HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application IncompleteRECEIVED NOV 0 3 1998
The following are revised sections of the Garfield County Special Use Permit
Application for the Yankee Gulch Sodium Minerals Project Product Solution and
Water Return Pipelines. Additions to the application are presented in bold and
underlined text. After review and approval of Garfield County, these revised
sections will be incorporated into the application for formal submittal to Garfield
County.
From pages 5 and 6:
1.4 Hours of Operation
Construction of the proposed pipelines will occur only during the daylight hours,
from approximately dawn to approximately dusk over a period of four to five
months along the proposed pipeline corridor. After construction_ is completed, the
proposed project pipelines will operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, allowing
for periodic maintenance and repair.
1.5 Site Access and Anticipated Vehicle Traffic
American Soda is proposing no new access road construction. Access for both
construction and operations will be via existing roads or on the ROW itself. Section
3.1.4 of the POD, "Construction Access Roads," identifies and describes projected
access roads to the pipeline corridor during construction.
Access to the proposed pipeline corridor in Garfield County will be provided
primarily by County Road 215 (Parachute Creek Road), which follows Parachute
Creek north from the Parachute Site. A private road provides access from the north
end of County Road 215 to the base of Davis Point. Access to the northern end of the
Garfield County portion of the pipeline corridor will be provided via BLM and
private roads off Rio Blanco County Road 5.
Commuter traffic to and from the pipeline construction project will occur primarily
early in the morning at the beginning of the day and in the late afternoon at the end
of the working day. In total, approximately 30 to 55 commuter round trips are
anticipated per day along the Garfield County portion of the pipeline corridor. This
number is based on the assumption that pipeline construction workers will carpool
to the working area at the rate of two workers per passenger vehicle. It is important
to note that, while the peak number of trips is estimated to be about 55 trips
per day for the peak construction month, the average number of commuter round
trips will be about 30 per day over the majority of the construction period.
In addition, approximately 15 to 20 truck round trips per day are estimated for
delivery of pipe and other equipment and supplies to the working areas along the
pipeline corridor. These truck trips will most likely originate from the Parachute
Site. Virtually all of these trips would utilize trucks weighing less than 80.000
pounds m aximum gross vehicle weight (20,000 pounds per axle). In accordance
with Garfield County requirements. American Soda would obtain the necessary
Special Transport Permits for any oversized loads, if any such trips were necessary.
While requirements for access to the pipeline corridor after being placed into service
are anticipated to be minimal, many of the same roads used for construction will
continue to be utilized for routine periodic operations, inspections, and
maintenance activities.
During the operations phase of the project, the only vehicle traffic anticipated for
the pipelines would be associated with infrequent groundinspections by American
Soda personnel utilizing pick-up trucks or off-road vehicles. These ground
inspections would occur approximately twice annually. Otherwise, there would be
virtually no vehicle traffic associated with the pipelines once construction is
completed.
From pages 8 through 9:
7.0 IMPACT STATEMENT
In accordance with Sections 5.03.07 and 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Land Use
Codes, this Impact Statement is filed with Garfield County for the purpose of ...
.... Copies of the Draft EIS and Final EIS were similarly provided to Garfield County
for review in January and July 1999, respectively.
Based on current pipeline design and installation information, American Soda has
developed a pipeline construction workforce schedule that identifies likely
manpower requirements on a month -by -month basis. Table 1 identifies this
workforce.
As described previously in Section 1.3.3, pipeline construction activities are
anticipated to commence as early as January 2000 in the Parachute Valley in Garfield
County, with completion of the entire pipeline expected no later than November
2000, subject to securing all requisite permits and easements. Given the typically
difficult and somewhat unpredictable winter and spring field conditions in the
region, full-scale construction activity would likely begin in late spring 2000, as
depicted in Table 1.
DRAFT
Table 1 Schedule of Pipeline Construction Workforce.
Pipeline
March
April
Mev
2000
Img
2000
jinx
2000
i
Au u t
5_kt.
Cmc .
2000
Construction
2000
2400
240.4
2�i QQ
Workforce
Rio Blanco
1.1
41
11
2a
126
§3
E
12
County_
Garfield
SQ
60
110
72
64
2Q
12
County
Total Rio
i;z
1QQ
1Q5
15.1
12.6.
122
fz
n
Blanco and
Garfield
Counties
From pages 11 through 12:
5.03.07 INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
D. Truck and Automobile Traffic
Access to the proposed pipeline corridor in Garfield County is provided primarily by
Garfield County Road 215 (Parachute Creek Road), which follows Parachute Creek
north from the Parachute Site. A private road provides access from the north end of
County Road 215 to the base of Davis Point. Access to the northern end of the
Garfield County portion of the pipeline corridor will be gained via BLM and private
roads off Rio Blanco County Road 5.
Commuter traffic to and from the pipeline construction project will occur primarily
early in the morning at the beginning of the day and in the late afternoon at the end
of the working day. In total, approximately 30 to 55 commuter round trips are
anticipated per day along the Garfield County portion of the pipeline corridor. This
number is based on the assumption that pipeline construction workers will carpool
to the working area at the rate of two workers per passenger vehicle. It is important
to note that. while the peak number of trips is estimated to be about 55 round trips
per day for the peak construction month, the average number of commuter round
trips will be about 30 per day over the majority of the construction period. In
addition. approximately 15 to 20 truck round trips per day are estimated for delivery
of pipe and other equipment and supplies to the working areas along the pipeline
corridor. These truck trips will most likely originate from the Parachute._ Site.
During the operations phase of the project, the only vehicle traffic anticipated for
the pipelines would be associated with infrequent ground inspections by American
Soda personnel utilizing pick-up trucks or off-road vehicles. These ground
inspections would occur approximately twice annually. Otherwise, there would be
virtually no vehicle traffic associated with the pipelines once construction is
completed.
From pages 13 through 14:
5.03.08 INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1. Volume of Sound
Construction of the proposed project pipeline will generate noise for a brief period
of time at any given location along the corridor. After construction of the proposed
project pipeline is completed, there will be no perceptible sound from the operating
pipeline.
2. Vibration Generated
There will be no perceptible vibrations from the construction or operation of the
project pipelines.
3. Emissions Qf Smoke and Particulate Matter
During construction, there will be emissions of diesel exhaust from heavy
equipment and dust to some extent from earthmoving activities. These emissions
will occur along the pipeline corridor, which is located in a sparsely populated
portion of Garfield County. Minimal or no impacts associated with smoke and dust
emissions are anticipated for residential areas of the county, such as the Town of
Parachute, during construction.
There will be no emission of smoke, particulate matter, or any other form of air
pollutant from the operating pipeline. Pumps associated with the pipeline will be
located at the Piceance and Parachute Sites and will be electrically driven.
4. Emission of Heat, Glare, Radiation, and Fumes
Aside from diesel exhaust from heavy equipment during constructions there will be
no generation of heat, glare, radiation, or fumes from the project pipeline.
111111111111111111111111111111111 III11I 1111111111111111
683596 10/04/2005 09 31A 61732 P649 N AL5OORF
1 of 4 R 0.00 0 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO
SATISFACTION OF PERMIT AND RELEASE OF SECURITY
WHEREAS, American Soda, LLP ,obtained a Special Use permit
from the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
authorizing certain uses on their property subject to conditions
of approval contained in Resolution No. 2000-D05; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of issuance of the permit, American
Soda, LLP, provided security for revegetation to Garfield County
in the form of a bond number 6239756.
NOW, THEREFORE, at the request of American Soda, LLP,
Garfield County, through the Board of County Commissioners,
states as follows:
1. Garfield County acknowledges that the terms and
conditions of Resolution No. 2000-005 for a Special Use Permit
issued to American Soda, LLP, requiring the revegetation of
portions of the property are completely fulfilled.
2. There exists no potential claims against Garfield
County and SAFECO Insurance Company of America, under the terms
and conditions of bond number 6239756 for any of the activities
required of American Soda, LLP, under the terms of the permit
referenced above.
3. Garfield County, through the Board of County
Commissioners, hereby releases SAFECO Insurance Company of
America from performance of its obligations under bond number
. ,A6'2"t9ra„56 .
"; ATTEST OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
•
erk to the Board
By:
Date:
Chai
MEMO
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: MARK BEAN, DIRECTOR, BUILDING & PLANNING
DATE: 9/27/05
RE: AMERICAN SODA, LLP, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SATISFACTION
AND RELEASE OF SECURITY
American Soda, LLP has tendered a request to the Building & Planning Department
requesting that we acknowledge satisfactory performance under the conditions of
approval contained in Resolution 2000-005 and further that we release their surety and
bonding company from all obligations for revegetation provided pursuant to that permit.
Steve Anthony, County Vegetation Management Director has inspected the
revegetation work performed on the property, pursuant to the conditions of approval
contained in Resolution No. 2000-0. It is Mr. Anthony's opinion that American Soda,
LLP has satisfactorily performed all conditions of their permit and that there are no
potential claims that may be asserted by Garfield County against American Soda, LLP
under the tens of that permit. It is my opinion that the County Commissioners should
release SAFECO Insurance Company of America, the surety company, from the terms
and conditions of bond number 6239756.
MEMORANDUM
To: Carolyn Dahlgren
Mark Bean
From: Steve Anthony
Re: Solvay Chemicals request for revegetation security release per BOCC Reso: 2000-005
Date: September 1, 2005
Ed Cooley of Solvay Chemicals has requested a release of the revegetation security posted in 2000 for their
Special Use Permit for their pipeline for liquid sodium and water.
I inspected their work with Mr. Cooley on August 22. 2005 and certify that they have met their
revegetation obligations per Garfield County resolution 2000-005.
It is my understanding that the County Attorney's Office in cooperation with Building and Planning will
coordinate the release of the revegetation security. If you need anything further from me let me know.
Bond No. 6239756
Replaces Safeco Bond #604399
LICENSE OR PERMIT BOND
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, That we, American Soda, LLP
Houston Texas
(City)
as Principal, of 3333 Richmond Avenue
(State)
,a Washington
Garfield County, Colorado
(Street and Number)
and the SAFECO Insurance Company of America
corporation, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto
, as Obligee,
in the sum of Ninety Thousand and oo/ioa Dollars ($ 90,000.00 )
for which sum, well and truly to be paid, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns,
jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals, and dated this s day of November , 2003
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That WHEREAS, the Principal has been or is about to be granted
a license or permit to XidOtitigit(x( cover the reclamation costs for that section of American Soda, LLP pipeline
located In Garfield County (total length approximately 19 miles/
by the Obligee.
NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal well and truly comply with applicable Iocal ordinances, and conduct business in
conformity therewith, then this obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
PROVIDED, HOWEVER:
1. This bond shall continue in force:
Until , , or until the date of expiration of any Continuation Certificate executed by
the Surety
OR
QUntil canceled as herein provided.
2. This bond may be canceled by the Surety by the sending of notice in writing to the Obligee, stating when, not less
than thirty days thereafter, liability hereunder shall terminate as to subsequent acts or omissions of the Principal.
American Soda, LLP
Principal
SAFEC aucee Cothp • T6 of erica
Pamela Prokop j torney-in-Fact
By
WC-1235/EP 4/94
PAINTED IN USA
SAFECO" POWER
OF ATTORNEY
?CO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
+ERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
HOME OFFICE: SAFECO PLAZA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98185
No. 5713
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS:
Thal SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, each a Washington corporation, does each hereby
appoint
DONALD R. GIBSON, SANDRA PARKER; LISA A. WARD; WILLIAM L. POWER; MELISSA HADDICK; KIM STRAHM; Houston, Tams
Its hue and lawful attorney(s)-in-fact, with full authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other documents of a similar character
issued in the course of its business, and to bind the respective company thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have each executed and
attested these presents
this 4th
RA. PIERSON, SECRETARY
day of June , 1999
ratidt4/144
W. RANDALL STODDARD, PRESIDENT
CERTIFICATE
Extract from the By -Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA:
"Article V, Section 13. - FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS ..• the President, any Vice President, the Secretary, and any Assistant Vice President appointed for that
purpose by the officer in charge of surety operations, shall each have authority to appoint individuals as attorneys -In -fad or under other appropriate titles with authority to
execute on behalf of the company fidelity and surety bonds and other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business... On any
instrument making or evidencing such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any Instrument conferring such authority or on any bond or
undertaking of the company, the seal, or a facsimile thereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other mariner reproduced; provided, however, that the seal shall not
be necessary to the validity of any such Instrument or undertaking."
Extract from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopted July 28,1970.
"On any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assistant secretary of the Company setting out,
(1) The provisions of Article V, Section 13 of the By -Laws, and
(if) A copy of the power-of-attomey appointment, executed pursuant thereto, and
(iii) Certifying that said power-of-attorney appointment Is in full force and effect,
the signature of the certifying officer may be by facsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereat."
1, R.A. Pierson, Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, do hereby certify that the
foregoing extracts of the By -Laws and of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations, and of a Power of Attomey issued pursuant thereto, are true and
correct, and that both the By -Laws, the Resolution and the Power of Attorney are still In full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimile seal of said corporation
this
14th day of February 2000 •
S-0974/SAEF 7/98
RA. PIERSON, SECRETARY
® Registered trademark of SAFECO Corporation.
6/4199 PDF
shall be de% eloped by American Soda in coordination with the BLM. Seed or
transplant material shall be derived only from this stand of trees. Prior to
disturbing any ponderosa pine. American Soda shall contact the Authorized
Officer.
6. The pipeline corridor passes through a number of geographical areas that have
been documented to be the locations of plant communities considered to be
vulnerable or imperiled in the state of Colorado and/or throughout their ranges
(Figure 3.,-2 in the Draft EIS). Potential impacts to these plant communities shall
be assessed in consultation with the BLM on a site-specific basis based on final
pipeline routing and specific known community site locations. Should it be
necessary to disturb these communities, BLM may require the areas to be
revegetated with species indigenous to the site.
WILDLIFE
The Wildlife Mitigation Plan as developed and approved in the FEIS shall be
implemented as directed by the Authorized Officer.
American Soda shall develop an educational/awareness program for employees
that include information on wildlife laws, wildlife harassment and deer1vehicle
collisions. The information shall be incorporated into employee orientation and
training programs.
3. American Soda shall develop (I) an effective disciplinary policy for dealing with
infractions of wildlife laws, including intentional harassment of wildlife, and (2) a
policy prohibiting employees from carrying firearms on the job site to reduce the
opportunity for illegal hunting.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
l . Threatened and Endangered Animals
In the course of Endangered Species Act consultation, American Soda offered to
release, on a schedule set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to
benefit endangered fish, any water from their Wolford Mountain contract that
would not be needed by American Soda for direct replacement or exchange
purposes. Implementation of this conservation measure by American Soda is
considered an integral part of the Proposed Action and its successful execution is
implicit under the terms of the consultation and this Record of Decision.
American Soda shall provide to the BLM Authorized Officer documentation of
the terms and conditions agreed to by American Soda and the USFWS concerning
the disposition of the Wolford Mountain water.
A-7
613000:461J00.ROD dac i c. :09912 .: ?NO. RAT '.
[n order to exempt this action from the incidental take provisions of the
Endangered Species Act and as prescribed by the USFWS in the Biological
Opinion developed for this project, BLM and American Soda shall comply with
the following reasonable and prudent measure with its implementing terms and
conditions:
To minimize incidental take of Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker,
American Soda shall. upon testing or actual use of the intake structure from the
Colorado River. sample for tish entering the pipeline and settling pond. At least 1
month prior to any operation of the intake, American Soda shall alert appropriate
USFWS personnel so that they may provide advice on sampling procedures and/or
attend sampling procedures. American Soda shall provide a report to the USFWS
and BLM Authorized Officer of all species of fish trapped in the pipeline and
settling pond by no later than the end of September of the year following
sampling.
Upon any indication from sampling that incidental take of threatened or
endangered fish is occurring, American Soda shall design an entrainment
preclusion device and pay for its timely installation and maintenance.
If, during the course of the action covered under the Biological Opinion, levels of
incidental take established in BLM's Biological Assessment are exceeded (0.05
percent of total larval and young -of -year razorback sucker and 0.08 percent of
total larval and young -of -year Colorado pikeminnow produced upstream of the
intake structure per year under any given flow conditions), American Soda and
BLM shall coordinate the reinitiation of formal consultation to review and, where
necessary, modify the reasonable and prudent measures established in the original
Biological Opinion.
Additionally. if circumstances change such that the effects of this project on any
endangered or threatened species are altered in a manner or to an extent not
considered in the Biological Opinion developed for this project (i.e., project
operations change, a new species becomes listed. anticipated incidental take levels
are exceeded, total average annual water depletions change). formal Section 7
consultation with the USFWS would be reinitiated by the BLM.
Threatened and Endangered Plants
The Biological Opinion issued by the LS. Fish and Wildlife Service supports
Implementation of these stipulations to avoid adv erse effects on threatened and
endangered plants.
A. The BLM shall implement stipulation NSO-8 of the White River Resource
Area Resource Management Plan Record of Decision (BLM 1997) and not
A-8
b1000:463.44RQD dot 14:1941_ PM RP/ 4
allow surface disturbance or surface occupancy w ithin habitat occupied by
the Dudley Bluffs twinpod or the Dudley Bluffs bladderpod at the
Piceance Site. The BLM shall require that no surface disturbance occur
within 200 feet of the outer edge of existing populations of Dudley Bluffs
twinpod or the Dudley Bluffs bladderpod unless a site-specific analysis
indicates that there is a low likelihood for direct or indirect impacts.
American Soda shall establish these buffer zones and maintain them
through fencing or signs.
B. American Soda shall develop and implement a monitoring plan, approved
by the BLMM. that establishes a baseline for the known populations of
Dudley Bluffs twinpod or Dudley Bluffs bladderpod within the lease area,
is able to detect any significant changes in these populations attributable to
American Soda's operation, and ensures the adequacy of the committed
mitigation.
C. American Soda shall re -inventory unoccupied suitable habitat in each mine
pane! prior to development of the mine panel. If new populations of the
species are found, the mitigation measures established herein shall be
applied. No inventory of the 0-5 year mine panel shall be required if
surface disturbance begins within 3 years of the 1998 botanical survey.
D. In consultation with the BLM and USFWS, restoration of unoccupied
suitable habitat disturbed during well field and road construction shall be
accomplished by American Soda in accordance with the Soil
Conservation, Erosion and Sediment Control. Reclamation and
Revegetation Plan. This plan shall be field tested to ensure that the
restored habitat promotes suitability for the desired species over suitability
for potentially competing species.
A-9
61000:463400IROD dx IOr:01991: 5: PM) RPT 9
3. Colorado River Cutthroat Trout
The following measures are considered by BLMM to be committed mitigation for
the protection of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (i.e., measures analyzed as part
of the proposed action):
A. The width of construction in Parachute Creek and riparian zone shall be
reduced to the minimum necessary, and removal of large trees will be
avoided.
B. Construction across Parachute Creek shall be limited to no more than one
day per crossing.
C. Siltation of Parachute Creek shall be prevented by use of appropriate
erosion controls during and following construction.
D. American Soda shall restore the streambed, stream banks, and riparian
zone of Parachute Creek in consultation with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife.
VISUAL RESOURCES
1. American Soda shall minimize ground disturbance to the extent possible;
including areas of cut and fill. American Soda shall minimize soil sidecast on the
downhill slopes of road cuts or well pad areas.
At the Piceance Site, American Soda shall paint all permanent structures (i.e., on
site for a period Ionger than 90 days after construction) a color agreed to by BEA
to blend with the surrounding landscape. Exceptions to this requirement are small
structures that are not readily visible from a distance of approximately 1/4mile such
as wire and small pipe or structures that, because of OSHA requirements require
safety coloration.
3. The project sites shall feature mercury vapor lighting installed to provide adequate
lighting for workers in accordance with OSHA standards. Light fixtures shall
include visors to reduce glare when viewed from off site.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. American Soda shall comply with the provisions of the BLN1's Programmatic
Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the
PresidentOs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of
cultural resources or otherw ise ensure that adverse effects to historical properties
are avoided in compliance with any BLN1 requirements to satisfy its Section 106
responsibi lities.
A-10
69oo02463400/ROD oc r: _ i 92. : AM' ar-
?. American Soda is responsible for informing all persons associated with this
project that they will be subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing historic
or archaeological sites or for collecting artifacts.
3. If previously undiscovered historic or archaeological materials are uncovered
during construction. American Soda shall comply with the necessary steps to
protect such materials as specified in the BLM1's Programmatic Agreement or
otherwise comply with any BLM requirements governing discovery situations.
OIL SHALE PROTECTION
American Soda will develop and implement a plan, subject to BLM approval, to monitor
operations to assure compliance with lease stipulations concerning protection of the oil
shale. The plan will include sampling of the production stream for dissolved organic
carbon to identify if destructive distillation of the oil shale is occurring.
SUBSIDENCE MONITORING
The Subsidence Monitoring Plan shall be implemented as directed by the Authorized
Officer.
PIPELINES AND ROADS
1. The sodium minerals pipeline and parallel return water pipeline shall be
constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with the Pipeline Plan o,
Development.
'. Access road upgrades shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with
BLM 9113 guidelines and Class C 0 Mountainous Rio Blanco County Road
standards.
The designated operatorlessee shall regularly maintain the road in a safe, usable
condition. A regular maintenance program shall include, but not be limited to.
blading, crowning, ditching, culvert installation, drainage installation, surfacing,
and inspection.
The designated operator lessee shall post signs, visible within line of sight,
indicating the location of the underground v. ater pipelines and any cables,
providing name, address. and telephone number of a responsible contact person.
All pipelines adjacent to or crossing access roads shall either be buried with a
minimum of 4 to 5 feet of cover in alluvial areas and a minimum of 30 inches of
cover in rocky areas, or they will be otherwise protected from road maintenance
and construction activity.
A-1 1
5e000:463400IROD doc 991:1: PM •I:PT 9
6. Culverts and/or other measures may be necessary to control surface water runoff
from the access road and adjacent areas so as not to impede natural drainage or
create erosional hazards. Placement and construction is subject to direction and/or
approval by the Authorized Officer.
7 A cattleguard meeting. BLM specifications shall be installed wherever an access
road intersects a fenceline. The cattleguard shall be maintained and kept
functional by the operator. A gate (wire, metal, etc.) shall be installed adjacent to
the cattleguard for the movement of livestock from allotment to allotment. The
cattleguard shall be installed at the time of construction of the well pad and access
road
A-12
611000240400WRDD dac IO+20/991: 52 n11-APT9
INADEQUATE SCOPING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• Commentors. McGihon and Ireland contend that the BLM did nor comply with NEPA
requirements for public scoping, hindered public participation and withheld pertinent
information by not making the Commercial Mine Plan available for public review until
March 1999.
The BLM did adequately comply with the letter and spirit of the NEPA regulations regarding
public scoping and participation. BLM initiated scoping in June 1998 to ensure that there was an
early and open process to inform the public and agencies of the proposed project and to solicit
input on identifying significant issues and alternatives to be analyzed. In accordance with the
CEQ Scoping Guidance, the "Scoping Document", which was available to the public and
agencies, describes the proposed action, preliminary range of alternatives and potential scope of
environmental issues to be addressed. At the public meetings, the BLM presented an overview of
the project and the proponent was available to answer questions on specifics of the proposed
project. All comments and letters received during the public scoping period and a summary of
the issues raised were presented in the "Summary of Public Scoping Meetings", which was also
made available to the public. NEPA does not require that a commercial mine plan be completed
prior to scoping, nor does it have to be available for public review during the preparation of the
Draft EIS. The commercial mine plan was made available on March 10, 1999 and throughout the
Final EIS comment period. The pertinent information on the proposed action that was presented
in Chapter 2 of the Draft EIS was extracted primarily from the "Commercial Mine Plan", and
was presented in plain language so that decision -makers and the public could readily understand
the proposed activities and processes. The DEIS does not rely on other data in the "Commercial
Mine Plan" that was not specifically disclosed in the DEIS to support its conclusions. The fact
that the Mine Plan was not available for review at the BLM office during the Draft EIS comment
period has riot in any way impeded the ability of the public to comment on the proposed mining
operation.
INADEQUATE EXAMINATION OF ALTERNATIVES
• Commentors' McGihon and Dodson contend that the EIS did not examine a reasonable range
of alternatives and that adequate justification was not provided for rejecting alternatives
before conducting the environmental impact evaluation.
As stated in the Final EIS, a reasonable range of alternatives was addressed in the EIS in
accordance with NEPA. The EIS also disclosed alternatives that were considered but eliminated
from detailed study as required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. The
CEQ recognizes reasonable alternatives as those that are practical or feasible from a technical and
economic standpoint, use common sense, and consider the purposes and needs of the proposed
action. The Commentors do not identify other alternatives that the EIS should have discussed
that would be considered technically or economically feasible
INADEQUATE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
• Air Quality: Dodson indicates that a major error may have been made in the air emission
B-2
6800:2+6340YROD doc 10/11199f211 PMVRFCA
estimates due to underestimating the assumed energy requirements for the proposed project.
The commentor has confused the test phase air quality permit information with the commercial
phase information. The referenced operating permit (No. 980PRB 197) and the cited fuel
requirements of 447.461 MSCF (million standard cubic feet per year) apply to the existing test
phase boiler. The test phase boiler has a heat capacity that is I0 percent of the commercial phase
boilers. The estimated fuel requirement presented in Attachment A of the commercial phase
Construction Permit is 3,942 MMSCF which is consistent with the commentors estimated 4,041
MMSCF. The fuel requirement used to estimate emissions in the construction permit application
and used as the basis of the modeling and impact assessment is 4,444 MMSCF. Thus, the fuel
requirement used for the impact assessment is actually 10 percent higher and more conservative
than the commentors'estimate.
• Groundwater Baseline Conditions: Several commentors (Ireland, Tobin, Dorsett, and
McGihon) stated that available data were not adequate to establish baseline conditions for
groundwater; therefore, the project should not go forward without additional
characterization. Ireland, Tobin, Dorsett, Rothberger, and McGihon also contend that
laboratory results used by the BLM to characterize baseline groundwater quality are
erroneous and deficient, and BLM's reliance on these data is unacceptable.
It is BLM's position that sufficient information exists with respect to groundwater to make a
well -reasoned decision to permit the project. This decision is based on the following;
► Aquifer delineation (i.e., Iateral and vertical extent) and groundwater flow patterns are
sufficiently characterized from the following sources of information: (1) American Soda
monitoring wells and exploration boreholes; (2) historic exploration boreholes and
groundwater wells in the vicinity of the project, and (3) regional U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and U.S. Bureau of Mines published reports characterizing groundwater conditions
in the Piceance Basin including the project area. From the above sources, the relationship of
aquifers, aquitards and the zone proposed for solution mining is well understood.
1 Groundwater quality data presented in the Draft EIS and Final EIS for American Soda
monitoring wells near the test mine site are representative of baseline conditions in the
vicinity of the first 5 -year mining panel as discussed below.
Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed by American Soda a number of times during
1997 and 1998 from four wells representing water quality in the alluvium, upper aquifer, lower
aquifer, and the dissolution surface. Initial concerns by Tobin focused on his assertion that
analytical results did not conform to groundwater quality trends noted in previous studies of the
Piceance Basin (i.e., water quality appeared to be worse in the vicinity of American Soda's wells
than regional data suggested it should be).
American Soda subsequently contracted a known expert in groundwater conditions within the
Piceance Basin, George Saulnier, a former USGS employee, to review and comment on
groundwater data collected by the proponent. Dr. Saulnier prepared a report to document his
findings ("Groundwater Quality in Piceance Creek Basin", G.J. Saulnier, Jr., September 1999). A
copy of Dr. Saulnier's report is available for public review at the BLM White River Field Office
in Meeker. He concluded that past activities in the vicinity of American Soda's project had the
B-3
611:100246 40010D.+lva lag 319912 41 PMVRPTA
potential to cause cross -contamination of aquifers in the area. He specifically noted activities by
Shell in construction of their in-situ oil shale test cavity, the US Bureau of Mines at the Horse
Draw test mine site. and improper plugging and abandonment of mineral and oil and gas
exploration boreholes in the area (including borehole 20-1 on American Soda's leasehold) as
likely sources of contamination. He suggested that these prior activities likely contributed to the
total dissolved solids (TDS) anomalies observed in Amencan Soda groundwater monitoring
wells. Conclusions in his report are supported by his presentation and interpretation of specific
conductance readings taken in monitoring wells installed by American Soda for the pilot project.
• Groundwater Flow Direction: Commentors' McGihon and Moran noted that the
groundwaterjIow direction used by American Soda to site additional monitoring wells
required by the Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan does not conform exactly
to site-specific or regional flow directions, and the data collected from these wells would be
of little use if the flow direction is different from that assumed.
The BLM, other regulatory agencies (e.g., USEPA, Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology),
and American Soda recognize that the Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan is a
"living" document and revisions to the plan may be necessary as more data are gathered across
the project area of approximately 4,500 acres over 30 years of operation. The Record of Decision
also allows for the flexibility to change and/or revise stipulations as necessary based on
monitoring results (Section VI Mitigation and Monitoring). If results from the planned wells
indicate that additional wells are needed because of variations in direction of groundwater flow
from that assumed, BLM will require installation of additional wells. It should be noted that
American Soda plans to accomplish several objectives with installation and sampling of the
planned wells. A key objective is to evaluate vertical hydraulic gradients and associated water
quality at several multiple -completion sites. These data will help verify information in Saulnier's
report (Saulnier 1999) suggesting the likelihood of cross -contamination from historic activities.
This objective necessarily requires that slight differences in groundwater flow direction between
the upper aquifer (i.e., northeasterly flow) and lower aquifer (i.e., easterly flow) systems may be a
secondary consideration for some well locations.
Furthermore, the BLM does not believe McGihon's assertion that data collected from the planned
wells will be of limited value if the flow direction is not exactly as that assumed. Well locations
were purposefully selected to account for possible variations in Flow from that assumed.
Therefore, the wells are expected to provide upgradient and down gradient information relevant
to at least portions of the first 5 -year mine panel if not the entire panel.
• Laboratory Detection Limits: Several commentors P Moran, Tobin, Rothgerber, and
Komatinsky) noted that laboratory Method Detection Limits (MDL) for many water quality
parameters listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan
are too high to be of use when evaluating whether a given result exceeds state water quality
standards. Moran presents a list of MDLs and Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) from a
commercial laboratory, Core Laboratories, to demonstrate what he feels are reasonable
limits which in many cases are tnuc/t lower than those shown in the Groundwater and
Surface Water Monitoring Plan.
A multi -agency meeting was held March 25, 1999, in an effort to bring all agencies into
8-4
6800tn.163-40N1RODak 1413r99i2.+1 P\SYRPTA
consensus on a single Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan (Plan) for the Yankee
Gulch Project. Those in attendance at this meeting included representatives from American
Soda. Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (CDMG), U.S. Geological Survey, Rio
Blanco County, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency participated via telephone.
American Soda provided a draft Plan at that meeting. After the meeting another draft Plan was
produced by American Soda and reviewed by the agencies. A final Plan was produced April 22,
1999, and distributed to the agencies. CDMG subsequently requested a review of Tables WQI
and WQ2 from the Plan because the Method Detection Limits (MDLs) in these tables were
higher than the Basic Standards for Groundwater provided in Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Commission Rule No. 41. A new set of Tables
WQI and WQ2 with MDLs at or below the Basic Standards for Groundwater was submitted to
CDMG on June 3, 1999..CDMG responded with a request to change the MDLs for cadmium,
copper, silver, and chloride to a value lower than the Basic Standards for Groundwater.
High MDL levels in the groundwater monitoring plan were noted by commentors at EPA's July
13, 1999, public hearing held in Meeker, Colorado, for American Soda's Class 111 Underground
Injection Control Permit. The EPA has not distributed responses to the comments received
during this hearing. Responses and required changes will be available from the EPA before
issuance of the Class III UIC permit.
On June 23, 1999, the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board (MLRB) reviewed American
Soda's application for a 112 Permit and approved the application provided certain conditions
would be met prior to circulation of mining fluid. Two of these conditions, defined in the 112
Permit issued by CDMG to American Soda July 16, 1999, are applicable to the Plan. One
condition required that the Plan incorporate the recommended MDLs for cadmium, copper,
silver, and chloride. The other condition required a second review of the MDLs from Tables
WQ1 and WQ2. CDMG and the MLRB required that the MDLs in these tables reflect the
capability of the laboratory testing equipment used to analyze the samples: therefore, ensuring the
testing methods used will adequately meet the Basic Standards for Groundwater. Tables WQI
and WQ2 were revised to incorporate the required conditions and submitted to CDMG as a
Technical Revision to the 112 Permit on September 16, 1999.
The BLM wishes to point out that detection or quantitation limits actually obtained on high TDS
groundwater samples could be higher than laboratory determined MDLs and PQLs. This is due to
the fact that the samples may require dilution prior to analysis, and the laboratory MDLs and
PQLs would need to be adjusted upward to account for sample dilution.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS INADEQUATELY ANALYZED
• Several comnrentors (Dodson. McGihon, Rothgerber, Ireland) contend that by not disclosing
data or even a summary of the test mine operations, neither the public or the BLM could
adequately assess rhe potential impacts or technical or commercial viability of the proposed
commercial operation. In addition, McGihon asserts that the EIS did not disclose the
intended use or potential impacts of the future use of the test mine facility during commercial
operations.
The construction and operation of the test mine facility are described in the test mine plan
B-5
610002743+OIYRt}b ,Inc 10,1 3.991 2 41 PMURPTA
("Experimental Test Cavity Project", February 1997). The environmental effects were evaluated
by the BLM in 1997 and the results presented in the "Decision Record and Environmental
Assessment for American Soda Test Mine Plan" dated May 2, 1997. The test mine facility will
remain in place during commercial operations and used for continuing research on operations and
completion methods. These uses remain within the range of activities previously analyzed in the
BLM's Environmental Assessment, and would not be different than commercial activities
analyzed in the EIS for the commercial operations. As stated in the Final EIS, the BLM reviews
monitoring data from the test facility and believes that the results have adequately demonstrated
the technical feasibility of the proposed mining and resource recovery methods. Operation
pressures and temperatures commensurate with those proposed for commercial operations have
been tested and results reviewed by the BLM. No unexpected results were obtained
• Commentors' McGihon, Moran and Rothgerber assert that the potential impacts to oil shale
from temperatures and pressures proposed by American Soda have not been adequately
evaluated. Eristing groundwater data for Total Organic Carbon from American Soda test
wells compared to regional background data indicate that the American Soda test wells have
already caused some breakdown of oil shale organic compounds. Commentor Miller
expressed concern about the future mineability of the oil shale.
The BLM believes that potential contamination of groundwater from historic operations in the
vicinity of American Soda's test mine facility (Saulnier 1999) could account for higher than
expected TOC values. In any event, American Soda will be required to conduct their commercial
operations in conformance with the lease terms, including the protection of oil shale resources, as
authorized by the BLM. As stated in the Draft and Final EIS, the proposed nahcolite mining
operations will not adversely affect the future mineability of oil shale.
American Soda contracted with Agapito Associates, Inc. to determine the potential impacts to the
oil shale resulting from the solution mining of sodium minerals at the project site ("Evaluation of
Impacts to Oil Shale Due to Solution Mining of Sodium Minerals, Yankee Gulch Sodium
Minerals Project", Agapito Associates, Inc., 1999) The document is a summary of a literature
search on low temperature effects on oil shale and of the pilot plant findings. The information
from the pilot plant shows organic compounds are found in the recovery production fluids. The
project quantified the potential hydrocarbon (VOC) emissions from the well head gas separators,
stripper system, and the combustion sources (see response F4.4 of the FEIS). A copy of the
Agapito report is available for public review at the BLM White River Field Office.
• McGihon and Dodson assert that the EIS failed to evaluate the potential impacts of the
White River Electric Association 138kv-transmission line that will traverse American
Soda's lease.
The "Cb to Ca" 138kv power line was originally proposed by Colorado -Ute in 1987. The
purpose of the line was to connect the Meeker to Cb 138kv line owned by White River Electric
Association (WREA), with the Deserado to Ca 138kv line owned by Moon Lake Electric. This
would create an intertie between the transmission systems operated by Deseret Generation and
B-6
6/430024634COAROD.doe 10/13,99i 2 41 FMURFI
Transmission, the supplier of power to Moon Lake, and Colorado -Ute, as supplier to WREA,
resulting in greater system reliability. Ultimately, the project was put on hold, and in 1992
Colorado -Ute withdrew their application stating that the project was still a part of their long-
range plans. However, in 1992, Colorado -Ute filed for bankruptcy, selling local assets to Tri-
State Generation. In 1996, Moon Lake determined that they no longer needed the Deserado to
Ca line. WREA purchased this line, and the current proposal, as before, is to tie the lines
together for greater system reliability. Based on WREA's application, it is BLM's understanding
that WREA intends to pursue this proposal regardless of the Yankee Gulch Project.
• McGihon questions whether the Agapito rock mechanics study was conducted using the
correct projected average cavity temperature (Le., 420° F).
Even though injection temperatures may be over 400°F and initially the cavity temperature could
be up to 400°F, operational constraints indicate that the average cavity temperature at maturity
will be close to 300°F. Therefore, the thermomechnical modeling conducted by Agapito
Associates, Inc. using an average cavity temperature of 300°F is appropriate for evaluating
stability.
• Dodson, Ireland, McGihon, and Rothgerber contend that it is not possible to evaluate
potential impacts to groundwater without knowing the constituents in the mining injection
fluid, and consideration of this information as confidential by the proponent is unacceptable.
The BLM reviewed data for the chemical composition of the injection fluid during the test mine
phase and did not have reason to expect the presence of hazardous constituents. The whole basis
for the in-situ mining process proposed by the proponent and demonstrated during the test mine
phase relies on a closed -circulation system within the mine cavity. From a practical and
economic standpoint as well as an environmental perspective, the proponent can not afford to and
will not be allowed to operate a cavity that "leaks". The design of the solution wells including
cemented steel casing strings through the upper and lower aquifers will provide the primary
method of protection for groundwater resources. Any cavity showing initial signs of leakage
from pressure monitoring or groundwater quality data will be immediately shutdown and
mitigation measures will be implemented.
• Dodson believes that potential impacts to groundwater particularly along the pipeline from
potential pipeline spills were not adequately evaluated or disclosed in the EIS. He goes on to
assert that NEPA requires an evaluation of potentially significant adverse environmental
impacts from possible contamination due to releases from the pipeline.
It appears that the Commentor is confusing disclosure and discussion of potential impacts with
unavoidable adverse impacts. There is a significant difference in how NEPA deals with these two
Issues. In the EIS, it is acknowledged that groundwater has the potential to be irripacted if
product is spilled from the pipeline or a release occurs from a solution mine cavity. However,
there is no certainty that these situations will ever occur. In fact, the operational monitoring
required of the proponent is designed to prevent these scenarios from occurring, and if they
occur, limit adverse impacts. It is the position of the BLM that no reasonably foreseeable,
unavoidable, adverse impacts to groundwater exist under the Agency Preferred Alternative.
UNCERTAINTIES
B-7
660002163d06+ROD Lim I0/1399(2:1I. P.M)IRPrA
• Several commentors (Nehts, Rothgerber, Ireland, Miller, and McGihon) contend that
BLM should require American Soda to determine the size and shape of their test mine
cavities. in their opinion, this should be done to verify that the test cavities are developing
in accordance with the projected cavity size and shape at full development (Le.. a
cylinder approximately 200 feet in diameter and 600 feet in height).
Section 3.3 of the Subsidence Monitoring Plan (Appendix F of the Final EIS) requires American
Soda to evaluate technologies to characterize solution cavity size and shape and present their
findings to the BLM by June 2000. The plan goes on to discuss application of the selected
technology(s) during the initial stages of commercial mining when cavities in the first mining
panel have reached an anticipated radius of approximately 100 feet.
After June 2000, BLM will require American Soda to test the selected technology(s) in the test
mine cavity to verify that the approach will work during the commercial mine phase of the
project. Field testing results for the selected technology(s) must be reported to the BLM. The
BLM will also require American Soda to revise Section 3.3 of the Subsidence Monitoring Plan to
reflect the above requirements. If the size and shape of the test mine cavity is considerably
different than that modeled by the proponent to evaluate subsidence, the BLM can then require
additional modeling or operational changes to solution mining processes if needed prior to
commercial mine startup.
INADEQUATE MITIGATION
• Several commentors (McGihon, Dodson, Rothgerber, Ireland) believe that the Final EIS
fails to adequately specify mitigation measures and that the BLAif is substituting
monitoring for effective mitigation of potential impacts. In particular, commentors
Ireland, Cody, Rothgerber, Dodson and McGihon express concern that the Final EIS
[e.g., Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan, and the Pipeline Spill
Contingency Plan (Appendix G and E, respectively, of the Final EIS)] does not contain
mitigation or remediation plans for potential impacts to groundwater. Ireland states that
monitoring is not an effective substitute for a remediation plan. Rothgerber asserts that
"This approach may be fairly summarized as waiting until the catastrophe happens, then
deciding what to do about it." Rothgerber goes on to state that the absence of specific
mitigation measures violates NEPA.
It is BLM's position that mitigation measures would only be required in the EIS if reasonably
foreseeable adverse impacts were identified for the Agency Preferred Alternative. For example, a
Wildlife Mitigation Plan is included in the Final EIS to mitigate expected impacts to mule deer,
sage grouse, migratory birds and raptors. Operational safeguards and monitoring specified in the
EIS are designed to prevent adverse effects to the environment and monitor changes or trends in
baseline conditions. No mitigation measures are specified for groundwater because no reasonably
foreseeable, adverse impacts were identified in the EIS. BLM feels that mitigation cannot be
prescribed without defining the problem through monitoring. Based on the monitoring results,
BLM will be continually reviewing the potential for adverse impacts and will change and/or
revise the mitigation measures and stipulations in the ROD as necessary to prevent reasonably
foreseeable adverse impacts from occurring. Should a release to groundwater accidentally occur,
B-8
6EO O2J6M9(1ROD.Fac Ia119942'.11 ?MI/RFT/9
assessing the risk to potential receptors is one of the first considerations. Given groundwater flow
rates measured in feet per year and potential down gradient receptors distant from the project,
particularly at the Piceance site, flexible site/release-specific mitigation measures would be
necessary.
References Cited:
Agapito Associates, Inc., 1999, Evaluation of Impacts to Oil Shale Due to Solution Mining of
Sodium Minerals, Yankee Gulch Sodium Minerals Project, September 8, 1999.
Saulnier, G.J., 1999, Groundwater Quality in Piceance Creek Basin, Duke Engineering &
Services, Austin, TX. September 7, 1999.
B•9
66001:124611OOPROO Jac 1Od111991241 11.1yRP79
JOHN A. THULSON
EDWARD MULHALL. JR.
SCOTrBALCOMB
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
T[MOTHY A. THULSON
LORI J. M. SATfERFIELD
EDWARD e. OLszewSKI
DAVID SANDOVAL
DENDY M. HEISEL
JEFFERSON J. CHENEY
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. O. DRAWER 790
818 COLORADO AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81002
Telephone: 970.945.6546
Facsimile: 970.945.8902
January 18, 2000
Mark Bean
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
109 8th Street, 3rd Floor
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
OF COUNSEL;
KENNETH BALCOMB
Re: Product and Water Return Pipeline Special Use Permit for American Soda,
LLP
Dear Mark:
I enclose herewith for your reference a copy of the correspondence from Mr. John
Loschke, Mayor for the Town of Parachute, to the Garfield County Commissioners dated
January 7, 2000, addressing the Reimbursement Agreement between the Town of Parachute
and American Soda, LLP. This letter was sent to the Board at American Soda's request for
the purpose of satisfying the condition of approval incorporated by the Board on December
13, 1999, specifically, that American Soda provide written confirmation that the
Reimbursement Agreement previously executed by American Soda and the Town of
Parachute address all the fiscal impacts presented by the American Soda project to the
Town of Parachute.
I was unsure as to whether this letter was mailed directly to the Board and as such
felt it appropriate to provide you a copy of the same.
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Mark Bean
January 18, 2000
Page 2
Should you have any questions or concerns regard ng any of the above, please feel
free to contact me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
BALCOMB Sr GREEN, P.C.
. r�
rothy '• ulson
TAT:kjk
Enclosure
Toon of Parachute
int stratron
222
Telephone: (970) 2854:e;
Facsimile: (970) 285-9146
January 7, 2000
Garfield County Commissioners
109 S"' Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Gentlemen:
The Town of Parachute recently entered into
L.LP to address the possible impacts their op
the ``Town. This agreement provides for the rein
Town feels that the issues covered in the ec
The agreement provides for the possibility ha
In the event that there were additional intact
renegotiate the agreement in a manner the To
Sutberely,
John Loschke
xc. Board of Trustees
CO 81635-0100
Mayor
John Loschke
Pot ft' Fax Nott? 7671
Data/ _ _yy 4,511
4,
tater
Co/Dept
Co 4rvx14le
y
G9C�
Phone 1
Prione N
rax' 977 - f 7 5-1 Q (�'i z-
""
a Reimbursement Agreement with American Soda,
ration and the additional work force would have on
ursement ofpolice officer and court staff wages The
ent are the actual impacts to the Town. at this time
he impacts would be greater or fess than anticipated.
the Town is confident that American Soda would
�n would accept
1
John A. Thulson
Edward Mulhall, Jr.
Scott Balcomb
Lawrence R. Green
Timothy A. Thulson
Lori J. M. Satterfield
Edward B. Olszewski
David Sandoval
Dendy M. Helsel
Christopher L. Coyle
Jefferson J. Cheney
Balcomb & Green, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
(formerly Delaney & Balcomb, P.C.)
P. 0. Drawer 790
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Telephone: 970.945.6546
Facsimile: 970.945.8902
October 1, 1999
Mark Bean
Garfield County Building & Planning Dept.
109 8`E' Street, 3`d Floor
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mark:
Of Counsel:
Kenneth Balcomb
I enclose herewith for your review, (3) draft copies of the above entitled Special Use
Permit application of American Soda L.L.P. ("American Soda")
As you are aware, American Soda is, in conjunction with the above, presently processing
an application for Fiscal Impact Mitigation under Section 5.08 of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution. American Soda expressly recognizes in this regard, that this application for Special
Use Permit will not be deemed complete until such time as:
1. American Soda's application for Fiscal Impact Mitigation is fully processed by the Board
under 5.08;or
2. American Soda receives permission from the Board of County Commissioners ("Board")
to process its application for Fiscal Impact Mitigation jointly with its application for
Special Use Permit; or
3. The Board exempts American from the remaining provisions of the Fiscal Impact
Mitigation Program.
Consistent with the above, American Soda further recognizes and agrees that this
submission is made for the limited purpose of allowing County Staff to perform a preliminary
completeness review of American Soda's application for Special Use Permit and as such does not,
JOHN A THULSON
EDWARD MULHALL• JR.
SCOTT GALCOMB
LAWRENCE R GREEN
TIMOTHY A THULSON
LORI J M SATTERFIELD
EDWARD B OLSZEw5KI
DAVID SANDOVAL
D€NDY M HEISEL
CHRISTOPHER L COYLE
JEFFERSON J CHENEY
BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. O. DRAWER 790
818 COLORADO AVENUE
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
Telephone: 970.945.6546
Facsimile: 970.945.8902
December 9, 1999
Mark Bean, Director
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
109 81h Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81606
(Hand Delivered)
RE: Special Use Application for Pipeline
American Soda, L.L.P.
Dear Mark:
OF COUNSEL
KENNETH BALCOMB
Pursuant to our discussions I enclose herewith seven (7) copies of the Reimbursement
Agreement between American Soda, L.L.P. and the Town of Parachute, Colorado executed on
November 18, 1999, in conformance with paragraphs 3.B, C and D and pursuant to which American
Soda will reimburse to the Town of Parachute the fiscal impact costs resulting from American
Soda's proposed operations. 1 had thought that a copy of this was earlier provided to you; 1
apologize for the delay in this forwarding.
TAT:sv
Encs.
Very truly yours,
BALCOMB
imothy A, Thulson
RECEIVED DEC 0 9 1999
r..n:'F-1ELD court EDIT
DE
W T,-1 ST. - sum303 81601
LLE,�yglOE'0 SPRINGS, CO
Sent By: American Soda; 970 928 9863;
Nov -22-99 15:58; Page 2
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMERICAN
SODA LLP AND THE TOWN OF PARACHUTE, COLORADO
THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered this lath day of
November, 1999 by and between American Soda LLP and the Town of Parachute Colorado.
WHEREAS, American Soda LLP, a Colorado Limited Liability Partnership ("American
Soda"), is the proponent of proposed commercial nahcolite mining operations ("American Sada
Project") located in western Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties.
WHEREAS, the Town of Parachute, Colorado ("Town") is a Colorado municipal
corporation duly formed and existing under the Colorado constitution. .
WHEREAS, the major components of the American Soda Project include a commercial
nahcolite mining and initial processing operation located in Rio Blanco County ("Piceance Site)
and a final product processing and shipping operation located in Garfield County ("Parachute
Site"). The Piceance Site is located within the U.S. Bureau of Land Management White River
Resource Area approximately 22 miles west-southwest of Meeker, Colorado. The Parachute Site
is located approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the town of Parachute, Colorado at the former
Union Oil Company of California 011 Shale Upgrade Facility. A pair of parallel buried pipelines
approximately 44 miles long will connect the Piceance and Parachute Sites.
WHEREAS, American Soda has received all requisite approvals from the Board of
County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado ("Board of Commissioners") for the
construction and operation of the processing and rail shipping facilities at the Parachute Site,
'WHEREAS, American Soda has made application with the Board of Commissioners for
Special Use Permit approval for the construction and operation of the buried parallel pipelines
(Collectively "Pipeline Special Use Permit"). This application for Pipeline Special Use Permit is
presently scheduled for consideration by the Board of Commissioners on December 13, 1999.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Fiscal Impact Mitigation Program regulations as contained
within Section 5.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, the Board of
Commissioners has required American Soda, as a condition to precedent to issuance of the
Pipeline Special Use Permit, to
jejnter into an agreement with the Town of Parachute to deal with possible
additional calls for service in town and to Battlement Mesa as a part of a mutual
aid agreement with the Garfield County Sheriff for police service. Board of
County Commissioner Resolution entered on October 12, 1999.
Reimbursement Agreement
American Soda LLP/Town of Paracinde
Page 1
Sent By: American Soda; 970 928 9863;
Nov -22-99 15:59; Page 3/6
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioner's hearing upon the American Soda's Pipeline
Special Permit is scheduled for consideration on December 13, 1999
WHEREAS, in accordance with the mandate of the Board of Commissioners above
described, American Soda and the Town desire to set forth the provisions pursuant to which
American Soda will mitigate the fiscal impacts to the Town which may be created by the
American Soda Project.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of
the parties and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged and confessexl, American Soda and the Town, on behalf of themselves, their
successors, assigns and/or transferees, agree as follows:
1999:
1. American Soda shall pay to the Town on a quarterly basis beginning October 1,
a. the total quarterly cost increase, ifany, in the number of compensation
hours ("Comp. Hours") earned by the Town's police officers over and above the Comp.
Hours earned during the corresponding time period in the base year of 1998, computed at
the applicable pay rates set forth within Exhibit A attached hereto; and
b. 51432.72, which amount represents the total payroll costs instant to
compensating each of the pones of Court Clerk, Assistant Court Clerk and Records
Coordinator for 24 additional hours (8 hours per month), computed at the applicable pay
rates set forth within Exhibit A.
2. Each quarterly payment shall be due within (30) days of the receipt by American
Soda of an invoice prepared by the Town which breaks down the above described charges in a
form and manner substantially equivalept to the form incorporated within Exhibit A.
3. American Soda shall cause this Agreement in its entirety to be incorporated as a
condition of approval within any resolution issued by the Board of County Commissioners
approving the Pipeline Special Use Permit .
4. This Agreement shall n9t become effective until such time as the Board of
Commissioners approve, upon conditions acceptable to American Soda, the Pipeline Special Use
Permit. For the purpose of implementing this provision, American Soda shall be deemed to have
accepted the Board. of Commissioners approval upon the initiation by American Soda of any
construction or other activities governed under the Pipeline Special Use Permit so approved.
5. Unless earlier terminate1l by mutual agreement of the parties, this Agreement shall
Reimbursement Agreement
American Sada UP/Town of Parachute
Page 2
Sent By: American Soda; 970 928 9863;
Nov -22-99 15:59; Page 4/6
terminate by its own terms upon the initiation by American Soda of commercial nahcolite mining
and processing operations at the American Socia Project
6. In recognition of the underlying purpose to be served by this Agreement, if the
fiscal impacts of the American Soda Project to the Town are significantly greater or less than
those anticipated under this Agreement, the parties agree that they will negotiate in good faith
toward the purpose ofmodifying the provisions in a manner commensurate with the fiscal impacts
presented by the American Soda Project.
7. In the event of any material failure by either party hereto to comply with the terms
of this Agreement, the other party shall have standing to bring suit at law or in equity to enforce
compliance herewith. It is expressly agreed that any default in the provisions hereof may be
specifically enforced.
8. Each party's obligations under this Agreement shall be assignable to any grantee,
purchaser, transferee, or assignee of the party's interest, and shall survive nay such conveyance,
purchase, transfer or assignment. Any such assignment by American Soda will not relieve it of
joint and several responsibility with the assignee for compliance with the conditions of this
Contract, unless release by the Town.
9. Each party shall bear its own attorney's fees incurred in the negotiation, execution,
and implementation of this Agreement. However, in the event arbitration or litigation is necessary
to enforce the rights of the parties to this Agreement, as between themselves, the prevailing party
in, such arbitration or litigation may be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs actually
incurred in the discretion of the arbitrator or the Court.
10. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties. their
successors, grantees and assigns.
11. No provision of this Agreement may be waived except by an agreement in writing
signed by the waiving party. A waiver of any term or provision of this agreement, or a finding
that any of the terms and conditions hereof are illegal or unenforceable shall not be construed as a
waiver of any other terra or provision; the terms of this Agreement are intended to be severable..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date above
written. The Mayor was authorized to sign this Agreement on behalf of the Town by motion of
the Board of Trustees at a regular meeting held on November 18, 1999.
THE TOWN OF PARACHUTE, COLORADO
Reimbursement Agreement
American Soda LLPftown of Parachute
Page 3
Sent By: American Soda;
970 928 9863;
Reimbursement Agreement
American Soda LLP/Town of Parachuk
Page 4
Nov -22-99 16:00; Page 516
Hv.N4s
j/` dr
May
AMERICAN SODA, L L.N.
9(9 ®fed
`00:9G 66-ZZ-AON !8986 9Z6 OLE,
:Epos u?ataauty :h8 }ua
I
1—
iQiflltii
4i
• 1J1LJ
R'rf
x
-
.
E rd;
ill:
y
!iPE(tfiJP
,
,.r.l.
a
)
,z
.,
, -.;
III.
!P
-;o;
oegl+'..a
_�
M
X888
i
M
l
M
1
1r
O
1111
W.
f
M t •W
es
IG
ti.0
MM
M'�
l y1��••
V V 4
i
{pL.N
��.r'.L..0
W
8888.
MMNM
J+�
l
V
hi%
M Q
I
.
N
V
W rC
F
Y
11111111
f4)
M
t! •��
1
r
• a
�•1�
M
1w
M g
=P
wiwahlz
TWITit
N NM
41
y
Ir aq
01
yamy. _..
O�
-
Y i
_
NM
Q..
_
rP'
taii
.x.,:.;!
�w
(
.1
^
40.,.M
1
i
I .1
i
_C1_
W'w
00-
{q
—.4"
;411I
R
e
g
4
c M
III
.111
1
•a 'n
8'
Y
t,
^+
I
+11
t
MY
VJ-I
t►
M M
X11
if
e. eQ
ri
t1
MM
ti
"
'P
i
i
'41
-0--
-q�'..
MMM
;44:1
i of
M ,Y
It
rei
+_-+
tii
MNV...
iJ
W 41
fit
Illi
--mn
_3`
M-
�D 7y
r
'.
I_.
iT7
bn
...1
..
.. J�y,
M
a•
N
,e4."4,
A.
kJ
P-MOQrO
MSF
u=
MS��
O
i
r...!
M
r
J
M r
J4 i
Ir u
!fa
C[Fi
W tet
f
i
Mi
4r
it �!'
f0
_
74,4
`w
4
1-3
h.�
fn
• _01
-�
•
•O
..4
_
♦
WMY
c"}rN.
�y
vIN
e
I.
Y
,
.lN
} i
W
-c�"
i
v.Yl
QO
2000 Rtstrrt Officer Horn
Comp &RetotedCocrt tier=rdto Qu urty
TOTL ORker ; Room RI* TOTAL Stiff A,S Rut TOTAL. Total
�SreiAgent 134.42 ofAatOen= it0
Su7mnestimmoor 14219 7rrretden f133 —
9(9 ®fed
`00:9G 66-ZZ-AON !8986 9Z6 OLE,
:Epos u?ataauty :h8 }ua
RESOLUTION NO. 99 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RIO
BLANCO COUNTY CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF AMERICAN SODA
LLP FOR A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
WHEREAS, Rio Blanco county has received an application from American Soda LLP
for a major development permit to construct and operate a nahcolite solution mine
.n Rio Blanco County; and,
WHEREAS, said nine is to be located in the Piceance Creek area of Rio Blanco
:aunty cn BLM lands approximately 22 miles West -Southwest cf Meeker in Sections 15
through 21 and Section 29 of T1S. R97W of the 5th P.M.. Said mine is to be located
on the Yankee Gulch Joint Venture Lease encompassing approximately 4,955 acres of
which 1.030 acres will be. impacted under the proposed thirty-year mine development
plan: and.
WHEREAS, the project will consist of two sites consisting of the Piceance
mining operation in Rio Blanco County and a processing plant in Garfield County in
the vicinity of Parachute, Colorado with two pipelines forty-four milers in Length
connecting the two sites; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of Rio Blanco County conducted a public
hearing with regard to said application on March 15, 1999 and recommended approval
of the project eubject to a number of conditions: and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Rio Blanco County conducted a
public hearing, pursuant to notice, on April 12th, at which time the public had an
opportunity to comment on the proposed project as provided in the major development
permit ordinance of Rio Blanco County.
NOW, TRIREYORE, T8a BOARD OF COUNTY CONN:I99ION8RS OF RIO BLANCO COUNTY finds
as follows:
11 That the principal concerns rained at the public hearing conducted
before the Board of tiounty Commissioners of Rio Blanco County concerned the effect
an water quality in the Piceance Creek Basin by the wells and cavities to be created
by the proposed project.
2) That an independent monitoring of the effect of the proposed project
cn water quality in the Piceance Creek Basin should be a requirement of the major
development permit.
3) That the conditions for approval of the permit recommended by the
Planning commission are appropriate and should be made a part of any major
development permit issued by the County on this project.
91 That any permit issued by Rio Blanco County to the applicant should be
onditioned upon the completion of the purchase of the plant, facilities. and water
rights necessary to complete the portion of the project located in Garfield County,
Colorado.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF RIO BLANCO COUNTY that the application of American
Soda LLP for a major development permit to be issued pursuant to
the Rio Blanco County Major Development Permit Ordinance is
approved subject to the terms and conditions set forth on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this ...4r-4day of
1999.
ATTEST;
NANC R. AMI K
Cie and Recorder
Rio Blanco County
4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RIO BLANCO COUNTY
By: 1/
E '. ILLINS
a i. rim' nar-d,
KIM A. COOK
Commissioner
DONALD L. DA IS
Commissioner
Page 1 EXHIBIT "A"
1) Noxious weeds as determined by Rio Blanco County's
noxious weed list be adequately controlled in all disturbed areas and the
entire lease site.
2) All straw, hay or mulch brought in off-site shall be certified
noxious weed free.
3) All earth -moving equipment shall be washed before entering
Rio Blanco County. All heavy equipment, including trucks and trailers,
which have been off-road or otherwise have the potential to spread weed
seeds, shall also be washed before entering Rio Blanco County.
Equipment shall be washed after working in any identified noxious weed
areas during construction within pipeline easements and mining areas.
4) All areas disturbed by initial construction or by maintenance
within pipeline easements and mining areas will be restored to its pre -
construction topography and revegetated in accordance with BLM or Soil
Conservation District specifications where applicable, or, in the
alternative, to the surface owner's specifications unless specifically
waivered by Rio Blanco County. The Soil Conservation District and/or
BLM shall be consulted regarding such revegetation. Revegetation efforts
should continue until they are successful, as determined by the BLM,
Soil Conservation District, or landowners, as applicable.
5) Topsoil shall be segregated to ensure its return to the top of
the trench within all buried pipeline easements during construction or
maintenance operations.
6) American Soda, L.L.P. shall comply with the stipulations in
its Major Development Permit application and with all applicable local,
state and federal requirements and will obtain all required permits.
7) Any required permits from the Bureau of Land Management
for the project shall be obtained.
8) Any required permits from the Department of Army Corps of
Engineers for any pipeline crossings of drainages shall be obtained.
9) American Soda, L.L.P. shall obtain the appropriate road
access permits for all new access roads which connect to county and/or
state roads.
Page 2 EXHIBIT "A"
10) American Soda, L.L.P. shall obtain the appropriate permits
for pipeline crossings or infringements onto county or state right-of-ways.
11) A tracer line or location device be placed adjacent to or in the
trench of all buried nonmetallic pipelines to facilitate the location of such
pipelines.
12) All buried pipelines shall be buried to a minimum depth of
48 inches within all road crossings, shoulders, or road right-of-ways and
to a minimum depth of 36 inches in all other areas unless specifically
waivered by Rio Blanco County. The pipelines shall be installed in a
manner to prevent line floating and water migration when crossing
streams, irrigation ditches, wetlands and irrigated fields. Any pipelines
less than 4 feet below the bottom of an irrigation ditch shall be sleeved or
otherwise protected. Documentation of sleeving or adequate depth of
pipelines installed under irrigation ditches shall be kept by American
Soda, L.L.P. and provided upon request.
13) Areas used for storing materials or equipment shall be
located at least 50 feet from stream banks, wetlands, or irrigated fields
where practical alternatives exist.
14) American Soda, L.L.P. shall be responsible for ensuring all
subcontractors activities comply with the approved plans and conditions
of the Major Development Permit.
15) The Rio Blanco County Sheriffs Office shall be contacted
immediately during any emergency or hazardous waste spill.
16) American Soda, L.L.P. shall cooperate with other pipeline
companies and the BLM within utility corridors to maintain an adequate
separation between pipelines and to coordinate crossings and cathodic
protection facilities where applicable.
17) All construction and operation procedures identified in and
submitted with the Major Development Permit application shall be
strictly followed.
18) This Major Development Permit shall expire 2 years from the
date of issuance if substantial construction has not occurred.
Page 3 EXHIBIT "A"
19) A truck with fire fighting capabilities shall be present when
pipe cutting, welding, or other activities, which have the potential to start
wildfires, are performed to minimize fire danger.
20) A water -quality monitoring plan shall be developed in
cooperation with Rio Blanco County, the BLM, EPA, and other agencies,
which addresses all issues to the satisfaction of Rio Blanco County.
21) A $1,500,000 performance bond be obtained for Rio Blanco
County to cover road impacts during the construction of this project.
22) American Soda, L.L.P. acknowledges that County Road 83 is
not winter maintained and that County Road 5, although winter
maintained, does not have a 24-hour a day snow plowing effort and may
be impassible to vehicles for periods of time during and after storm
events.
23) American Soda, L.L.P. shall provide a plan for improvements
for County Road 83 which includes all requested design and
improvement changes determined to be acceptable to Rio Blanco County
and consistent with agreements specified in a letter dated March 31,
1999 from American Soda, L.L.P.
24) No significant changes or additions to the submitted
application shall be allowed without prior approval from Rio Blanco
County or an approved amendment to the Major Development Permit.
25) Annual updates which summarize mining activities,
workforce, tonnage of materials mined, etc. shall be submitted to Rio
Blanco County.
26) This project shall be reviewed by the Rio Blanco County
Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners at scheduled public
meetings every five years to review for compliance with the approved
plans and to identify potential issues with the project.
27) This Major Development Permit expires 30 -years from the
date of issuance.
28) In the event of pipeline failure, produced materials shall not
be trucked or otherwise transported without prior approval from Rio
Blanco County.
/6_
Page 4 EXHIBIT "A"
29) The approval of this Major Development Permit does not
constitute or imply future approval of any pipelines, powerlines, building
permits, etc. or any other associated facilities required for the operation
of this project.
30) All representations of the applicant, either within the
application or stated at public meetings, shall be considered conditions
of approval.
31) Any data or representations submitted for this project to Rio
Blanco County found to be substantially inaccurate, incorrect, or
misleading shall be grounds for the revocation of this permit.
32) All pertinent data on impacts from the operation and
maintenance of this project on county demographics, wildlife, air, and
hydrologic environments must be submitted in an unbiased manner to
the county and relevant agencies for annual review. Significant impacts
should be reported immediately.
33) All present and future issues and requests of the Meeker Fire
District be addressed in a manner satisfactory to Rio Blanco County.
34) This Major Development Permit approval is conditioned upon
American Soda, L.L.P. satisfactorily meeting all fees and requirements to
be determined by future negotiations with Rio Blanco County to satisfy
Section 1200 of Rio Blanco County's Development Regulations.
35) American Soda, L.L.P. agrees to pay all taxes in a timely
manner. This includes but is not limited to the use taxes due on
construction materials. A use tax return shall be submitted on a
monthly basis. American Soda, L.L.P. understands that they are subject
to a Use Tax Audit to ensure compliance at any time.
36) American Soda, L.L.P. shall provide Rio Blanco County with
solid waste estimates annually and will segregate wastes consistent with
the letter dated March 31, 1999 from American Soda, L.L.P.
Page 5 EXHIBIT "A"
37) Rio Blanco County will make arrangements with the U.S.
Geological Survey to monitor water quality at American Soda's project
site in Rio Blanco County at American Soda's expense. Any costs
expended by Rio Blanco County to the Geological Survey to provide for
said water quality monitoring shall be reimbursed by applicant to Rio
Blanco County within thirty days after receipt of any statement from Rio
Blanco County for said expenses. In the event the USGS provides an
estimate of the yearly cost of said monitoring, American Soda shall
deposit said amount with the Treasurer of Rio Blanco County to be used
for that purpose prior to the start of construction of its project under this
permit.
38) This permit is conditioned upon applicant completing its
purchase of the plant facilities and water rights in Garfield County
necessary to complete the Garfield County portion of the project. In the
event said purchase is not completed, this permit shall be null and void.
REQUEST:
1)16
1/0Q
6s/BOCC 113100 p
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
A request for review of a Special Use Permit to
allow construction of pipelines for liquid sodium
solutions and return water.
APPLICANT] American Soda L.LP. and American Soda Pipeline
Company
LOCATION: A corridor starting approximately 2.5 miles north of
Parachute and extending approximately 19 miles
north in Garfield County along the Parachute Creek
and West Parachute Creek drainage.
SITE DATA: The pipeline would cover 19 miles, disturbing
approximately 115 acres.
ACCESS: Existing public and private roads
EXISTING ZONING: Resource Lands (R/L)
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The subject property is classified as unclassified lands in the 1984 Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan. The following statements are from the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan Urban Area of Influence Policies, Comprehensive Plan Goals,
Objectives and Policies applicable to this application:
A. "Encourage industrial expansion where similar development already exists in
appropriate areas, i.e. within or adjacent to platted industrial parks, within
designated industrial zones in existing towns, or adjacent to existing similar
development."
B. "The County may deny development proposals on the basis of : 1.) Lack of access
to the site; 2.) Inadequate road access which will create an inadequate road with
large daily truck volumes; or, 3.) A road which is already at or above its design
capacity and due to the terrain or geology of the area, cannot be further improved
to safely accommodate additional daily traffic."
1
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site & Project Description; The applicants are requesting a special use permit to
allow the construction, maintenance and operation of sodium products and return
water pipelines The lines will be placed adjacent to an existing natural gas
pipelines in the northern portion of the Garfield County section, private land in
the middle section of the Garfield County section and in an existing pipeline
corridor for the initial nine(9) miles in Garfield County. Overall the pipeline is 44
miles long, with 19 miles in Garfield County and the remaining 25 miles in Rio
Blanco County.
The proposed pipeline begins at the American Soda processing site 2.5 miles
north of Parachute. The pipelines will be placed on the west side of CR 215 for
the first six (6) miles; then another 2.5 miles along the east side of CR 215; then J 0'
another two miles north along the Middle Fork of Parachute Creek to the base of
Davis Point; west up across Davis Point and then north along the side of the East
Fork of Stewart Gulch into Rio Blanco County and continuing north to the mine
site in the Piceance Basin in Rio Blanco County. The entire section of the
pipelines in Garfield County are on privately owned lands. Approximately 20
miles of the pipelines in Rio Blanco County are on public lands.
The pipelines will have a 12.75 inch outside diameter and 0.41 inch thick walls,
except for the sections crossing Parachute Creek, which have 0.5 inch wall
thickness. One of the pipelines will transport sodium carbonate solution from the
nacolite and initial processing facility at the Piceance site in Rio Blanco County to
the processing facility north of Parachute. The other pipeline will return recycled
water from the Parachute site to the Piceance site for reuse. Large electrical
turbines will provide the power necessary to create the pressure to move the
solution and water along the corridor.
To construct the pipeline, it will take around 125 ft. of right-of-way. Within the
construction right-of-way the ditch will be 6 feet wide, with excavated ditch spoil
placed in an area 29 ft. wide, ten feet for pipe storage; 40 ft. for truck and work
area; and 40 ft. for a topsoil pile. Once the pipelines are installed, the permanent
right-of-way will be 50 ft. in width.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Right-of-way : The applicant has obtained the right-of-way for a portion of the
corridor and entered in negotiations with the other landowners. If negotiations
fail, the applicant's attorney has asserted that the company has the power of
eminent domain and can acquire the necessary right-of-way through the
appropriate court proceedings.
2
B. Road Crossings: County Road 215 is crossed one time by the pipelines. The
applicants will need to get road cut permits from the County Road and Bridge
Department, prior to construction to set any bonds, verify location of the crossing
and existing road conditions.
C. Regulations Pertaining to Industrial Operations. A pipeline is a Special Use
in the Resource Lands zone district and is considered an industrial use.. Section
5.03 describes some basic requirements for a Special Use and 5.03.07 and
5.03.08 include a description of an impact statement and standards required as
part of the SUP submittal for an industrial use.
Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution sets forth the requirements that all special
uses must meet, to wit:
1.)
Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on
accepted engineering standards and approved by the Environmental
Health Officer shall either be in place or shall be constructed in
conjunction with the proposed use;
There are no utilities needed for the operation of the pipeline, except for those at
the processing facility. During construction, drinking water will be brought onto
the site and portable toilets will need to be brought to the site.
2.) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume
generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access
to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in
conjunction with the proposed use;
County Road 215 is the only public road to be used for the construction of the
pipeline. The majority of the access will be via private roads along the pipeline
corridor. There should be no conflicts with existing traffic, given that the
majority of the traffic into the area is the applicant's traffic or the property owners.
3.) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and
from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or
landscape materials on the periphery of the Iot and by location of
intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a
manner as to protect established neighborhood character;
All impacts to adjacent uses of land will be minimal and temporary during
construction. Long term impacts should be nonexistent after the revegetation is
completed and well established.
3
Section 5.03.07 requires that the impact statement shall show that the use shall be
designed and operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of
the County, State and Federal Governments, and will not have a significant
adverse effect upon:
1.) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface
runoff, stream flow or ground water;
Water for the project will come from the alluvial wells in Parachute Creek or from
the water withdrawal facility on the Colorado River south of the Town of
Parachute. Water will be used initially to hydrostatically test the pipeline. The
amount of water in each line will be 1,560,000 gallons or a total of 3,120,000
gallons. The initial hydrostatic test will result in the release of the entire amount
of water into Parachute Creek. Once the pipeline is in operation, there is minimal
water loss due to the reuse of the water internally within the looped system.
2.) Use of adjacent land through the generation of vapor, dust, smoke,
noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations;
During construction there will a limited amount of emanations such as dust and
noise on the site, but not to adjoining properties. After completion of the pipeline
and the establishment of the revegetation program, there should be virtually no
impacts on adjacent property.
3.) Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous
attractions, alteration and existing native vegetation;
There will the temporary displacement of wildlife during the construction of the
pipeline. The mule deer population will be one of the affected species, but the
construction is proposed to be during the seasons of the year that will be the least
disrupting to the deer population. Some raptor and waterfowl habitat may be
disturbed during construction. Special precautions will be taken if any raptor
nests are identified during construction that are also active nesting sites. The
procedures are identified in the application. There is also the potential to impact
waterfowl nesting sites, but it should be minimal given the limited number of
water crossings. Impacts to fish should be minimal given the limited stream size.
4.) Truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses shall not create
hazards or nuisances to areas elsewhere in the County;
As noted previously, access to the site is via CR 215 and private roads up to Davis
Point. Access to the northern portion of the site is via BLM and private roads off
of Rio Blanco CR 5. The application projects between 30 to 55 commuter trips
per day and 15 to 20 truck trips to take material to the site. During the operation
of the pipeline there would be twice annual inspections of the pipeline corridor.
Overall, the traffic impacts to any other areas of the County are negligent and very
minimal to CR 215.
5.) Sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property
which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed
uses;
The pipeline is being built on property that the applicant will have or have
acquired a legal right to place it. All construction activity will be on the same
property and there should be no impacts to abutting property during operation.
6.) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts
identified and for the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of the
Zoning Resolution.
There are various mitigation measures proposed for the pipeline project. There
are design features including extra thick walls for areas under creeks; steel sleeves
around the pipeline in areas under county roads; posting of markers and waming
signs along the corridor; and a four valve set along the corridor to allow for the
closure of the pipeline in the event of a break. There will be technologically
advanced metering and alarm system to monitor the pipeline for leaks and
failures. A Spill Response plan has been prepared to set up containment and
response measures in the event of a failure.
7.) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approved by the County
Commissioners before a permit for conditional or special use will be
issued;
The application has a complete revegetation plan included in the application.
The revegetation plan states that "certified weed free seed will be used whenever
possible, and, in all cases, seed will be free of primary noxious weeds." The
County has always required that all seed be certified weed free seed. The term
"whenever possible" is to wide open from staffs point of view.
8.) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for
special or conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall
furnish evidence of a bank commitment of credit, bond, certified
check or other security deemed acceptable by the County
Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County
Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan
in workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications and
construction schedule established or approved by the County
Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds or check shall be payable
to and held by the County Commissioners;
Staff would suggest that the applicant's place a bond or letter of credit with the
County for the cost of revegetation of the pipeline within Garfield County. An
estimate of the cost of the revegetation plan needs to be submitted to the County
and reviewed by the County Pest and Weed Director. The applicant should then
be required to certify the revegetation being completed and the establishment of
the plant materials.
Section 5.03.08 requires that all industrial operations in the County shall comply
with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating water, air and
noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public
nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to
minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable
environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses
are located, in accord with the following standards;
1.) Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth
in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is
made.
The volume of sound generated by the construction will not exceed the limitations
for industrial activities established by the State Statutes, given the remote location
of the pipeline construction and the very limited amount of land uses that could be
affected.
2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground
vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible,
without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the
property on which the use is located;
All of the operational characteristics will not result in any vibration beyond the
property boundaries given the pipelines will be located on the same property that
adjoins the right-of-way.
3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be
operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air
quality laws, regulations and standards;
The only emanations of smoke or particulate matter that could occur would be
during construction. Once the pipelines are placed, there should be no emanations
form the pipelines since they will be underground.
4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so
operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which
substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or
which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases,
aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other
such operations which may be required by law as safety or air
pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision;
The pipelines will not emit any heat, glare, radiation or fumes once the project is
completed. During construction of the pipeline, there may be minimal emission
of heat, glare and fumes as a part of the installation of the pipelines.
5.) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be
necessary to install safeguards designed to comply with the
Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before
operations of the facilities may begin.
The water involved with the pipeline is not subject to any EPA regulations.
D. Fiscal Impact Mitigation: Section 5.08 of the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution requires any project that will employee 200 or more people at any one
time during construction or operation to defined as a major project subject to the
County Fiscal Impact Mitigation program. The applicants went through the pre -
application process and were exempted from the fiscal impact regulations by
Resolution No. 99-113, subject to meeting certain conditions of approval.
Included in the application is an analysis of the available housing for the non -local
construction workers and an analysis of local work force. (See Resolution pgs. /a
) The applicants have surveyed the available housing and based upon the
projections in the report feel that the Parachute and Battlement Mesa areas can
accommodate the non -local work force for the Parachute end of the applicant's
project based on the survey and experience to date with housing employees.
Additionally, they propose to have a newsletter developed for orientation of new
workers that will have a current listing of available housing and it will be updated
on a regular basis. Resolution No. 99-1 13 also required that the applicants enter
into certain agreements with the Town of Parachute and the City of Rifle for
additional service as a part of a mutual aid agreement. There is also supposed to
be a plan for minimizing traffic in the Town of Parachute included with the
application. There are no agreement from Rifle or a plan for minimizing traffic
in the Town of Parachute included with the application.
7
E. Rio Blanco County SUP: Rio Blanco County has approved a Special Use permit
for the mine and initial processing facility and the pipelines. (See Resolutions pgs.
grn.
1;1—
IV.
1 -
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permit is in
the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
4. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning
Resolution of 1978, as amended.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL, with the following conditions of approval:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at
the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered
conditions of approval.
2. All construction shall be in compliance with the application as submitted.
3. Prior to mobilization and/or construction, the applicant shall obtain approval of all
proposed crossings of County Roads from the Garfield County Road and Bridge
Department including appropriate notification of the public as may be necessary
for road closures or other activities as required.
4. Prior to mobilization and/or construction, the applicant or the applicant's
contractor(s) shall obtain overweight vehicle permits from the Garfield County
Road and Bridge Department
5. The applicant shall obtain all Iicences as may be required for vehicles used by the
applicant and the applicant's contractor(s) from the Garfield County Clerk and
Recorder.
8
6. A copy of the Emergency Preparedness Plan shall be maintained in the Garfield
County Emergency Preparedness Office and any revisions submitted as they are
made in the future to ensure the plan is current.
7. Any violation of the terms, interpretations or agreements made or represented to
Garfield County by the applicant pertaining to or included in this special use
permit, shall be considered a breach of the terms of conditions and the applicant
shall cease and desist all construction activities and forfeit any and all bond /
monies as may be applicable to the County. . _ `^`' 641 �/1
8. All revegetation will be done with certified weed free seed/The applicant will be
responsible for the removal of noxious weeds from the pipeline right-of-way for
the life of the project.
9. An estimate of the cost of revegetation will be submitted to the County Pest and
Weed Director for approval. A bond or letter of credit will be placed with the
County in an amount determined to be adequate by the Pest and Weed Director
for the cost of revegetation. The security will be released when a statement from
a qualified specialist is received that certifies the reestablishment of the vegetation
in accordance with the plan and the County Pest and Weed Director concurs with
the statement.
10. The applicant shall maintain a current listing of available housing for non -local
workers and present it to them at orientation or to the subcontractors management
as they come into the area.
11. Prior to the issuance of the Special Use permit, the applicants shall submit a copy
of the agreement with the City of Rifle to deal with possible additional calls for
service, as a part of a mutual aid agreement with the Garfield County Sheriff for
police service.
r' to .� W/ ' �dZtJ Q� ,wit tric.
12. Thatplan for minimizing traffic to the Town of Parachute be submitted to the F� /
County prior to the issuance of the Special Use permit.
13. That the applicant submit monthly housing and employment monitoring reports to
the County. If the total workforce exceeds the employment workforce projected
as apart of the application by ten percent (10%) or greater, the applicant is
required to notify the Board of the effects of the increased work force and
additional measures needed to accommodate the work force.
14. Any violation of or revocation of the Special Use permit issued by Rio Blanco
County will result in a cease and desist of operations in Garfield County.