HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.01 Public Correspondence• •
Garfield County Commissioners
109 8th Street
Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-330►3
.July 30 ,1 990
Dear Commissioners:
9552 Co.Rd. 335
New Castle, CO 81647
AUG 10 1990
GARFIELD COUNTY
We, the undersigned, have questions and concerns regarding the
New Castle Energy Corporation's (NCEC) proposed mining operation on
County Road 335, near the Riverbend subdivision.
We urge you to require the NCEC to prove to you that the
following issues are addressed before you issue an operating permit.
Our concerns are these:
1. Will the mine add to the surface environment or Riverbend's water
system, extra salts or heavy metals? Can the NCEC prove this? Is
there supporting data available?
2. What impact will the coal wash plant have? Where will the waste
be stored? How long before it is removed? Is a design/plan in place
outlining its removal?
3. Will a coal drier be used to dry the slurry coal? Is there danger
of starting a wildfire? The Riverbend subdivision is less than one
mile from the proposed site.
4. What about fugitive coal dust? With homes so close, who will pay
for increased maintenance on homes due to coal dust? How do you feel
about coal dust on the paint of your home?
D. Where will air blowers be located, and how will noise pollution
effect the homeowners in the area?
6. Will a crushing facility be utilized? Where will it be located?
Hours of operation?
7. Will sulfur dioxide or methane gas blow into the area homes? The
quality of air in the area now is good. Will these added gasses cause
health problems to adults and/or children? Would you like to breathe
these gases on a daily basis, year -after -year?
8. Does this proposed mine meet the ambient air quality standards?
Will this mine change the Colorado River valley in the area, the Flat
Tops (which is near) or Glenwood Springs' air quality?
9. There are many species of animals, including endangered species in
4
•
•
•
• •
'the area. How will these animals be effected?
10. There will be large truck traffic in addition to the increased
traffic from workers and support vehicles on County Road 335. Will
the safety of residents in the area be effected? Is County Road 335
wide enough for a coal truck and a school bus to meet safely? There
are presently sections of the road which drop off into the Colorado
River with no safety guard rails.
County Road 335 will not support heavy coal truck traffic, even
through "test coal" mining activity. The permit should mandate
adequate road improvement by a specified date before mining can begin.
11. Where will 125 miners live? There are very few rental properties
available in the county now. Housing has become a crisis in Garfield
county. Will employee housing be provided?
12. What impact will the proposed rail load -out facility near Canyon
Creek have on the area residents? Will there be 24 hour traffic and
noise from machinery and switching train cars?
13. Garfield county's budget and services are strained now . Will
this mine further stress the county due to increased requirements
directly or indirectly from the mine?
There are a substantial nember of homes and taxpayers in
Riverbend, Canyon Creek and the Bruce Road area whose property values
may be effected adversely. Is the county prepared to financially
carry the burden of more social services for the additional employees
of the mine?
There will be less property tax assessed on the devalued real
estate to meet this strain. NCEC's financial contribution will be
used to pay for mining requirements and regulation.
14. The incompleteness of NCEC's application must be confronted.
Long range issues are vaguely responded to when raised. This leaves
an open-ended and questionable interpretation of NCEC's future
activities and consequences to the county, its residents and our
environment.
We urge you to seriously demand answers. Thank you for your
consideration.
cc: Garfield County P @ Z Board
Colorado State Mining
and
Sincerely,
Reclamation Board
G-'-u.r- Ce -e- -536
0A.viz tx:
03'/7 G,7 /en 64,
W9 G//,J
`r p
co_\ 9,
le
August 9, 1990
Garfield County Planning and Zoning
County Court House
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81647
Dear Planning and Zoning Committee Members,
U
AUG 10 1990
t'-RFIELU coUNTY
I am writing this letter to express my opposition
to the granting of permits to enable Peter Matthies to
operate the NCEC Mine. I ask that you study carefully
the pros and cons of the impact of this mine on our county.
I live in Riverbend Subdivision and am the presi-
dent of the homeowners association there. We will be
the most severly impacted by this mine. Thank you very
much for being concerned at the last P&Z meeting about
the effect on us by the mine. The roadwas addressed,
which was, and is, a large concern. But contary to your
views of our concerns, the road is only one part of a
large picture of the detrimental effects of this mine.
A major concern to me is the effect on the Colorado
River. We owe it to our future generations to preserve
our natural resources and beauty. Environmental issues
are of great importance in this day in.age and mine op-
erations of this magnitude would considerably change
the environment negatively. There will be pollution
in the air and in the Colorado River. Mr. Matthies has
told us contrary, but in your minds you know there will
be pollution. This brings up the subject of Mr. Matthies'
integrity itself. Will he be able to get financing for
such a large scale mine or secure contracts to keep his
mine employees working? You may think these questions
don't concern you, but you are in a sense doing business
with him by recommending him. What do you know about
him and his capabilities? Have you talked to any mine
experts that say this is a good plan? Has he brought
anyone forward to support him in his efforts? You have
only heard his word and what he tells you about this
type of mining and its feasibility. Myself and other
concerned citizens have done our own research on this
man and his proposed mining technics. We talked to a
mining consulting firm that said this type of mining is
not economically feesable and the ones that did try it
are out of business. Where is his proof that there are
mines successfully using these hydrolic technics? Mr.
Matthies says this is his 'field of dreams' here. Well,
I feel that's just what it is, a 'dream." I hate to
•
1
• .
think of him making even more of a mess than last time
he was here, and leaving once again because he couldn't
make it work.
I get so excited when I read articles in local papers
about recycling projects, pollution concerns, river corridor
recreation projects, etc. The citizens of this county
are voiceing concerns and you owe it to them to carefully
decided what is best for our future.
Please weigh carefully your information. If you
recomend this proposal I feel you will be setting precedent
for other of this type of industry along the Colorado
River. Is that what we want for this county? Is the
money that may be generated from this mine worth it to
the citizens who love this area for its preserved beauty.
Please don't think I am opposed to growth and prosperity.
I've lived here 18 years and want to live here many more.
My family has struggled at times but managed to stay
here. We love Western Colorado, please help us preserve
it.
Thank you for your time.
1
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. Randy VanEngelenburg
0059 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, CO 81647
•
Garfield County Pl&.
County Court House
109 8th street
Glenwood Springs, [
August 8, 1990
,ning and Zoning
olorado
fl
D P„ 11 rd1M71
�D1q�M
i''- - -~ '^°°��'��io aOlNTY
Dear Planning and Ioning Commitee Members
My name is Steve Boat. I currently own 17 of the 19
available lots in the Riverbend Subdivision. I am also a
resident of the subdivision, l am writing you in response
to NCEC's renewed interest in opening the mine adjacent to
Riverbend.
I would like a few moments of your time to express my
personal as well as business concerns relative to NCEC's
proposed plan.
NCEC, as I understand it, is proposing to remove coal from
the adjacent coal ridge with the use of high pressure water.
Then they plan to dry the coal using centrifugal type dryers
and transport the coal inniLially by truck to a railroad
loadout in riF1elheir permanent loadout plan consists of
conveying the coal around the perimeter of the subdivision
to a rail spur to be constructed in South Canyon.
The permanent loadout to date has not been publicly
discussed. It is very important that conveyance of the coal
eithor by hydraulic means or conveyor belt travelling this
close to a residential subdivision be considered prior to
any permit variance approval.
After discussions with individuals in the coal mining
industry I have found a number of opinions in direct
conflict with what Mr. Matthies of NCEC has stated to date.
While different statements were made by different
individuals the one opinion they all had in common was that
the process of mining coal hydraulically is a very high
maintenance process, a very messy and unsightly process due
to the inability to control the black water seepage and a
very ineffective uocess. As one source stated, while the
orocess looks fine on paper it just doesn't work in that it
does not produce c�al cost effectively.
The drying process facili�y proposed will requfre some kind
of heat source. It is ay understandi'.d that electric or
propane is far toto use and natural gas is
presentiv not ave�]able. Is it MCEC's plan to burn coal as
well as mine it in order to complele the drying process.
:''
'' '
•
In closing l do not feel it is the responsibility of your
commitee to select types of industry appropriate for the
valley nor do [ teel it is necessary to stifle industrial
growth in order to maintain the present quality of life of
the citizens of Garfield County. However, you do have a
responsibility to the citizens of this area to weigh the
potential benefits versus the potential damage to the
envirnment and the present quality of the life of those most
effected by industrial change. If you will do this, as well
as consider NCEC's past performance, I think you will see
that the potential damage to all things considered,
particularly the citizens of the Riverbend Subdivision, far
out weigh any possible benefit to Garfield County.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
a�' �
IP
Steve J. 7oat
President/Owner
Mesa Structures, Inc.
R.B. Homes, Inc.
R.B. Water and Sewer, Inc
P.O. Box 1989
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
303-984-3421
•
'
"
'�'
•
AUG 101990
U�,hE I�LJ COUNTY
c twin Y l Ck 6' Z � �C� t Lir 1C �� Y11►'Y1 L
.o p pec , CcoL
urrai--1 l_V'lc 0CLI-pY"1S
� '2c:� LO-hQ h-o v,DrA
�ra w-� � h. �Z. �
acia Q)3\-6\-vidczki
Siwe- suc_crl
h.c._ um.° .rte Qi n Qi
KaaZC1tki fl1OIO-VV\S C,
Lo 4-or h. -h
�hc�h ��. ►.� , � h_eL
oc1L, *-Liuu-vd.ahuDz_) h0v 0u
ana CJS ()\-:
.A(Dow-) Wo 1,W o u d
n
e�-J4�t�.a. vim..
0 q-co
Oa Avu3k h,� �h 1c A*W3 C fttLILL,
W (DLd d 00-0 cuk \---on-1 C,k_h k:71
Oa 4-)1,6 f.\ c 0 p-,tc.J-) !i5 Ju cu-t_ 0 w-v
CLOW 1--Lu LL� L0 0 LL _Cl ,rruLak n
\»CO Q ,1 hc�ve�c ) ,,,uLtL 1
Coca -4l0 Cic
Um.__
o U
Lug w aLp ' GJ lel p oc cc1
c k- U) Lvr- 111- -h ) W Maid -1-u-, c .UL cc h
Co Lid el IrlOkA. Lucid 0'1V-{ ar
rn (Dun_
Cud c h ol LQ OuywAs
• •
L .- Q Y , (\-142---) ,�'�-e c�_3 C� �'l /�� , AC\ l) h o K n 0 Los
\),),D al: , r ui d e.,t) n Le_n Ge
W*. ) cif s
\AD-Ac&_ciA-c=-L-
•
�1L i IL\1L)
AUG 101990
RFIELD CO
6)7 r/ `eU
ft
i
de -ed
70
U b
f.�
v<e__
,Lea,
•
•
I
Cr(Pickry,, zori,
CU 1 rr `�1l S.A -r CrrjL �
riVig AVE
�rjj AUG 101990
(iARFIELD COUNTY
` C��C ✓l
_1_- 1. usi.J Con, Cr~S
rd p P -0006c4 n . E. 0- e_.6 v1n
iqckv-v-I, A 2-cyn
ct r4 <t /\ ,���,-cam cx� �-I ` - ro 4c,/
It � , v O. \40--6c.,1-,(ii S � jiU'dCc)/ P(.f
6_)v\ 7" ; v d `T
(i0 h (/). „
jU frn G CA -I1 c.r-1 cqofc.- , 1 C,Cf,, ti,s L U ✓1Cr t GQ. blc, _�4_
4 b 0..,0‘10 ir-Ct GP. 4-6 d cvN
S Cc O n J I . G c., l' vvi cc.-- ci v1,44 kC v1 Lm) L.) ct\s
• (NA 1310 111% , uvl
_c1/4s,„ a. o C`--` or\ % -� wh J1 14/1-‘..."--1---141,c,,5 I C.CX
rt -r"\ 0 c.(y-vul (vAc.
0 a th,c, r ti iA e r c<.. Y-\ 1 g can
COG- ( GA b-Yv,- I l G j,), 4s �o c'1 k tU''
'of\ .11-)c. _G ircli. )
cid ic,,ck c&/J . T Cc,,1ccl', cLt Y ' 1wa w —
e, jai 6‘/ ctr)(_,4 / c_ .01A
F_ s:ck
qor �0 n tc� 4-Wo�
CJ
h
•
•
0 ✓ iz- .'1 '1 C. i-Lt✓i1c
CtJ , COCLI •iujOcZ-4,
k--Ao Ou,e 4--Q, 4--(t•
6,t( (I, 414'
c.,.! u,� �J- Com' 1C �,- ry ipe
1 !i w O o,/ h (.k �, Uri\
_0 ncc 0c.,,, .`' Ci".. ). i'f (-� 66 cel 114 ► i1
c_1 f /
1 c- .- c.Z c 4 ` SiJ �4- , - u 10 r /6 • . c— C` v `^ 1 c(
.(A,vq-., c,_ I 0 , 4,,
) c:3--1,--, Oke \cc, c.,_
b c4.,J,L2 3 . .,) ._Gt vl. ()%1
CkrIclCI / c32._ 6
I/ d
"\--0-41---• vr.. n e c,rh I/?v r, r m t . ,.. • \5 rY\. ✓1-�.,
n
a . Op -c,n 6 cel tS t)c �-6 c r L --r 6 ,,.-� Ct' u - cs %•-)..):
C(1.--6 5 4A. -r) % XL. 01, (t-,. ) L o -^- t5 S . }plc ,5 , c.,�c4_ _
4\--',--- \\--k, wirtuL... C___0,,._,()_,
�lCI 4„--.\',
i.V,,wl'1�,rC... 014 vl i v- (./! a -o rN i
k(-- 6,,pai\--1 C mtoctii ir.
4-,\:,
, i ry, vy‘ r d r C. CYC�r�. 1 Ot ov1 J tet. C,,,, ,i V� Il a (/ Ml c. ✓
�•. 1 1► 0 G cl 6.11(41-�5 . r 0,,(c) it u4- p,,1, i c
� � O �1 Li I ) t.,, n c
0 ,
c,(4),./o, t \� �� ecJ o k 1,11c,(\ c cJ1.,
•
I.
r J
0 ry, c I ci cli- ‘-• c-4, t_e_... 4-e-vz_ l' 1 Z-- C—
G 'k- \\6-1--.
k.c‘.• c& to.c.k-m,-(-4--o• i- c, CO v / . .
. I q
'.,,.0._,Jci
6, --IJ
11 1,Q -c 6 C- fill VYk rC,/ t11" 10 ck_ C.
0 Ci
..:1 ryi 1 f\A._ 1 cv cod 1,, --,,,La., to 6.., i.,•_, (.4-' pi Q, V. CA CO C3
!
i0 j, 0 •-)i- (2/--(( fi_q_ 0 LA. W C/J .11-) I, 0 (.._. r• Q 6 C). --h tifti
:
t •
'••
10 Cf
ic)C
"4 cLL u,iy•Lci
6., -c,dci
•
•
c_Ari_ad
)(4),A_A_. ,c) sr/6-17
•
• :
• 1
via o m( U 26r\ -mi C /Y1 Iver �
I �
CCurt--ty
/01 8'''` ske-
I�
li
l 5�
len wCo� C'tt�-`75 � Co .
AUG 101990
GARFIELD COUNTY
Coad Ic OUt-taci 1(-i-), r New Casfle, Fne
,./621,o
ir
y GrpCA),CE._C-)_.
.
J.A.n /A»in) 6ti cbto„_
ce,0 co„„cT-y 12,1, 7k, ,re/nt,
GL 6/.7 /Co'n,CgA -�
` /U,C.E. C. 77t / . / 2APtc-o--
ea,atQ-c- 76,
&"1- z4 9
7- /5- 90 ,c. ,tivezi4 4taVC -Q--:6 qd
,toetid 77c6,-feL
E.c.,AeLid 2t --L .//niel7tilZarfrL_
OPIL`e/11-vai/ j„ AZI_ CW1-
i0A.J_6411 e-071-A1-CLUA_LjO/Y -60-d 01.1./
MC
40z f2A.0 _
,ceeeb ck,o c6,0_:/.,1)_417,L4
NC- E C J/.0 fiLturneiw-u_ei
0/LeAfc;01-co finizi:np ,u) -(;d, „city aAld.
ani %k.d a.cULca ,z -h,„4,0241;<.! /i4,0-6ev/A/t/Io
-46 -1261-41 061R. i2/tedi-00-1-0(f ,e/PtuA",)9 tacce.,k4
a->ZP,v ./LoTLd s ✓ e.
&-'u- Co , fJ. 335 o
fla-4s2___ O, -d Com, °74-'.i(.Lvjk,
-R�1 iLOAot 0240 0-1,1.E.1 I!4-1l'� � % C� on0tl14,
,60o-o-e,o(
J
%f l/b ue CL//J1LLThL cii .Ai -?AZA y1,, ..
zein' -QA 41/Lo d -t
J
C 07'1 ..d._.L l4& 7 . -u %.(Q, '0/di/cern'
g-ej ,e}(17
/C-A-C-OACei ixeofy
/YV)- ice /17-' Ara -717-:.(11't 2 +
ue JCSL ,Wegifr ljee ,J,ddf L)7iLi0"),L, .g'C t A C
A+ teras -. cure_Jt.. W,(,�d�,o�7 JL�� ,0117?.4,(i1.0 C�C/�4�, ot"` -
l -Leat -i o n-4 ,z_C,� z 771-0-f../.70( / Jc Z L ,co -(La .e,
A/Y►.-W' , 4' -a-691-
(J n
CtA--0-601-d_ /LAI ,Ce-cLeatucti-t;Ad
99a zLcf2--,1
OAAd-
,frv-/n feef(Amy27.:
fr
-9 Un
).,Litrn_,C-ate'
r ��'
LC, .C'�U'72.4, n1.[�r b' ✓l. ,,(,Us -a
ZbtA- muziG)\j
icatdel deb, AeA/c-X, 27-Z. /1-1x,o.fd." 64--tzLoto
/,vim , t tit Alle4_, d -O7 -9O
:Coyam4e.uxyrt_f2_,L.1 .21up:;;/-*
Au-01-/-.-e4c /UV 41- '61-2- 6
/ R/52/'e,Lael ,4df
n /►.Q.cQd /V L C ..) ,fit
ierca.ted,tvrat
- '1ti_
• 1
cz___AL-0J. „e_
Aezie_ept., so o /00 /ZJybd ,40,0 Aug
Aa -c AA loacto cu -cif
cV)A. aA./2,a_ nifuu.ck AeAy,
_e_aj,t1,2../1A 70,0)-LIC:0-4, a-6 rz,
o,f
.„.a_h2,0(4 afyiv
r 7.-2
-arzt..Att- ,65017tez _f Com' i 6 Ory /(
SO Aver be Act Dr, a (�- ?Si/
./6w'_�'
!licamfYrk-vY\--
L4 ball cot-
(Lj
d 2
ba r E I "szad eller
-3L/63
• •
Garfield County Planning and Zoning
County Court House
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81647
August 9. 1990
L
AUG 101990 I
GARFIELD COUNTY
Dear Planning and Zoning Committee Members,
We, Jon and Leslie Krick, have been homeowners in
the Riverbend Subdivision for nine years. We are writing
in regard to the coal mine proposed by NCEC.
We are concerned about the impact the NCEC will
have on our subdivision and surrounding areas. We do
not feel NCEC will provide the kind of growth our
community needs. We ask that you take the time to care-
fully and thoroughly research his proposal. Having
delt with Mr. Matthies is the past we have reason to
doubt his creditability. He has made promises he did
not keep which gives us reason to believe we can not
trust him now.
Thank you for your time. We hope you will consider
our concerns.
Sincerely,
17)4, Oct WIAAV. 2tak_d
Jon and Leslie Krick
0091 Riverbend Drive
New Castle, CO 81647
•
lS
kil
August 904`1990
x_51 �,1< .1.
C Cheryl L. Glover
111:f
RUG 101990 0161 Glen Eagle Circle
New Castle, Colorado 81647
(.3tArtt labCUUNIY
To the Members of the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission;
I don't come to you with lots of facts and figures, or the practical side of the proposed reopening of the coal mine by Peter
Matthies, although from everything I've learned, my opinion is that it isn't a great idea practically speaking. I understand that
all the practical stuff does have to be considered, but 1 think at least equally as important is what some might consider the
"emotional" side of the issue.
I moved here to Riverbend in November, 1989, from Colorado Springs. It had been my dream to move over here for the last
eight years. It took are two and a half years of actually "working on it" to finally get here... and with the housing situation the
way it is here, I consider myself "one of the lucky ones". Needless to say, I'nr very happy to have finally realized my dreamt
There are so many reasons why 1 chose Riverbend, all of which I suppose can be categorized under the heading "Quality of
Life", as corny as that may sound. "Quality of Life" has always made up a big part of my dream, riot only for myself and my
husband, but also very much for my two daughters and the baby I'll be having in January. Living in a big city, especially one as
growth -oriented and industrialized as Colorado Springs, wasn't a real healthy environment to be raising children in, much less
just living int In fact, that was one of my main "selling points" to those cynics there who thought I was nuts for giving up the
clientele I'd established there to "start over" here... that I wanted very much to live and raise my kids here where people really
care about the quality of life and preserving the natural beauty and healthy environment. And I feel very strongly that Peter
Matthies would in essence be "raping" all of the above if allowed to go ahead with his plans for the urine and surrounding land.
I've spoken with many residents, not only from Riverbend, but also from across 1-70 who were here the last time Mr. Matthies
did this (started construction around the urine, but didn't get far enough to opening the mine before abandoning it), and they
feel he already has raped it, and, in effect, we residents who live around the mine site.
It's so indescribably fantastic, after growing up in Colorado Springs, to now be able to step out into my own backyard and
take in the gorgeous view of the Hogbacks, and enjoy the peace & quiet — no bright city lights, no traffic noises — and breathe
the fresh air! And to be able to allow my kids to play freely up in the bluffs adjacent to our property without worrying that
they'll get run over by traffic. And to drive the road into Riverbend from the bridge almost traffic -free and watch for the all the
different animals that come there... a thrilling sight for us "city girls"! From everything that Mr. Matthies has himself said,
it's very clear that all of that will be taken away from all of us if he is granted the permits he wants... and probably even worse.
It's doubtful that Mr. Matthies' project would provide the opportunity for area builders to build 40 new homes to house his
workers as he has stated, because there are those of us who would likely leave our homes if possible because of an intolerance to
the UN -quality of life that reopening that mine would produce. Actually, Mr. Matthies was contradicting himself by saying
that anyway, because he also asserted that we'd all "be so happy out here in Riverbend to have that mine operating right in our
backyard because then we could just walk to work every morning". If that truly were the case, then there would be no need to
build new homes to house "us workers"1 But in reality that is most certainly.not the case... there aren't any of us that I know
of who would abandon our present careers to work in a coal mine, and I don't know of any of us in Riverbend who "drive to
Aspen everyday to work" as he also slated.
Mr. Matthies' "track record" over the years has not been a good one concerning the empty promises he's made, and I for one
do not want my future risked on someone with such a proven lack of character and honesty. The rest of my family feels the
same, as does the large majority of Riverbend residents. In the meeting with the New Castle Town Council on August 7th, Mr.
Matthies, after many vague answers about what it actually would be like outside of the urine pertaining to noise, aesthetics,
pollution, etc., very lackadasically stated "however, l don't know what it will be like ten years from now." That statement 1 feel
embodies the essence of this whole proposal, and how very little concern it includes for those of us who not only have our life
savings tied up in Riverbend, but our whole lives as well as our childrens'.
Respectfully,
,f.
Cheryl Glover
)JEO
PAYNE
LTD
•
August 6, 1990
Mr. Mark Beam
Garfield Planning Department
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: NEW CASTLE ENERGY CORPORATION
n 81990
IELL/ 'OUNTY
Dear Mr. Beam:
I am very much opposed to your granting the city's South Canyon
Coal reserves to reopen the Grand Hogback Mine. As one of the
larger property owners, I am gravely concerned about the negative
effects this reopening would have on the area. Not only would it
be a nusance, but would also, without question, drive all
property values down.
Sincerely,
Leo Payne
President
MERCEDES -BENZ
GMC
rPONTIAC ) vOLVO HYUf1DAi ri Jeep SUBARU
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS:
300 WADSWORTH BLVD. • LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80226 • (303) 232-1451
7-17ec (7o 241_
u)t a/z tuy..i- 6/./..4, _yr. _6-
41)07.0 Ow erf.' zo ate U", 14 -ge .- 6aa,i/ic
qarvcif -t N c E 6
G(.re I 46 .,t OS _-e-7,rcietx.ifizc ,cidA'.f
xitak-fe ,-egi oily/. -1-). /0 an° 0-14/- , d A ,t, c e a
/ c AL /C.,D7 i71,71lG( (/i
7047-7-y /veticcea,
0-e z(4,- ofe/L-
I 6 -Zie-e
_Atz
Ct
deM&u4e .
fah am,
Ltcezi-61
(77,1 42fiy,'
fit2
Eric C Williams
Castle Valley Ranch
0981 245 Road
New Castle,C0 81647
Garfield County Commissionares
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: New Castle Energy Mine east of New Castle.
Dear Commissionares:
Garfield County has gone through a gradual evolution In the last 10
years. This change as I see it is toward tourist , quality living for retired
people, and people who just want to enjoy the pleasent Colorado River
valley and surrounding areas.
As a land owner accross the river frorn the mine, I can see my land
values plummeting. The property looks directly at the proposed mine load
out facilities.
I can see that the mine may create a few new jobs but what we all need
to ask our selves is how many service jobs or other clean industry related
jobs are we going to loose because of the mine. We cannot rob Peter to pay
Paul. I think we need deversity in our enconomy but not at the expense of
others.
I think because of the mines past performance and the direction the
county and towns , this New Castle Energy mine is not worth the risk.
Yours truly,
•
Eric C. Williams
.
•
•
August 7, 1990
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planner
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Dear Mr. Bean:
.R7
AUG 101990
GA[�FILLU UOUN rY
In regard to upcoming discussion of New Castle Energy's project
we feel it would be beneficial to the area for approval. We
would assume that most of the groundwork has been laid for the
project and a great number of man hours both public and private
have been spent. Many of us are quite tired of the "Alliance"
group and their anti)attitude about anything and everything.
We feel this project should at least be given the opportunity
to begin.
It seems in the past few years economic development has been given
a lot of lip service, but in the New Castle area in particular,
little has come from that county wide project.
People in this area need jobs that are relatively close in distance
and where housing is available.. Eric Williams of Castle Valley has
already accomplished much in his housing development and has the
approval :to prooeed. The New Castle school is in the process of
expanding to accomodate more children.
I hope these facts and opinions are relevant in your discussions.
Sinjerely,
' f jCL�
Paul and Mary Anne Taylo/�
P. 0. Box 973
New Castle, Colorado 81647
1.
1
•
r •
August 8, 1990
Garfield County Commissioners and
Planning and Zoning Commission
Mark Bean
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Bean:
1._gg73.
AUG 101990
GARfIE1.D COUNTY
Please enter this letter into the public record for the meeting for
P & Z and the County Commissioners during discussion concerning
the New Castle Energy project.
I am writing in support of this project as I feel the town of New
Castle and western Garfield County need economic development
and this project would provide jobs in western Garfield Coynty
and the fact that New Castle was founded because of coal development.
In view of the fact that social services continue to report increased
cases of domestic violence and child abuse, a local place of employment
might help to reduce this problem; rather than having parents drive
50 or more miles to places of employment, they may be better able to
have more quality time at home.
At this time, many New Castle area residents are employed in the
Glenwood Canyon project, but when construction is completed in
several years, what job opportunities will be available for these
people? Will they become more numbers on the ever increasing roles
of unemployment and welfarestatistics?
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
lv
• Rippy
P. 0. Box 4.27
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Marc Wagner
0347 Wittwor Lane
Rifle, Colorado 81650
To: Garfield County Regulatory
109 8th Street Ste 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
LJ
AUG 9 1990
GARFIELD COUNTY
Date: August 7, 1990
Attn: Mark Bean
Re: New Castle Energy Corporation
To Whom it may Concern:
We request that this letter be recorded with both the Garfield
County Planning & Zoning and the Board of County Commissioners.
This writing shall serve to support the efforts of Peter Matthies
and the New Castle Energy Corporation in the proposed Mining
Operations for NewCastle, Colorado.
We support the proposed mining facility for several reasons. The
primary reason is in creating local job opportunities. As a
resident of the Rifle community I see the majority of western
valley citizens commuting more than an hours drive to work
outside Garfield County in the Aspen or Vail areas. Increasing
local jobs can only improve the quality of life for Garfield
County residents by reducing the stresses of driving Highway 82
and allowing more time at home with our families.
Another interesting aspect, as I
will be utilizing new technology
mining process is proposed to be
expected to attract National and
mining. Positive recognition of
greatly improve our reputation.
understand it, New Castle Energy
in extracting coal. This new
cleaner, more efficient and is
International interest in coal
our Counties development would
To help sustain economic strength within our county we should
encourage new business. We believe this project can become a
strong attribute to Garfield County and we await your support of
this project. Your favorable response is appreciated by all west
valley citizens from New Castle to Rifle.
Res ectfj1 y,
I
Mar Wagn
•
T
• July 11, 1990•
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Commission
109 -8th Street
• Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
Dear Mark;
Because of schedule conflicts I am unable to attend the
Planning Commission meeting tonight; however, I would like to
pass along some thoughts concerning the New Castle Energy
proposal presently under consideration. The thoughts are
personal but, I am confident, would represent the views of the
great majority of my Board of Directors; given an opportunity
to discuss the situation in depth.
Because of the fact that Mr. Matthies has arranged for a
load out facility in the Rifle area, I feel the primary
objections to the project should have been overcome and would
hope the Commission would see fit to recommend approval to the
County Board of Commissioners. That approval is recommended
for the following reasons:
1 --The proposed project is one which will provide up to a
hundred jobs, within the next two years, and provide some
stability to the economy of Garfield County. It will also
provide an expanded tax base and take up the slack for a number
of potential job losses emanating from some "time dated"
projects presently underway; the most prominent ones, always
mentioned, are the Glenwood Canyon project and Unocal's Oil
Shale activity.
2 --Sometimes the normal rights of property owners, to reap the
fruits of that ownership, are ignored because certain
individuals, or groups of people, are opposed to any kind of
"development" which is proposed for the County. It seems to me
that, as long as requirements imposed by Garfield County and
the MLRB are met, an individual, or a Corporation, having
evidenced financial capacity, and responsibility, should be
allowed to proceed with that development.
3 --The proposed development should have little or no affect on
the tourist oriented economy of the upper county and the
general attitude of the lower county municipalities has been
receptive to responsible development.
4 --Mr. Matthies is an acquaintance of nearly 30 years who, upon
request, could provide extensive references as to his character
and reputation.
I would encourage favorable consideration of this proposal
and, depending on timing of the public hearing before the
Commissioners, hope to appear to support their favorable
consideration of this venture.
'
��- -�����;
'
-
������� ' • • ••'/.|``.��.'``
�
'
»
v