Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Correspondence2014 BLAKE AVENUE GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTOR GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 May 22, 1978 MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: W. C. Milner, Building Official SUBJECT: CF&I Special Use Permit PHONE 945-8241 In compliance with Section 4.03.07 and Section 7.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations the following report is submitted: The CF&I Impact Statement accepted by the Board of County Commissioners as complete, May 15, 1978, and referred to me for compliance with the Zoning, Subdivision, Building, and Health and Sanitation Regulations has been reviewed by me with the following comments: (A) The application as submitted does comply with the Subdivision Regulations of the County as no division of land is requested; (B) Buildings as described in the application will conform to the Building Code and the zoning when they are submitted, if the use permit is approved; (C) Health and sanitation regulations will be under the control of the Environmental Health Officer and will comply with our regulations. No sanitary land fill will be allowed and CF&I has agreed in a letter dated May 27, 1977 to amend their application to delete this and haul to a designated land fill; and (D) This area is zoned Agricultural / Residential/ Rural Density (A/R/RD) and compliance with the Zoning Regulations the request for extraction and processing a natural resource is by Special Use Permit, which the applicant has applied for. The impact statement accepted by the Board of County Commissioners addresses all the information required by our regulations. The agencies and officials that have been contacted and responded are filed with the impact statement. Page 2 The adoption by the State of Colorado, of the Mined Land Reclamation Act has superceded the County's authority to require a rehabilitation plan on the affected Iand. The applicant will be required to obtain a permit from the Mined Land Reclamation Board and to post security for the rehabilitation with the State. The Board of County Commissioners are required to hold a public hearing no later than thirty (30) days following receipt of this report. The applicant shall place a Public Notice in a newspaper of general circulation within the County fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing, and Proof of Publication be presented at the hearing. Notification of surrounding property owners shall also be presented at the time of the hearing. The fee of $500.00 required has been received by Garfield County from the applicant. The submittal of this application will conform with Subdivision, Building, Health and Sanitation, and Zoning However, compliance with applicable laws and regulations Federal Governments must be obtained, and should be made application, and copies attached when they are received, permit is approved. WCM/kay Garfield County's Regulations. of State and part of this if the use "WEI 1E1 NIUMMIMIIM CF&I STEEL JRPORATION A subsidiary of Crane Co. 13,0. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81002 June 2, 1978 Mr. Thomas Owen District Manager Bureau of Land Management 764 Horizon Drive P. 0. Box 1509 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 OTA.51T3,71:\qA LL±N0 5 1978 GARB Lc co. KAt ER. NMI Dear Mr. Owen: The attached response from the Army Corps of Engineers concerning the Dotsero aerial tram crossing of the Colorado River should be inserted in the "Response" s_ction (Exhibit 0) of the Dotsero Environmental Report. Yours Very Truly, J. N. MATHESON Directo ` f Mining By J. G. Wark Chief Mining Engineer JGW/rcm Attachments pe: J. F. Welborn C. L. Miller Garfield County Planning Dept/ Eagle County Planning Dept Al Wright, BLM, Glenwood Spring, CO CERTIFIED - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED DEPARTMENT OF THE sACRAMENTo DISTRICT. CORPS OF 650 CAPITOL MALL. SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA "Pt -•T° SPKC0-0 arT[Nri4>+ o Mr. John F. Welborn 1100 United Hank Center Denver, Colorado 80290 Dear Mr. Well'orn AR MY ENGINEERS 55014 24 May 197E Your letter to the Albuquerque District Corps of Engineers, concerning CF b a Steel Corporation's proposed trap crossing; over the Colorado River has been forwarded to us for action. The proposed project is lo- cated within the Sacramento District boundaries, We have reviewed the drawings and description of the pro used project and have determined that no Corps' concerns would he involved. A Department of Army Permit could be required if fill material were to s;e placed below the ordinary high water elevation of the Colorado River. However, in this case, it appears that all construction will occur above the ordinary high coater elevation, Therefore, a Department of Army Permit will not be required provided all work is 4one in accordance with the plans and criteria submitted. If you have any questions concerning this natter, please contact Mr. Rodney Woods, Room 230, Federal Building, 400 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, or telephone (303) 243-1199. Sincerely yours, G. W. PROBASCO Chief, Construction -Operations Division GARFIELD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-7255 May 5, 1978 MEMO TO: W.C. Milner FROM: Ed Feld r' SUBJECT: CF&I As per your request, I am submitting this written memo to you to comment on CF&I Steel Corporation's solid waste plans at the proposed Dotsero Limestone Quarry. The environmental report proposes solid waste disposal at the quarry site (Section III B. 7). CF&I should be aware that a site location approval from the Garfield County Commissioners is necessary if this means of disposal is to become reality. Should this not be possible, then solid waste from the quarry site would have to be transported to an approved sanitary landfill. EF/kay e 19 and 20 �Lu-tea`' 7. cleared for quarry hearin -i. The question of whether the CF&I steel com-. _Qany will be allowed to operate a limestone quarry in a relatively pristine area near Dot- ' `tero is moving toward an answer. • Garfield iCounty Building Inspector Bud ilner ! Xonday told the county commissioners fie had ,reviewed and approved the impact ttatemerit-submitted. by CF&L At the same ime the commissioners officially set June 19 itnd 20 as public hearing dates on the quarry proposaL The hearings are to begin at 6:30 p.m. in the County courthouse. Eagle County offieials, meanwhile, are Moving toward approval of the project if Gar- fleld ojlpt}+„gives its. okay to the quarry: In a 'lattersent'. to,Ga(field County the Eagle County ._ :l?lanriing.^Department reported that its plan- ' tdng coma ission last week recommended ap- .pliriaVal of a special use permit for CF&I with .?;ggg-tainconditions.Amongthem Ls a stipulation t.the 'quarr .proposal also be. approved by 'ira rtield: County and the U. Bureau of Land Management. The Eagle County Planning Commission also stipulated that the proposal must meet all state regulations on air, water and noise control as well as state revegetation and safety . measures. .. The Eagle County Commissioners are to hold a public hearing on the proposal June 12. In approving the CF&I impact statement Milner said county regulations require him to review the statement only, to assure it meets specific county regulations. The impact statement must show that the project would • comply with county subdivision regulations, building codes and health acid sanitation . requirements, Milner said.. • The,only,question on those issues, he said, '. was the company's plan to have a sanitary lan- dfill at the quarry site. That would not be allowed under existing zoning at the site, and CF&I later deleted it from its plans, he added. The approval of the impact statement does not mean approval of the special use permit needed for the quarrying operations to begin,' The commissioners must go through the public hearings, then make their decision within 15 days after the hearings. ' ; The 80 -acre quarry would be located near Deep Creek Canyon in northeastern Garfield County. However, railroad loading facilities and a proposed tramway to haul the limestone to them would be located m Eagle County and cross BLM ground. Therefore, both those agen- cies must also approve the project. approve the project. Concerns have been raised about the project and its possible effect on wildlife in the area, on nearby cave formations, on water in the area and - on ;.the recreational use el. surrounding federal lands. Also at Monday's meeting the commissioners Learned that a road'paving project undertaken in West Glenwood last summer is already deteriorating. The problem it seems is not that .the road work was not done properly, but that water lines going under the road have settled causing the road base to settle and leave large dips in';. 'the road. One major water line, may be leaking and could settle even :more, experts told the corrimissioners. Homeowners on Mountain Shadows Drive last year formed the. West Glenwood Irrr:" provement District in order to sell bonds. and, levy taxes to pay for the road improvements. The county refused to take the road into its road system until it was brought up to county standards. The improvement district actually went beyond those standards in paving the roads. When the work was completed the couhtyae- cepted Mountain Shadows Drive as a county:• ' road and is now required to maintain it. At Monday's meeting, however, the 'com- missioners began trying to (ind who is to blame • for the road settling so that neither the county nor the homeowners will be stuck with the cost of the repairs. Experts estimated it will cost $1,000 to repair the largest of the potholes. RICHARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUIL DING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE {303) 839-2611 May 2, 1978 Mr. Michael S. Blair Eagle County Department of Planning and Development Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631. JOHN W. BOLD Director . Dear Mr. Blair: RE: C F and I/Dotsero Limestone Quarry/ Environmental Report We have reviewed this environmental report in regards to the geologic aspects. These aspects include geologic hazards of the Eagle County portion of the tramway and the rail loading site, and the area -wide affect of quarry blasting. The proposed route of the tramway covers a variety of geologic conditions that include possible rockfall, bedrock slides, landslides and debris slides. These possible hazards have been identified at a scale of 1-24,000 and are therefore a general broad scale determination and are not site specific. These are conditions that in variolar, :lays can affect tram tower stability. They are also conditions that, although nlrzpred ;is broad features, do not actually affect all areas within these map limits. It is therefore necessary that when a final determination is made on the tramway that a detailed site specific geologic investigation of the tram tower sites be undertaken. The results of those investigations will then -control the actual tower sites and the type of foundations necessary for long term stability. This problem of siting has possible solutions due to the flexibility in tower spacing. The stability problems for this tramway are similar to ski lift tower siting in other areas of Eagle County where the results in similar geologic hazard areas has been more than satisfactory. Possible geologic problems related to the location of the railroad loading area are flooding from the Colorado River and debris floods from the local drainages. Both of these possible problems can be mitigated through proper planning. If any of the proposed loading area lies within the 100 year flood plain then proper measures to.flood-proof the facilities should be MAY 3 1978 GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE Mr. Michael S. May 2, 1978 Page 2 ir taken. An analysis of the flood potential of the Colorado River can determine where the 100 year flood zone will occur. This proposed loading area is subject to possible debris floods from the drainages to the east. The design for this facility should allow for cross site drainage -ways. These will need to be designed not only for flood water but debris type floods. This may necessitate additional free space under the existing railroad tracks. Dr. W. P: Rogers, head of the Engineering and Environmental Geology Section reviewed the blast vibration studies conducted at both the Monarch site and the proposed site. He concurred that these tests gave an accurate picture of what could be expected under actual operating procedures. He recommended that the blasting procedure as outlined in the report by Microgeophysics should be followed and if so, does not anticipate structural damage to the formations in the known existing caves. We have been in contact with C F and 1 and have recommended that they proceed on a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the tramway corridor and loading site. We believe that the remaining geotechnical problems can be solved and at this time believe the plan as proposed is feasible and see no reason why a conditional use permit should not be granted. Sincerely, L. R. Ladwig Engineering Geologist LRL/vt cc: Land Use Commission cc: Jeff Welborn et' STATE OF COLORADO Richard D. Lamm, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Jack R. Brleb, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 (825-1192) June 9, 1978 Mr. Jeff Welborn Welborn, Dufford, Cook and Brown 1700 Broadway Denver, CO. Dear Mr. Welborn: The Colorado Division of Wildlife has reviewed the Environmental. Report for the proposed Dotsero Limestone Quarry. Although we do not anticipate highly significant wildlife impacts from the proposed action, we offer the following suggestions: L. The endangered Peregrine Falcon is known to nest in and inhabit the nearby Glenwood Canyon. There are unconfirmed reports of this species nesting in the Deep Creek Canyon, adjacent to the proposed mining site. This canyon is rated as excellent Peregrine Falcon habitat by our raptor biologist. An investigation should be initiated to ascertain if, in fact, the Peregrine Falcon does nest in or inhabit the Deep C reek Canyon, and to what extent, if any, this species would be impacted by the proposed action. With appropriate funding, the Division of Wildlife could undertake this investigation. 2. We suggest that the mining plan be altered to affect less total surface area. This could be accomplished by operating the mine in a manner similar to a coal strip mine. In such an operation, a narrow strip is mined out, in an uphill direction, leaving a trench into which could be dumped the unusable fines and overburden from the next strip. This could eliminate most if not all. of the overburden and fines disposal sites. The mined out strip could then be revegetated as the project works across the Limestone seam. Thus most of the mining area could support new vegetation before the total project is finished, greatly reducing the impacts on all forms of wildlife. Otherwise, the overburden dump and fines pile cannot be revegetated until the mine is exhausted. 3. It has been our experience that miners are efficient illegal utilizers of wildlife, particularly big game. In short they hunt big game out of season from private passenger cars. A practice of bussing JUUL DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris Sherman, Executive Director • WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Sam Caudill, Chairman Michael Higbee, Vice Chairman • Jay K. Childress, Secretary • Jean K. Tool, Member • Vernon C. Williams, Member Thomas Farley, Member • Roger Clark, Member • Wilbur Redden, Member ori r^ Mr. Jeff Welborn June 9, 1978 Page 2 commuting miners from a central location, in this case probably the railroad loading area, is proven to eliminate this problem. Bussing workers is also energy efficient and reduces auto -wildlife collisions. 4. The program of groundwater monitoring should be continued through- out the life of the mining operation to insure that polluted water does not reach Deep Creek. If the above recommendations are followed, impacts on the wildlife resource should be minimal. Allen Whitaker, of our Environmental Resources Section, will be glad to further discuss these suggestions with either you or the CF&I staff at your mutual convenience. The Division of Wildlife greatly appreciates the opportunity to review the Environmental Report and we hope our recommendations are constructive and helpful to the applicant. Sincerely yours, JRG:AFW cc: Barrows Olson Smith Green ac k R. Gr Director ROBERT F. WELBORN PHILIP G. DUFFORD JOSEPH E. COOK THOMAS G. BROWN DAVID W. FURGASON MILES C. CORTEZ, JR. WILLIAM C. ROBB JOHN F. WELBORN WILLIAM A. McLAIN BEVERLY J. QUAIL JOHN D. FAUG HT RICHARD L. FA.NYO GORDON W. NETZORG DEBRA R. LAPPIN WELBORN, DUFFORD, COOK a BROWN ATTORNEYS AT LAW IIOO UNITED BANK CENTER DENVER, COLORADO 80290 June 22, 1978 Mr. Jack R. Grieb, Director Division of Wildlife State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources 660 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Re: CF&I Steel Corporation - Proposed Dotsero Limestone Quarry Dear Mr. Grieb: TELEPHONE (303) 861-8O13 Thank you very much for your letter of June 9, 1978, giving the response of the Division of Wildlife to CF&I's environ- mental report in connection with its proposed limestone quarry in Dotsero, Colorado. CF&I is, of course, pleased with your conclusion that the Division of Wildlife does not anticipate highly significant wildlife impacts from the proposed action. We also appreciate the four suggestions made by the Division to further minimize the impacts of this project on wildlife. The following is CF&X's response to each of those suggestions. 1. CF&I accepts the offer of the Division of Wildlife to undertake an investigation of the Peregrine Falcon in Deep Creek Canyon as described in your letter. CF&I agrees to fund such investigation. We have been discussing this matter with the Glenwood Springs office of the Bureau of Land Management as a requirement for CF&I's application for a right-of-way for the tram system. That office has informed us that Gerald Craig of your office is probably the best person in this entire area to undertake such an in- vestigation. We will be calling you to schedule a meeting to discuss cost, scope, timing and any other matters related to this investigation. WELBORN, DUFFORD, COOK 8 BROWN Mr. Jack R. Grieb 2 June 22, 1978 2. The mining and reclamation plans for the quarry are matters which will be fully reviewed by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board when CF&I applies to that body for the necessary permit. We will take your suggestions con- cerning these plans into account when we are working with that agency. 3. CF&I has not, at its other mines, had the bad experiences of miners hunting game illegally which you mention. If such a problem should occur at the Dotsero quarry, CF&I will take action to deal with the problem. 4. CF&I is already committed to a program of ground water monitoring throughout the life of the mining operation. All monitoring, of both air and water, will continue through- out the life of the operation. CF&I is working with the BLM, in connection with its right- of-way application, on the effect of the quarry on wildlife and is taking into account the varied wildlife information which the BLM has for this area. As I stated, the BLM has indicated that the possible existence of the Peregrine Falcon in the area seems to be the only potential problem. Thank you for your time and the time of your staff in re- viewing CF&I's report and proposed project. JFW/vg Very truly yours, WELBORN, DUFFORD, COOK & BROWN John F. Welborn Attorneys for CF&I Steel Corporation EAGLE COUNT' Department of Planning and Development P. 0. Box 179 EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 328-6809 ADMINISTRATION 328.6674 ANIMAL SHELTER 949-4292 ASSESSO R 328-6593 BUILDING INSPECTION 328-6339 CLERK & RECORDER Eagle 328-6377 Basalt 927-3244 COUNTY ATTORNEY 328-6674 ENGINEER 328-6337 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 328-7718 EXTENSION AGENT 328-6370 LIBRARY 328-7787 PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle 328-6594 Val, 476-5844 PLANNING 328-6338 ROAD & BRIDGE 328-6591 SHERIFF Eagle 328-6611 Basalt 927-3244 Gilman 827.5751 SOCIAL SERVICES 328-6328 TREASURER 328-6376 far C.F. and I. Steel Corporation Mining Department P. 0. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81002 s;R.,c).15T.\\',„ t4 £ JUN 21 1978 11 PLAtiiiEll Re: File No. Zs -52-78 Special Use Permit At their Public Hearing on 12 June 1978, the Board of County Commissioners conditionally approved your special use permit contingent upon the following: 1. further approval of the site specific plan by the Eagle County Commissioners 2. the completion of an agreement between the applicant and the Commissioners concerning mitigation measures 3. the understanding that all statements and information submitted by the applicant in the form of the Impact Statement and supplemental material is a part of the application and becomes binding with the permit. If you have any questions, please contact this office. /Terrill Knight Acting Director of Planning TK/kp cc: Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Planner ROBERT F. WELBORN PHILIP G. DUFFORD JOSEPH E. COOK THOMAS G. BROWN DAVID W. FURGASON MILES C. CORTEZ,JR. WILLIAM C-ROBB JOHN F. WELBORN WILLIAM A. McLAIN BEVERLY J. QUAIL JOHN D. FAUGHT RICHARD L. FANYO GORDON W. NETZORG DEBRA R. LAPP{N WELBORN, D U FFORD, COOK 8 BROWN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1100 UNITED BANK CENTER DENVER, COLORADO 80290 June 23, 1978 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: CF&I Steel Corporation - Proposed Dotsero Limestone Quarry Dear Mr. Witkowski: ';d JUN 2 G 1978 1 The purpose of this letter is to put in writing CF&I's formal response to several of the issues raised by yourself and others at the public hearing held on June 20, 1978, concerning CF&I's application for a special use permit to operate a limestone quarry near Dotsero, Colorado. I am sending a copy of this letter to each of the three county commissioners and to Mr. Dean Link, the attorney for the Concerned Citizens. T am also sending ten extra copies of the letter to Nancy Page so that she can have them to dis- tribute to those who want them. I ask that this letter, its contents and enclosures be included as part of CF&I's application and be considered part of the record in this matter. T. Other Mining in the Area. There are a number of reasons why CF&I sees almost no possi- bility that other companies will be quarrying limestone in the Deep Creek -Willow Peak area as a result of CF&I being granted approval for such an operation. From an economic standpoint, further development is unlikely because of the relatively high costs of mining, haulage to the railroad, and freight costs to the point of consumption. The steelmaking process for which CF&I needs this stone de- mands a very high purity product. Other industrial uses, WELBORN, DUFFORD, COOK 8 BROWN Mr. Robert A. Witkowski 2 June 23, 1978 such as cement, sugar, or pollution control can efficiently use stone of lower quality. Suitable stone for these uses is not a scarce commodity and can be found at locations close to the consuming points, and adjacent to existing transportation facilities. Such limestone is quarried at a number of locations along Colorado's front range from Canon City to Fort Collins. From a practical standpoint, even though many acres in the Willow Peak area are underlain by the same limestone forma- tion that CF&I intends to mine, other suitable mining sites in the area are not easily found. This unsuitability results from excessive overburden thickness and/or quality too poor for metallurgical use. The 2,000 acres of CF&I surface and mineral ownership has definitely preempted the best quarry locations. As you are aware, CF&1's permit application only requests approval to operate on a small portion of this 2000 acres. Also, since CF&I's permit will be conditioned on the use of an aerial tram for haulage, other potential users would be limited to this method. Because of the location of CF&I's tram line and property, and due to site considerations at each end, another tram system hauling to the east would be out of the question. Any method of transportation to the south into Glenwood Canyon is impractical from an engineering standpoint. In addition to siting problems, other potential operators would be deterred by the large capital expenditure required to construct a tram haulage system. Finally, CF&I has stated on page 56 of its environmental report that "CF&I facilities would not be available to handle material from any source other than the CF&I quarry." It is true that there are a number of unpatented mining claims which surround the CF&I controlled mineral ownership on all sides. Some of these claims are controlled by CF&I and we are told that other companies such as Holly Sugar have claims. We also have heard from county officials that companies such as 3M have inquired about the area. All of this causes a natural concern over the prospect of the development of other limestone operations in the area. WELBORN, DUFFORD, COOK 8 BROWN Mr. Robert A. Witkowski 3 June 23, 1978 To understand and appreciate the meaning of this interest, it must be realized that any time a valuable mineral discovery is made public, it will be surrounded by mining claims where the land is open, and that there will be inquiries made by other companies in the mineral industry. The claims are staked "on the come" and the inquiries are just good business practice. This is all done without any consideration for the economics or real practicality of the situation and before any serious evaluation of actual projects has been made. Simply put, the combination of the aforementioned factors make a limestone quarry operation in the Deep Creek -Willow Peak area uniquely attractive to CF&I. Since other industries in Colorado require only lower quality limestone which is more easily and cheaply available elsewhere, there is almost no possibility of permits for other quarries being sought in this area. 11. The Caves I enclose a copy of a letter dated May 2, 1978, from L. R. Ladwig, an engineering geologist with the Colorado Geological Survey, to Michael Blair, the county planner for Eagle County, giving the results of the Survey's review of CF&I's environmental report and proposed quarry. We have met with Mr. Ladwig, Mr. Rold, Dr. Rogers and others of the Colorado Geological Survey and our discussions with them confirm the conclusion stated in the letter that, if the blasting pro- cedure as outlined in the report is followed, there will not be structural damage to the formations in the known existing caves. IIT. CF&I's Water Rights CF&I's water rights and needs relative to the project are set forth in the Environmental Report at Pages 40-42 and supplemented by Jim Wark's letter to you of April 25, 1978, enclosing documentation on the Schultz rights. These show that CF&I has decreed rights of 13.8 c.f.s. to serve a requirement of 0.36 c.f.s. Although CF&I will have to apply to the Water Court to change these rights from agricultural to industrial use, the resulting right to consumptive use should still be more than is needed by the project. WELBORN, DUFFORD, COOK BROWN Mr. Robert A. Witkowski 4 June 23, 1978 The main question concerning CF&I's water rights raised at the hearing relates to Ruedi Reservoir water. Though the need for this water was reduced somewhat when CF&I acquired rights to 2 c.f.s. from the Schultz's, CF&I intends to pursue the acquisition of 160 acre-feet as insurance against interruption of the operation due to lack of water. This purchase is merely a prudent measure intended to protect a large capital investment and is not being taken to prepare for future expansion beyond the scope of the project. Under the terms which will be negotiated with the Colorado River Water Conservation District, CF&I will have a right to take up to 160 acre-feet of water as it is needed. When and so long as CF&I's other sources are sufficient, the Ruedi water will remain available to other users. Since CF&I will be purchasing this water, which will be placed into the Colorado River system, there will be no need to replace it from the Green Mountain Reservoir or otherwise. IV. Wildlife I enclose a copy of my recent letter to Mr. Grieb, the Director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, responding to his letter to me of June 9, 1978, also enclosed. The Divi- sion concludes that there will not be highly significant impacts on wildlife from the project and that what impacts there are will be minimized if the four suggestions are followed. CF&I does not disagree with any of those sug- gestions and has so responded, as you can see, in my letter. Since sending this letter to Mr. Grieb, I have discussed this entire matter with Ms. Lynn Obernyer, the assistant attorney general who represents the Division of Wildlife. She informs me that the "appropriate funding" to which Mr. Grieb referred in his letter meant funding from some public source and not private funding. She indicated that, since the BLM is also interested in the existence of the Peregrine Falcon, undoubtedly federal funding could be obtained to handle this investigation. The important point here is that the BLM is not going to grant a right of way until an investigation into the existence of the Peregrine Falcon in Deep Creek Canyon has been done. Therefore, Garfield County does not need to be concerned that this matter will not be considered. WELBORN, DUFFORD, COOK 8 BROWN Mr. Robert A. Witkowski 5 June 23, 1978 Ms. Obernyer also informed me that of utmost concern to the Division of Wildlife is the potential poaching problem by miners. While CF&I has not had this type of experience with its miners at other mines, the Division of Wildlife has had such an experience with miners. She said that all the Division of Wildlife asks is the company's assurance that if poaching does occur, the company, as the employer of the miners, will take whatever disciplinary action it can. I gave her this assurance. Ms. Obernyer agrees that the reclamation matters described in paragraph 2 of Mr. Grieb's letter are matters that will have to be considered by the Mined Land Reclamation Board. The Board will take into consideration the Division of Wildlife's comments when application is made to it for a permit. I explained to Ms. Obernyer that I submitted the environ- mental report to the Division of Wildlife because I knew that this would have to be done anyway at the time CF&I made application to the Reclamation Board for a reclamation permit. She assured me that what I have done was the proper procedure, and that I could consider Mr. Grieb's letter to be the position of the Division of Wildlife on this matter. JFW/vg Enc. Very truly yours, ORN, DUFFORD, COOK & BROWN John F. Welborn = S A! P R 3 1973 GA FILL J CO, PLA41401 Al Wright Area Manager Burcau of Land ?tanagenent 113 9th Street Clenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Wri ,ht: a`toevaii, 2810 March 31, 1978 In response to your discussions with George Landrum, Eagle .District Ranger, the following are aur commcntq on the conte.nta of the CF&I Environmental Report, February 1973. We appreciate the opportunity to review this report mince the proposed operation is adjacent to National Foresat land. Significant cttanaes to the aurroundin envi- tont ent could have secondary impacts on the National Forest. The CF&I report does not fully address the potential environmental impacts of their proposed limestone quarry. It is apparent CF&I has made A sub€tatttiai effort in callectinu resource information and sutztaarixinr the potential impacts; however, many important questions remain unanswered. We feel additional information con- cerning the Prater resources, maintenance roads, recreation use, air quality, the impacts on nearby caves, and the visual resources are neceasary to evaluate the full environmental .impact of the pro- posal. These concerns are specifically addre.ased below. Water Reaourcea Description of rnvlronment p. 31 The Deep Creek watershed producers a large quantity of water annually. An average annual flow of 50-85 c.f.s. is expected at the confluence Frith the Colorado :'river and not 1--2 c. fr . s . , as the report indicates. :'ince many of tree water quality parameters t ea&ured by CPI are floe' dependent, stream discharge should also be measured during each sampling visit. Without stream discharge it is impossible to quantify the magnitude of any impact on the stream. The water availability study appears to be insufficient to insure the quarry of its 150,000 gallons/day water needs. On --site wells are a possibility, but the well, or combination of wells, would be required to produce 104gallons/minute around the clock.. This would require a substantial underground. aouifer. Test wells will be needed to determine if this Is a pos=f.tbility. Water availability 2 from the nearby Coffeepot Ditch should also t,e examined thoroughly to determine if sufficient water can reach the quarry site. The ditch hes historically diverted 1 to 2 c .f . , . for irrigation purposes; however, due to seepage mid evaporation losses, water flow at the end of the ditch, near the quarry site, is substantially less. The ditch in its present condition cannot carry much more than its his- torical use without some reconstruction work. Perhaps moat important is the need to determine if the water is physically available for diversion to the quarry site. Due to reced- ing atreemflows during; late summer and fail, water may not be available regardlean of a Food grater ri.trht. t hydrologic analysis should be completed to see if there is enough streamflow throughout the 7 month period of water need. The Forest Service owns Federal reserved water rights from the lands upon which the Coffeepot pitch is located. • We claim water sufficient to fulfill the Forest's purposes, one of which is to supply 'eater to our campground deveiopnent at Coffeepot Spring. The 'Forest Service is not opposed to other diversions at the spring, as long as they don't conflict with our water needs. Our Hydrologist indicates that doting the r a ority of the diversion season there is not 0.7 c. f . €s. available for diversion at the Coffeepot Spring, as the report seems to indicate. Consequently, CF&1's water supply should not depend solely on this source due to limited availability and potential conflict with aur water use. Impact of Roads The construction and maintenance roads necessary for access to the tramway towers should be discussed in tl:e environmental impact section. flue to the steep terrain., even small four-wheel drive roads will have a substantial visual and watershed impact. Their design and location could be one of the: most significant environ- mental cora ideratious of this proposal. Although on page 7. CFO states, "Since the tower locations are not known at this tine, the exact location of the roads (access roads to towers) cannot he shown,- their haul study by KK NA Consulti.np Engineers has taken these maintenance roade into consideration in their water use and quality section. These two parts of the report conflict with each outer and should be resolved. ;;Some minor improvements and increased maintenance will be required for the Forest Service road to assure reliable access to the quarry. Pave any studies been dove by Cp&i: to indicate what kind and extent of improvements they are tal=cine*, about? Also, what type of increased maintenance --blade, water, dust oil? 3 Recreation Use p. 54 The report indicates that the only significant recreation use is by camper vehicles at developed sites. According to Division of Wildlife correspondence within appendix 0, the area is used extremely heavily by big game hunters. The report states, `:The land crossed by the tramline has little, if any, recreational use." The tram line crosses Coffeepot Road in five locations and the average daily travel (APT) is about 150. Most of this use is for recreational purposes. Air quality There should be information within the report that would indicate prevailing wind direction and speed, in order to adequately examine the specific areas that would be most affected by adverse air quality and noise pollution. It is important to note at this point that the proposed operation is approximately 600 feet from the National Forest boundary and about 1 mile from Deep Creek Overlook. Air quality and noise could have an adverse effect on National Forest users in this area with unfavorable prevailing winds. This could also affect the areas solitude, mentioned on p. 57, adversely. Impacts on Caves The Forest Service has previously stated that one of our most important concerns is from nearby quarry blasts. There maybe a safety hazard if the cave areas are occupied during production blasting. The studies of blasting effects on caves within the area need analysis by experts in the field of cave studies. There may be several quali- fied organizations who could adequately analyze the results of CF&I studies. One organization, Underground Laboratories, Inc,. located in Arkansas, specializes in cave -related studies. It was difficult to determine from the report ,just how the instruments were set up to measure disturbance. It appeared that they were set on the ground and measured movement directly from the point where they sat. If that is the case, they should have been firmly attached to the bedrock to effectively measure the displacement caused by the blast, otherwise any material between bedrock and the instruments would have a dampening effect on displacement readings. 4 Visual Impact The alignment of the tramway should be considered as a method of reducing the visual impact. If the alignment can be changed slightly to reflect the natural changes in terrain the visual impact can probably be reduced. Another alignment alternative which would place the tramway further south in Sections 34, 35, and 36, and lower in the drainage, might be less conspicuous. If the tramway was located further south it would cross the Coffeepot Road only once, rather than five times as it is currently proposed. During the construction of Interstate 70 near I)otsero, a large ridge east of the Colorado River will he removed for borrow material. The visual impact caused by the removal of this ridge will probably be mitigated by using standard highway landscape treatment techniques and revegetation methods. Tlowever, removal of the ridge will increase the length of time the traveling public will view the proposed tram- way alignment and loading facility. General There has been, as recently as 1977, interest expressed in the Holly sugar Highroad Claims by 3M Corporation. These claims are adjacent to the Scarrow (CF&I) claims. There should be some provision in permits issued for the CF&I operation so that any agreement could be worked out with other potential limestone developers for use of the tram line and associated facilities. This could eliminate the need for additional transportation systems; in this area in the future. I hope these comments will be helpful to you in your review of the CI'&I proposal. As you know, the Forest Service believes in multiple use management of our natural resources and certainly recognizes mining as an important use of public and private lands. However, when considering a proposal of this magnitude, careful evaluation of the social and environmental impacts is necessary before granting the appropriate permits. We suggest that the above information be requested from CF&I to help your review process. Sincerely, THOMAS C. EVANS Forest Supervisor cc: Aetrict ,e.u. Fifer, R/'ob ,<°1towelA, Carfiel0 County narsner, 2C14 i,i.a! a Ave., t'i.enwcsod Spg,s. Y CO EAGLE COUNTY 7'eeartrent of Planning E Development "-Fox 179 EAGLE, COLORADO81631 '.'DDSOFCOUNTY 3.0 3' -6671"di4ST RATION A''ti•�L SHELTER ASSESSOR "c ILOING 3.a-6335 CLERK & yCGROER -2 6377 cii3?'t 27-3254 C^UNTV ATTCRNEY 323-6c'74 Er.SINEER 223.633; ▪ .LIRO. MENTAL .TN ,a ▪ _ • _.T;,aN Ben 6370 L 3SARY 32. 7737 !-EALTFi `-x e 32--3544 535. L SaICGE 3_'C-0531 is .7;2:5.6611 44 329 a3zs 3_.t ▪ SURER MEMn°.A!1DUM TO: FRO9: DATE: SUBJECT: Eagle County Planning Commission Department of Planning and Development April 13, 1973 Agenda Item Staff recommendations appearing before the Eagle County Planning Commission at their meeting on 19 April 1978 5. File Pio. Sm -19-78 - Homestead Park Minor Subdivision A. Peauest: Minor Subdivision to separate an existing house from an existinn 14 space mobile home park. 3eckgroend: This request to split a single family dwelling off of an existing mobile home park was tabled from the mcetinn of March 15, 1978, in order to have the applicant submit the foliowine information: 1. A site elan of the subdivision showing house, parkins, mobile home spaces, interior roads and driveways, central trash pickup. 2. A. landscaninn plan shooing size, species and location of plantings. 3. A final nlat nrepared according to specifications set forth in Sections 4,53 and 4.03.01 of the Eeele County Subdivision Regulations. 4. Adequate eemoletion of luestion 106 of the Minor Subdivision application. 5. A drainaoe plan. C. Staff Recommendation: Recommend denial. information as requested by the Punning Commission has not been submitted. 9. o. File No. em -21-73 - rouse Mountain Ltd. Minor Subdivision A. ?,eeuest: Minor Subdivision to split an existina lot into three lots. B. Background: This item was tabled in order to receive the final plat. C. Staff Pecommendation: Recommend approval pending a check of the final plat. Staff Recommendations - Pg. 2 7. File t!o. `m -22-7n - Beck Idinor Subdivision A. Reeuest: Minor Subdivision to split an existinn duplex into two separate ownerships. B. Background: This proposed application is to subdivide ae alnroved duplex in Eagle -Vail into two seoarate ownerships. The unit has been issued a building permit and the structure is nearing. comnletion. C. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval pendina a check of the final plat. 8. File Mo. Sm -23-78 - Vette Minor Subdivision A. Reoirest: Minor Subdivision to confirm the split of an existing parcel. B. Rackeround: This property which is proposed for subdivision is a separate parcel which was sold by deed not in conformance with subdivision regulations. C. Staff Recommendation: Recommend tabling. It appears that adeeuste water and sewer service is available: however, legal access is Question- able at this time. File No. Sm -24-78 - Pierce .Minor Subdivision A. Request: Minor Subdivision to soffit 1.5 acres into two separate ownerships. B. Background: The parcel for which subdivision is being arallee for is the Pierce Service Station and retail store. The property is in the Resource Znne: however, the commercial uses are legal nonconfnr.,iee Dna may remain in their erese.nt condition. 4 single family home is unser construction on the site to replace arother house which has been re`•avece C. Staff Recommendation: .Recommend annroval oendino a check of ,he final plat and improvement of the extended access drive serving the Aroecrt-,r. 10. File No. Sp -103-78 = Cree4:side Associates A. Request: Review of a preliminary plan for 7 units on 1.3 acres. B. Packnround: This parcel is zoned Residential Suburban medium Density (PSM) which would allow a maximum of seven ueits. The plan 51ic' t seven units and the required 14 narkina snacns. Share of the parcel, deed end frontage road, utility green belt easement and Care Creek fleeeeey all impact the site. A variance on the front setback is renuiree to locate the buildings as shown on the Dian. C. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval needing receipt of setback variance. All zoning and subdivision renuiremeets annear to have berg. met. 11. File No. Zs -34-77 - Vail Associates - Rodeo Rroueds A. Request: Review of a renewal for a special use permit rrantea Aeeust b. 1977, to operate a rodeo and related facilities. 8. Background: A permit was granted to he renewable yearly provided that conditions of the permit have been met. Conditions listed on tee permit are es follows: 1. The permit is to be renewable annually, by May 1 of each year. 2. Sanitation facilities and water supply must meet County health standards. n slight change in the permit involving existing uses has been requested. 3. Parking must be controlled. C. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval. It anoears that all conditions have been rrooerly satisfied. Stara Pecon.,eni+ations no.' 12. File No. ',s S. i; - Cr and 1 `•teci Corporation A. Peruest: Special Use Permit for transportation and railroad loading of crashed screened limestone. R. Pool ground: This nronnsal involves a limestone quarry (to he located in oarfieid County) and haul system (in both earf•ield and r_anle Counties) and railroad loading facility (in Eagle. County). Garfield County currently has an application for special use permit for the portion of the narration within their jurisdiction. At this time, the anniicatinn is holding until further information on water sur,nly and use is snh^.ittcd. The nnnlication indicates that aeoroximately E0 acres will be pined over a 50 year period. An estimated 350,000 tons per year over a 6 and 1/2 month period will be removed from the site and shipped by rail to the CF and E Plant In Pueblo. This site was apparently chosen due to the quality of metallurgical limestone required in the steel nakina process and the accessability of the site. C. Staff Recommendation: Recommend tabling in order to receive additional information as follows: 1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT A. Surface water impact. The information as submitted to date docs not address increased storm water runoff due to con- struction. top soil rennval and cmmnactinn of soils in the shoe arca. 5. Sedimentation due to construction and operation. The infor- nation does not provide desiin details to indicate control measures on the plant and quarry site, transportation facility and loading site. C. Underoraun,a water. Emract statement indicates that baseline studies will he conflicted at a later date. P. i:.'ildlife imeact. Although a general overview of area wild life was included, the impacts have not been quantified and cowld vary nreatly denendino on the alternative chosen. E. Socio-economic impact. Only a cursory review was made of the social and economic innacts. The tax revenue estimates 3o not indicate what they are based on and what areas are included. secondary impacts and housing needs are not sufficiently addressed. F. impacts on ndioininn property. Although some off site impacts such os noise are discussed, evaluation or mitigation measures are not adeouately specified. G. Aesthetic imnact. Tramway Towers and loading site location alternatives wihich might improve visual aspects have not been nresented. Safety Procedures. Protection from spills and tramway accidents, especially at the County Road and railroads site has not been addressed. 1. Use of hv-oroducts. Demand for fines and other by-products are not quantified. In the case of additional demand for quarry material, the extent of operations should be included. J. Community innacts. These also occur as secondary impacts due to increase in demand for services and should he evaluated. w, Staff Rrrnmmrndnl'inns - 041,1 K. Transportation. It is stated in the report that there will he no significant effect on transportation system's: however, with the need for suopiies and daily work force. toe inpaet annul be quantified. 2. PLANS FOR SITE AND OPERATION A. !Materials transportation. Three alternatives have been reviewed• however, detailed plans and specifications have not been suhmitted for the selected method. E. Revenetation plans. Proposed plans are based on studies done in other areas. No on-site comparison was made to confirm the proposal, and conditions may vary greatly among sites. C. Loading tipple site. No detailed pians and specifications are presented for this area. 0. Vater riohts. Although it annears that a water supply is availahle, the water rights are unclear. E. Dust Control. The proposal to use water for dust control has not had enough specific information suhoi tted to insure an efficient workable system. F. Access to site. I'se of the road as access to the site must be approved by the Forest Service to insure that there will not be a need to cut a new road. 13. File No. 7c-`4-73 - School District Re57J A. Request: Zone change from Resource (R) to Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) 8. Background: This parcel is property of the School District end had previously been used as a school site. Although surrounded by Resource zoned land, the area has a pattern of snail parcels and some Residential SuSiirhan Low nensity Zoning. This parcel is within the edwards-Lake Creek nlnrninq area. C. Staff Recommendations: Recommend approval. Althouch this could be classified as a spot zone, it does annear to he compatible with the surrounding zoning and current use. Future develonr;ent, however, :will be impacted by lack of a central sewage treatment facility. 14. File No. Zv-l:4-74 - Creekside Associates A. Request: Variance from the setback regulations in the Residential Suburban Medium Density zone. B. Background: This parcel is impacted by shape, !'ore Creek flood, ay, and a large utility/greenbelt easement. As a lot of the !intermountain Subdivision, this lot has been annroved for devefonment, The I-70 frontage road is classified as an arterial street and thus reeuires a front setback of 75 feet From centerline or 50 feet from arceerty Tine, whichever is e r>.ater. C. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval. Although the frontage road is an arterial classification,'in this case it does not serve as that use. Other development standards aooear to have been net and the proposed development plan makes good use of the property. 15. File No. Zv-45-7S - S -M Petroleum A. Request: Variance from sinn regulations in the Commercial Limited zone. 8. 9acknround: The present total sion disnlav area exceeds both that of the present and the proposed sign regulations. Signs which are present are legal nonconforming with the exception of the. price signs which were erected after adoption of the Zoning Resolution. C. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of one Trice si^n not to exceed 2n square feet of disnlay area per sign surface and not to exceed 32 square feet of total dlsolav arca for a two-sided sign. Also, all sionson the site should be listed in the application by location and size. The variance, if aooroved, should he made valid for a period of time not to exceed 5 years at which time all signs would be required to conform to sign regulations. 15. cta°c "ecommendation5 - "o. File '!o. 5-52-7? - Lots 13 S 37 Vail Village ',rest Filino .'11 A. Penuest: Vacation of utility easement. S Packeround: County Assessor records show that lot 33 and lot 37, which are adjoining lots, have been split into 4 parcels. Our records do not show that this was annroved through the subdivision process as required. A structure is present on the site at this time and does extend across the lot line and easement. C. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval. Although this does annear to he an illegal subdivision, it is an advantage to vacate a utility easement which is now unnecessary. This split should be submitted through the subdivision process. 17. File Ho. t-53-73 - Timber Builders A. Request: Vacation of lot line and utility easement. B. 3ackaround: The lots in Block 5, Eagle -Vail Filing P1 are designated as foorolex lots by the PUD plan. C. Staff Recommendation: Pecommond denial. This channe would give the appearance of hipper density in a fournlex area. A plan which indicates a design solution to the problem has not been submitted. 18. Highland Mcado,4 P,2 A. Peruest: Pre -application discussion for Planned Unit Development Zone. 9. 2zckcround: The property is currently zoned Residential Suburban Ne4hr', Density (RSM) and has a subdivision plat recorded as Vail Village West Filino 413. There is some ouestion concerning the validity of the plat since no action has been taken to realize the development. The enolicant will present the development oronosal for discussion. 2800 7-162 C-25234 Glenwood Springs Resource Area P. 0. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 March 10, 1978 Mr. James G. Wark Chief Mining Engineer CF & I Steel Corporation P. 0. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81002 Dear Mr. Wark: Your Dotsero Limestone Project Environmental Assessment Report, received February 28, 1978, is presently being reviewed by our staff. This staff review process is planned to be completed by early April. I would, how- ever, like to bring to your attention the fact that a cursory review has shown a possibility of deficiencies or omissions existing from our stan- dard outline as listed below (see attached EAR outline for section refer- ences). II. C. Ecological Interrelationships - omitted III. A. 2 Possible Mitigating Measures - omitted III. A. 4 Relationships Between Short -Term and Long -Term Productivity- omitted roductivity- omitted III. A. 5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments to Resources omitted III. B. Alternatives of No Action - omitted in its entirety III. C.D. Alternatives - weak This cursory review has also revealed some other areas of concern as fol lows : 1. The 200 foot right-of-way width being applied for, for the aerial tram, seems excessive. Current regulations state that rights-of- way widths will be granted as necessary for the project. Items which determine width would include the following: 2 of 3 a.) Width for structures, ie, tram towers, power line and required bugfer zone between tower and powerline b.) Width required for maintenance c.) Width for safety 2. Rights-of-way necessary for ingress, egress and maintenance of the primary R/W need to be identified. Rights-of-way will also have to be applied for and granted for their use. Location is also necessary to assess impacts from use, maintenance, construc- tion, etc. 3. More discussion on noise and its effects should be included. 4. A negative declaration - on effects on prime and unique farm land should be included. 5. If a 404 permit is required it should be discussed in the report. If not, a letter should be included from the Corps of Engineers sta stating so. 6. Are results from the studies being contracted by CF & I for wildlife, soils, archaeology, revegetation, air and water and hydrogeologic study going to be av/liable for our use in the decision process? In the case of archaeology, a permit is re- quired from the Bureau of Land Management to donduct the study. A list of approved archaeology contractors is attached for your information. 7. The proposed action should discuss locations of tram towers and the necessary roads required for construction and maintenance. 8. Under the Alternatives Section, the possibility of obtaining d limestone outside of Colorado should be discussed. 9. Discuss and define environmental concerns, under Alternatives Section, to be able to make comparisons with the proposed actions. I take time to alert you of the possible deficiencies listed above in order that time may be saved. The above list should not be considered complete and in all cases valid, at this time. However, some problems do exist which will require modification of the report as submitted. As soon as staff comments are compiled I will be able to outline the next course of action. 3 of 3 If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely yours, / Area Manager Enclosures: GS EAR Outline List of Archaeological Contacts tiKar3tetter:n a 3/10/78 December 11, 1986 Harvey R. DuChene, Vice Chairman Colorado Grotto, National Speleological Society 7122 Ridgeview Circle Sedalia, Colorado 80135 Garfield County Commissioners, Mr. Flaven Cerise Mr. Larry Schmueser Mr Bob Richardson 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen: gEFTY-11, DEC 15 1986 i GARFIELD COUNTY It has come to our attention that informal discussions have been held between a Mr, Jerry Harris and officials of Garfield County regarding the reactivation of a permit for a limestone quarry near Dotsero adjacent to Deep Creek Canyon. We understand that a Special Use Permit was granted to C. F. & I. of Pueblo in 1978 for a quarry on this site, and that a number of restrictions were emplaced at that time. In particular, there was a requirement to monitor water flow from Twenty Pound Tick Cave for at least a year before mining could commence. The site of the proposed C. F. & I. quarry is near an area that is rich with some of the most extensive and beautiful caves in Colorado, and we are concerned that mining activity could potentially damage this unreplaceable resource.' Caves in the White River Plateau area commonly contain flowing streams which ultimately discharge into surface streams and aquifers used for domestic water supplies and irrigation. The disruptions of underground streams by mining or quarry operations can potential- ly cause pollutants to be introduced into water supplies. We realize that this matter has not yet been formally placed before the Garfield County Commission, but we would like to make you aware of our concern. Inasmuch as the Special Use Permit now in force contains restrictions designed to protect the environ- ment and resources of the area, we urge that the County and you, as Commissioners, respect the decision of the board of 1978 and do nothing that would relax the restrictions now in place. Very truly yours, Harvey R. DuChene encl: Signatures of Colorado Grotto Members cc: Mr. Mark Bean Mr. Dave Kuntz Mr. Rick Rhinehart Ms. Lynn Burton Mr. Ed LaRock Tuesday, January 23, 1979 -- Glenwood Springs (Colo.) POST — Page 3 Language of permit questioned by CF&I By Gary Schmitz Post staff writer Colorado Fuel and Iron Co. represen- tatives said Monday they still have no idea when work may begin on the com- pany's controversial limestone quarry north of Dotsero. During a meeting with the Garfield county commissioners, CF & I also asked for a clarification of language in its special use permit regarding possible en- vironmental challenges to the operation. The company contends that under the county permit, issued last June after months of debate, quarry operations could be halted without just cause in the event of a challenge from opposition groups. immivimmawansmannammo 'We want some as- surance that the quarry won't be shut down ...' --- CF&I's Wark "We want some assurance that the quarry wouldn't be shut down without a case first being made," said CF' & I Chief Mining Engineer Jim Wark. Wark and CF & I attorney Jeff Welborn questioned Ianguage contained in con- ditions of the permit which they say place burden of proof on the company rather than the accuser. Wark asked for a description of specific circumstances which would require the quarry to close, and for a provision for formal hearings at which the company would have the chance to rebutt challenges. "I think anybody that would come up with an allegation should have to have evidence that any damage they cite was actually caused by CF & I," Wark said. Wark contended that while degradation of air or water quality caused by the operation may be easily proved or disproved, possible claims of damage to 'the area's limestone caves would be more difficult. Both Pueblo -based CF & I and the county admit that no detailed studies have been done on the present condition of the caves. Company officials say the caves are subject to seismic distur- bances which could change their con- dition. "Damage" caused by natural oc- currence conceivably could then be blamed on CF & I, its representatives contended, "My main doncern," concluded Wark, "is that shutting down the quarry is not an easy thing to do." The federal Bureau of Land Management still must give right-of-way approval and the state mines corn - mission must grant the "last big per- mit," Wark said. The company presently is completing final studies of the site which will be sub- mitted to the state soon, Wark said. Un- der state regulations, the agency has 120 days to grant or deny the permit once for- mal application has been made. After the meeting, Wark denied that the company is expecting environmental challenges to its proposed operation, and refused to answer further questions posed by reporters. 7,,-----------7.77.rp-,:,-) 'ii� . I GARFIELD COUNTY Board of County Commissionr §oCT 0 5 T97� P.Q. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone ( -945-6892 . E�i�liZYti:LU U. ftittkiER FLAVEN J. CERISE RICHARD C. JOLLEY LARRY VELASQUEZ October 3, 1978 Mr. John F. Welborn Welborn, Dufford, Cook & Brown Attorneys at Law 1100 United Bank Center Denver, Colorado 80290 Re: CF&I Steel Corporation Dear Mr. Welborn: The Board of County Commissioners has directed me to respond to your letter of September 19, 1978 in regard to the CF&I Special Use Permit application. With regard to the provisions of paragraphs 4b and 4d of the Resolution, the County does not require that CF&I cease its operation if it is proved that the problem arises from a cause other than CF&I's operations, but it does require that the operations cease until such fact is established to the County's satisfaction. You are correct in assuming that the County would give the permittee the opportunity to demonstrate that the problem was not caused by CF&I. However, as stated, the County maintains the position stated in my previous correspondence regarding cessation of operations pending a determination of the source of the problem and regarding CF&I's having the burden of proving that its operations have not caused the deterioriation. Viewing a special use permit as a privilege rather than a right, I consider the County to be on solid legal ground in requiring CF&I to prove that it is not the source of the problem and that the County has the right to suspend opera- tions until such fact is proved. The permit itself, when issued, will require CF&I's agreement to these provisions. With regard to the water sampling procedure, I have talked with Mr. Ed Feld of the Garfield County Environmental Health Department and he requested that a representative of CF&I get in touch with him to work out a sampling/analysis pro- cedure which would resolve the problem of independent Mr. John F. Welborn October 3, 1978 Page 2 sampling. Therefore, if you would relay this request to CF&I, perhaps this issue can be disposed of. Yours very truly, County Attorney GDH : lw cc: Garfield County Commissioners County Planning Department MINERAL MARKETING COMPANY mactxxxxmakaoccosineuR ximettoccatomm ktlopeatuaa 2 February 1988 Mr. Larry Klock National Forest Service 125 West 5th St. Eagle CO 81631 RE: Doterso Limestone Property Dear Mr. Klock: Further to our meeting last Friday, 28 January 1988, I am pleased to give you, in writing, more detail of what we see as the maximum motor truck haulage rates for the start-up period in developing this property. During the first year, probably 1989, the total production is projected to be in the order of 100,000 tons. However, it could have a rate of production of 125,000 tons. On the basis of 9 working months at 20 working days per month with one shift only we would have 180 shifts; add to this an additional 90 shifts that would be added either by work- ing two shifts at times or by working 7 days per week, or a combination of these and we thus project a maximum of 270 shifts of haulage the first year. 125,000 t 25 tons per truck = 5000 haulage trips and 5000 return trips. 5000 trips t 270 shifts = 18.5 trips per shift average. We project that haulage will vary between 16 and 24 trips per shift during the start-up year. The third or last year that trucks would be used would see the production at a rate of 350,000 tons per year, the maximum amount called for in the present permit. We project a total of 315 haulage shifts, as follows: 3 months x 30 days per month x two shifts per day = 180 shifts 3 months x 20 days per month x one shift per day = 60 shifts 3 months x 25 days or shifts per month* - 75 shifts Total = 315 shifts * Some would be two shifts per day, others would be 7 days per week, as best suited to tourism and hunting. We are working towards setting up meetings with the 81.M officials and with the commissioners of the two counites involved. We will keep you informed. Please let me know if -there is further infjrmation you may required at this time. J. Martin Smith, President 1055 Zang Street Golden, CO 80401 (303) 238-2445 Yotv j truly, / 1 /•: .r 3//t r- , 'Dallas 6414 Fowler, P.E. cc: Mrs. Carrie Adams, Mile High Calcium Dallas Dale Fowler, P.E. Engineering Consultant 2290 Dartmouth Ave. Boulder, CO 80303 (303) 49Ki'-4943 MINERAL MARKETING COMPANY XXIOXXXOCIMOKIMIXteall .. i'1 1410 X 1, k!4 .)7/6 41 i 4 February 1988 Mr. Larry Klock National Forest Service 125 West 5th St. Eagle CO 81631 RE: Doterso Limestone Property Dear Mr. Klock: Please accept my apology for not properly completing my letter to you of 2 February. I was called from my desk and on returning I quickly finished your letter without giving all the neNded information. Please add this letter to the letter of 2 February 1988 for the more complete information. For the 315 shifts per year planned for the production of 350,000 tons for the third year we have the following truck movement projections. 350,000 t 315 shifts = 1111 tons per shift 1111 t 25 tons per truck = 44 plus truck trips (loaded) per shift. On average we project the movements to be 40 to 48 movements per shift (loaded). Yours very truly, / /,-/,/ "(�2 !! � Z e ` L ( ' Dallas Dale Fowler, P.E. Jam) cc: Mrs. Carrie Adams, Mile High Calcium J. Martin Smith, President 1055 Zang Street Golden, CO 80401 (303) 238-2445 Dallas Dale Fowler, P.E. Engineering Consultant 2290 Dartmouth Ave. Boulder, O 80303 (303) 4 943 United States Department of Agriculture Forest White River National Forest 125 W. 5th St. Service Eagle Ranger District P. 0. Box 720 Eagle, CO 81631 Caring for the Land and Serving the People Mineral Marketing Company c/o Mr. Dallas Fowler, P.E. 2290 Dartmouth Ave. Boulder, CO 80303 Dear Mr. Fowler: Reply To: 2800 Date: March 1, 1988 We received your letters dated February 2 and 4, 1988, concerning the proposed limestone hauling project on the Coffee Pot Road. In addition, Larry Klock has explained the entire proposal to my Staff and me as you explained it to him. It sounds like a very ambitious project! As you are aware, a project of this magnitude has a wide scope and will involve not only the Forest Service, but also the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eagle and Garfield Counties. Our permitting process for your use of the Coffee Pot Road will be coordinated with all involved parties. Permit approval will be contingent upon approval by the other agencies. I am certain the BLM and/or one or both of the counties will require an Environmental Assessment be done to evaluate the impacts and disclose the effects of your project. We will want to be involved in that process. Part of that process will need to include a proponent financed engineering evaluation of the Coffee Pot Road. This will enable us to determine if it is feasible to allow the proposed truck hauling use, the months of the year it is feasible, time of day to allow it depending on the season, etc. It would also show us what improvements would need to be made to the road to handle the increased traffic, or, if another alternative, such as a second road, is even more feasible. Please keep us posted on your progress in working with the two counties and the BLM. If you have any questions, feel free to call Larry Klock at 328-6388. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. SPENCER District Ranger cc:BLM Eagle County Planning Commission Garfield County Planning Commission o' i MINERAL MARKETING COMPANY xi(AaHK3txxma kO SMI J 2 February 1988 Mr. Larry Klock National Forest Service 125 West 5th St. Eagle CO 81631 RE: Doterso Limestone Property Dear Mr. Klock: RECEWED APR 2 5 1988 GARFI do COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Further to our meeting last Friday, 28 January 1988, I am pleased to give you, in writing, more detail of what we see as the maximum motor truck haulage rates for the start-up period in developing this property. During the first year, probably 1989, the total production is projected to be in the order of 100,000 tons. However, it could have a rate of production of 125,000 tons. On the basis of 9 working months at 20 working days per month with one shift only we would have 180 shifts; add to this an additional 90 shifts that would be added either by work- ing two shifts at times or by working 7 days per week, or a combination of these and we thus project a maximum of 270 shifts of haulage the first year. 125,000 t 25 tons per truck = 5000 haulage trips and 5000 return trips. 5000 trips s 270 shifts = 18.5 trips per shift average. We project that haulage will vary between 16 and 24 trips per shift during the start-up year. The third or last year that trucks would be used would see the production at a rate of 350,000 tons per year, the maximum amount called for in the present permit.. We project a total of 315 haulage shifts, as follows: 3 months x 30 days per month x two shifts per day = 180 shifts 3 months x 20 days per month x one shift per day = 60 shifts 3 months x 25 days or shifts per month* - 75 shifts Total = 315 shifts * Some would be two shifts per day, others would be 7 days per week, as best suited to tourism and hunting. We are working towards setting up meetings with the BLM officials and with the commissioners of the two counites involved. We will keep you informed. Please let me know if there is further information you may required at this time. J. Martin Smith, President 1055 Zang Street Golden, CO 80401 (303) 238-2445 You` -Dallas male Fowler, P.E. cc: Mrs. Carrie Adams, Mile High Calcium Dallas Dale Fowler, P.E. Engineering Consultant 2290 Dartmouth Ave. Boulder, CO 80303 (303) 494f-4943 MINERAL MARKETING COMPANY xicoarne.eamairamxxxoemex 4 February 1988 Mr. Larry Klock National Forest Service 125 West 5th St. Eagle CO 81631 RE: Doterso Limestone Property Dear Mr. Klock: Please accept my apology for not properly completing my letter to you of 2 February. I was called from my desk and on returning 1 quickly finished your letter without giving all the needed information. Please add this letter to the letter of 2 February 1988 for the more complete information. For the 315 shifts per year planned for the production of 350,000 tons for the third year we have the following truck movement projections. 350,000 t 315 shifts = 1111 tons per shift 1111 t 25 tons per truck = 44 plus truck trips (loaded) per shift. On average we project the movements to be 40 to 48 movements per shift (loaded). Yours very truly, P: Dallas Dale Fowler, P.E. cc: Mrs. Carrie Adams, Mile High Calcium J. Martin Smith, President 1055 Zang Street Golden. CO 80401 (303) 238-2445 Dallas Dale Fowler, P.E. Engineering Consultant 2290 Dartmouth Ave. Boulder, CO 80303 (303) 493943 United States Forest White River National Forest 125 W. 5th St. Department of Service Eagle Ranger District P. 0. Box 720 Agriculture Eagle, CO 81631 Caring for the Land and Serving the People Reply To: 2800 Date: March 1, 1988 Mineral Marketing Company c/o Mr. Dallas Fowler, P.E. 2290 Dartmouth Ave. Boulder, CO 80303 Dear Mr. Fowler: We received your letters dated February 2 and 4, 1988, concerning the proposed limestone hauling project on the Coffee Pot Road. In addition, Larry Klock has explained the entire proposal to my Staff and me as you explained it to him. It sounds like a very ambitious project! As you are aware, a project of this magnitude has a wide scope and will involve not only the Forest Service, but also the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eagle and Garfield Counties. Our permitting process for your use of the Coffee Pot Road will be coordinated with all involved prrties. Permit approval will be contingent upon approval by the other agencies. I am certain the BLM and/or one or both of the counties will require an Environmental Assessment be done to evaluate the impacts and disclose the effects of your project. We will want to be involved in that process. Part of that process will need to include a proponent financed engineering evaluation of the Coffee Pot Road. This will enable us to determine if it is feasible to allow the proposed truck hauling use, the months of the year it is feasible, time of day to allow it depending on the season, etc. It would also show us what improvements would need to be made to the road to handle the increased traffic, or, if another alternative, such as a second road, is even more feasible. Please keep us posted on your progress in working with the two counties and the BLM. If you have any questions, feel free to call Larry Klock at 328-6388. Sincerely, A4 si/422-14r MICHAEL J. SPENCER District Ranger cc ;BLM Eagle County Planning Commission Garfield County Planning Commission d`quarry hearin scheduled June 19 The CF&I steel company's impact statement for a proposed limestone quarry near Dotsero was accepted by the Garfield County Com- missioners Monday and June 19 was tentatively set for a public hearing on the issue. The commissioners' action does not mean the quarry proposal has been approved. II indicates the com- missioners helieve CF&I has supplied Ibem enough in- formation to make a decision. Approval or denial of the special use permit required for the company to begin operations will not come until after the public hearing. However, the acceptance of the environmental report ends more Ihan a year of discussions with the st eel com- pany concerning the en- vironmental report. During hearings last spring the commissioners and the planning .commission decided the company had not supplied enough data on seven specific items, from water quality and quantity to potential dust problems to the effect of quarry blasting. on nearby caves. As late as a month ago the commissioners determined That a new environmental report submitted by CF&t was still inadequate in addressing the potential impacts on sub- surface water in the area. Last week the company sub- mitted a report from a hydrological engineer con- cerning underground water in the area; and that was eviden- tly enough for the com- missioners, "I'm salisfied." Com- missioner Larry Velasquez said Monday. "It's as com- plete as it can be as far as I'm concerned." "1 agree, All my questions have been answered," Com- missioner Dick Jolley said. Under, county regulations, County Building Inspector Bud Milner must now review the report for up 10 10 days to assure that it meets all of the technical requirements of county rules. His report will be made to the commissioners next Mon- day, and assuming he ap- proves il, the commissioners will then make final the June 19 public hearing dale. June 20 has also been set for the hearing in the event it is too lenglhy for one evening. Both meetings are set for 6:30 P.m.' Even if Garfield County ap- proves the quarry plan, it must still win the acceptance of officials from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Eagle County, as well as a number of other federal and slateagences, , Continued from Page 1 •formation, Wifkok'skisaid. The CF&I officials agreed to that readily since they had already planned to drill the wells anyway, as well as rehabilitate several existing wells already on the properly. Lloyd, who said he represen- ted concerned citizens of Gar- field and Eagle counties, presented the commission with an informalional packer containing letters and historical data on water for- mations in the area, which he indicated would contradict • many of the claims in the CF&I environmental impact statement. Leavenworth, who wrote one of the letters in the packet, Questioned the steel corn- pany's proposed use of five - mile -long Coffee Pot .Ditch, County officials want more time on CF&I request The Garfield County Com- missioners told CF&I steel corporation officials Monday (hal they wanted just a "few more days" lo study an en- virdnmenlal impact statement submitted by (he firm as part of its application for a county permit: to begin a limeslone quarry on an 80 - acre site near Dol sero. All three commissioners said they recognized a need to "move on" to the next phase in the quarry application process. Al least one com- missioner, however, Chair- man Larry Velasquez, said he would have trouble endorsing the environmental slalemenl if he "had lo decide ttjl1ay." County Attorney" ilGerald corn= missioners Ihaiet heir iwt ceplance of lie staleni would also'have the effect 4if endorsing its compieleneas. King Lloyd, an architect, and Loyal Leavenworth, an at- torney specializing in \valet' law, raised several questions regarding the effect such a quarry would have on the area which he doubled could supp]v the company will) enough wa1er for the operation because of seepage and evaporation problems lung associated with 1heditch "Siore the ditch is on Forest Service [and, you would have 10 gel 0 number of permits 10 pipeline it, This should he reflected in the env€ronrrlenlal impac•1 sl a1orrient," Leaven- worth said, Work responded Ilial thedil- c•h supplied owe 10 Iwo c•uh€r foil seconds of water and that would he morn than adequate for the quarry. "I'm a Tong way from ex- pressing my opinion on the value of this impact statement, and if 1 had to make a decision today, it wouldhe against. il," Velasquez" said, 'Com - 1 c/ ��``1 ` t /7 z ground water, Al their last meeting, the commissioners told the CF&I representatives Thal they would have to provide ad- ditional information on this parI cu lar phase of the operation. What Curlis Miller, quarry supervisor, James Wark, chief reining engineer, and attorney Jeff Welborn presented the commissioners with Monday was a letter from a company out of Denver called Hydro -Search. County Planning Director Bob Witkowski said the letter slated (hal Hydro -Search had analyzed published data on the liklihood of aquifers (large, underground -saler deposits) in the area. and that SUch -detta::intik"41YEdliteurwas lillj'e e'idenc :ol Ih 1,presenee of wafer. H tided however, ")hal lest v .Ils- had enol been drilled ani- urged the com- missioners to require that, Inn, as part of the application requirements. "That would be more conclusive than to go just on the published in - Please turn to Page 8 • nlissionel• Dick Jolley -said -he would like to see the wells drilled, but added Thal he also I hought I he company had gone through enough delays in the application process, awl (hut he was ready Monday to set , the date for a public hearing on l he mat ter. Commissioner Fla von Cerise made 11 mot ion 10 study the document for the next "hyo 4)1' 111r(.0 days" and gel hack In the company. The caanmission actually has un1i1 May 2(1 1u make a decision. The motion passed unanimously. In other action, .1 he com- mission: — Heard a request' by Douglas Isere, an oil and gas Landman out of Denver, who asked the commission to con - side'. leasing his.'firnlllii' oil and gain r1p1il under. 5011111 Can:, nil Creek Road. Harter! lull! I he commissioners he was • not sure du, immity a\\'lll'11 1111 mineral rights there and said he would 1.esearr11lhe matter. — Discussed adminisira t lye details in implementing a new coun1yIx dog 0(1(110411 result] lion and directed Sheriff Bob .Har'I to login in- terviewing lor the two newly. created positions of county dog warden. 11faximiun pay for 1114' putiilinns is $850 per month. Jane 1, nn! July 1 as repor- lee€ in the Post in a correction item on Thursday, is the deadline for county residents lo obtain the county.dog lags unless the dog in,.quesfion has hada recenl.rahiea,shol. CF&I STEEL CORPORATION A subsidiary of Crane Co. P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81002 April 25, 1978 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: APR 26 1978 Urn) k D al. i ;..F, kStpr Enclosed is a report from CF&I's hydrogeological consultant, Hydro - Search, Inc., which we hope will provide the additional information that you and the Garfield County Commissioners need to find our Special Use Permit Application sufficient. CF&I is committed to the program as outlined in the report. Copies of this report will also be sent to Eagle County and BLM. Also enclosed, at your request, are copies of documents which describe the water right on Deep Creek of which CF&I has an option to purchase. JGW/as Enclosures pc: J. N. Matheson J. F. Welborn C. L. Miller Very truly yours, J. N. MATHESON Director of Mining By . G. Wark Chief Mining Engineer 6,dayZ HYDRO -SEARCH, Inc. 100r April 21, 1978 (1153-78) Mr. James Wark Chief Mining Engineer CF&I Steel Corporation P. 0. Box 316 Pueblo, CO 81002 Dear Mr. Wark: : •'NC H4YDHOLOG!SrH.GEOLOc!STS Mr. John F. Welborn has informed us that CF&I's proposed limestone quarry near Dotsero, Colorado was discussed at a meeting of the Garfield County Commissioners on Monday, April 3, 1978. During that meeting the commis- sioners raised several questions concerning the baseline hydrogeological investigation currently being undertaken by Hydro -Search, Inc. (HSI, and the possible adverse effect of the quarry on regional ground water. The major questions raised by the commissioners concerned the adequacy of the hydrogeological program and the possibility that the quarry would have a "significant adverse effect" upon ground water. We understand that the Garfield County Zoning Regulations define "significant adverse effect" as "....depletion or pollution of surface run off, stream flow or ground water". In response to these questions to CF&T from the Garfield County Commis- sioners, CF&I has requested HSI to clarify and expand upon our proposal dated November 16, 1977 and our progress report dated January 24, 1978. As part of our proposal preparation and as part of Phase I of our project, we have reviewed published and CF&I data on the quarry region. These data included U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1142-J on the geology of the region, Colorado Water Resources Circular No, 15 on the occurrence of ground water in the Leadville Limestone the geologic formation to be quarried), and the records of the Colorado State Engineer's office for information on wells registered in the region. Page 2 April 21, 1978 We have discussed the exploratory coreholes drilled by CF&I with Mr. James Wark of CF&I. At the time these holes were drilled no hydrologic infor- mation such as static water levels or water production was collected. HSI will attempt to clean out and get water level information from coreholes DH -3, DH -4, DH -5, DH -6 and DH -10 during our field investigation later this spring. Data from the Colorado State Engineer's records of registered wells in- dicates that there are no wells within 4.2 miles of the proposed quarry site and only eight wells within a 10 mile radius of the site. The attached preliminary topographic map (Figure 1) shows the locations of these regis- tered wells. Table 1 is an inventory of the wells registered with the Colorado State Engineer within a 10 mile radius of the quarry site. All are shallow, are near streams, and are completed in alluvium (unconsolidated sand and gravel deposited by recent stream activity) which receives its water from the streams. Because these wells are far from the quarry site, and are completed in different geologic materials which receive their water from nearby streams, it is virtually impossible that quarry operations could adversely affect any of the wells. Figure 2, reproduced from Colorado Water Resources Circular No. 15, shows the ground surface outcrop pattern of the Leadville Limestone in Western Colorado. It can be seen from this figure that the outcrop area is very small. In addition, the dip of the Leadville Limestone in the quarry vicinity is relatively steep. Projection of the Leadville Limestone be- neath the yell nearest the proposed quarry indicates that it would be at a depth of approximately 980 feet below ground level. The well is 50 feet deep. Thus, the Leadville Limestone is approximately 930 feet below the bottom of the well. The narrow outcrop and steep dip indicate that, at best, the Leadville Lime- stone is only of limited use as an aquifer, being in most places very deep and receiving only limited recharge. Based en records of the Colorado State Engineer's office, .it appears that the Leadville Limestone is not presently utilized as an aquifer in the region of the proposed quarry. In the vicinity of the proposed quarry CF&1 c•orehole data indicates that the Leadville Limestone is approximately 200 feet thick and is massive (generally no. fractured) Figure 3. however, suitable quality limestone only exists in the upper 100 feet. For this reason, the quarry will penetrate a maxi- mum of 100 feet, or only one-half of the total thickness of the formation. Page 3 April 21, 1978 The quarry location is immediately east of and downdip from areas of out- crop of the Leadville Limestone. These outcrops are potential recharge areas. However, the quarry area is immediately south and southwest of Deep Creek Canyon, and only limited spring discharge occurs from the Lead- ville along the canyon cliff. Consequently, recharge is probably limited in quantity, and it is unlikely that significant amounts of ground water exist in this area. The scope of the proposed HSI baseline hydrogeological study was based on our preliminary investigation described above. We concluded that there could be three possible ground -water situations in the quarry area: 1. ground water would not occur in the Leadville Limestone, 2. ground water would occur in the Leadville Limestone, but it would be below the depth of quarry operations, and 3. ground water would occur in the Leadville Limestone in the depth range of quarry operations. On the basis of the information available we conclude that the alternative most likely to occur is number one above. We then looked at various methods of evaluating these possible conditions. Because the slope of the geologic structure of the Leadviile Limestone Is from west to east (see structured contours on Figure 4), ground -water recharge to the quarry vicinity would have to come from the areas west of the quarry site. If ground water is flowing through the quarry site, it most likely would be from west to east following the structural gradient. The best information about ground -water flow can be obtained by drilling holes roughly parallel to the gradient. Thus, our three proposed drill holes are on a line from west to east across the quarry site. Any signi- ficant flow of ground water within the quarry site should be intercepted by this line of holes. If all three holes are dry for the entire thickenss of Leadville Limestone, it is reasonable to conclude that the quarry will be dry. In this case, no additional holes would be required. If ground water is encountered in anv or all of the holes, but below the depth of quarry operation, it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no effect on the ground water and no additional holes probably would be required. Page 4 April 21, 1978 If ground water is encountered in any or all of the holes within the depth of quarry operation, additional holes will be drilled to define the con- figuration of the water table and to estimate the amount of water which may be encountered daring quarry operations. If the amount of water is estimated to be large enough to he discharged, CF&I will apply for an EPA discharge permit. If the amount of water encountered is estimated to be small, it would he isolated from quarry activity and allowed to evaporate or percolate back into the ground -water system. It is unlikely that this ground water would be polluted by quarry operations since the only source of pollution would be dust and sediment which would be naturally filtered out as it reentered the aquifer. In any of the cases where water is encountered, the drill holes will be cased with plastic casing as monitoring wells. Two of the holes were pur- posely located outside the quarry zone so that they could be monitored throughout quarry operation to detect any possible effect on ground water. If effect were detected, measures would be taken to correct the situation, as required. If some of the existing CF&I coreholes can be cleaned out and if they con- tain ground water, they will he cased and utilized as monitoring wells. lin summary, HSI feels that we have proposed a reasonable program to ade- quately confirm our preliminary conclusions. Because we do not anticipate encountering ground water within the quarry zone we have proposed only three holes. However, the program is flexible and if water is encountered, the scope of the program will increase and additional holes will be drill- ed to adequately define the Situation. If further clarification of our program is required or if it is necessary for us to talk directly to the Garfield County Commissioners, feel free to contact us. lw Attac.'?rnents CC: John V. A. Sharp Jeff Welborn Kurt Miller Sincerely, HYDRO -SEARCH, INC. A LO Thomas K. Wheeler Hydrogeologist 1. 2. 3. Permit No. and date drilled 5-19-009869 9/20/61 5-19-025636 8/23/65 5-19-030851 5/11/67 4 5-19-018142F 12/15/74 5, 5 -I9 -004872F 10/12/63 6. 5-19-044388 3/71 7 5-23-010565 11/31/61 8. 5-19-031269 6/14/67 TABLE 1 WELLS REGISTERED WITH THE COLORADO STATE ENGINEER'S OFFICE Owner and Address Yield (GPM) Depth and Location and Use SWL Neva I. Gotschall NW/NW 15.0 Gypsum s.4,T5S,R86W domestic Lee Gotschall Box 128, Gypsum James F. Phillips Star Route Gypsum George Morrison 326 Park Drive Glenwood Springs Colorado River Boys Ranch Gypsum Ronald P. Piel Star Route Gypsum Bair Le Grande Glenwood Springs S. A. Herres Gypsum Source: Colorado State Engineer's Office SW/NW 20.0 s.4,T5S,R86W domestic NW/NE 20.0 s.5,T5S,R86W domestic SE/NE 25.0 s.5,T5S,R36W industrial NW/NE 90.0 s.9,T4S,R86W commercial SW/NE 25.0 s.31,T4S,R86W domestic SE/NW 2 0.0 s.15,T5S,R87W domestic SE/SE 10.0 s.30,T4S,R86W domestic Comments 60 5.55 miles from quarry 63 5.65 miles from quarry 113 5.00 miles from quarry 45 40 67 60 5.33 miles from quarry 30 30 6.70 miles from quarry 12 50 Closest to quarry to the 20 east and downdip. 4.22 miles east. Ground elev. approx. 6180 feet. 24 3.91 miles from quarry 45 27 Second closest well to 14 quarry. Approx. 4.27 miles east. Ground elev. approx. 6220 feet. MOFFAT rQ ROUTT Craig 1" River Steam •oat Springs et. Meeker PROPOSED GARFIELD QUARRY SI R;ver 60 Glenwood Springs GRAND EAGLE SUMMI Grand unction ME SA EXPLANATION DELTA MONTRO PITKIN aan- GUNNISON n;so m UR'Y Outcrop area of Leadv it ie Limestone 0 25 50 mi les From Colorado Resources Circular No. 15 Gunnison% HINSDALE Project 1153 April 1978 4'. SAGUACHE Geology modified from U.S.G.S State Geologic Map , 1:500,000, 1935 APPROXIMATE OUTCROP AREAS OF THE LEADVILLE LIMESTONE .■ 15' .1. •5•• HYDRO- SEARCH, INC. CONSULTING HYDROLOGISTS - GEOLOGISTS RENO • DENVER CV)I ICIC 'f Y . dII:)I.i SOUTHWEST 0 o av% a Lu 0 0 0 0 0 0 WILLOW PEAK 0 0 0 ti 8 0 elev. 10021' volcanic plug —"—> N 45°E �1`s��.t`,`�\��`-�'i':�?"a'•:5+.�'i:;j:i:;c:�E si�::S:is�"��:%`':t:::::::;:::<;�.;�:;: QUARRY SITE elev. 9200' Dc 0 -Cm p -Cs DH 4 NORTHEAST rn CA o 0 r -- Dc 0Cm 1..i06 00 fault is pis DEEP CREEK lev. 7250' fault -Cs p£s u) Dc OE and -Cs pE s EXPLANATION PENN MISS DEV CAMB & ORD CAMB pre CAMB Belden & Molas Shale Leadville Limestone Chaffee Limestone & Shale Manitou & Dotsero 180 - 250 feet Conglomerate & Limestone Sawatch Quartzite 400 - 500 feet Thickness 600-1500 feet 175 - 225 feet 200- 270 feet Schist & Granite from CF & 1 data undetermined Project 1153 April 1978 0 1000 2000 3000 feet o 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION FROM WILLOW PEAK NORTHEAST THROUGH QUARRY ■f' HYDRO -SEARCH, INC. CONSULTING HYDROLOGISTS - GEOLOGISTS RENO • DENVER J DEED APRIL 5th_ 1958 • pg. 219 KENNETH H. SCHULTZ & MARION E SCHULTZ from J.L. Mosher The following land in Township Four (4) South, Range Eighty-six (86) West of the 6th Principal Meridian, according to the survey under which Patent issued July 26, 1889, to -wit: The Lot numbered Ten (10) of Section Thirty-one (31), the Lot numbered Two (2) of Section Thirty -Two (32), and all that part of the Lot numbered Five (5) of Section Thirty -Two (32) described in that Certain Warranty Deed recorded in Book 116 at Page 80 of the records in thv: office of the County Clerk and Recorder of the County of Eagle, in the State of Colorado, as "all that part of Lot five (5) which lies north of a certain state and county road which wagon road extends from the southerly end of an iron bridge over Grand River south 68° East across said Lot five (5) and directly toward a point thirty five feet north of the south quarter corner of section thirty two (32) said portion of said Lot five (5) being situate in section thirty two (32) and all the above described land in township four (4) south in range eighty-six (86) west 6th principal meridian." EXCEPTING HOWEVER, from the above described lands, the following, to -wit: That certain strip of land conveyed by George Yost to the Board of Commissioners of the County of Eagle and State of Colorado, by that certain Quit -claim Deed recorded in Book 58 at Page 130 of the records in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of the County of Eagle, in the State of Colorado; that certain strip of land conveyed by Nelson Yost to the Denver and Salt Lake Western Railroad Company by that certain Warranty Deed recorded in Book 116, at Page 147 of aforesaid records; that certain right of way reserved by George 5. Yost, his heirs and assigns, in that certain Warranty Deed recorded in Book 65 at Page 487 of aforesaid records; and that certain parcel of land conveyed by Albert E. Yost and Hazel Yost to James F. Phillips and Myrtle Phillips by Warranty Deed recorded in Book 133 at Page 445 of aforesaid records; together with all water and ditches,'and water and ditch rights and priorities used upon, belonging to, or in any manner connected with or pertaining to said lands conveyed, and particularly including, but without limitations of the aforegoing, all of grantor's rights, title and interest of, in and to the folowing ditch and water right, to -wit: the Yost Ditch from Deep Creek, being Ditch No. 154 in Water District No. 53, State of Colorado, and the water decreed thereto under appropriation No. 172 1111111 1111 1'11111 /EA E1 La CF&I STEEL IORPORATION , A subsidiary of Crane Co. • P.O. Box 3169 Aga Pueblo, Colorado 81002 kV) R emnew .iv,IiikER April 18, 1978 Mr. W. C. Milner Garfield County Building Official 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Milner: Enclosed is CF&I's check for $500 to cover the Garfield County Special Use Permit application fee for the Dotsero Quarry. Enclosure pc - JNM J FW CLM Very truly yours, Chief Mining Engineer -to a--7) .erfr Editor's note. This is the fir- st of two "My Side" articles on the proposed limestone quarry near Dotsero. In this article, CF & 1 Steel Corp. argues its side of .the controversy. On Thursday, King Lloyd, a Glen- Wood area resident who op- poses the quarry,will argue the other side of the issue. Readers are welcome to sub- mit "My. Side" articles for publication. They should be 500 to 700 words and can be on nearly any subject. By the CF&I Steel Corp. Should CF&I be granted a county special use permit to mine limestone at the proposed Dotsero location? Should mining be permitted in Garfield County, Colorado, the United States, or even in the world? These two questions are closely rely ted. Mining and agriculture are mankinds' two most basic and necessary industries. Every product that man uses or con- sumes is in some way derived from mining and/or agricultural operations. Even the simplest and most primitive society imaginable today would have to be depen- dent on some mineral resour- ces. If we can, therefore, con- sider mining a necessary ac- tivity, is it reasonable or legitimate to ban it .in our neighborhood, and to let other counties, states, or, countries supply the resources for our consumption? In some special cases it may be, but the con- ditions must be carefully con- sidered. Mineral deposits are where nature put them, and obviously, mining is limited to these locations. Limestone of the quality found at Dotsero is needed for the steelmaking process, and this quality of stone is not a common oc- currence.'If this country, or the world's economy is to in- clude a steelmaking industry, then deposits of metallurgical coal, iron ore, and limestone must be utilized. Proper utilization is achieved by mining the least cost suitable material, the taking of which can be accomplished with a socially acceptable utilization of man's other needs for the area and without upsetting en- vironmental quality or animal habitat nearby. There have been suggestions made that the limestone could be found from other sources, and there are, indeed, other sources. However, in over 30 years of diligent searching for a Monarch Quarry replacement, CF&I has found only Dotsero as an acceptable source. Of the three best alter- nates, all are of inferior grade, and two present much greater environmental problems. The third, only a three-year sup- ply, is trp small for con- sideration. Alternatives out- side of these would require going back to the mid -west, -and would mean tran- sportation distances of 3 to 4 times that of Dotsero. Aside from the additional costs, the energy- consumption for moving this material is similarly escalated. At three times the transportation distance, it would require.ap- proximately 1,650,000 extra gallons of fuel annually to move CF & I's 350,000 tons. At a time when this country is facing serious inflation and balance of payments crises; which are directly related to our energy budget deficit, and considering the ' en- vironmental effects of this 3 times energy consumption, this does not appear to be a sensible alternative. CF&I has not found gold at Dotsero. The Corporate profits will not soar.as it is ex- ploited. The Dotsero limestone will, in fact, be more ex- pensive and will be of slightly lower quality than the present source, CF&1 is seeking to mine here because it is the best available source, taking all factors including en- vironmental impact into con- sideration. Dotsero is not a major mining or industrial project. It involves a relati- vely small land area, no toxic materials are involved, dust; emissions will be easily con- trolled, there will be no wafer discharge and very little water use. A significant ad- verse impact on wildlife is almost inconceivable and thele is no objective testimony of evidence to the contrary. All this is not to say that Dot - sero will have no en- viornmental impact. The overall impact will, however,'' be small and;any adverse ef- fects will be reduced to legally . and socially acceptable limits. _ The ;project impact will be' almost insignificant, as coin=s pared to a ski -area develop- ment. To return to the`.thcme 'ofj this statement, CF&I' does not think that its proposal to mine limestone. at Dotsero is at all unreasonable. It will provide a needed raw material for the Colorado industry, it will provide significant local tax revenues, and it will provide jobs. It should be noted that last year, CF&I paid $140 million in Colorado wages and $6.3 million in propertyand'. sales -taxes. It has now been almost three years since CF&1 first applied for a Garfield County special use permit for this project. Numerous questions have been answered and every ef- fort has been made to provide any information that. the Plan- ning Board and County Com- missioners have .requested..: We think 'that It ss ,time proceed. i VAIL — The city council here Tuesday night formally adopted a resolution in op- position to the proposed CF&I limestonequarry near Dot - sero. The resolution had been given preliminary approval by the council two weeks ago. The resolution cites -what the council termed "immense impacts" on the environment of the area, particularly • wildlife and "scarring of the landscape." The resolution urges the commissioners of both_Eaa1e ail arfield =c4untiei4dkpire `siuilied and care`*t CCOn sideration" to the proposal and its potei fects on the area's re regarding hunting fish recreation. It also nc possible detrimental on air quality frc quarrying operation railroad loading facilit Colorado River. City Councilman BE bach said this morn •resolution was unanimously by the There were no represe. _. of CF&I or interested citizens present at the meeting, he ad- ded. unty -planners re quarry data -EAGLE—'Officials. .of.the CF&I steel com- pany :presented their plans • for a limestone quarry,near;l]otsero to the Eagle County Plan- ning Commission Wednesday night and got what theyhave received several times in Gar- field County — demands for more information. • Eagle County Planning Director Mike -Blair; said today the 'planning commission. specifically requested more data concerning the effects of the proposal on water, air quality, traffic, schools, recreation and nearby cave fort -nations. Although the CF&I quarry would be located in Garfield County, most' of the ,proposed 'bathing system and the railroad loading facility on the Colorado River would be located :in Eagle County. Because of this a special use., permit.is•required from both counties before the operation can proceed. The Wednesday nightpublichearing was the first formal consideration of the CF&I proposal in Eagle{ County. Garfield County began formal 'hearings on the proposal More than a year ago. The Eagle County Planning Commission has tabled the "question until its .next meeting on May117;to:allow 'CE&I time toprepare answers 46Someofthequestions. '` '4TIlairsaid,the commission can take up to 60 d Js following next month's meeting to make a decision and forward its recommendation to tale Eagle County Commissioners.' I'iie. planning commission acted - on the sr. recptntnendation of the planning staff in requesting more information, Blair said. The planning staff has been reviewing the massive environmental report submitted by CF&I to both counties and the- Bureau of Land Management. - The _planning staff was:_ particularly' con- cerned about the possible`' impacts' from the quarry'.glieratlon on the Deep Creek drainage; Blair. said 'as well as unde i&thid. Water m the" area. A similar -concent vas _recently ex pressed by Garfield County officials. Another concern was the amount of traffic the operation would generate on both the Colorado River Road and the Coffee Pot Road which leads up to the quarry site. Neither of the roads will stand much in the way of increased •. congestion and wear and tear, Blair indicated. : As for the cave formations in the area, Blair said he and his staff are not qualified to deter- mine if the data supplied from testing done by CF & gi last fall is adequate. Therefore, he said, the -county has asked the Colorado Geological Survey to review the data, and is awaiting an answer on that review. Blair indicated he does not believe there will be serious. adverse impacts an wildlife in the area if thesteel company uses the aerial tram- way ram- way it has proposed to haul limestone from' the quarry site to the river, rather than the gravel truck road it originally suggested. However, he suggested that more data could be supplied. The. company's report did not really address the issue of possible impacts on schools in Eagle County, Blair said. "Certainly, 30 people moving into the area will bring in some new • students," the planner. noted. He added there maybe otherimpacts on the schools from other service people who may be required to handle the needs of the CF&I employees. Blair indicated the planning commission does not think CF&]has adequately addressed the offsite impacts of the project. In addition to the effects on schools, he noted there may be requirements for increased police protection and other public services. Most.. of the em- ployees for the operation are expected to live in Eagle County, he added. - - There ,were nearly 50. people at the Wed- nesday night hearing, Blair said. Included were a half dozonsepresentatives of CF&I and persons withfinaricial-interestin the operation. - There were also.about a.dozen representatives of a group opposed to the uarry, Blair said. In rclsard to he u1trh mined by N:q ) A Mre33 13 Gypsurn,I ar;lc O m ity, OolceraLlop ichan the Nast Dltch,the Court finch; dltnh That work was commenced on said ditch,on the 10th clay of Ju1y,1900. fr(am which tine the appropriation of tater thercthrough should date that :is used for irrigation puroses; that the head teof said ditch is si;•,�_ atcd nn the Eouth bank of pcep Cren,fror► which,(said ditch c^rives and divert:, its supply of water at a point about 1/4 mile westerly f'r^*i the mouth of said Creek into Grand river and about ono rile cast of the rcnv line between Ranges 86 & 87.from the hecdgate said itch runt in a 7,en(7r- al Cnuthsrly direction, that the length of said ditch is Milos, that its width is three fect,its depth is two fcet,that the grade of said ditch is '2/10 of ono inch to 100 feet,that the carrying capacity Of said ditch is 8 cubic feet of crater per second of tine,that the number of acres of land lying :fader and capable of being irrigated by water from said ditch is One Hundred. Tho Court doth therefore order,adjudge and decrec,that the ormer, of said ditrh,by virtue of Original Crmst.ructio:fc ntitled to n piority in the use of u.0') cubic feet of water per second or timo;fram said nat- ural strean;that said ditch shall be numbered as ditch number 1E4, that the appropriation thercthrough shall be numbered ns appropriation number 172„Ln said. water Diatrici; 330.5.;. 919 7 f)' 9,4907 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 61601 Al Wright Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 113 9th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Wright: y0J u,L MAR v 1 1978 cAii IE ORli7O �ii 2810 March 30, 1978 In response to your discussions with George Landrum, Eagle District Ranger, the following are our comments on the contents of the CF&I Environmental Report February 1978. We appreciate the opportunity to review this report since the proposed operation is adjacent to National Forest land. Significant changes to the surrounding envi- ronment could have secondary impacts on the National Forest. The CF&I report does not fully address the potential environmental impacts of their proposed limestone quarry. It is apparent CF&I has made a substantial effort in collecting resource information and summarizing the potential impacts; however, many important ques- tions remain unanswered. We feel additional information concerning, the water resources, maintenance roads, recreation use, air quality, and the impacts on nearby caves and the visual resources are necessary to evaluate the full environmental impact of the proposal. These concerns are specifically addressed below. Water Resources Description of Environment p. 31 The Deep Creek watershed produces a large quantityof water annually. A average annual flow of 50-85 C.F.S. is expected at the confluence with the Colorado River and not 1 to 2 C.F.S. as the report indicates. Since many of the water quality parameters measured by CFI are flow dependent, stream discharge should also be measured during each samp- ling visit. Without stream discharge it is impossible to quantify the magnitude of any impact on the stream. The water availability study appear to be insufficient to insure the quarry of it's 150,000 gallons/day water needs. On-site wells are a possibility, but the weil,or combination of wells, would be required to produce 104 gallons/minute around the clock. This would require a substantial underground aquifer. Test wells will be needed to de- 2. termine if this is a possibility. Water avaa'ability from the near- by Coffeepot ditch should also be examinedthoroughly to determine if sufficient water can reach the quarry site. The ditch has histori- cally diverted 1 to 2 c.f.s. for irrigation purposes; however due to seepage and evaporation losses water flow at the end of the ditch, near the quarry site, is substantially less. The ditch in its pre- sent condition can not carry much more than its historical use with- out some reconstruction work. Perhaps most important is the need to determine if the water is physi- cally available for diversion to the quarry site. Due to receding streamflows during late summer and fall, water may not be available regardless of a good water right. A hydrologic analysis should be completed to see if there is enough streamflow throughout the 7 month period of water need. The Forest Service owns Federal reserved water rights from the lands upon which the Coffeepot ditch is located. We claim water sufficient to fullfill the Forest's purposes, one of which is to supply water to our compground development at Coffeepot Spring. The Forest Service is not opposed to other diversions at the spring as long as they don't conflict with our water needs. Our Hydrdogist indicates that during the majority of the diversion season there is not .7 c.f.s. available for diversion at the Coffee- pot spring as the report seems to indicate. Consequently, CF&l's water supply should not depend solely on this source due to limited availability and potential conflict with our water use. Impact of Roads The construction and maintenance roads necessary for access to the tramway towers should be discussed in the environmental impact section. Due to the steep terrain; even small 4 -wheel roads will have a sub- stantial visual and watershed impact. Their design and location could be one of the most significant environmental considerations of this proposal. Although on page 7, CF&I states "Since the tower locations are not known at this time, the exact location of the roads(access roads to towers) cannot be shown", their haul study by KKBNA Consulting Engi- neers has taken these maintenance roads into consideration in their water use and quality section. These two parts of the report conflict. with each other and should be resolved. 3. "Some minor improvements and increased maintenance will be requir- ed for the Forest Service Road to assure reliable access to the Quarry". Have any studies been done by CF&I to indicate what kind and extent of improvements they are talking about? Also what type of increased maintenance, blade, water, dust oil? Recreation Use P. 54 The report indicates that the only significant recreation use is by camper vehicles at developed sites. According to Division of Wild- life correspondence within appendix G, the area is used extremely heavily by big game hunters. The report states "The land crossed by the tram line has little, if any, recreational use". The tram line crosses Coffee Pot road in five locations and the average daily travel (ADT) is about 150. Most of this use is for recreational purposes. Air Quality There should be information within the report that would indicate prevailing wind direction and speed in order to adequatedly examine the specific areas that would be most affected by adverse air quality and noise pollution. It is important to note at this point that the proposed operation is approximately 600 feet from the National Forest Boundary and about 1 mile from Deep Creek Overlook. Air quality and noise could have an adverse affect on National Forest users in this area with unfavorable prevailing winds. This could also affect the areas solitude mentioned on p. 57. adversely. Impacts on Caves The Forest Service has previously stated that one of our most important concerns is from nearby quarry blasts. There may be a safety harzard if the cave areas are occupied during production blasting. The studies, of blasting effects on caves within the area, need analysis by experts in the field of cave studies. There may by several quali- fied organizations who could adequately analyze the results of CF&I studies. One organization called, "Underground Laboratories, Inc.", located in Arkansas specializes in cave related studies. It was difficult to determine from the report just how the instruments were set up to measure disturbance. It appeared that they were set on the ground and measured movement directly from the point where they sat. If that is the case, they should have been firmly attached to the bed- rock to effectively measure the displacement caused by the blast, other- 4. wise any material between bedrock and the instruments would have a dampening effect on displacement readings. Visual Impact The alignment of the tramway should be considered as a method of reducing the visual impact. If the alignment can be changed slightly to reflect the natural changes in terrain the visual impact can probably be reduced. Another alignment alternative which would place the tramway further south in Sections 34, 35 and 36 and lower in the drainage, might be less conspicuous. If the tramway was located further south it would cross the Coffeepot road only once rather than five times as it is currently proposed. During the construction of Interstate 70 near Dotsero, a large ridge east of the Colorado River will be removed for borrow material. The visual impact caused by the removal of this ridge will probably be mitigated by using standard highway landscape treatment techniques and revegetation methods. However, removal of the ridge will increase the length of time the traveling public will view the proposed tramway alignment and loading facility. General There has been, as recently as 1977, interest expressed in the Holly Sugar Highroad Claims by 3M Corporation. These claims are adjacent to the Scarrow (CF&I) claims. There should be some provision in permits issued for the CF&I operation so that an agreement could be worked out with other potential limestone developers for use of the tram line and associated facilities. This could eliminate the need for additional transportation systems in this area in the future. I hope these comments will be helpful to you in your review of the CF&I proposal. As you know, the Forest Service believes in multiple use management of our material resources and certainly recognize mining as an important use of public and private lands. However, when considering a proposal of this magnitude, careful evaluation of the social and environmental impacts is necessary before granting the appropriate permits. We suggest that the above information be requested from CF&I to help your review process. Sincerely, �-b t;r THOMAS C. EVANS Forest Supervisor cc; Eagle R.D. j.fer /Bob Witowski, Garfield County Planner, 2014 Blake Ave., Glenwood Spgs. April 17, 1978 Eagle County Planning Department P.O. Dox 179 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Attn: Mr. Terrill Knight Re: CF&I Steel Corporation Dear Terri ll : Pursuant to our telephone conversation of this date, please find enclosed a copy of the letter from the Chaffee County Asseseor dated May 12, 1977 for your information in the above referenced matter. If you have any further comments, please do not hesitate to conabcdb me. RAW/kay Enclosure Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Robert A. Witkowski Director ST E LWIWIOlin CF&I STEEL )RPORATION A subsidiary of Crane Co. P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81002 March 29, 1978 Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sirs: fi`: } ' 1 1,1(8 CF&I has no objection to the date of Monday, April 3, for the Garfield County Commissioners to review the CF&I Dotsero Environmental Report. If this means extending the statutory time limit as set in the Garfield County zoning ResolTtion, this is also acceptable. Yours very truly, J. N. MATHESON Director of Mining By JGW/as pc: J. N. Matheson J. F. Welborn C. L. Miller Robert Witkowski, Directory Garfield Co. Planning Dept. . G. Wark /Chief Mining Engineer EAGLE COUNTY Department of Planning and Development Box 179 EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 328.6809 ADMINISTRATION 328-6674 ANIMAL SHELTER 949-4292 ASSESSOR 328-6593 BUILDING INSPECTION 328.6339 CLERK & RECORDER Eagle 328-6377 Basalt 927-3244 COUNTY ATTORNEY 328-6674 ENGINEER 328-6337 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 328-7718 EXTENSION AGENT 328-6370 LIBRARY 328-7787 PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle 328-6594 Vail 476-5844 PLANNING 328-6338 ROAD & BRIDGE 328.6591 SHERIFF Eagle 328-6611 Basalt 927-3244 Gilman 827-5751 SOCIAL SERVICES 328-6328 TREASURER 328-6376 Robert Witkowski Garfield County Planner 2014 Blake Ave. Glenwood Spgs, Colorado 81601 Dear Bob: 1 APR )t0797p DRi laL) GO. itR: 7 April 1978 As I indicated to you by phone, we have received a Special Use Permit Application for the proposed CF and I limestone quarry. Enclosed you will find a copy of the application form. It is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1978 at 7:00 P.M. We will keep you informed of all meetings and other action taken by Eagle County. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sine rely T rrill Knight Planner TK/kp encl. ti% EAGLE COUNTY 'Ox 17° CIE C0LO RADO816331 Or COUNTY CL .•15SWNERS 6'.•e1.1!S1?ATV ":[t•4.:14 .-.:. ShEL7cR :222.6277 ;a: 92.7-3244 C: _ -Y 3_3.66:EY 74 ^G:.mEYTA4 c.TENS:ON H 2-- 11:71.42 URI DG s._ER,« 5r.55i1 5 S.:-6.176 I..nrf 1 7, 117P CF E I Steel Corporation "ininc penertment P.O. Cox 316 Pueblo, Co. 81002 Re: Zs -52-72 - Special Use Permit The Technical Review Committee for Eagle County (a group of technical advisors from various public ane-ncies) reviewed your application on 6 boril 1373. They offered the follytng comments to you and the Planning Commission- for consideration of approval and use of the proeerty: 1. A Plan is needed outlining methods of control of acci�ents and especially accidental spills from the tram. Particular attention should he given to drainage around the towers, which could carry material from shills Into the creek and the river. 2. The location and installation of the tram is a concern. Specific comments are: a. It would he better to keen the tram off the tons of ridges and hilis and locate it further down in the gullies and ravines. b. Towers should be installed ani maintained by helicopter so that the construction of a road wiii not be necessary. c. A more d^.tailed reclamation plan for the tower areas is needed. 3. The tram nronosal is a much better idea than the haui road because it has less impact on the arca. 4. Tee permit, if granted, should be reviewed yearly to he certain all conditions are met and operation is a5 snecified. 5. A more detailed plan of the loading facility is needed. 6. The loading facility should have screening landscape to control dust and visual €enact. 7. it is stated that the tram will generate extra energy that could be utilized in partially running the plant and/or the loading facility. That could be a very positive, energy-saving idea. "ore information is needed about this proposal, specifically the quantities of energy generated and the method of transfering and/or storing it at either of the facilities. A. There is no information provided about whether or not there are historical or arc aeolooical sites in the area. Consideration needs to he niven to these items. and concerning the quarry site: !, Underground water quality must be preserved. 2. Concerning the fines disposal areas and the stripping disposal areas, drains^.e into and out of the sites needs to be carefully addressed. Particular attention should be given to the heavy snow melt leaching through the stockpiles. 3. The reclamation plan for the quarry should consider reoiacinn topsoil with some fill dirt rather than leaving exposed limestone faces. 4. A more detailed reclamation plan is needed. 5. More information about impacts on wildlife is needed. These comments will be forwarded to the County Planning Department and Planning Commission for consideration at their meeting on 19 Acril 1978_ If you have any questions, please contact this office. i errill !might / Planner 7 TK/jk cc: Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Poard of County Commissioners ./Darfield County Planner Bureau of Land Management APPLICA1. N FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT Section 6.01 of the Zoning Ro ofution.of Eagle County, Colorado (minimum 5 copies requi red; print or typo, except signatures) Applicant Mail Address CF&I Steel Corporation Mining Department P.O. Box 316 Phone: 303 561-7150 City Pueblo state Colorado zip 81002 R ): Resource, Industrial Special Use 1. Special Use sought (present zone Filo No.25- Fee Paid $ Date Recd. by: 2. Zone District Map attached? Yes (Sec. 6.01.01 (b) 3. General Location of property One-half mile north of Dotsero. See Environmental Report for detail. 4. Legal description of property a. Subdivision Name Lot Blk , or . See Environmental Report. b. metes and bounds (may be attack -ad): See Environmental Report, (Addn No.) 5. Brief Purpose and Reason for proposed use (may be attached) : Transporation and railroad loading of crushed screened limestone, See Environmental Report for detail. 6. Attach explanation of evidence that proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses: (include possible negative impacts of proposer.: change) . See Environmental Report, 7. A eompiete list of ail owners including addresses, of the property proposed for Special Use and of allowners of all adjacent properties is attacned hereto; this See Attachments A8, signatory is proper thorized to make application as stated hereop. f and CI d Signature of a .21710a17TAR , I icant; owner? No Office Use 3 Application accepted as complete for Public Rearing on Application rejected as Incomplete for Public Hearing because: by: PIcmnning Adrnirrl; trator date I 1 " •.. . ...... - \ • ; i // . ! . , I / . ' ..., 4/ ,.. ,.- q:-., tQ rr tf I ..., -,--j..,------rt?..,,,,,,,,,, / •-•\ / 1 / / (d/ ------------------ e 0.,c _,-,' -______f•-s., ,. 7__ L / 745 57-EEz._ 7-55 7 1,2 Eic:(e• -r5.5 75P. --?,1,-/C /joy €6 W A" re...•?o,,,,,,,,72,7 /•-.7•74-K5 \ • 3 2 6 6 Ore „.1 L \ 5 , 2 • 47- rz7,-//.4,-;::,:.--Nr ATTACHMENT 8 - Special Use Permit Application, Eagle County CF&I Steel Corporation Dotsero Limestone Project Property owners in Eagle County 1. United States of America (in Trust) Bureau of Land Management District Office 764 Horizon Drive P. 0. Box 1509 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Attention Mr. Tom Owen, District Manager 2. Denver & Rio Grand Western Railroad Co. P. O. Box 5482 Denver, CO 80217 Attention Mr. Harold E. Cash, Vice President Present Use Wildlife habitat, access to recreational lands and resource Railroad right of way. ATTACHMENT C - Special Use Permit Application, Eagle County CF&I Steel Corporation Dotsero Limestone Project Adjacent property owners in Eagle County 1. Patrick Day Gypsum, Colorado 81637 2. Ronald Piel Gypsum, Colorado 81637 3. Kenneth & Marion Schultz Gypsum, Colorado 81637 4. Travis Anderson Gypsum, Colorado 81637 Present Use Dwelling, minor agricultural, and resource. Dwelling, agricultural, and resource, Dwelling, agricultural, and resource, Resource, 23 24 ti ¥40 • 25 �� 20 w 35 21 28, • `4 4 ` Y'' sJ `.1"i 1, . _ i w• J. 33 F..,a,. r { 4 •400 1 1 • 1' HAG t t` i G'F 1 49rsE,eo Z,N2iE$"ravvr Q ,rEeT Ea(7/e C3uv,1n> Speaelarc nv��, • Pe,rr11ian e:7/ ro �/e Lo Zavre✓✓iskct/%%t0 Z "= / /'/' /e /1dch.Piew6 tD L• EAGLE COUNTY t Department of Planning & Development ", (', - 5 1978 Box 179 EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 April 3, 1978 Cr ;? LU CO. P'Js R BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 328.6809 ADMINISTRATION 328.6674 ANIMAL SHELTER 949-4292 ASSESSOR 328-6593 BUILDING INSPECTION 328.6339 CLERK & RECORDER Eagle 328-6377 Basalt 927-3244 COUNTY ATTORNEY 328.6674 ENGINEER 328.6337 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 328-7718 EXTENSION AGENT 328-6370 LIBRARY 328-7787 PUBLIC HEALTH Eagle 328-6594 Vail 476-5844 PLANNING 328-6338 ROAD & BRIDGE 328-6591 SHERIFF Eagle 328-6611 Basalt 927-3244 Gilman 827-5751 SOCIAL SERVICES 328-6328 TREASURER 328-6376 C.F. & I. Steel Corporation Attn: Mr. l/ark Mining Department P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, Co. 81002 Dear Mr. 1• lark, In answer to your request, the following is the regular schedule for the special use permit review process of Cagle County. The dates as specified herein are only an estimate of the minimum review time and some action taken that might delay the review schedule is a possibility. Your application was received by the County prior to March 15, 1978, which was the submission deadline forr-onino matters for the April Plan- ning Commission meeting. Therefore, your application will bereviewed by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) on Thursday, April 6, 1978, and by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on 'Wednesday, April 19, 1978. The TRC corments to the County concerning the matter but has no authority to approve, table, or denv. The Planning Commission may take one of three actions: 1) recommend approval, with or without special conditions; 2) recommend denial; or 3) table for no more than 15 days in order to receive additional information. After Planning Commission review and recommendation, which must be made within 60 days, the applica- tion will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing. The earliest regularly scheduled hearing date at which the application could be revievred is Monday, June 12, 1978. The Board is the final County authority on the permit and it may make one of the following rulings: 1) approve, with or without special conditions; 2) deny; or 3) table for not more than 45 days in order to receive additional informa- tion. Our office will keep you informed of actions taken by the County concerning your permit application. If you have any questions, please contact this office. TK/jk cc: Planning Commission Board of County Commissioners lob Witkowski Sin/cerely, Terrill Knigh Planner Garfield and Eagle County planning of- ficials will work with "members of the Bureau of Land Management lq review the massive environmental report sub- mitted by CF&I Steel Corp, for its proposed Willow Peak limestone quarry. However„ Garfield County refused a BLM request to ask the Fuehle-based steel company for an extension of the review lime for the report so that the county and BLM can continue to work in conjunction on the proposal. The report. was submitted to the BLM last month, and last week to Garfield County: As far as the county is con- cerned, the report most answer seven specific questions about which the county asked for more detailed' information during hearings on the proposal Iasi TI1e a ,}i11l0 rrpsL :agrilptY,gnIs tic-iu'i wnrkU,J 14111uRch:(trl: nlION; i11 Glenynfd Springs Friilayj'al which (lar-. ' to review field County Commissioners Flaven Cerise and Dick Jolley, Eagle County . Commissioner Dale Cram, planning of- _ finials from both Counties and area BLM representative Al Wright mel. to discuss the pro,lect. Also present were a number of persons Concerned about the effects of the CF&I proposal on the pristine area near Willo0 Peak in northeast Garfield County. No public announcement of the meeting was made until after one of those concerned people found out about it from an Eagle County employee. - - Under the county's guidelines, officials' now have 30 days to review the report to determine whether il- provides the in- formation -requested. If -it is .derided the informal ion is adequal o, the county then has 90 days 10 hold new public hearings .pp.tlte pruposnlgtiutjappitpve-ul denvllfe .special use perriafl >..b&His su'knlg ID 'begin puurryint;(Mem lilnas: • - 1f the county determines the in- formation is still lacking, it could request more data, and it might be possible then to work with the BLM timetable, Since the steel company plans to haul the mined limestone from the quarry site over BLM property to a railroad loading dock on the Colorado River that federal agency must also give its approval before the project can proceed. And, because much of the haul system la large road for trucks was originally proposed. but an aerial tramway is now in the plan) and the railroad loading site would be in Eagle County. officials from that area host also give their approval. However. Grant said CF&I has as yet Made no formal application to' Eagle County, and he was reluctant to have his county become loo 11. 'olyed i11 the review until application is made • Siticc: 1110 EI.h1' apps of al y rpuigetI ti fore any operations at Ihi' qLI set y Cori environmental report begin, Garfield • County officials were asked why they could not agree to seek the 'time extension in order to work with the BLM. "My feeling is that they answered all but one question concerning water," Jolley told the group. "If this question is answered 1 think tie should hold a public hearing and make a decision." Thal question involves the passible el- fecCof the quarrying operation on un. derground water in the area, and is one of the things 01.1001 which Wright said the BLM is still concerned, CF&I htis said it intends W do a more in depth study of the potential problem this summer, but it ceouid be. a Iter the time when the county is scheduled to make its decision. Al any rale, Jolley said he was not sure it 1 11 question could be answered. Cerise said the 111101110 tons) fist decide whether the itnorinalion Kesel). led by CF/til 1s adcqu;rtc. and he 1,11111 the counlp's review should be Limited to .the. seven specific questions it asked about ca rlier. Both Garfield County Commissioners said they are not trying to rush the protect, abd they apparently agreed with Wright's proposal to have county plan- ners review socio-ec'enomie and issues related to water and sanitation within the environmental report while the BLM concentrates on «ildiile, fisheries and other questions related to the natural en- vire11111en1, Wright also suggested Garfield County and.- 100 Butyl could hold one public• hearing on the proposed project since the information- and argument... presented were likely to he the sans' if two public hearing, wore held. Such a move woulLl probably aisu require delays from the counly's preselit schedule, he noted. Jolley unhealed he might go along with Ihv 1 51,1t1 proposoh it a definite timetable could be set, hut Wright was unable 10 set specific dates for completion of the BLM review of the report and setting of public hearings, "I don't know if we can wail three years," Jolley said,' although Wright claimed the review would not take that long. Others at the meeting suggested if Gar- field County acts first and approves the Quarry proposal, it Could make it difficult for other agencies, such as BL IC1 and Eagle County, to turn down the proposal. Cerise, however, fell ,otherwise. "The BLM has a mind of its own,- he. said. Ch&I is proposing an 80 -acre quarry -and a nearby processing plan) of :mother 110 acres.. Both would be located on Private land the company intends to pur- chase a1 the edge of the White River National. Forest. The liniesl one would then be carried downlo the railroad loading duck several miles 11111Th of DIII- seri. ou Ihv Colorado Hirer. CF&I STEEL JRPORATION A subsidiary of Crane Co. P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81002 February 23, 1978 Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sirs: 77.17 It 1 1978 CA1ELILD CO. FLAMER I rim sending you, under separate cover, two copies of the completed Dotsero Environmental Report. Because of a problem in securing suitable binders for the report, these are the only two copies available for distribution at this time. When the other copies are ready(a week or so), distribution will be made to: BLM (Glenwood, Grand Junction, and Denver offices), U.S. Forest Service (Eagle), Eagle County Commissioners, and one additional copy to you. This report furnishes far more complete and comprehensive information than is required by the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of April 1975. And while we know that there is no end to the hypothetical questions that can be asked, we hope that you will find the information furnished adequate to make your determination with regard to CF&I's special use permit for this project. Yours very truly, James G. Wark Chief Mining Engineer JGW/as pc: Messrs. J.F. Welborn J.N. Matheson C.L. Miller Robert A. Witkowski/ IMO 11M 11 VIII Mil IIIIIBITIEINS III! CF&I STEEL iORPORATION A subsidiary of Crane Co. P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81002 February 16, 1978 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: Enclosed are three copies of Plates 1 through 4 for the portion of the Dotsero Environmental Report which was sent you on February 8, 1978. 1 understand that you will make three copies of the remainder of the report portion and distribute one to each commissioner. Very,,truly yours, JGW/as Enclosures OXA4VdLe James G. Wark Chief Mining Engineer i • ; • . • c liT i f.! Th P*. L. r f • •i V. ze.3 Z7 5c-rc. PNWIs VISSKSIZ51.41,_ 3 , 26 251 I \\ 1 \ 33 ppr ,•• 4 ' / \ \ . AA F.5 ROAD GOO LAND STATUS Private Surface - CFO Control Other Nearby or Affected Land Remaining affected land is under BLM administration. Area affected by project \ N \ `... N ,N. .... 4„. . .... -- ..... , ,.3 .. __ -- -- - --. .... / t ,.....- -- -.... ' "... 4- C.O.NTY ROAC. \ / i, / , ` ........ N......... - - -----36- T 1 X-70 CFI EL Copoi 31 1_01NN.1; t 32. 5; D AREA i" =204=e PLATE .17 33 STIzlRP1NC3 E5154>O �.L 2b �,. 1x1_/aN T! S TE - -4 1 • ` 1NM. Amts ROtaq i \ r 4 3 H F.5. Roar) 6OO LAND STATUS Private Surface - CF&I Control Other Nearby or Affected Land Remaining affected land is under BLM administration. Area affected by project GI 4,1O u 0 w,,-, 4T 6 4 fa0 3.3 IV \_„-A 1��4 i •• A I / / ' 1 ,//, J 1-70 1M. sr tLE 1” -31 sz LC.:-�ti 1 rte: /`/_Ir 1 uo icru CCIRQOn;.T01,4 DO+CJ AREA AlE t"=2cs PLATE 41 Department of Range Science July 2, 1976 ` Colorado State University Fort Collins, Coloradc 80523 MEMORANDUM: CF & 1 - CSU Revegetation Project, Progress Report #1 TO: Mr. Jack Matheson FROM: Dr. Phillip L. Sims '---/q 136 Dr. Bill Berg and I visited the CF & I, Inc. sites and discussed the revegetation problems. At that time, soil samples were collected and analyzed. Analyses of soil samples from all sites indicated a general short- age of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. During this visit the general strategy for the revegetation research was outlined. The Monarch quarry was selected for initial work because of its high elevation and short growing season. The pH of the plant growth material at the Monarch quarry ranged from 8.3 to 9.1. These materials were very deficient in nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.. Consequently, fertilization regimes are planned for this site as well as the other locations. The "fines" are sand to sandy loam in texture. Coarser material composed from 25 to 62 percent of the material at the Monarch site. Two sets of study plots are constructed at Monarch. One is on a slope at the "angle of repose" for the material. The other is on a generally level area. On the slope, six plots 8' x 30' in length have been seeded. Phosphorus and potassium at 200 and 60 pounds, respectively, were worked into the soil prior to seeding and contouring. The treatments on the slope include two rrplications of the following three treatments: 1. 60# of nitrogen 2. 120# of nitrogen 3. 120# of nitrogen with an excelsior mulch blanket A level area was developed by hauling in a two feet base of fines. The treatments on the level area are: 1. Control 2. 60# of nitrogen 3. 120# of nitrogen p LJ1 'Op / 4. 60# of nitrogen with mulch 5. 120# of nitrogen plus mulch j Three replications of these five treatments with plot size 12' x 30' will be established by the first full week in July. On the level area at Monarch, 200# of P and 60# of K were worked into the soil after the fines were placed on the area, and prior to seeding. The nitrogen treatmnts will be split and two applications applied, the first soon after the plays..}:s emerge, and the second later in the season. All fertilizer rates are in terms of pounds/acre. The seeding mixture to be planted at Monarch includes nine grasses, four forbs, and three shrubs. The grasses are red fescue, chewing fescue, Durar hard fescue, slender wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, Manchar smooth brome, meadow fox -tail, and Timothy. The forbs are white clover, l.adak alfalfa, Lutana cicer milkvetch, and Rocky Mountain pen- stemon. Shrubs are serviceberry, chokecherry and silver buffaloberry. Because of the need for water on the revegetation plots, an irrigation system will be needed at the Monarch site. Estimated cost of this system will be $1,000. The materials can be shifted and utilized in additional revegetation plots in the future at this location. The irrigation system will be designed to apply water twice a day and should be available for the plots immediately after they are fertilized, seeded and mulch applied. As soon as the Monarch plots are established, a design will be developed for both the Allen Mine wastes and the Canyon City quarry. This should be accomplished during July so that seeding can begin later in the suer and early fall. PLS/cis cc: Dr. bill Berg Mr. Ole Olsen Dr. C. Wavne Cook Department of Range Science September 15, 1976 #1 ARTMENT ELLE_. Colorado State Untversity. Fort Collins, Colorado '-":".•`j $T1 MEMORANDUM: CF & I - CSU Revegetation Project, Progress Report #3 TO: Mr. Jack Matheson FROM: Dr. Phillip L. Sims The month of August was spent finishing the plots at the Monarch quarry and finalizing the plot designs for the Canyon City and Allen Mine sites. The Canyon City plots will be planted in late fall to insure better results by allowing all of the species planted (grasses, forbs and shrubs) an equal chance of emerging and getting established in the 1977 growing season. The plots at the Allen Mine will also be planted in late fall. Emergence of several grasses and one forb were observed at the Monarch quarry on August 4 on the plots planted in early July as described in the preceding report. Later observations revealed that most of the grass seedlings were too small to identify to species. Other grasses growing in the plots are Kentucky bluegrass, smooth brume and some fescue. The one legume that germinated this summer in all plots at Monarch has been identified as alfalfa. The emergence of seedlings at Monarch was the result of a couple of weeks in which the plots re- ceived enough moisture for seed germination. The rest of the plots at Monarch were seeded August 5. The irrigation system was received August 11 and set up by August 14. Emergence of plants was first noted August 18 on the plots and was due to moisture received as rain supplemented by irrigation. Additional soil samples were taken at the Allen mine for analysis. Previous samples showed that there may be a sodium problem on the coal spoils. If this is indeed the case, a lime application should be included in the research plots. At the present time CF & 1 per- sonnel at the Allen mine are preparing the selected area for fall planting. PLS:dc cc: Dr. Bill Berg Mr. Ole Olsen Range ;<<. .:3La1 • /§4. • i�LI L.)) C.R8cQlor�do State university art s�,`1.' 80523 November 10, 1976 MEMORANDUM: C} f - CSU kevegetdtion Project. Progress Report !4 T0: Mr. Jack Matheson FROM: Dr. Phillip L. Sims 70 .42 -;444 - Since the last progress report we have concluded this season's work at the Monarch quarry and have made final preparations at Canyon City and the Allen Mine plots for, fall seeding. Vegetation seeded at the Monarch quarry Dist summer continued to }.',row through September, resulting in a fairly well established stand of young plants by the end of the growing season., Although the results from the data collected in early October on density, frequency, percent cover, and vigor have not been completely analyzed, general con- clusions are: 1) Percent cover is greater on mulched plots; 2) Density is greater on mulched plots; 3) Vigor.is greater on nitrogen fertilized plots. / Two replications of species evaluation plots were seeded :at. the Monarch quarry in the first week of October to test eight different forbs which have been used successfully in lower elevation revegetation studies. The species included in these plots are: Lewis flax, Lutana cicer milkvetch, Utah sweet -- vetch, white clover, Pacific aster, small burnet, birdsfoot trefoil, and Rocky Mt. penstemon. .n early September several soil samples were taken at the Allen Mine for analysis. specifically to determine if a sodium problem exists on the coal refuse piles. Two-thirds of the samples indicated that a sodic con- dition exists, but since the texture of the spoil particle sizes is a loamy sand it would be hard to determine how serious a problem exists. Sodium has adverse affects on soil properties when associated with fine textured materials, in that it disperses the fines when wetted to inhibit infiltration of water and when dry tends to form a crust on the surface which inhibits seedling emergence. Poor soil aeration can often be a result of a sodium problem. In order to test whether or not a problem exists with sodium, a split -block plot design will be used at the Allen Mine. Tn early October the plots were staked out and fertilized. Gypsum was applied at 3000 lbs. per acre on half of each treatment. Three replications of eight treatment plots 12' x 30' consist of: f -!I { Mr. Jack Matheson Page 2 November 10, 1976 1) Absolute control 2) Control with 2000 P205/acre 3) 2001 P205/acre and 60# N/acrd 4) 200# P205/acre and 120;` N/acre 5) 20011 P205/acre, mulch. and 60# N/acre 6) 2001 P205/acre, mulch, rnd 1201 N/acre 7) 2001f P205/acre, straw mulch, and 6011 is/acre 8) 20011 P705/acre, straw mulch, and 120i N/acre As stated previously, gypsum w.a!, applied to half of each of the above treat- ments. Gypsum will supply a soluble form of calcium which will replace sodium on the soil particles as sodium is leached from the surface material during irrigation. In addition to the treatment plots at the Allen ?line. two replications of species evaluation plots were also staked out and fertilized. Forty grasses, forbs, and shrubs will be seeded this fall and evaluated next summer with re- spect to emergence and establishment on these plots. Each species will be seeded in three adjacent 15 foot rows in each of the two replications. Of the species to be evaluated in these plots the grasses will include: sand dropseed, Nordan crested wheatgrass, Russian wildrye, Oahe intermediate wheat - grass, alkali sacaton, Rosana western wheatgrass, Arriba western wheatgrass, ;green needlegrass, sideoats grama, Luna pubescent wheatgrass, timothy, Kentucky bluegrass, Manchar smooth brome, Poloma Indian ricegrass, slender wheatgrass, Garrison creeping foxtail, Durar hard fescue, Regar meadow brome and Critana thickspike wheatgrass. Forbs that will be included are: Palmer penstemon.. Leis flax, Penngift crownve.tch, Utah sweetvetch, small burnet, bouncing bet, Rocky Mt. penstemon, :-irrowleaf balsamroot, Lutana cicer milkvetch, white clover, and Ladak alfalfa. The following shrubs will also be included in the species evaluation plots: winte.rfat, rubber rabbitbrush, four -wing saltbush, big sage, true mountain mahogany, black chokecherry, antelope bitterbrush, and servf ceberr5 . PLS:dc cc: Dr. Berg Ole Olsen TO: ,. R0i? : SUBJECT: 7E"A 'KS. E !,t fl R '! 0 L' ' 1 "r lack 'tat .eson Philip L. Cirgs DATE: :u ,' a, 1977 CFU -CSU Revenetation Project. Progress Report �7 This spring our attention has been focused on testing shrub and tree transplants at the Allen Mine and Monarch limestone quary. fourteen species were planted from April 23 to May 24 at the Allen Mine, included were: Rocky Mountain juniper ponderosa pine pinyon pine creeping barberry antelope bitterbrush woods rose Apache plume Shrubs and trees planted at Monarch blue spruce serviceberry Douglas fir service berry silver buffaloberry Russian olive shrubby cinquefoil Gambel oak skunkbush sumac true mountain mahogany from June 10 to June 24 were: shrubby cinquefoil creeping barberry white fir nese plots are set up in a Nriomized block design with three replications. In a single replication each swcies is represented by 16 plants, therefore, 48 plants of each species were 71anted in 3 replications. Except for Douglas fir and white fir the plant mat :Hial s used were bare root. All lateral roots were clipped off leaving only on main root below and dormant buds above. However. some of the species has already broke dormancy and were leafing at the time of planting. If new stems and leaves were present at the time of planting as was the case with Apache plume, shrubby cinquefoil and mountain mahogany and dormant buds still existed the new growth was removed. If no buds could be seen the plant was transplanted with as little new growth as possible. Plants were watered when transplanted and will continue to receive water throughout the growing season. On June 25 the transplant plots at the Allen mine were inspected. At this time 5 of the 14 species had shown some promise. Nearly all of the Russian olives were alive, about 50 percent of the rose, Gambel oak and serviceberry and under 50 percent of the skunkbush sumac. The other mine species were only represented by a few live plants. Mr. ,' ck Matheson Page 2 July 8, 1977 The first ')art of ':41v .;.111 be spent evaluating the mixture plots seeded last :.a„r;er ` -.r.:Q locations. Density of grass, forbs and shrubs as we►, ;ty or each species will be sampled. i ne average ',eight of each species and t 3 vi cor of each treatment will also he recorded. ,.fter the sites are sampled the data will be analyzed statistically. Wnatever material on the completed analysis we have at the time of the scheduled field trip will be presented. This field trip is schedule) rcr Aug',st 3 and 4. 1977. We will leet at the Monarch site at 10 a.m. :,u,ust 3 and r fterwrds visit the Canon City quarry. After spending the night in Pueblo. :re will i s i t the Allen Mine on August 4. PLS/sjd xc: Bill Berg Ole Olsen Department of Range Science Ms. Cheryl Wehmanen Mining Department CF&I Steel Corp. P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, CO 81002 Dear Cheryl: CSU Colorado Stale University Fort Collins. Colorado 80523 September 6, 1977 • • ,-, • The following are the species recommendations for Monarch anc that we discussed on August 6. Pounc:: of -ure Live Species Mixture for Monarch S. -i pc,-' Acre Grasses Slender wheatgrass (Aaropuron trachycaulum) Critana thickspike wheatgrass (A. dasystachyum) Chewings fescue (Festuca rubra commutata) 1 Creeping red fescue (F. rubra stolonifera) 1 Durar hard fescue (F. ovina duriuscula) `',5 Forbs and Legumes Lutana cicer milkvetch (Astragalus cicer) Rocky Mountain penstemon (Penstemon strictus) 1 Small burnet (Sanguisorba minor) 1 Birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) 1.5 Shrubs Common chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifoiia) Transplants Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) White fir (Abies concolor) 2 2 TOTAL 15.0 lbs./acre Ms. Cheryl Wehmanen Page 2 September 6, 1977 Pounds of Pure Live Species Mixture for Canon City Seed per Acre Grasses Slender wheatgrass 1 Critana thickspike wheatgrass 2 Green needlegrass (Stipa viridula) 2 Russian wildrye (EZumus junceus) 1 Regar meadow brome (Bromus erectus) 2 Paloma Indian ricegrass (oruzopsis humenoides) 1.5 Forbs Lutana cicer milkvetch 1.5 Lewis flax (Lines Zewisii) 1 Palmer penstemon (Penstemon nalmeri) 1 Emerald crownvetch (Coronilia varia) 1 Small burnet 1 Shrubs Winterfat (Ceratoides Zanata) Fourwing saltbush (Atripiex canescens) 1 2 TOTAL 18.0 lbs./acre As far as a density recommendation on the tree transplants, I would recommend contacting the U.S. Forest Service. Again, something of this nature will depend on your post -mine land use goal. Fertilizer recommendations will be the same for both sites, and are as follows: 50 lbs. N per acre, applied prior to - Aing cnd again after the first growing season 200 lbs. P,Os per acre or 86 lbs. P per acre, applied prior to seeding and mixed into the upper 6 to 10 inches of soil 60 lbs. K20 pel- acre, applied prior to seeding and mixed into the upper 6 to 10 inches of soil A mulch should be applied at all three mine sites. The recommended mulches are as follows: Level Areas: Up to 4 to 1 slope --straw mulch applied at a rate of 3,000 lbs. per acre and crimped in to secure Ms. Cheryl Wehmanen Page 3 September 6, 1977 Steep Areas: 3 to 1 and greater --on small areas the recommendation is for an Excelsior Mat. For large areas the recommendation is for wood fiber or silvafiber sprayed on at a rate of 3,000 lbs. per acre. All areas should be drill seeded. If slopes are too steep to operate conventional farm equipment (excess of 4 to 1) then the areas should be broad- cast seeded, and the seeding rate doubled. When broadcast seeding is used the seed should be covered by pulling a chain, harrow, or clodbuster over the area. This step should then be followed by mulching. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Sincerely, Edward F. Redente Senior Research Associate EFR/sjd xc: Jack Matheson Colorado Slate University t;ol ns Colorado Rase ....c^Cr August 9, 1977 77" (IT Mr, Jack Matheson Vice President of Mining CF&I Steel Corporation P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, CO 81002 Dear Jack: 17-)77 The following work statement outlines our continued joint participation in reclamation research on three CF&I Steel Corporation properties, namely: the dolomite quarry at Canon City, limestone quarry near Garfield, and the Allen Mine near Trinidad. CF&I Steel Corporation will continue to provide the areas for the revege- tation studies and also for larger scale reclamation. CF&I will maintain these sites and prevent unplanned disturbances of the plots. The proposed activities for the 1977-1978 budget year will include the following activities: (1) Colorado State University will continue to monitor existing revege- tation test plots and shrub transplan's and submit progress and annual reports as required by CF&I. (2) Colorado State University will establish a new set of revegetation test plots on steep sloping mine waste material at the Al":an Mine using techniques and plant mixtures found to be successful in the 1976 plantings at the Allen Mine and research at other locations. CF&I will provide the equipment and manpower to prepare the research site along with irrigatio`, equipment following planting and mulching procedures. (3) CF&I will provide the e,iuipment and Manpower to reclaim disturbed areas that were previously discussed during our tour on August 3 and 4 of this month. These areas include: (a) an approximate one acre sloping site at the Canon City Dolomite Quarry; (b) an approximate 15 to 20 acre sloping site at the Monarch Limestone Quarry; (c) pipline disturbance at the Allen Mine and (d) mine waste material at the Allen Mine. Colorado State University will assist in the reclamation of each of these sites by providing guide- lines and information where needed for the successful revegetation of these areas. Mr. Jack Matheson Page 2 August 9, 1977 (4) Colorado State University will critically review the reclamation plans for the three nine sites to be submitted to the State Land Reclamation 3oard. The above list of activities should fulfill our goals for the second year of research work. If you have any questions, Please notify us. Sincerely, Phillip L. Sims Associate Professor PLS/sjd xc: Mr. Enoch James Ms. Dottie Russell Dr. C. Wayne Cook Mr. Ed Redente `, rI97 F -C R'-4'..S..T_ PAX fi PFAK (Lvr(88� 1Yindy Po: i .. ,1 9901 '40.o.ii th.ater 1. GlinliJ Stance I t4 c;'''';/,. oii irwMd + teakoJli`gltei `_.N G1 ,_,_ T . } C_iri'Ji):'7: G'an1, Oct rplirrgSs 1.7531' , • C,-.4.61 6 Cat ir,.5 PROJECT SIT!' • a4osi Gm( I 9340 74 ft9 n -r>- .1,',rhid Ef - • - • itar;.r.v t€''Lit • • Niche •S!ati ri ti: F. S3 74 7c ands } _ E� r� kr 771, • • Coa1�, Cittle CreeP Stader 1330 ` 1069];: CaYcan I �Ceal x ifPilSa. li.'msa i i• t WH TE RIVER Ctassl T- `!louse II" NATIONAL FOREST Cthin I I ,tppi, i ; { r' House Crys '96G5 Fanger " stiitoQ. Cabin•. tAKe 7550 Colroey. -d Cud Roma •99 ,Ranch li Sr 1 7795 1'- �Ei� Htt! J i 715.° Net Cagle • 65:9 Wn1er 7 Eagle r Wate1 t 1�4 _h.4R 00- Fish hat:hery• .5'571 SC;=Rta 159 E rnch� •Ranch CFEtI STEEL CORPORATION DOTSERO PROJECT Location Map 1" = 4 miles PLATE 2 rl• /6, i 1 1sr10,11IhnMY • N CF&I DOTSERO PROJECT Attachments to 2-8.78 letter,CF&I to Garfield County Planning Commission. ATTACHMENT #1 Historic Record of Water Diverted by Coffeepot Ditch ,t'2 Water System and Use Haulage Method Description Site Rehabilitation Impact on Water Quality #3 Grizzly Creek Water #4 5 Revegetation Plan Blasting Effect on Caves TO: Garfield County Planning Department DATE: 2-8-78 ATTACHMENT #1 Historic Record of 4:ater Diverted to Coffeepot Ditch Coffeepot Ditch Diversion 1976 - Not checked 1975 - Not checked 1974 - In use - not visited 1973 - Not checked 1972 - June 15 to June 30, 1.0 cfs July 1 to July 31, " August " September JI October 0.0 ti 108 days average 1.0 cfs 216 A.F. oil 1971 - Not checked 1970 - Not checked 1969 - 6/15 1.0 cfs; 8/10 1.0 cfs; 9/15 1.0 cfs; 92 days 184 A.F. 1968 - 7/14 a.0 cfs; 105 days 210 A.F. Used 6/15 to 10/1 1967 - 7/4 1.0 cfs; 8/6 0.5 cfs; (Average 0.75 cfs) Used 6/15 to 9/1 105 days 157 A.F. 1966 8/6 0.5 120 days 120 A.C. Used 6/1 to 10/1 (Average 0.5?) 1965 - 8/8 05, 100 days, 100 A.F. (Average 0.5) Used 6/20 to 10/1 1964 7/10 0.5, 120 days, 120 A.F. Used 6/1 to 10/1 1963 - 6/1 1.0; 7/28 0.5, 60 days, 90 A.F. Used 60 days, 90 A.F. 1962 - 6/1 2.0; 6/27 2.0; 7/10 1.50; 7/25 1.0; 8/13 1.0; 10/1 1.0 Used 6/1 to 10/1, 120 days, 338.40 A.F. 1961 - No record. Source: District 53 water diversion records. CF&I STEEL .CORPORATION A subsidiary of Crane Co. P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81002 February 8, 1978 Mr. Robert A. Witkowski, Director Garfield County Planning Department Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Witkowski: In your letter of May 10, 1977, to Mr. Curtis Miller, you requested that CF&I furnish certain additional information with regard to the application for a special use permit for the Dotsero Limestone Quarry. The answers to your questions in the order listed in the letter are— (1) There is no record of the actual amount of water available to the owners of the quarry lands; however, there is a record from 1962 through 1972 of the amount of water used or diverted via the Coffeepot Ditch. The most water diverted during the time the records were kept was 338.4 -acre feet in 1962. This water was used to irrigate 75 acres. This amounts to about 900,000 gallons per day for the 120 -day period of use. The water usage in 1972 (most recent record) showed an average of 1.0 cfs used for 108 days. This is 216 -acre feet or about 650,000 gallons per day. The project plans call for a maximum water consumption of 150,000 gallons per day (0.23 sec. ft). Average consumption should be about 100,000 gallons per day. The water would be diverted from the Coffeepot Ditch and stored in a closed 150,000 -gallon tank supplemented by a small 5,000 -gallon tank whose water will be treated for potable use. If an onsite well proves to be a feasible alternative, it may be developed in lieu of diverting water from the Coffeepot Ditch. Attachment 1 is the available record of water diverted from the Coffee- pot Ditch for the years 1962 through 1972. (2) Projected water use for the operation: a. Dust suppression on haul roads; max. 90,000 gallons per day. b. Point source spray dust suppression; max. 50,000 gallons per day. (3) 2 c. Equipment washdown and possible crusher cooling water; 15,000 gallons per day (use only 50% consumptive). d. Potable water use; 3,000 gallons per day (nonconsumptive). A description of the proposed water system and use is in Attachment 2 to this letter. Refer specifically to Section II.A.3c.(6), pages 16 and 17. Note: Water in a. and b. will be absorbed or evaporated at the point of application. Water from c. and d. will be recovered and recycled (after suitable treatment) for dust control use. This no water discharge from the operation is planned. Additional information on the transportation and loading site is also found in Attachment 2 which is a draft of a portion of the Dotsero Environmental Report, refer to Section II.A.3b.(5) and (6), pages 8 through 10, and II.A.3c.(3) and (4), pages 13 and 14. (4) Information that could be obtained on the water rights, holders, and historic amounts available of water from Grizzly Creek is shown on Attachment 3. (5) The site rehabilitation plan is detailed in attachments 2 and 4 which are a portion of the Environmental Report. In Attachment 2, refer to Section II.A.3d., pages 20 through 22. Attachment 4 is appendix Exhibit C of the report - Revegetation Plan. (6) Information on the blasting effect on the caves is found in Attachment 5 which is Exhibit B of the Environmental Report appendix. (7) Information on the possible impact on water quality is found in Attachment 2, sections II.B.5, pages 23 through 25; II.A.4, pages 26 and 27; and IV.A., page 28. The above information and attachments should satisfy your May 10, 1977, request. JGW/as pc: J.N. Matheson C.L. Miller J.F. Welborn Bud Milner Yovery truly, J! G. Wark hief Mining Engineer iF' / y - `moi f: • • r' JJ • ! ���,✓ • • —r r' • • CFO STEEL CORPORATION 0. 7. c:J v O O Affected Area i r X.cepUnCI aQ..o:[ �riiarycV. /' 3\ ../ • 1r • -\ L --- t c..t-,i• "1.---..---_-_-;-7-\....- \,-\ N. '� -, . ` :_l '- ice__ - �;'.,'� _ '3 i _J � T ` P'i ) ,1 3 1 I \ El / / � / /- i - —av )'--_.tr .1. p-'1 es Ct`.,:-.7,-/P U/',n , • Of .0/orifi 4 r r/ • • p 9_ 4' lE 5 • d Lr 6979 39 —12 o' 7797 4".7esD4/n7,a • { A-040 ti. ' �- 846' 65 , £145 -_J 0 st r� l • 6149` `c> 65,6 1" �� �� \N.. CF$I STEEL CORPORATION S'r DOTSERO AREA MAP With Topography s';r. 2000' Affected Area Q�7E- -j� f ---- 615G