Loading...
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