruptcy. In Re Kaiser Steel, supra,
Although letters of credit posted by a third party financial institution for a debtor's
benefit are not considered property of the estate, and can therefore be drawn down if
necessary even after the debtor files bankruptcy, this, in and of itself, does not guarantee
the County access to its security. As 1 told you, I am personally aware of a large
bankruptcy (that of the SilverCreek resort located in Grand County), in which the County
had numerous letters of credit to secure the performance of subdivision improvement
agreements, the proceeds of which were unavailable to the County due to the failure of
the issuing institutions. Therefore, even if irrevocable and unconditional letters of credit
are to be issued by a commercial bank, the County needs to make a thorough
investigation as to the issuing institution's financial solvency. If the letters of credit are
runything but irrevocable and unconditional (e.g., if they are conditioned on either the
issuing institution's or another entity's relationship with the Debtor) they may be subject
to withdrawal if the Debtor rejects the relationship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §365.
Similarly, if the financial security posted on NCEC's behalf is conditional on the
issuing entity's security position vis-a-vis NCEC's assets, that security position can be
preempted in NCEC's bankruptcy pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. §364(d). This
provision of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes the Bankruptcy Court, after notice and
hearing, to authorize the obtaining of credit or the incurring of debts secured by a
"super -priority" lien against the Debtor's property, which takes precedence over all
existing security interests therein,
Don DeFord, Esq.
September 17, 1990
Page 3
1 am uncertain as to exactly what form of security NCEC has proposed to secure
its obligations to the County. If they are satisfied by NCECs posting of a bond, that
bond could be construed as property of the estate. In Re Wegner Farms, 49 B.R. 440
(Bkrtcy. N. D. Iowa 1985), and therefore recovery on the bond would be stayed by 11
U.S.C. §362. Moreover, it is possible that the bond could be viewed as a financial
accommodation under 11 U.S.C. §365(c) and (e). In Wegner, the Court said:
The Court concludes the bond is a financial accommodation within the
meaning of section 365(c) and (e). As such it cannot be assumed by
debtor and can be terminated by [the bonding company] because of
Debtor's bankruptcy. U., at 444.
In addition to the foregoing, I have grave concerns as to the mechanism through
which NCEC intends to fund its ongoing operations after its Chapter 11 filing.
According to my experience, the biggest single problem facing all Chapter 11 debtors is
the lack of working capital at the time they file. As discussed above, even if NCEC has
a line of credit arranged with NCIG, it is possible that either NCEC or NCIG could
terminate the line of credit under §365,
While I do not have any exact statistics, 1 have read in the past that only six
percent of all Chapter 11 cases result in a confirmed plan. Furthermore, confirmation
of a plan is not a guarantee of success. In many, many Chapter 11 cases in which a
plan is confirmed, the debtor is nonetheless unable to perform the terms of the plan,
thereafter resulting in either conversion of the case to Chapter 7, or, even more likely,
dismissal, because there are no assets available for unsecured creditors.
For all these reasons, I feel that the County's position is subject to substantial risk
in the event that. NCEC files a Chapter 11 petition. Even if these risks do not come to
fruition, my experience dictates that all persons and entities associated with a Chapter
11 debtor become ensnared in the bankruptcy proceedings and their corresponding delays
and costs. Thank you for- your time and consideration. Please let me know if I can be
of any further assistance.
JEB:me
trni 454:MQC-MINEDIIP
SCNMUESER GOR
EYER INC.
1 rand Avenue, Suite 2-E
GI ., ood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6501
Fax (303) 945-5948
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
PAVEMENT DESIGN
The purpose of this report is to provide accepted design criteria to
derive a pavement section that will withstand the proposed loadings
from the New Castle Energy Mine site, as well as the existing and pro-
posed traffic from the Riverbend area.
The design includes that portion of County Fuad 335 from the I-70. over-
pass to the New Castle Energy Mine access road.
The design procedure for the pavement section is derived from the
Colorado Department of Highways Roadway Design Manual revised in March,
1988. The Colorado Department of Highways' procedure is derived from
the 1986 AASHTD Guide For Design of Pavement Structures.
The elements to be considered in the design of flexible pavements con-
sist of the following:
1. Traffic analysis.
2. Expected serviceability loss over the design period.
3. Drainage characteristic of the granular base course material.
4. Evaluation of subgrade in terms of resilient modulus.
5. Realiability component that incorporates a risk reduction factor.
6. Overall deviation.
The traffic analysis requires the conversion of all traffic loads to
the equivalent of 18 KIP or 18,000 pound load per axle. The traffic
loads projected on this seciton of road are as follows: One hundred
round trips for a loaded coal truck, which are assumed to be a 5 -axle,
80,000 pound maximum vehicle weight. We then assumed 100 homes in the
Riverbend area, each generating four trips per day. Of that total,
approximately 10% were projected as pickup trucks with remainder being
automobiles. The ESLA, or equivalent single -axle load, results in a
factor of 5,811.
i •
We then undertook a field investigation to determine the strength of
the existing subgrade on County load 335. Attached is the report from
Chen -Northern, Inc. The conclusion of that report indicates an
R -value of 39 for the combined strength of the five to seven inches of
3/4" road base, and the five inches to 1-1/2 foot of manmade subgrade
material.
The design period used was twenty years. The resultant pavement
section is four inches of asphaltic base course over eight inches of
base course material. Because the existing road contains approximately
five to seven inches of 3/4" base material, we would propose to add two
inches of 3/4" base course on top of the existing gravel surface and
overlay that with four inches of asphaltic pavement.
•
'Chen@Northern, Inc.
July 31, 1990
Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc.
Attn: Louis Meyer
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
Glenwood Springs CO 81601-3642
•
ConsulIng Fng,neers and Screnhsls
5080 Road 154
Glenwood Spnngs. Colorado 81601
303 945 7458
303 945-2363 Facsimile
Subject: Subsoil Study and Laboratory Testing for Pavement
Design, County Road 335, to New Castle Energy Mine,
Garfield County, Colorado.
Job No. 4 483 90
Gentlemen:
As requested, Chen -Northern Inc. performed a subsoil study and laboratory
testing for pavement design of approximately 7000 feet of County Road 335 from
near the I-70 overpass to the New Castle Energy Mine access road. The scope of
work for the study was discussed with Louis Meyer.
On July 25, 1990, four shallow exploratory borings were drilled and sampled
along the subject section of roadway. Lags of the borings, including approxi-
mate location are provided on Figs. 1 and 2. The subsoils encountered below
about 4 inches to 7 inches of road base gravel consisted of about 1 to 5 feet
of man -placed fill overlying natural clays and gravels. Samples obtained
consisted of standard penetration (SPI') drives and disturbed bulk. Results of
a Hveem "R" value determination performed on the combined bulk samples from each
boring, shown on Fig. 3, indicate an "R" value of 39. Gradation analysis and
liquid and plastic limits tests performed on the sample (minus 3/4 -inch
fraction) are shown on Fig. 4.
It is possible the subsoil conditions could change between the relatively wide
spacing of the borings. However, based on the observed site conditions and the
geology of the area, this appears remote. During construction, we should
observe the exposed subgrade to evaluate the condition for pavement support.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please call.
Sincerely,
CHEN-NORTHERN, INC.
; 15222
t
DAY/ec •" •: `` ���• c
Rev. By: SLP
Attachments
n member of the
(riIII
Orouliol cornpanies
job No. • 4 483 90
•
Datum None
Excavation Equipment 4" diameter auger
LOG OF E.RATORY HOLES
Prepared BY D. Young/C-N., Inc.
Reviewed Dy
S. Pawlak/C-N., Inc.
Date 7-23-90
Date 7-31-90
Hole No.. B-1 Elevation to depth
Location Garfield County Road 335; 800' east
of pavement, 8' North of centerline
Hole No.
Location
B-2
Garfield
of pavement,
Class.
Elevation to depth
County Road 335, 2200' east
5' North of centerline
Description of Materials
Depth. Ft.
Class.
Description of Materials
Depth. Ft.
0-5"
Fill
man -placed 3/4" and 1 'h" base
course material.
0-7"
Fill
Man -placed 3/4" and 1'h" base
course material.
5"-1'h'
Fill
Man -placed on-site material
consisting of sandy gravelly
clay, firm, slightly moist,
dark brown, probable cobbles.
7"-5'
Fill
Man -placed on-site material
consisting of sandy gravelly
clay, scattered cobbles, firm,
slighlty moist, dark to medium
brown, some coal fragments.
1'h'-5'
CL -GC
Gravelly clay with cobbles,
probable boulders, sandy,
stiff, slighlty moist, grey -
brown.
Samples:
Samples:
1'
SPT*
1
SPT
14/12"
11/12"
4'
SPT
9/12"
4'
SPT
10/12" .
1,-4'
Bulk
1- 4'
Bulk
No water encountered.
No water encountered.
*SPT = Standard penetration
test.
Fig. 1
ob No. 4 483 90
Datum None
Excavation Equipment 4" solid auger
LOG OP II •RATORY HOLES
Prepared By D. Young/C—N., Inc.
Reviewed Cay S. Pawlak/C-N. , Inc.
Date 7-23-90
Date 7-31-90
Hole No.. B-3 Elevation to depth
Location Garfield County Road 335, 4000' East
of pavement; 10' North of centerline
Hole No. B-4 Elevation to depth
Location Garfield County, 5700' East of
pavement; 5' North of centerline
Depth, Ft.
Class.
Description of Materials
Depth. Ft.
Class.
Description of materials
0-6"
Fill
Man -placed 3/4" and 1 1/2"
base course material.
0-4"
Fill
Man -placed 3/4" base course.
4"-3'-z'
Fill
Man -placed on-site material
6"-1'-z'
Fill
Man -placed on-site material
consisting of sandy gravelly
clay, firm, slightly moist,
dark brown:
consisting of sandy gravelly
clay with cobbles, firm,
slightly moist, dark to medium
brown.
1-'-5'
CL -GC
Gravel and Cobbles with
Boulders; clayey to very
clayey, sandy, medium dense
to dense, slightly moist,
light brown.
3'-z'-5'
CL -GC
Gravelly clay with cobbles,
sandy, very stiff to hard,
slightly moist, mixed brown.
Samples:
Samples:
1'
SPT*
32/12"
1'
SPT
11/12"
4'
SPT
10/6",10/0"
4
SPT
35/12" .
1'-4'
Bulk
1-4'
Bulk
No water encountered.
No water encountered
*SPT = standard penetration
test.
Fig. 2
TEST, SPECIMEN
1
2
3
4
MOISTURE CONTENT
14
13
12
DENSITY (pcf)
118
121
122
R—VALUE / EXUDATI❑N PRESSURE
207/25
318/41
462/56
300/39
100
90
80
70
60
w
Q 50
40
30
20
10
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1100
EXUDATI❑N PRESSURE (psi)
S❑IL TYPE sandy gravelly clay
L❑CATION combined sample from 0-1, 0-2, B-3, and 0-4
GRAVEL 11 % SAND 36 % SILT AND CLAY 53 y,
LIQUID LIMIT 29 % PLASTICTY INDEX 13
4 483 90
ChenONortherrr, Inc.
HVEEM STABIL❑METER TEST RESULTS
Fig. 3
7 .0/4 .149
DIAMETER 0
HYDROMEI 01 ANALYSIS
TIME READINGS
•
SIEVE ANALYSIS
U S. STANDARD SERIES
24 1-111. 7 HR. I • 10
45 MIN 15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 14/1I4.4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50 440 '30 '16 1.9
100
90
80
70
z
zso
a
1- 50
z
w
(-) 40
w
u 30
20
10
W 1 .002 .005 .009 .019 .03
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
I
1'h" 5" 6" 8-
0
{
1_
i
{
J
J
r
TIT
S—f 11 I 1 1 I 1
CLAY TO SILT
T
.297 .590 1.19 2.38 4.76 9.52
.42 2.0
F PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
—1--T-4 1 I 1 I
SAND
FINE 1 MEDIUM 'COARSE
GRAVEL
11
SAND 36 %
I I
1 11711 1
19.1 38.1 , 76.2 127 20600
152
10
20
30
0
w
40 Z
50¢
4-
80
60 ¢
w
70
60
90
GRAVEL
FINE 1 COARSE
COBBLES
SILT AND CLAY 53 %
LIOUID LIMIT 29 % PLASTICITY INDEX 13 %
SAMPLE OF sandy gravelly clay
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
I IME READINGS
24 HH. 7 HR.
45 MIN.15 MIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN.4 MIN. 1 MIN.
100
90
80
70
Z 60
u)
0
a50
Z
2 40
30
20
10
0
.001 .002
FROM B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4
combined
SIEVE ANALYSIS
U.S. STANDA11D SEIIIES I 0
CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS
•200 '100 •50 '40 '30 '16 •11, 8 '4 %"
I—'—
I�_
r
E
}
1
L_.
I r1
I 1 1 1 1 1
1 111
1 1 il-TIT
.005 .009 .049 .037 .0/4 .149 .297 590 1.19 12.38 4./6
.42 2.0
DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT
1
SAND
9.52
19.1 38.1
GRAVEL
0
10
20
30
0
40Z
w
SO¢
1-
z
600
0
70
60
90
100
76.2 127 200
FINE
4 483 90
GRAVEL
LIQUID LIMIT
SAMPLE OF
SAND
Chcn@Northern,Inc.
MEDIUM 1COAIISE
SILT AND CLAY
PLASTICITY INDEX
FROM
FINE 1 COARSE
152
COBBLES
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
SCHMUESER GORDOPTMEYER INC.
14rand Avenue, Suite 2-E
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6501
Fax (303) 945-5948
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
WASTEWATER AND SEPTIC WASTE
The purpose of this report is to discuss, on a conceptual basis, the
required wastewater treatment for the mine domestic sewage. This
report does not cover the process water generation for the mine site
nor any storm water related issues.
At full buildout in 1993, the mine will employ 125 workers. It is
expected that 35 people will be employed in 1990, 35-75 people in 1991,
and 75-100 people in 1992. The conceptual design included in this
report assumes the ultimate buildout of 125 workers. Each mine worker
will generate 35 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater according to
accepted engineering design.
The design of the wastewater treatment facility will incorporate the
environmentally sound practice of separating grey water and black water
wastewater. Grey water is defined as the water generated from lavator—
ies, showers, sinks, etc., and does not have the high BOD associated
with black water. Black water is that wastewater generated from
toilets.
The grey water contribution per worker will be 25 gpd, while the black
water contribution will be 10 gpd. The total grey water contribution,
assuming 125 workers, is 3125 gpd. Total black water contribution will
be 1250 gpd. These flows are average daily flows. The design of the
facilities will be based upon the maximum daily flow, which is assumed
at 150% of the average daily flow. Therefore, the engineering design
will be based on 1875 gpd black water and 4687 gpd grey water.
The plumbing facilities at the mine site will consist of grey water and
black water plumbing. The grey water will be directed to a large
septic tank or series of septic tanks that will remove much of the
inorganic solids. The grey water will then be used as irrigation water
during the non -irrigation season. It is estimated that, during the
first full growing season, the total application rate of irrigation
water will be approximately 4800 at 5000 gpd. Therefore, the entire
• •
volume of the maximum daily flow grey water will be utilized through
irrigation.practices. The mine will only utilize biodegradable soaps
in the showers that are conducive to the landscaping operation.
During the non -irrigation season, the grey water will be utilized in
dust prevention on roads and to contribute to the mine process water.
The hydraulic mining concepts for the mine consist of circulating
approximately 2400 gallons per minute (gpm). The grey water would
contribute approximately one-tenth of one percent in an instantaneous
basis to the recirculated process water. The consumptive use of the
mining process will be approximately 300 acre-feet per year. Thence,
the grey water contribution will result in approximately 13% of the
consumptive use for the process process.
Any wastewater treatment facility over 2000 gpd will require both a
site application and discharge permit through the Colorado Department
of Health. Because we are proposing a land application method, the
discharge permit will be obtained specifically for land application,
not to a discharge to State waters. Therefore, there will be no
degradation whatsoever of State waters due to the grey water generated
from the mine.
The black water generated from the mine site will be directed to a
large holding tank. This holding tank will then be pumped periodically
by a private pumping firm. It is anticipated that an individual sewage
disposal system (ISDS) consisting of either a conventional absorption
system, mound system or evapotranspiration (ET) system, will be con-
structed in the future to treat the black water generated from the
mine. Because the black water generated at full buildout (125 workers)
is less than 2000 gpd, a permit will not be required from the Colorado
Department of Health.
•
NEW CASTLE ENERGY CORPORATION
RIDGE #1 SURFACE FACILITIES
NEW CASTLE, COLORADO
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
Symbol Qty. Description
Deciduous Trees
Size Condition
LC 155 Lanceleaf Cottonwood 8-10' B & B
(Populus acuminata)
RC 53 Robusta Cottonwood 8-10' B & B
(Populus robusta)
RO 21 Russian Olive 6-8' B & B
(Elaeagnus angustifolia)
Evergreen Trees
S 21 Colorado Blue Spruce 8-10' B & B
(Picea pungens)
Total 250
NOTE: All trees listed here and shown on the drawing labeled Landscape
Plan shall be irrigated by means of a drip irrigation system.
• •
Activated Air Audio Engineering
"A Sound Company,
1005 Colorado Ave.
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
1-303-945-9873
Louis Meyer
Schmueser Gordon Meyer Inc.
1512 Grand Ave Suite 212
Glenwood Sprgs, Co. 81601
Ref: Noise Measurement for NCEC
Dear Louis,
Incident Noise Measurement readings were taken on monday evening July 30th at the
NCEC coal ridge #1 mine and ambientnoise measurements recorded tuesday evening
July 31st.
I have enclosed copies of the readings
from noise source truck loader), (2)
Sub -Division, and (3) point B - the N
Also enclosed is a chart 3.8 ( typical
sound level meter).
taken, (1) Noise Incidence - 3ft to 15 ft
point A - the first residence of River Bend
Nur,-
north of the mine and across 1-70.
A weighted sound levels as measured with a
All readings were read in the A -weighted scale with a precision sound level meter
( B&K 2230) calibrated on site before each test.
The outdoor environment can often be classified as a Free Field. A sound field
is said to be a free field if it is uniform, free from boundries, and undisturbed
by other sound sources.
When encountering a free field the Inverse -Square -Law rate of level change comes
into effect.(the geometric spreading of sound from a coherent source) This change
in level is 6dB for each doubling of distance for a spherical expansion from a point
source. A simple rule of thumb dictates that when a change of +10dB occurs, the
higher level will be subjectively judged as approximately twice as loud as the level
10dB below it. While computing loudness is more complex than this, the rule is useful
for mid-range sound. The sound at 100ft is half as loud as that at 30ft, the sound
at 30ft is half as loud as the sound at 10f t.
When calculating the Lp ( sound pressure level ) of adding another truck at 90dB,
doubling the acoustic power, will result in only a 3dB increase at the source point
and have little effect on the areas under consideration.
Showing concern Mr. Matthies explained the planting of future trees along the truck
path. With the additional absorbtion, refraction and deflection of the sound source
I believe that the SPL difference should have little impact on the surrounding
neighborhoods ambient noise levels.
I will make myself available August 15th to answer any questions the P&Z might have.
Sincere'
H. Edward Ware
A: A. Audio Engine,
AT A GIVEN DISTANCE DECIBELS
FROM NOISE SOURCE re: 20pN1m2
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
140
50 HD SIREN (100 ft)
130
JET TAKEOFF (200 ft)
120
RIVETING MACHINE' 110 CASTING SHAKEOUT AREA
100 ELECTRIC FURNACE AREA
TEXTILE WEAVING PLANT'
SUBWAY TRAIN (20 fl) 90
80
70
NEAR FREEWAY (AUTO TRAFFIC)
60 LARGE STORE
ACCOUNTING OFFICE
PRIVATE BUSINESS OFFICE
50 LIGHT TRAFFIC (100 ft)
AVERAGE RESIDENCE
MINIMUM LEVELS—RESIDENTIAL
40 AREAS IN CHICAGO AT NIGHT
CUTOFF SAW'
PNEUMATIC PEEN HAMMER'
PNEUMATIC DRILL (50 11)
FREIGHT TRAIN (100 ft)
VACUUM CLEANER (10 11)
SPEECH (1 11)
LARGE TRANSFORMER (200 ft)
SOFT WHISPER (5 ft)
THRESHOLD OF HEARING
YOUTHS — 1000 to 4000 Hz
'Operator position
BOILER ROOM
PRINTING PRESS PLANT
TABULATING ROOM
INSIDE SPORT CAR (50 mph)
30 STUDIO (SPEECH)
20
10
0
STUDIO FOR SOUND PICTURES
FIGURE 3-8 Typical A -weighted sound levels as
measured with a sound level meter.
'Courtesy GenRad)
1) high .Liss Cut Lif
2) Low Pass Cut (!f;'
3)
Physical Meas ureirent„
a) SPL 7
i) l;.ix. 3,.s
c) Piiri. Ll /7, 5--
d )
d) Leq '7'%i /
4) Calculated Acostic ;;ain potential
at source
•y/e)ci()C C,, — )arc? L
5)
Subjective response of observer
etgci< -USO 110ERN high poi cI1
6l'11 a rJ - 141,4'ci 11
6) Comments
C)135er2LrCe
/)tcY4Yi 3 - - r 61400-kj 6bcet ii
S(X.Q/)TCC 50eC )
Re/2E4 /Ece - "654-
SPL
654-
SI'L - Sound Pressure Level
Max.- Maximum ;;PL of cvc,nt
Minimum SPL of event
Lcq - Sound Pressure Level average
over measurement period
7) :1y:;LI 'omponet:;
a) source LOA dee .(r33Jct
b) electronics 13 c?.3C
c) ;standards 1.E -.C.
ct,.eitolI'(4&<, re -c 8041-404,
a) :settings
- 12015
c_ucf4 • - 46+
Jo.JcucQ 77kzeeiRvc..6 -71,200,A,
50 - loo
Egg .:,•14 - aU �-
h I- - A
ciM I b p2p4-4..0k)
flae
Con: a iy 4. 4'1- 7-7/0c(1( 2 &.---Gvg
Date _ _2o `FO
Job S G. in
1) Iligh F1ss Cut Off
2) Low Pass Cut Off
3)
Physical Measurements
d) I.,eq
•
4) Calculated Acostic .tin potential
at source
5) Subjective response of observer
6C.c,Cl2--t-Lp ho -L- - (1. l•i p bu ut (
1/Yl /YYL&-co J-C.cz.t
6) Comments
IA(1' 111
31 151'14 6"-=-'C�
SPL - Sound Pressure level
Max . - Maximum 31'L of event
Min.- Minimum SPL of event.
Leg - Sound Pressure Level avera,;e
over measurement period
7)
System Compone ts
a) source /c/4c( 1 -
b) electronics 63/i ./�5d
c) Standards .L G'1
d) :settings
/24).5
T mLc w 5-1• - ?As -4-
F- 5
s -4-
F-✓ — loo
c:c'c EsUc_E - 420k -
6.X4.. 71 /I- et,2Fie
GG A
Naive 26E_'Cey___Ce (-C/1c0.212..
Company e B. AC)4
Date '%-3o -go
Job S a& �6c� .
1) high Pass Cut Off
2) Low Pass Cut Off
3)
Physical Measurements
a) SFL
b) Max.
c) Min.
d) Leq
•
1.+:UIL;riC 1'
� )c)/;i
4) Calculated Acostic (;In potential
at source
5) Subjective response of observer
6) Comments
£)1?vr) ek2y /. atke,
O/Uy .Scx)N/J 6/;,Y71/- Ct '
c21 -c.0 P_d c74 . 2c - /kY261
AkW - c (E / C' lLE= C".
!. ,f /1
71/7E: CioC. -kL) /2 (/ L'.4
SPL - Sound Pressure Level
Max.- Maximum ;PL of r:•vcnt
Min.- Minimum SPL of event
Leq - Sound Pressure Levelavera.e
over )measurement Period
rt-/ r -- /2J (.-%c �t_ /Akic! SC)%) dbUi
r)
System Conpone. to
a) source /0 /)21;.v. 7;24)c.k
A1/21.7)/-6. . vp - k- op --
Y v1/4) cq do (ccu 6Q_LN,40
b) electronics
c) Standards re c
coY0110) "4K)C
d) setting!;
- 8219
irn Wy4 - 4454-
F5 (J _ �o
9O&)r) ,, )c t' Z sitjc €. -
Ey. Le)Ecoil ig. - A
1;;amr'C J�r,2L 61 ,
company /7')-/i.//Ae19
Date 7 - 30 -
Job64/2 Emy
1) High Fess Cut Off
2) Lox Pass Cut (2f:'
3)
Physical
a)
b) Max.
•
Measurements
c) Min.
d) Lcq
t C(`11.,1, i, 'I ; ,.
1/zeo //a
5r� . 5-4.7
4) Calculated Acostic g.un potential
at source
5) Subjective respom t' of oL;cr r
601)0...0.9
6) Comments
7/Vc/ Cllr' 7%>_c)(C:--1V E.
, 1) N 4cvtiy
-/C 6o0eucj 47,16/6-4
2Esd, !
1)
2)
3)
High Yas s Cut Ot'J•
Loin Pass Cut. 017
Physical. Measurements
a) SPL
b) Max.
c) Min.
d) Leg
5L65./
4.) Calculated Acostic gain potential
at source
5)
Subjective response of observer
u R FC8s7 (9-K6 Noi-r L r+Jc)l E;
6) Comments 1 g
(,v' E,e -- ck) y9)49 /5
‘01,7 7f/e�JC
/JJ"
4
�s uJ // , s `,,�koiLi-J £_ 4�
vs(//),(Ayict
'73, oL
/>
hJ Q e A -r t Ak. 's c'� ��v� eike
S/O2
SPL -
Max . -
Min.-
Leq -
Sound Pressure Le've1.
Maximum SPL of event
Minimum SPL of event
Sound Pressure Levcl average
over. measurement period
7) .;y:; taut Goran(. ne t:,
-cj ;;orr:rc;e '%,9-n,
/i)'ti%u�, - I3el<k c
,' n%/J c...90( -le u •-t-,o
b) electronics I3 Ka2a3d
Name
c) Standards ..:172c,
.61.7;frt,r'r`e4-suc E:
c1) :settings
77/71/
T=5-0 So
5cx_ced .TUCCc1(E'tucs -- ?72ott'/r
Xf. 7/71 t2 crxo-f
Company
!)ate
Job
/ (e ;��� �
7_2,4 .."72( f C7) e415
5_G2a-
1) High lass Cut C'ff
2) Low Pass Cut Off
3)
4)
Physical Measurements
a) SPL
b) Max. 6.,•(,c2
c) i•iln. 0
d) Led:)2
/267 I 'f
S L '7/.7
Calculated Acoatic 6ain potential
at source
A Subjective resron se of observer
6) Comments
1120 X412 E 1)
�k to �.� c.1lh
6 f • L -bate
c aL,t)
S5 c uccAl
el -U2= c-241 ,C �
Ngled fp &/5c/2 ,17-/eicl .
SPL - Sound Pressure Level
Max.- Maximum SPJ, of event
Min.- Minimum SPL of event
Leq - Sound Pressure Level average
over measurement t;c,y . od
•
/)/c-Ni)I/I r)1 T_- tic
7) Sy t.em C onpone t 3
a) source &l.»tr j.: -1/2_0cf<
Q.cc ri- to ✓n f � _ � -c�
A &.v c4 E (Rv to -E c CCM211A1C.t
b) electronics,
Kz ..S-
c) Standards, 1 G
d) settings
Oe.ff.c'LN,z, -2/715
Naar.
Company
;late
— d -,F7e
Soctio
ot
itu
Kr O('-
-
Q -000 f-4.
_4-Y17 r
7 -go To
job S CT Gyle
• •
/1/10,7174,17
Oiet,-t-.. 1F /c t' 4-J-1 �5�'r.�t-Q ` i' ,,J
/3
1) High Pass Cut, i_'.f•i' — . y) ;system liomponets
2) Low Pass Gut Oi•f a) source f-Vnl:)+eti-(- ttic: -
3) Physical Measurements /0 n✓l i iU
•
a) CPL Jr�•`J
b) Max.
c) Min. L/'-/ •
d) Leq 60+
4) Calculated Acostic gain potential
at source
5) Subjective response of observer
6) Comments
AdTWEO1 A/C)/SE / OE
SPL - Sound Pressu.re Level
;4a.x.- Maximum SPL of event
]Minimum SPL of event
Leq -- Sound Pressure Level ..verae
over measurement period
b) electronics /v i /i" � 2 3C)
c) Standards I E. C
d) settings
fes4-e9r2
(-G9+ 445-1-
P'50 F -Co
5cx)aJ,) uc� uc i2
• ?-t ( '. rZ - c`)÷
2.�Y. L C. — I4 .
Company r 4 - A • U -'u f'0 e'U J
Date 2 31 -�0
Job 5 6//11-Ivi9
Z—£'v aJn6i.
0
i1 = Z
Z Z
DT—Di m
Fri
/1 - v
>0 _7J
Z 1- I ^^.
1
0
m
� Z
0 Z O
Z
iZT- 7
P 1
(1)
0
D
Z
w
0
Z
0
0
Z
r
z
000 00,
" • \
/ (n q
CO
/
O p 0 0 p O
O O N
r
Orri
/
/
/
/
RE -TURN
>* InA
•
z—Z p ain6U
OCI
V7
D
O
z
0
z
0
O
z
DZ
z
0
0
0
z
3NIl 3m -r3 NMN
3dOlS NIVW L
0
0
0
0
0
-v
U1
0
P.O. BOX 101
G:enwood Springs,
Colorado 81602-0101
•110
DAVID R. STURGES
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Mr. Mark Bean
Planning Department
Garfield County Courthouse
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mark:
Telephone (303) 945-5748
August 14, 1990
RE: New Castle Energy Corporation
Special Use Application
Based on my discussions with you and Don Deford, it appears
there remains some possible misunderstanding in some members of
the concerned public whether NCEC's resubmitted SUP application
is somehow requesting now that Garfield County preliminarily
approve a proposed railroad load -out east of the Riverbend
Subdivision or whether by its mere mention or reference in this
application without specific request for approval now the County
could be judged sometime in the future to have prejudged such a
proposal or the County could be estopped from denying such a
proposal should it be proposed sometime in the future. This
possible misunderstanding arises apparantly from the inadvertant
but brief mention of such a railroad loadout location found on
the 2nd page and on the page identified as 4-13 , both under Tab
4 of the resubmitted SUP application.
While such a viewpoint is inconsistent with the specific
approvals requested under Tab 1 and with NCEC's public
statements to the P & Z Comission on July 11, 1990, it appears
approprite now to request that you accept and submit this letter
into the record on this pending SUP application to clarify
NCEC's positon on this issue. Specifically, it is NCEC's
continued position that it is now requesting only Garfield
County's approval of the proposed railroad loadout identified in
the application as being located west of Rifle along with its
proposed continued coal mining operation. NCEC does not believe
the inadvertant but brief and nonspecific references to a
possible loadout location on land owned by NCEC east of the
Riverbend Subdivision currently found on the pages identified
above in the pending SUP application in any way commits or
estops any future action by Garfield County to such a proposed
activity at such a location should it ever be specifically
proposed sometime in the future. To facilitate a clear
understanding of this issue, NCEC asks that those two identified
references inadvertantly made in this latest submission be
deleted. We would be happy to provide you with corrected pages
if you think it would be appropriate.
• •
Lastly, it is NCEC's position that any verbal remarks made
by NCEC representatives in public sessions to Garfield County
officials, either voluntarily or in response to specific
questions from such officials, which in some way reference such
a possible future load -out location likewise do not commit or
estop any action by Garfield County in the future should such a
specific proposal be made.
I hope this letter clarifies NCEC's position on this issue.
Please advise me if you have any further questions or concerns
on this matter and whether you would like me to submit the
corrected pages as offered.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
David R. Sturg
Attorney for NCEC
cc:Don Deford V
• • - T
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220-3716
Phone (303) 320-8333
March 27, 1990
New Castle Energy Corporation
Attn: E. Peter Matthies
7625 East Napa Place
Denver, CO 80237
Teletax:
13031 322-9076 (Main BuildineiDenveri
(303) 320-1529 (Ptarmigan Place/Denveri
(3031 248-7198 (Grand )unction Regional Office
RE: Delinquent Discharge Monitoring Report(s)
Permit No. CO -0040894
Garfield County
Dear Mr. Matthies:
4737 eice.
VIS r
r'.'
Rov Romer
Governor
Thomas tvI. Vernon..M.D.
Executive Director
The wastewater permit issued to your facility requires that the discharge
from the facility be monitored at specified frequencies and the analytical
results be reported to this Department and EPA. The data is to be
submitted on Discharge Monitoring Report Form 3320-1. If no discharge
occurred, you are required to report "no discharge". This requirement is
further defined in the permit under Part I Monitoring and Reporting.
Failure to submit the reports constitutes a violation of the permit.
A review of our records indicates that we have not received the monthly
report(s) for the period(s) of January 1 through January 31, 1990. If
your records indicate otherwise, please bring this to our attention so
that this matter may be resolved.
In the event that you have overlooked this submittal, please provide the
report prior to April 6, 1990.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 331-4761
Sincerely,
Louann Gaines
Staff Assistant
Permits and Enforcement Section
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
xc: Local Health Department
Dick Bowman, D.E., Field Support Section, WQCD
MS -3 Files
LG/dc
11114..
kitikry