Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.3 CorrespondenceSTATE OF COLORADO RICHARD 0. LAMM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 415 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 892-2778 May 16, 1977 Mr. William E. Marshall Executive Director Colorado State Historical Society 200 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Marshall: At the Colorado Land Use Commission meeting of April 22, 1977, Dr. Norman Pace with the Colorado Grotto of the National Speleo- logical Society informed the Commission of a proposal by Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation to begin a limestone quarry operation in Garfield County. Dr. Pace requested that the Commission review the CF&I proposal and consider requesting Garfield County to designate one or more matters of state interest. The Commission passed a motion to have the LUC staff review the proposal and report back at the May 27th meeting. The staff was further directed to work with the County, other state agencies, and interested parties in this review. The Commission staff requests your assistance in conducting this review. If your response to the questions listed below results in further action by the Commission, we shall be contacting you for further detailed information. The attachment summarizes the CF&I proposal and lists reports and other documents which we can supply if necessary. At this time we want to know: (1) If Groaning Cave, an extensive limestone cavern near the proposed CF&I quarry, were designated as a National Landmark, would adjacent mineral claims on U.S. Forest Service lands be affected? If so, how? Specifically, is it likely that quarries that might be proposed in the future be affected? Mr. William E. Marshall May 16, 1977 Page 2 (2) Are any historic or archaeologic resources of statewide importance in the vicinity of the CF&I proposal? If so, would you recommend that these be designated as matters of state interest under H.B. 1041? (3) Are there any specific issues that the Society would like Garfield and Eagle Counties or the Land Use Commission to consider? Because the Commission wishes a report on this matter at its May 27th meeting, I would appreciate receiving a response by May 24th. I realize this is an extremely short time in which to conduct an adequate review but hope some response, either written or verbal, can be made by the 24th. Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to inspect any of the reports. Sincerely, Dave Bucknam Senior Planner DB/cg cc: James Hartmann 04C � 0;� T -t'7 NI 0 18 76 STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD LAMM. GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 415 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 892-2778 May 12, 1977 Mr. Robert Siek, Assistant Director 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, CO 80220 Dear Mr. Siek: At the Colorado Land Use Commission meeting of April 22, 1977, Dr. Norman Pace with the Colorado Grotto of the National Speleo- logical Society informed the Commission of a proposal by Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation to begin a limestone quarry operation in Garfield County. Dr. Pace requested that the Commission review the CF&I proposal and consider requesting Garfield County to designate one or more matters of state interest. The Commission passed a motion to have the LUC staff review the proposal and report back at the May 27th meeting. The staff was further directed to work with the County, other state agencies, and interested parties in this review. The Commission staff requests your assistance in conducting this review. If your response to the questions listed below results in further action by the Commission, we shall be contacting you for further detailed information. The attachment summarizes the CF&I proposal and lists reports and other documents which we can supply if necessary. At this time we want to know: (1) Can the potential impacts of the proposed operation on air and water quality be assessed at this time? If so, what is your assessment? If not, what additional data and studies are required? It should be noted that concern has been expressed over the effect of the quarry operations on water runoff which flows through the limestone caverns in the area and into Deep Creek. (2) Has the Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, or Water Quality Control Division taken or contemplate taking any actions that may be relevant to any decision that Garfield County or the Land Use Commission may make on this proposal? Mr. Robert Siek May 12, 1977 Page 2 (3) Are there any specific issues regarding this proposal that your agency would like Garfield County or the Land Use Commission to consider? Because ;he Commission wishes a report on this matter at its May 27th meeting, I would appreciate receiving a response by May 24th. I realize this is an extremely short time in which to conduct an adequate review but hope some response, either written or verbal, can be made by the 24th. Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to inspect any of the reports. Sincerely, Dave Bucknam Senior Planner DB/cg cc: Ken Webb Alan Stewart STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD 0 LAMM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 415 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 892-2778 May 12, 1977 Mr, Jack Grieb, Director Colorado Division of Wildlife 6060 Broadway Denver, CO 80216 Dear Mr. Grieb: At the Colorado Land Use Commission meeting of April 22, 1977, Dr. Norman Pace with the Colorado Grotto of the National Speleo- logical Society informed the Commission of a proposal by Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation to begin a limestone quarry operation in Garfield County. Dr. Pace requested that the Commission review the CF&I proposal and consider requesting Garfield County to designate one or more matters of state interest. The Commission passed a motion to have the LUC staff review the proposal and report back at the May 27th meeting. The staff was further directed to work with the County, other state agencies, and interested parties in this review. The Commission staff requests your assistance in conducting this review. If your response to the questions listed below result in further action by the Commission, we shall be contacting you for further detailed information. The attachment summarizes the CF&I proposal and lists reports and other documents which we can supply if necessary. At this time we want to know: (1) Is there any information or specific issues which you wish Garfield County or the Land Use Commission to consider that are not contained in Larry Green's April 10, 1977 letter to W.C. Milner? (2) Does the proposed operation area contain or will it have a significant impact upon significant wildlife habitats? If so, what are those significant wildlife habitats and how might they be endangered? Is there any further information that the Division needs to make this assessment? Mr. Jack Grieb May 12, 1977 Page 2 (3) Is there adequate information to enable Garfield County to designate significant wildlife habitats in this vicinity as a matter of state interest? If so, would you recommend that: a. Garfield County make such designation, or b, the Land Use Commission request Garfield County to designate, or c. neither? Because the Commission wishes a report on this matter at its May 27th meeting, I would appreciate receiving a response by May 24th. I realize this is an extremely short time in which to conduct an adequate review but hope some response, either written or verbal, can be made by the 24th. Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to inspect any of the reports. Sincerely, /e.vt V Jo+a._, Dave Bucknam Senior Planner DB/cg cc: Darryl Todd Larry Green STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD 0. LAMM. GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 415 Denver, CO 80203 (3031 892-2778 May 12, 1977 Dr, Jeris Danielson Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Dr. Danielson: At the Colorado Land Use Commission meeting of April 22, 1977, Dr. Norman Pace with the Colorado Grotto of the National Speleo- logical Society informed the Commission of a proposal by Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation to begin a limestone quarry operation in Garfield County. Dr. Pace requested that the Commission review the CF&I proposal and consider requesting Garfield County to designate one or more matters of state interest. The Commission passed a motion to have the LUC staff review the proposal and report back at the May 27th meeting. The staff was further directed to work with the County, other state agencies, and interested parties in this review. The Commission staff requests your assistance in conducting this review. If your response to the questions listed below result in further action by the Commission, we shall be contacting you for further detailed information. The attachment summarizes the CF&I proposal and lists reports and other documents which we can supply if necessary. At this time we want to know: (1) Water for quarry operations will be obtained from on-site wells and/or ditches and catchment basins. Primary use of approximately 40,000 gpd will be for allaying dust. CF&I states that surface water rights acquired with the property will be ample for this primary use. Can the potential impacts of the proposed quarry and mill on the existing lawful use of the water resources of the area be assessed at this time? If so, what is your assessment? If not, what additional data and studies are required? Dr. Jeris Danielson May 12, 1977 Page 2 (2) Has the Division of Water Resources taken or comtemplate taking any actions that may relevant to any decision that Garfield County may make on this quarry operation? (3) Are there any specific issues that your agency would like Garfield County or the Land Use Commission to consider? Because the Commission wishes a report on this matter at its May 27th meeting, I would appreciate receiving a response by May 24th. I realize this is an extremely short time in which to conduct an adequate review but hope some response, either written or verbal, can be made by the 24th. Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to inspect any of the reports. Sincerely, Dave Bucknam Senior Planner DB/cg cc: Hal Simpson STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD D. LAMM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 415 Denver. CO 80203 (303) 892-2778 May 12, 1977 Mr. John Rold, Director Colorado Geological Survey 1313 Sherman, Room 715 Denver, CO 80203 Dear John: At the Colorado Land Use Commission meeting of April 22, 1977, Dr. Norman Pace with the Colorado Grotto of the National Speleo- logical Society informed the Commission of a proposal by Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation to begin a limestone quarry operation in Garfield County. Dr. Pace requested that the Commission review the CF&I proposal and consider requesting Garfield County to designate one or more matters of state interest. The Commission passed a motion to have the LUC staff review the proposal and report back at the May 27th meeting. The staff was further directed to work with the County, other state agencies, and interested parties in this review. The Commission staff requests your assistance in conducting this review. if your response to the questions listed below result in further action by the Commission, we shall be contacting you for further detailed information. The attachment summarizes the CF&I proposal and lists reports and other documents which we can supply if necessary. At this time we want to know: (1) Are there any known geologic hazards in the vicinity which should be considered in the siting, construction, and operation of the quarry, mill, road, and transfer facilities? If so, what effect will these hazards have on these facilities? If not, what additional data and studies are required to make such assessment? (2) A number of limestone caverns are in the vicinity which some people feel may be damaged by blasting at the quarry. The CF&I report includes a memorandum dealing with ground motions associated with quarrying the Leadville Limestone. Is the information contained in that memorandum sufficient to assess the effects of blasting at the proposed Deep Creek quarry on nearby limestone caverns? If so, what is your assessment. If not, what additional data and studies are required? Mr. John Hold May 12, 1977 Page 2 (3) Are there other known limestone deposits, either in Colorado or out of state, which contain the metallurgical -grade limestone needed by CF&I? (4) Would you recommend that (a) Garfield County designate geologic hazard areas and/or mineral resource areas associated with this project as matters of state interest under H.B. 1041, or (b) the Land Use Commission request Garfield County to designate geologic hazard areas and/or mineral resource areas associated with this project as matters of state interest under H.B. 1041, or (c) neither? (5) Are there any specific issues that your agency would like Garfield County or the Land Use Commission to consider? Because the Commission wishes a report on this matter at its May 27th meeting, I would appreciate receiving a response by May 24th. I realize this is an extremely short time in which to conduct an adequate review but hope some response, either written or verbal, can be made by the 24th. Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to inspect any of the reports. Sincerely, Dave Bucknam Senior Planner DB/cg May 16, 1977 STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD D. LAMM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman Sr., Rm. 415 Denver, CO 80203 1303) 892-2778 Mr. Richard Jolley, Chairman Board of Garfield County Commissioners P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Jolley: At the last regular meeting of the Colorado Land Use Commission, Dr. Norman Pace informed the Commission of a proposal by Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation to begin a limestone quarry operation in Garfield County. Dr. Pace requested that the Commission review the CF&I proposal and consider requesting Garfield County to designate one or more matters of state interest under H.B. 1041. The Commission passed a motion to have the LUC staff review the proposal and report back at its May 27th meeting. The staff was further directed to work with the County, other state agencies, and interested parties in this review. The Commission had been contacted regarding this proposal in September, 1975 and offered some assistance at that time. The proposal, as you are well aware, lay dormant until CF&I submitted further information earlier this year. Since the recent request to the LUC, I have been in contact with Bob Witkowski of your Planning Department to obtain current infor- mation on the proposal and to offer the results of the LUC staff review. I have recently requested the assistance of seven other state agencies and two federal agencies in making this review. Copies of those letters have been sent to W.C. "Bud" Milner. Copies of the responses will be forwarded to Mr. Milner upon receipt in our office. Hopefully, they will be useful to Garfield County as well as the LUC. Mr. Richard Jolley, Chairman May 16, 1977 Page 2 The staff director's report to the LUC on May 27th in Denver will incorporate the results of the staff review to date. I do not expect enough information to be available at that time for the Commission to act on the designation part of Dr. Pace's request. If we can be of any assistance beyond providing the results of the staff review, please contact me. Sincerely, Dave Bucknam Senior Planner DB/cg cc: Dr. Carter Jackson W.C. Milner Robert Witkowski 2'. -k U.. Land Use Commission delays decision on CF&I quarry DENVER — The Colorado Land Use Commission (LUC) Friday delayed action on 'the proposed CF&I limestone quarry in northeastern Gar- field County to allow more time for other government agencies to provide in- formation on the proposal. LUC staffer Dave Bucknam said today a number of federal and state agencies contacted by the LUC have not yet an- swered the LUC queries. Therefore, he said, the staff asked that the commission delay action until its June 24 meeting. The LUC began to study the CF&I proposal closely late last month at the request of the Colorado Grotto of the National Speleological Society. That study has been limited mainly to gathering in- formation already available from CF&I's impact statement, a "counter -impact statement" from a group op- posed to the quarry, and data from other government agen- cies. Bucknam said the LUC solicited information from the Colorado Department of Health, the Division of Wildlife, Division of Planning, Division of Water Resources, Bureau of Mine Land Reclamation and the U.S. Forest Service and Geological Survey Department. Meanwhile, the Garfield County Commissioners have asked GF&I for more in- formation than was provided in its impact statement, and a county decision on the quarry proposal will not come until after that information is sup- plied. > d.. Quarry meeting set:: for Sweetwater By the Eagle News Service EAGLE—A public meeting to discuss the impacts and con- sequences of the proposed CF&I limestone quarry near Willow Peak will be held at 8 p.m. at Sweetwater school house June 13, according to an announcement by Dorothy Herrees of Gypsum. The presentation will in- clude a slide show on the caves in the area of the quarry site. Herres notes that the caves could be endangered by the blasting at the proposed quarry. Herres said the Eagle and Garfield County Com- missioners and Planning Com- missions have been invited. She said the floor will be opened to discussion of both the social -economic and en vironmental impacts of the project. /9 j ;'Ve asqueZ totF&JJ; Is quarry worth it? lid ROBERI I'.. CO\ County. I'd probably live the figures he has to GLENWOOD — Garfield in Gypsum or Eagle, es- work with now are shown County Commissioner pecially when construe- to be accurate "the econ- Larry Velasquez said tion begins in Glenwood omics are not there. Tuesday the potential Canyon." They've got to prove a economic return to the The proposed lune- lotdifferent to me — and county from a proposed stone quarry is located I don't mean a border - limestone quarry looked , about 10 miles from Dot- - line case, it's got to have to him- to he "very sero. and would- be a very consequential im- bleak," and he could not reached on a company- pact or I can't endorse support approval of the built gravel road which it." he said. quarry unless he is enters the area from Velasquez also told shown differently. Eagle County. - TWN* -he is very con - Velasquez told Velasquez also said corned about the poten- TWN* he had been in- that CF&I's plans to tial of damage to lime- vestigating the probable keep the quarry open stonecaves in the area, amount of taxes that only five months a year and that he regards the would be paid by Color- could pose a problem matter of the caves as ado Fuel & Iron Co. to with unemployed work- the most important ques- the county in the event ers at other times of the tion to be. decided. CF&I is allowed to open year. If theypollute the an 80 -acre quarry in the Al wearegoing to air, they can be made to Deep Creek -Willow Peak approve an energy im- stop," he said. "If they area at the eastern edge pact,' - Velasquez said, pollute the water we can of the county near Dot- "we are going to have to shut them down. .But sero. consider the environ- once the caves are de - Based upon equip- mental impact. If it can't stroyed. we cannot re- ment lists supplied by be justified in those , Place them, and that CF&I, Velasquez said, terms, this is one .boy - would hurt for genera - County Clerk Ella Steph- that isn't going to vote tions." ens had estimated that for it. 1f, he said. scheduled yearly taxes paid to Gar- They've really got to detonation tests show field County would be prove a solid economic that there would be no "somewhere between impact on the county," damage to the caves, -about $12,500- and he said, ' or -I can't ap- then his next priority of 817,000. prove it." concern would relate to "That's not very - In addition to Mrs. the economic situation. much," said Velasquez. Stephen's estimates, a "I -have a tremendous Velasquez added that report from -Chaffee concern about howmuch the company's estimated County being circulated economic impact there is payroll of 81 million in Glenwood Springs going to be in. Garfield probably wouldn't aid shows that CF&I paid County," he said, and I Garfield County, either. less than $13,000 in can see where the county If !worked. therelr tie taq[es in that . orrnty:m., could be left out in the eard 'f 4%0thmg-i t file lastA a year.-, ,cd1d." . - h0*r Lvlligim ilgtel '*9�las,�Gegdtlraiafs Iscg,pago -t8). Velasquez questions limestone quarry's economics !Continued from page 11 missroners- were told less the Jands could be CF&flalso will have In a Monday after -there wasn't much hope withdrawn from mining, to obtain approval of the noon meeting with offic- in a proposal to create a the government could BLM to build a 65,foot- ials of the Forest Service moratorium on mining not prevent others from wide road to 'haul the and the Bureau of Land = on otherclaims in the opening claims. The quarried limestonetd. a Management, the com- area. withdrawal process, he rail. loading site, and ... The idea had been said, would probably re- BLM district manager Al advanced as a method of quire the consent of Con- - Wright told the commis - guarding against expan- gress, and that could sioners Monday that'his sion of limestone mining take years: - office had requested - in the area, which is also The land which CF&I CF&I to submit answers regarded highly by oth- wants to quarry is owned to several questions re- ers as an excellent recre- by Robert Scarrow of lating to the overall proj- ation area. Glenwood Springs, but ect, including the possib- White River National many other claims in the ility of getting limestone Forest Supervisor Tom area are on lands con- from other sites. Evans, however, told the.. trolled either by the for- CF&1 uses the lime- commissioners that un- est service -or the BLM: - stone in its steelmaking. "; 77 minmi., DOLPHIIIS� MIAMI DOLPHINS, LTD. 330 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132 (305) 379-1851 JOSEPH ROBBIE Managing General Partner TO: Garfield County Planning Commissioners RE: Open -Pit Limestone Quarrying in the Willow Peak - Deep Creek Area O My name is Dick Anderson and I am a resident and cattle owner in the Sweetwater Valley approximately 3 to 4 miles, as the 'Crow flies; from the proposed Limestone Quarry site. I am vehemently opposed to such a Quarry for many reasons. These stem from my own well being, which is dependent on my cattle and the feed that I grow to support them, as well as the ecological damage that the proposed site will have on the Willow Peak -Deep Creek Area. The prevailing wind in the Sweetwater Valley is from the West and my ranch along with the rest lie to the East of the pro- posed site. My knowledge of Limestone Quarry's is not ex- tensive, however, I do know of one, North of Fort Collins, in which all vegetation within a 4 mile radius is non-existent and local residents have sued and collected damages. My property and its value are dependent upon the Hay I grow and the stock I raise, not withstanding my own personal enjoy- ment of my Community and its surrounding area. The area around Deep Creek and Deep Creek itself are extremely unique and beautiful. The Creek itself is one of the clearest in the State. Any proposed Limestone Quarry would grossly damage the immediate site along with having a long term damaging effect on the surrounding Community. I strongly urge you to turn down any proposed developement of this land in Garfield County. Sincerely, DICK ANDERSON DA/p 1972 WORLD CHAMPIONS CF&I STEEL CORPORATIO Ir i STEEL t P. 0. BOX 316 PUEBLO. COLORADO 81002 MAY 31 1977 GAi i ii Li CU. ViikithIER Mr. Richard C. Jolley, Chmn. Garfield County Commissioners Dear Sir: f_,,/�_ ini1..-._1ir1 t7..�;I .i PT b'„ i 1, M77 LUi QAf(Iuip CLAM: 27 May GEM___._.._ . . 1977 Jo LL EY.-----------._..._.... tl It has come to my attention that two uses in our impact statement do not comply with Garfield County Zoning Regulations, as rtated in Mr. W.C. Milner's latter to me dated May 16, 1977. The two uses, the Sanitary Land Fill and the Mineral Waste Disposal Area would not be allowed under A/R/RD zoning according to Mr. Milner. The Sanitary Land Fill use will be withdrawn from our impact statement, and we will not use any portion of the area for such use; we agree to haul all trash generated by our proposed operation to other already approved Sanitary Land Fills i:i the area. The Mineral Waste Disposal area on the other hand, will comply in our evaluation because: (1) It will not be pernenent in nature, (2) It will become a part of the reclamation of the quarry and mill sites by re - hauling it back into the areas to be reclaimed in Stages 1 & 2. It is in reality a temporary storage area for topsoil and overburden materials. If this is acceptable to the commissioners, please make this letter an addendum to the CF&I Impact Statement. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your /?ry ulY) , Curtis Mil er Suptt. of Quarries May 23, 1977 Mr. Dennis Anderson Sr. Public Health Engineer Water Quality Control Division COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 East llth Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 Dear Mr. Anderson: Colorado Fuel and Iron of Pueblo, Colorado currently is in the process of applying for a Special Use Permit from the Garfield County Corriiissioners for a 350,000 ton per year limestone quarrying, processing, and transferring operation in Garfield County. During the review process, numerous concerns have been raised concerning water quality - particularly in regards to Deep Creek, a tributary to the Colorado River near Dotsero, Colorado. Consequently, the Garfield County Commissioners have requested me to write to you and inquire if your division could assist the County in a mutual interest with any information presently available on the biological and chemical quality of Dee Creek. If no recent data is available, we would like to know if the Water Qual' Control Division would be available for monitoring and establishing the qualit_. Deep Creek prior to a possible commencement of quarrying activities by Color- Fuel and Iron. Very truly yours, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT Edward L. Feld Department Head ELF/tls May 24, 1977 Mrs. Dorothy Herres 1721 Colorado River Road Gypsum, Colorado 81637 Dear Mrs. Herres: Enclosed please find a ropy of the_ Minutes that were taken for the Planning Commission's meeting on May 9, 1977 that you requested. These minutes were approved at a special meeting held on May 23, 1977. If you have any comments or questions, do not hesitate to contact me. RAW/kay Enclosures Sincerely, Robert A. Witkowski Di rector STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD D. LAMM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 415 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 892-2778 MEMORANDUM To: Bud Milner FROM: Dave Bucknam SUBJECT: CF&I Quarry Project -------------- May 26, 1977 In addition tOnthe attached letter, the State Archeologist's Office reports that they have no record of any archeological sites in the vicinity of the CF&I quarry proposal. DB/lw Enclosure •.....a•ti v. r.amm, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE Jack R. Grleb, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 (825-1192) May 23, 1977 Mr, Dave Bucknam Senior Planner Colorado Land Use Commission 1313 Sherman St. , Rm, 415 Denver, CO. 80203 Dear Mr, Bucknam: COLORADO LAND 1 SE COMM. Based on available data and the time frame involved the Division of Wildlife has nothing to add to Larry Green's letter of April 10, 1977 Quarry at this time, to Garfield County concerning the proposed C, F, and I. Limestone Before any detailed assessment of the adverse impacts of the proposed quarry on wildlife habitat can be made detailed information or development plans, etc, for the nearly 5, 000 acres involved will be needed. The significance of the adverse impacts on wildlife habitat are dependent on the extent and type p land rehabilitation measures required. f development and the eventual Garfield County has had preliminary wildlife maps at their disposal for planning purposes for several years but has not designated any significant wildlife habitat areas and has withdrawn from the H. funding program. If designation is deemed necessary review weB. 1041 would prefer that Garfield Count after further involving the Land Use Commission in a s acta designation its own rather than designation request proceeding. If the proposed operation is indeed restricted to the 80 acre parcel now being requested it would probably not be considered a state interest, matter of We understand that the Bureau of Land Management is re an EAR from C.F. and I. for an access permit. if the requiring project expands to 5, 000 acres the Also, it appears that may become involved and an Unitedde States Forest EIS would be needed, Service RECEIVED My 2.5 1977 JRG:jb cc: Olson Henry (8) Smith Green DEPARTMENT OF Taliafe rro NATURAL RESOURCES, Harris Sherman, Executive Director • WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Vernon C. Williams, Chairman Thomas Farley, Vice Chairman • Sam Caudill, Secretary • Jean K. Tool, Member • Roger Clark, Member Jay K. Childress, Member • Dean Hull, Member • Dean Suttle, Member cerely ack R. G Director REPLY TO: SUBJECT.' TO: �kRYICE White River National Forest 2730 Right -of -Way Grants (2350) Coffee Pot Road (CFI Quarry) Regional Forester, R-2 Thi S is in reply to the six questions ForesterororadRand Use Commission in his Colorado Lape, asked,by Dave letter am ef May 13, 1.977, letterthe (1) The to Regional proposed quarry and crushing /screening on private land and will require g ° operation are �/screenin County. Some Pp o will of the proposed a permit from G require a haul road Garfield itwi .S• would permit from that is on B.L.M. land right-of-way. he reauired f agency, A and or. any creasing permit from the way. A C.M.L.R. Board is H (2) The Permit will e r°rest service proposal is also be reauired, for the Ea generally compatible with somesome Eagle District which is the the Multi of Robert Scarrow' ple Use Plan ed s limestone claims, guideline. However ich land use planning withhas in tnot beenhe Deep Cdoneoptireek RoadlesshArea Cfor which (3) The S&WM Staff Unit will answer this question. (4) Should Groaning for recreation Cave be declared coulderecreation or a National Landmarks be withdrawn from Preservation or otherarea wise development. 1 entry to avoid n this area being considered Some mineral withdrawals are this and other Presently.in this o need caves The effects of area to be assessed. particularly regarding the CF&I proposal g blasting, (5) The basic data Use bran. available is that in the No specific studies or Eagle area are available District Multiple now. This inventories of the immediate e Eagle District Ran information Ranger's office is available at the (6) The B in Eagle. LM has asked Csometo develop environmental analysis analysis are: for this Ject. P an issues that should he addressed I, in this Alternative hauling methods from the such as conveyors or other systems, quarry to the railroad 2. Possibilities - in sie of expansion of quarrying area such as Holl inthy Sugar whichhasclaims activities by others vicinity and the impacts hauling opportunities by CF&I may have onthem,in the pportti-rods developed including multi -industry use of ra P_2� U May 19, 1977 6100 .8 (I J69) NIMiamer • • any transportation system developed, 3. Aesthetic impacts of the development, including visual pollution from the haul road. In this regard an estimated 90-95% of the present Coffee Pot Road e, traffic is rrgatien oriented. This avera summer season. g s about 150 cars per day during the In general CF&I and BLM should develop a study plan for mental analysis and the Forest Service would partici of this plan and at that this environ- mental thetime the adequacy of the issues addressed in the view planpwould he considered. TTIO 7 ��� !. MAS C. EVA %-? forest Supervisor United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLORADO STATE OFFICE ROOM 700. COLORADO STATE BANK BUILDING 1600 BROADWAY DENVER. COLORADO 80202 Dave Bucknam, Senior Planner Colorado Land Use Commission 1313 Sherman Street, Room 415 Denver CO 80203 Dear Mr, Bucknam: IN REPLY REFER TO CO -932 1790 MAY MM'19p7; 1:,,7 In response to your letter of May 13, 1977, requesting answers to specific questions regarding CF&I s limestone quarry in Garfield County, we have the following information: 1. It is possible for CF&I to obtain a right-of-way permit for the access/haul road to their quarry. CF&I filed an application with Colorado BLM on March 13, 1977, for such a right-of-way permit. We will not issue the permit until the Environmental Assessment Record (EAR) has been com- pleted. A right-of-way will be required even though the proposed quarry site is on private land. Our records show that the particular area that CF&I proposes to use as a temporary holding and loading site for the limestone is not under a power site withdrawal. The right-of-way would cross a withdrawal of this type; however, this will only require clearance from the Federal Power Com- mission, and should present no particular problem for their proposed action. 2. Special requirements that might be attached to the right-of-way permit will not be identified until the EAR has been completed. This analysis will identify impacts that require mitigation, and stipulations will be drafted to ensure that mitigation measures will be implemented by the permittee. Until the EAR has been completed, we cannot give you any special conditions that will be required as part of the permit. As part of the process, we will solicit public involvement, and consider all input received prior to final action. 3. At present there are no completed land use plans for the area in- volved in CF&I's proposal. We anticipate that plans will be completed in Fiscal Year 1979. We are currently making an inventory of all values in the planning area. At this time this proposal does not appear to conflict with any known critical values. 4. BLM Colorado has not made an exhaustive survey of alternative sources for CF&I's limestone requirements. This kind of survey ODUTIo q'A »>s_jg16 rens--- 2 is not required as part of this action. However, in the alternatives section of the EAR, this aspect of their proposal will be discussed to some extent. 5. Regarding the possible National Landmark designation, and effects thereof, of the Groaning Cave limestone cavern, we cannot fully address this situation without knowledge of the following: (a) where the cave lies relative to the proposed quarry; and (b) whether the cave is on federal, state or private land. The National Landmark designation, even if on federal land, would not preclude mining claim activity. If the determination was made that the site would justify prevention of mining claim locations, a formal withdrawal would have to be made of the land on and around the site. Even if a withdrawal was effected on these lands, it would be subject to valid existing rights as of the date of the withdrawal. Conse- quently, those mining claims that are valid would be subject to mining operations just as though no withdrawal was in effect. The withdrawal would prevent any new mining claims from being staked, however. We appreciate your interest in this matter, and if you have further questions concerning details of this proposal, feel free to contact us at any time. Sincerely yours, .kor DALE R. ANDRUS State Director, Colorado cc: District Manager, Grand Junction Area Manager, Glenwood Springs rckutjVED JUN 0 9 1977 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 EAST 111-14 AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PHONE 388-6111 Anthony Robbins, M.D., M.P.A. Executive Director June 7, 1977 Mr. Edward L. Feld Department Head Garfield County Department of Health and Environmental Protection 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Feld: Our Division has conducted a data search for any available water quality data on Deep Creek and have found that none is stored on either the state or federal data banks. It would not be possible at this late date to re -schedule our field studies to accomodate a study of Deep Creek. I woiuld recomend that you require CF&I to do a baseline study and that you request the Colorado West COG provide you with data as a function of the 208 plan for your area. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, R. Dennis Anderson, P.E. Field Studies Engineer Monitoring & Enforcement Section RDA/pj cc: Dick Bowman Roger Smades June 8, 1977 CF&I Stte1 Corporation P.O. Box 847 Canon City, Colorado 81212 Attn: Mr. Curtis Miller Superintendent of. Quarries Dear Mr. Miller: This letter is to advise you that you are not required to obtain a County permit for the blasting tests on your property in the Willow .Peak area. If you have any connen is or questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, BUILDING DEPARTMENT WCM/kay W. C. Milner Building Official TO: FROM: Dave Bucknam SUBJECT: CF$I Quarry Project COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION MEMORANDUM 1:01H. I 1/4 Bud Milner DATE: June 3, 1977 I'f G 1977 f. Enclosed are additional responses to our request letters. I'm sorry the State Engineer's letter wasn't mailed out sooner. It was misrouted in our office. We're still waiting for additional replies and I will forward those when they are received. DB/lw Enclosures RICHARD D. LAMM Governor DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street - Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Administration (303) 892-3581 Ground Water (303) 892-3587 May 18, 1977 MEMORANDUM TO: DAVE BUCKNAM FROM: DR. JERIS A. DANIELSON, DEPUTY STATE ENGINEER SUBJECT: CF&I STEEL CORPORATION, LIMESTONE QUARRY, GARFIELD COUNTY 1. The water rights that are to be utilized to supply the project have not been identified, evaluated, or discussed. A description of the patented land in Garfield County indicates that the applicant obtained a portion of the water rights in the Coffee Pot Ditch, Willow Spring Well, Bill Lee Spring and Stock Watering Tank and J. C. Well. The actual amount acquired is not indicated. Furthermore, these water rights are not decreed for the purposes of mining and dust control and a change in use will be necessary through the Division Water Court. 11 C.J. KUIPER? State EngineeY Ir3T.l r LitriNER COLORADO LAND USE COMM. 2. The impact upon other water rights cannot be ascertained based upon the limited information provided. 3. The actual affected land is stated to be about 4,411 acres in Garfield County and 779 acres in Eagle County. The water requirements to reclaim this large an area have not been adequately discussed other than to say that hydro -mulching will be used for revegetatfon and irrigation. 4, The Division of Water Resources does not intend to take any action relevant to any decision that Garfield County may make on the quarry operation other than to require the applicant to divert water in accordance with state statutes. JAD/HDS:mvf eris A. Danielson THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF State Archaeologist (Interim address) Pioneer Hall, University of Denver, Denver 80210 Mr. Dave Bucknam Senior Planner Colorado Land Use Commission 1313 Sherman Street #415 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Mr. Bucknam: Iiifr ;'I y; JUN -6 1977 COLottit1OLAIMEra. May 26, 1977 The Office of the State Archaeologist of Colorado has received your inquiry regarding Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation's proposed quarrying in Garfield County. Since in our phone conversation of 25 May you indicated that your first question had been answered, I will direct myself to the second. A review of the Colorado Archaeological Survey Site Inventory (the state-wide data repository maintained by this Office) has revealed no recorded archaeological re- sources in the area in question. The area has not, however, apparently been surveyed to identify cultural resources, so significant, but heretofore un- recorded, sites could be present. If Groaning Cave contains cultural or paleontological materials, this Office should be notified; we will gladly assist you and Garfield County in evalu- ating archaeological sites or paleontological locales. If we can be of continued service, feel free to contact us at (303) 744-1713 (after June 892-3391). (The State Historical Society's Department of Historic Preservation will independently respond regarding architectural/historical resources.) )(Ce12-ei.,edA(41 Si c rely, David R. Stuart Staff Archaeologist DRS:ng (303) 744-1713 (303) 892-2136 DAVID R. STUART STAFF ARCHAEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHAEOLOGIST OF COLORADO Colorado State Museum Denner, Co 80208 STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD D. LAMM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 415 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 892-2778 May 24, 1977 ,Mr. W.C. Milner Garfield County Building Official 2014 Blake Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Milner: Attached are copies of responses to the LUC's requests regarding the CF&I quarry. As other responses are received, they will be forwarded to you. Please make Bob Witkowski aware of these. Sincerely, 21..€ 1d Dave Bucknam Senior Planner DB/cg ins Richard D, Lamm, Governor Department of Local Alfa' t 11, W estern Colorado Offic Mr. David Bucknam Senior Planner Colorado Land Use Commission 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Dave: Office of Rural Development Division of Planning Division of Housing JUN 2 0 1977 j t June 15, 1977 !RECEIVED JUN 16 1977 COLORADO LAND USE COMM. In response to your letter of May 12, 1977, and as a follow-up to our telephone conversation, I would like to make the following comments in regard to the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation's limestone quarry proposal in Garfield County. I believe that the existing Garfield County zoning resolution is adequate to address the proposed CF & I activity. The regulations are general, yet do afford the County the opportunity to request as much information as required to examine the impacts of the proposal. The zoning resolution is being properly utilized since the Board of County Commissioners have requested CF & I to provide additional information regarding the quarry operation. I do not believe that CF & I has adequately provided impact assessment material up to this point. Since CF & I is in the process of providing the County with more information, as the County has requested, I would recommend that the Land Use Commission continue to monitor the proposal and examine any new material submitted, as well as the County's action, to see if a possible request for designation under H.B. 1041 is warranted. Sincerely, MJW:mlw cc: Charles Foster, Div. of Planning l'inkteood Plaza -Suite 9, 1000 North Ninth Street, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (3(13) 243-8215 Division or Sec._in of Air Pollution Control L ision TO : Bob Siek FROM: Warner Reeser INTER -OFFICE COMMUNICATION DATE SUBJECT: June JUN 2 0 1977 .1977 ) CF&I Proposed Limestone Quarry The questions in the attached letter from the Land Use Commission are answered in the order presented: 1. No. The potential impacts of the proposed operation on air quality cannot be acceptably addressed at this time. Addi- tional data which would be a necessary part of an air pollution emission permit application would include: • Meteorological • Topographical • Specific pieces of process equipment including detailed information on design capacity, raw material through put rates, air pollution control devices, and resultant air contaminant emission rates. Amount and type of traffic on haul roads. • Dust abatement measures on haul roads. • Dust abatement measures on other fugitive dust emission sources such as stockpiles, etc. 2. Yes. The relevant action which the Air Pollution Division would take would be the approval or denial of an application for an air pollution emission permit. No permit application has been submitted. The permit review process could include a period of public comment which is man- dated for sources whose annual controlled emissions exceed 25 tons and for other significant sources at the discretion of the Air Pollution Control Division. JVS:p1c qq'�'ll cc: A.C. Bisha d` [ ET El l�"; [) � [.� COLORADO LAUD USE COMM. AD BUS -29 (10-29-100) i COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 4210 EAST 11TH AVENUE DENVER, COLORADO 80220 • PHONE 388-6111 Anthony Robbins, M.D., M.P.A. Executive Director June 13, 1977 JUN 2 ti Mr. Dave Bucknam Senior Planner Colorado Land Use Commission 1313 Sherman Street; Room 415 Denver, Colorado 80203 RECEIVED JUN 14.1977 COLOR,\BD LEI'M USE COMM. RE: CF&I Proposal for a Limestone Quarry, Garfield, County, Colorado. Dear Dave: The Water Quality Control Division would like to have the following items con- sidered in evaluating the proposal referred to above. (1) The potential impact on water quality cannot be assessed at this time because of the lack of intonation on local hydrology and water runoff patterns. The actual solubility of limestone in this oper- ation is not known. If there is a discharge from the quarry operations, a NPDES permit will be required before water can be discharged to Deep Creek or tributaries. Garfield County should consider the effect of removing the overburden on water quality. Unless extreme mitigating measures are employed in this operation the runoff from the area may cause an unusual in- crease in erosion and siltation of the streams in this watershed. Thank you for your inquiry and if there are any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, FOR DI a 1R, WATER. QUALITY CONT1'ROL DIVISION 40)44g• Kcneth W. Webb, P.E., Chief Water Quality Management Planning Section KWW:bls cc: Robert Siek 2 STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD O. LAMM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman St., Rni. 415 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 892-2778 June 17, 1977 Mr, W. C. Milner Garfield County Building Official 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: CF&I Quarry Dear Mr. Milner: DIETTC7,7 ,C t JUN 20 Attached are additional responses to the LUC's requests for information. Discussion of the proposed CF&I project will occur during the Staff Director's report to the Commission at their June 24th meeting. Sincerely, Dave Bucknam Senior Planner DB/lw Enclosures 1977 Quarry debated apt' SWEETWATER A group of about 40 -res- idents of western Gar- field and eastern Eagle counties gathered here Monday to hear another round of the continuing debate overwhether a Iinestone quarry ought to be allowed near Deep Creek Canyon at the edge of the White River National Forest. Eacept for Curtis Miller, superintendent. of quarries for Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. which wants to open the pit mine - and Eliza- beth Lewis of Rifle,. whose. family owns the land that contains the limestone — moat of the members of theaudience were critical of the pro- posal, La Gay,r the Sweetwatfe resort, who asked Miller three times what seen- - oink benefit the quarry would have for residents andbusinesses of the 'area and teas not satisfi- ed that he had received an answer, finally walk- ed out of he room. "You have no inten- tions of giving me a. truthful answer to- night," Gay said, "so I'll go home and go to Gay, in earlier ques- tions to Miller, sad he -and Other recreationally oriented businesses make a whale of a good living bringing people into this county, and what are you going to do for that economy?". - Answering his own question, Gay referred to CF&f's plans for a rail- road loading facility on the Colorado River, and told Miller "You are going to put a conveyor across the river where all of my guests drive - in, you are going to' put railroad cars on one side of the river and a rock pile on the other." Other" complaints came from residents who were concerned about dust along the com- pany's proposed 65 -foot. wide, 6% -mile haul road; dust at the loading area near the Colorado River; water pollution, potential damage to limestone caves in the area; reclamation and re - vegetation of the area; and the effects the pro - DEEP • LANE posed project wool have on wildlife in th d set aside each day for e dust control was a typo - wap ca ypo- graphical error, -' that ehereshould have been a one in front of that number;" that the lime- stone delivered to the Colorado- River loading location would be dump- ed into a large hole to keep it out of sight; and that the coni. Sweetwater area outfit- ter, said themining ac- tivity in the area could drive the elk herd in the area — one of the largest in the state —. as far away as Meeker; and in so doing, put him out of business. Miller, however, maintained that his com- pany's quarryipg Open. ations- 'near .Monarch. Pass have not driven. 'livestock away, that elk, in fact, have been ob- served looking down on the men in the quarry. However, Miller did. admit that "I was aston- ished at the termin- ology"'in CF&I's impact statement which ..said flatly that the proposed operations would "have no effect" on wildlife. Miller also told the group that the impact statement's reference to 40,000 gallons of water y would employ two water trucks to make ten tripe each day up and down .the quarry -to -siding haul road. All of those state- ments were additions to the continuing debate, whichhas been carried :on in planning commis- sion meetings, Garfield County commissioners' meetings - and small h as the group which wascheld here Monday right, Elizabeth Lewis, the sister-in-law ' of Glen- wood- Springs surveyor Bob Scarrow, said her Isee page 31 family had owned'the- land for many years; .but -: now•was forced "ta sell and' -pay off indebted- -1' ness." She saidshe, tin._ would like to see the land stay as it is, but believes that to be impossible. If the land cannot be sold in one piece to CF&I, she said, it wouldhaveto be divided up and sold in smaller lots. CF&I's quarry and reclamation program, she said, "is going to have the least impact on the area;" CF&I currently y is g more re- searchthe effeques of d thebyproject, ie requested o themi Garfield the commissioners and the Bureau or Land) Manage- mept which Must alp PMvb.. the 'shard 'read hrtugft government- , �4wti¢rl'land s LENWOOD AALG SPRINC6 Proposed CF&1 limestone quarry COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO: LUC Members FROM: Dave Bucknam SUBJECT.: C F & I Quarry DATE: June 24, 1977 At the Land Use Commission meeting of April 22, 1977, Dr. Norman Pace with the National Speleological Society and the Sierra Club informed the Commission of a proposal by Colorado Fuel and Iron Steel Corporation to begin a limestone quarry operation in Garfield County." Dr. Pace requested that the Commission review the C F & I proposal and consider requesting Garfield County to designate one or more matters of state interest. The Commission passed a motion to have the LUC staff review the proposal and report back. The staff was further directed to work with the County, other state agencies, and interested parties in this review. The Commission had been contacted regarding this proposal in September, 1975 and offered some assistance at that time. The proposal lay dormant until C F & I submitted further information earlier this year. Since the recent request to the LUC, I have been in contact with the Garfield County Planning Department to obtain current information on the proposal and to offer the results of the LUC review when completed. I have also contacted the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the chairman of the Planning Commission to make thein aware of the request to the LUC and the staff review. Assistance has been requested from state and federal agencies. As of this date, all agencies have responded. A summary of those responses follows: 1. Mined Land Reclamation Board -- The Board will require a permit covering the mine site, all crushing and processing facilities at the site, and all private haul roads to the site. It is felt that a conveyor system would be preferable over a large haul road due to less impact in use and ease of reclamation. 2. Division of Water Resources -- The water rights that are to be utilized to supply the project have riot been identified, evaluated, or discussed by C F & I. Information regarding impact: upon other water tights and water requirements necessary to reclaim the area affected have not been supplied by 0 F & 1. Memo to LUC from Dave Bucknam June 24, 1977 Page Two 3. Colorado Geological Survey -- With a well-planned blasting schedule, adequate ground monitoring, and an approved reclamation plan, the Survey can see no reason, from geologic viewpoint, why the proposed mining operation cannot coexist with the other natural features such as caverns and associated unique deposits in the area. The Survey sees no practical reason at this stage for designating the site as a geologic hazard area. The area could be appropriately designated by Garfield County as a mineral resource area. Such designation, however, would "signal" the area as one of mineral interest and importance. If the area was designated, a buffer zone to protect the caverns should be established. In this way both the caverns and the significant portions of the mineral resource could be protected. 4. U.S. Forest Service -- The C F & I proposal is generally compatible with the multiple use plan for the Eagle District. The USFS believes the following issues should be addressed by C F & I: alternative hauling methods such as conveyors or other systems, the possibilities for and impacts of other quarry activities in the area, and aesthetic impacts of the development including visual pollution from the haul road. 5. U.S. Bureau of Land Management -- C F & I is required to obtain and has applied for a right of way permit for the haul road to the quarry. BLM will not issue the permit until an Environmental Assessment Record (EAR) has been completed. The EAR will identify impacts that require mitigation and stipulations will be drafted to ensure that mitigation measures will be implemented by C F & I. 6. Division of Wildlife -- The Division feels this proposed quarry will result in a net loss of wildlife habitat, both directly and indirectly, and will produce on site and off site adverse impacts affecting wildlife. Approximately half of the area under mineral claim by C F & I is critical deer and elk winter. range. If designation is deemed necessary after further information is gathered and reviewed, the Division would prefer that Garfield County act on its own rather than involving the LUC in a designation request proceeding. 7. State Iiistorical Society --- No recorded archaeological resources are noted in the area. The area has not, however, been surveyed to identify cultural resources, so significant, but unrecorded sites could be present. nem() w to LUC from Dave Bucknam June 24, 1977 Page Three 8. Water Quality Control Division -- The potential impact on water quality cannot be assessed at this time because of the lack of information on local hydrology and water runoff patterns. Discharge from the quarry operations will require a NPDES permit. Increased erosion and siltation of the streams in this watershed could result from the removal of overburden. 9. Air Pollution Control Division -- Additional data is required in order to address the potential impacts of the proposed operation on air quality. The Division contemplates that an air pollution emission permit would be required. No application for a permit has been submitted by C F & 1. 10. Division of Planning -- The Division believes the existing Garfield County zoning resolution is adequate to address the C F & I proposal. The regulations are general, yet do afford the County the opportunity to request as much information as required to examine the impacts of the proposal. The County has requested additional information from C F & I. Since C F & I is in the process of providing the County with more information, the Division recommends that the LUC continue to monitor the proposal and examine any new material submitted, as well as the County's action, to see if a possible request for designation under H.B. 1041 is warranted. Recommendations for Commission Action The Land Use Commission has a number of alternative actions available. These include: Option 1: No Action -- The LUC takes no action at this time and contemplates none in the future. The regulation and control of the proposed operation proceeds under local zoning regulations and applicable state and federal regula- tions. Any further assistance to Garfield County is minimal. Option 2: Monitor and Assist --• The LUC takes no definitive action at this time but provides as much technical assistance as possible and monitors activities regarding the proposal. The Commission could instruct the staff to participate in the local proceedings on the LUC's behalf. Choosing this alternative does not preclude the LUC from exercising Option 3 at some future time. Option 3: Staff Study -- the LUC directs the staff to prepare a study for Commission consideration. Such a study would address geologic hazard areas, mineral resource areas, significant wildlife habitats, and archaeological resources. Memo to LUC from Dave Bucknam June 24, 1977 Page Four Upon consideration by the LUC, Garfield and possibly Eagle Counties could be requested to designate one or more matters of state interest. After consideration of materials prepared by C F & I, Garfield County, the Sierra Club, and state and federal agencies the staff recommends that the Commission exercise Option 2. DB/mad IIIIII IIIIII 131"113£14 A subsidiary of Crane Co. P.O. Box 316 Pueblo, Colorado 81002 CURTIS L. MILERS Supt. of Quarries P.O. Bas 469 Salla, Colorado 61101 Mr. Rishard C. Jolley Attar Garfield County Co#eissios ra Deer Mr. Jatl.yi Cyil Steel Corps. invites as Carfisld County Cesalselesoss to the proposed Dotsaro Quarry Sits. Thursday. August 111, 1977, 11:00 A.M. to witness a toot blast. me blast will be tootrwueted to determine what parelbla attest. it soy, Quarry bleats would have op tba saver lammed la the swrrouedieg eowtry olds. Please attend it at 411 missals slay witb aevy Garfield Camay Pereossll you feel would be tetsrested. seh$ob k, w,itkowskd Csrtield Co. Plumes Bud Mllser - Oa:Meld Co. S1dg. Iwspeator IS Ssarrw Joan Cols CilUwbr 3,-/nu)x-)c9 Pa -U, 0--t-t/q-77 • Eagle officials decline meeting with CF&I By the Eagle News Service EAGLE - The Eagle County Commissioners have declined to meet with CF&I Co. representatives about the proposed Willow Peak limestone quarry. The offer was made after a joint meeting between Garfield and Eagle counties about the quarry. Assistant county planner Terrell Knight told the com- missioners a representative of CF&I had offered to meet with them and discuss the proposal. CF&I also extended an invitation for the com- missioners to watch a test blast at Willow Peak "in the near future," Knight said. The test blast is designed to gauge the effect of quarry blasting on caves in the area, said Knight. Cavers have voiced opposition to the quarry, fearing that blasting will destroy formations in nearby caves. Commissioner Keith Troxel indicated a meeting with just the proponent would he un- wise. He said CF&I should file an application for a special use permit then both sides in the issue will have ample op- portunity to present their viewpoints. CF&I has not made sufficent progress to file an application with Eagle County, Knight said. The company is studying the possiblity of using a con- veyor belt rather than trucks on a haul road, he said. A special use permit ap- plication for the quarry site is pending before the Garfield County Commissioners. The Eagle County permit ap- plication, if filed, will cover the haul road or conveyor from the quarry to a railroad siding on the Colorado River above Dotsero. Just how that information will be passed on has not been resolved. During the joint meeting with Garfield County, Troxel said, "I hope the ap- plicant will meet soon with Eagle County." Prior to the joint meeting, com- munications had been handled through the two county plan- ning departments. Eagle County 0ffid: s- ate concerned that CF&I, which` i' Miami() operate a limestone ) Middy:in Garfield County, has coinmunicated little with them despite the fact that Finagli''(if operation related to ttheiyarry would be in Eagle ,' Coftnti` F2 `phatwas the message given r in';joint meeting between the t Eagle'and Garfield County Commissioners held in Glen-" wood") Thursday night to z dispuss the CF&I proposal. 10 )A1.46''present were planning ' staff members from both codefbs and Commissioner BdtiChilds of Pitkin County. "Cur' main concern is the la k qt contact in Eagle Coun- ty:" planner oun-ty,'Planner Terrell Knight of that county stated. "We have had official dealings with Um'applicant." Knight added lhdf tris department has been kept:: abreast of the situation by'G"a"rfield County planners. "1 hope the applicant will meet soon with Eagle Cour tr, „9gle riConMits 10 eligtidgallik he suggested, CF&I may find itself with a special use permit for Garfield County, but ndne for Eagle County. CF&1 must get permits from both counties for its proposed operation. The plan calls for an 80 -acre limestone quarry and a similar sized mill site on private land in Garfield Coun- ty. The quarry would be south of Deep Creek in the Willow Peaks region- -. To get the quarried limestone out CF&I has proposed a 65 foot wide, seven -mile long haul road through BLM land, in Eagle County, a conveyor across the Colorado River several mile north of Dotsero, and a railroad loading facility at the end of the conveyor. Eagle Commissioner Dan Williams declared the need for coordination between the counties, but he said the bur- den ison the applicant to make sure that coordination pr ltrs Weave; gone the , ap- nt one better by having "hesaid 'Continued from Page 1 and anygroup-that-took them over would have to keep up an- nual assessments or loose them. There are also other claims in the area owned by Holly Sugar Company, which is reportedly seeking buyers for them. The Garfield County Plan- ning Commission and the com- missioners have reviewed the CF&1 application; and have Williams also wondered, if( by taking a more southerly route with its haul road, CF&I could keep its operation 011 tirely out of Eagle County, but he :was told that the terrain makes that impossible. The possible impacts from the haulroad is one of the major questions surrounding the application. Gene Cole, who has .an interest in the mining claims which CF&I wishes to develop, tried to minimize the impacts at Thur- sday's meeting. "All it amounts to. is 60 truckloads a day (during the summer only)," he said. "It's really not that big a deal." Others were not so sure. Eric Edeen, environmental health officer for Eagle Coun- ty, cited the dust problem caused by a concrete batch plant in Minturn .running much smaller trucks and making fewer trips. Garfield County' Planner Bob Witkowski said the steel company had been commlttedg. to fff ig hath road until twtrrrtbn requested more information about .variousiaspects of=the plan, including the haul road, water supply and quality and possible- effects on nearby caves. Witkoski said he and County Building Inspector Bud Milner will meet with representatives of the company next week to outline plans for blasting tests to monitor the effects on the caves. Once the additional in- formation ,IS -provided the the agti ;but nowppeais to be nn seouuly considering other alternatives. Those 'alter-- nafives-`include a conveyor and overhead tram, to get the limestone off lhemountain. Garfield ' Commissioner. Larry Velasquez'lvoiced another major concern, the possibility that approving the CF&I -quarry, will open the whole, 'pristine area surroun- ding it to limestone quarrying Velasquez said no one has offered real solutions to that Glenwood Springs :resident:. Bob Scarrow owns about 5,000. acres of mine claims in the area on public and private land. He -would deed. about 2,400 of those to CF&I on the private land he hopes to sell the company for the quarry. He has said. he will release the remainder of the land if he receives assurancesthe claims will not be developed, But he cannot give them to the U.S Forest Service without dvnppningthem to,OVeloPplent, a1p 9'10 turp�rzy age ° commissioners will have 30 days to approve ror deny fhe special use permit or decide that the information is still in- sufficient CF&I has also applied to the BLM .for a permit on its proposed road, and that ap- plical ion is under con- sideration. The company must gel approval 'from nine separate local. stale :and federal agencies_ on various aspects `of='theplah before 11 GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE July 20, 1977 NOTE TO FILE FROM: Robert Witkowski PHONE 945-8212 I recently had a discussion with Mr. William White, geology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, concerning his review of the CF&I limestone quarry permit. They were generally as follows: (1) The County should be concerned about the precise kind of ground movement which blasting will cause at the site. Any piolet blasting will require that the same blasting material be used that will be used in commercial operations and careful instrument- ation take place by a qualified geo-physical firm or individual if any valid interpolations are to be made from the tests relative to a full scale quarry. (2) The County should also be concerned with the effects of quarrying on subsurface drainage and water quality. The process of quarrying, even in a limestone deposit, can cause turbidity problems in area springs. A possible method of testing prior to the fact might be to monitor the chemical hardness of water during a full water year. Mr. White said in previous projects he is aware of a seasonal variation in the chemical composition of various water sources indicates they are susceptible to surface disturbance. If they do not vary in chemical composition during a water year, that is some indication, in his opinion, that they may not be adversely affected by surface mining. RAW/kay h V (1%-e,-0-) Di_tt planne Eagle By the Eagle News Service EAGLE—The proposed CF & I limestone quarry on Willow Peak northwest of Dot - sero may be headed for a multi -jurisdictional joint review process (JRP) if the Eagle County Planning Com- mission follows through on a suggestion made Wednesday. Ther move came amidst war- nings that Eagle County will have little choice but to ap- prove the project if CF & I wins initial blessings from Garfield County. The proposed quarry site is in Gar- field County. However, most of the haul road and the rail rand apartments resemble 'discotheques, and African locations look like rides at loading facilities will Disneyland. The actors are Eagle County. unable to make sense of this "If Garfield Count mishmash. Richard Burton them yes, you'll almoslseems bewildered, Louise to tell them yes," quar.Fletcher underplays to the ponent Dorothy Herresp°int of invisibility. The for - Commission the planners. merly possessed Linda Blair almost achieves believability. Commission County .1 atlmRated R. Price ordered P1 "THE SORCEROR" is high Mike Blair to exptoreadventure in the "River possibilities of a JRP. IKwai"—"Sierra Madre" had received assurances .tradition. William MadeFriedkin Bureau of Land Manager(" e French Connection," representative Al Wrigh� The Exorcist") again proves Glenwood Springs that his talent as a storyteller in BLM would be willing to this reworking of the French ticipate in a JRP, novel and film, "The Wages of Wright said the CF 'ear." The plot: four outcasts in a squalid South American Seneca Optimists, fr "Mellow Yellow" wil ment of 'Drums Alor Their nickname comI Michas Michael Murphey, v songs include `Wildfire off the annual SnowmE mer Festival of pop In the 25 years bet' and 1970, the numbe STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD D. LAMM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 415 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 892-2778 July 1, 1977 Mr. Bud Milner Garfield County Building Official 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Bud: Attached is a copy of a memorandum which was distributed to the Land Use Commission last Friday. The Commission adopted a motion incorporating Option 1 noted in the memo. I am interested in keeping apprised of the CF&I proposal and any new information which becomes available. Option 1, by the way, does not preclude further action by the LUC at some in the future, if appropriate. Sincerely, Dave Buckman Acting Staff Director DB/lw Enclosure UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT nr AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVIC R-2 REPLY o: —'—�-- 3200 Land Use Planning 2720 Special Uses sueJEcr:County Coordination and Building Permits on National Forest Lands MAP .1. g 1976 March 12, 1976 ro:Region 2 Forest Supervisors US The attached memorandum was recently sent to Supervisor Evans in reply to some questions posed by Pitkin County related to local authorities over activities on National Forest lands. We can expect more of this type of question to surface as the State and local governments become more involved in lan'l use matters. There- fore, we have provided a somewhat lengthier reply to help provide some of the rationale behind the Region 2 position. Although the States have considerable authorities over activities on National Forest lands, there are a number of precedent setting cases that acknowledge that there is also a limit to those authorities. Examples include the Pisgah and Kaibab cases where a line was drawn when the State interest in wildlife management interfered unreasonably with the Federal mission. Although we expect some minimal confrontations, we believe that the benefits in terms of mutual objectives and supAs always, we are available to advise you withport any situations to be tthat ayou JlU believe critical to our Federal -State -local relationships. �. 4ToICCRAIG W. RUPP Acting Regional Forester Attachment cc: Directors, R-2 r IS Prot. REPLY TO: SUBJECT: TO: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE R-2 8200 Land Use Planning 2720 Special Uses County Coordination and Building Permits on National Forest Lands Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest March 10, 1976 This replies to your memorandum of November 18, 1975, which sets forth three specific questions related to local government's jurisdiction of activities taking place on National Forest system lands. The question of the extent to which State and local government can regulate activities on Federal lands is a complex one and not one that can be answered completely in a few pages. Generally speaking, the State (and county) can regulate the activities of individuals on National Forest lands to the extent that such regulation does not materially interfere with the Forest Service in its management of the Forests. This memorandum is not intended, nor should it be viewed, as a thorough treatise of the subject. Rather it is an attempt to communicate, in rather abbreviated fashion, how we view this very complex matter. We expect that situations which appear critical in terms of Federal -State - local relationships be referred to the Regional Office for advice. 1. Does a county have authority to zone National Forest land and are we subject to such zoning? The county acquires its authority from State law. In Colorado, counties have the authority to zone the non -incorporated sections of the county. This may include National Forest system lands. The basis for this authority is the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the governed. If necessary to provide such protection, the county has the authority to make certain zoning requirements (limitations) with respect to activities of the governed on National Forest system land, so long as they do not unreasonably interfere with the Forest Service in its administration of federal programs including, but not limited to, management of the forests. The Forest Service acquires its authority and direction from Federal Statutes which provide for various programs which the Secretary of Agriculture will administer, including management of the National Forests. Inherent in this authority is the prerogative to implement whatever program administration measures are needed, including the direct employment of personnel, contracting with others, making appropriate arrangements with permittees, etc. Employees, contractors, permittees, and others who are carrying out Forest Service directed programs are generally regarded as agents of United States policy. From a legal point of view, states and counties are limited in their authority to impose restrictions upon the lands and activities of the United States by the supremacy of laws of the United States provided for in the Constitution. The precise limits of their authority are difficult to define in general terms. However, it may generally be said that the local authorities are not authorized to act in such manner as to interfere materially with the performance of federal functions. Most local require- ments, while having some material effect on carrying out our responsibilities have been either entirely consistent with our efforts or so negligibly inconsistent as to not warrant resistance. In these situations, in the interest of comity and to encourage appropriate intergovernmental arrange- ments, the Forest Service, while always exercising federal supremacy, may choose not to oppose the specific requirements. Actions of a Forest Officer in this respect would have no precedent setting effect on the United States (though it might well take litigation to establish this point). Accordingly, Region 2 will proceed, generally, to honor the substantive requirements of local authorities as they apply to contractors, permittees, and the like, so long as the requirements do not interfere with federal functions and programs to an extent that we cannot reasonably tolerate or accommodate. With respect to any procedural provisions (application for zoning variance, etc.), we would generally require that our contractors and permittees comply, unless compliance would result in substantial interference with federal programs. On the other hand, Forest Service Officers and employees will not comply with procedural provisions, but will, in the interest of comity, notify the county of Forest Service planned activity that might be interpreted as a departure from the substantive provisions of county zoning requirements. Specific situations which appear critical in terms of Federal-State-local relationships, or in terms of maintaining the Secretary of Agriculture's prerogatives, should be referred to the Regional Office for advice. 2. Does a county have authority to require building permits on "zoned" and on "unzoned" National Forest land? The State (and therefore the county) has the authority to promulgate certain rules (require building permits) that govern individuals who use the National Forests so long as the effect of such rules does not unreasonably interfere with Forest Service management, including the use of its agents to accom- plish such management. The basis for the county responsibilities is to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. This authority of the State (county) does not extend to requiring the Forest Service or its employees to obtain building permits for federal activities on National Forest lands. 3 The Forest Service includes the following clause in all Special Use Permits: The permittee, in exercising the privileges granted by this permit, shall comply with the regulations of the Department of Agriculture and all Federal, State, county, and municipal laws, ordinances or regulations which are applicable to the area or operations covered by this permit." (our emphasis) This clause notifies the permittee that State and local laws and regulations, as well as Federal laws and regulations, apply to individuals using Federal lands under permit. The "which are applicable" phraseology means that State, county, and municipal requirements are applicable only to the extent that they do not materiallyinterfere with the Forest Service (including its use of agents) in the management and use of the National Forests. This is the legal position of the United States. As discussed in answer to the previous question, it is Region 2 policy to reach appropriate arrangements with State and local government including the expectation that its contractors and permittees obtain county building permits as long as county requirements do not unreasonably interfere with the ability of the Forest Service to implement federal programs. The Forest Service, not its permittees or contractors, will determine what might be considered "unreasonable". The responsibility for enforcement of these State (or county) requirements is a matter between the State and the individual regardless of land status. In other words, except where material interference with National Forest management results, the State has the same police authority governing activities of persons on National Forest lands as it does on lands of other ownerships. The Forest Service position is one of passive support of the State and local government in the exercise of their authorities unless active support is requested. The extent and manner of support action, if any, is a judgement determination. This often depends on the extent to which regular enforcement procedures have been exhausted by State and local authorities and federal assistance is needed to secure compliance. If federal support is requested, Forest Supervisors will normally be in the best position to determine the appropriate measures to take on a case-by-case basis. 3.: Possible appeals by counties where we do not force bermittees to obtain county building permits in spite of printed clause #7 of the 2700-4 and 2700-5 forms and the "exclusive control" by the United States over its activities on federal lands. Our response to the second question also applies to this question. As provided by the Administrative Review Procedures, any administrative action 4 or written decision of an officer of the Forest Service is appealable by an aggrieved party. We expect that State and local governments, prior to requesting administrative review, would attempt to secure permittee compliance with State or local regulation. Concerning the matter of "exclusive control", in a strict legal sense the Federal Government, and its officials and agents, carrying out federally -directed missions on federal lands, are not subject to State law or local ordinance that materially affects the ability of the United States to implement its mission. However, Region 2 policy is to expect its per- mittees and contractors to meet applicable State and local substantive requirements and procedural requirements that do not unreasonably interfere with federal missions. Whether or not the Forest Service will "force" its . permittees or contractors to obtain county building permits after local and State efforts have failed is dependent upon our judgement of the reasonableness of the county requirement. Forest Supervisors will normally be in the best position to make such determination. SUMMARY The question of the extent to which State and local government can regulate activities on federal lands is a complex one and not one that can be answered completely in a few pages. Answers to specific questions will depend on particular facts. Generally speaking, the State (and county) can regulate the activities of individuals on National Forest lands to the extent that such regulation does not materially interfere with the Forest Service in its management of the Forests. In Region 2, as a matter of policy, we will generally accommodate actions of local authorities that do not unreason- ably interfere with our activities and responsibilities. Obviously, this is a matter of judgement, but I expect you to be alert to local government actions that could directly or indirectly affect our ability to implement the Secretary's programs. Also, I expect each Forest Supervisor to work . out appropriate action on a case-by-case basis with local government where you believe our program responsibilities may be unreasonably impeded. In some cases, we may be able to relieve local governments' concern by including their requirements in Forest Service contracts or permits as appropriate. Situations that you believe could have a serious effect on Forest Service abilities to manage the Forests, either directly or through the use of agents, and which cannot be resolved locally, should be brought to my attention. Lu -v,0 CRAIG W. RUPP Acting Regional Forester 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 July 11, 1977 Eagle County Planning Department P.O. Box 789 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Attn: Mr. Mike Blair County Planner Dear Mike: PHONE 945-8212 Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I talked with the County Commissioners and found them most willing to talk to the Commissioners of Eagle County. As a matter of fact, contrary to some of the statements made in a recent newspaper article concerning Eagle County and the CF&I limestone permit request, Commissioner Flaven Cerise, said he had an earlier conversation with Commissioner Dale Grant in Basalt about the permit. However, the best way to clear up any confusion on the matter is face-to-face. The Commissioners said that they would meet with the Eagle County Commissioners in the Courthouse in Glenwood Springs next week on either Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. They would prefer to start the meeting at 7:30 P.M. in the Commissioners' Room. Please get back to me if one of those days is acceptable to your Board. RAW/ kay CC -Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Robert A. Witkowski Director .(.�LL�ct C E `yij eCtC,YI 'U J I fit ru a -r r 1. f -riVr t L.,Y�C-GSL c nrv'ttCi e JJCt Cl,.lecLu� ,z. 2 v ) 4 ','Lc_ CLed' -r-�c.,�./..5, ''^-c-ti--�.I. . til Q,c?2.-C¢-i-r 1-pCu 1 ~- L``�_c-(_c- Cuu-e.�, let G2C,c,L:.-c,l[� `ti'v -Cc1 ISJI�..4!-C e,tie,t L. y�CCr)LLI c .. „7-7 -FtL L E--et„-red .)-� ((l �u_cct --Y z.cA c‘;.--xt, is_ xi4/Vi--e-»„LCGf — (u7 e,e-- C.--- .„_,e,_,,,L,,,,Ly.,..,-„ ,,,,,,c_k___ Cio-kl y.l a Cs let -c.-0-0 C .1�� itt.i,`t. 1)� ,;l"Li-t n.- � d 1 &e'I, LdaLlct',t,�.(.-t,'✓ t, C6sz." t. 2�u ‘,7 \-,(1,41‘..‘ Rntic a� X'Z L R4' n.- "1-'LE_cl-a.- `�,. ) e C' C`.; c ` I;-6,..c.)..L rzE= oe) I .L Ll \ um 411:4-.i _ c-t-t�LC� , ,-`.L Ii. Jr- VAS_ L 1.C -e- -, �, 0 -"ti i 2. r-flL. L., .-1% LA anA: 4 = 4-i -C k. et.„, 'cgs ee.-ct.,kk. (-1...-.,..H JJC (_,A.� t. � c_iay-rr,-e}ra -n"t_tc- NLS GZC � L fr1y�,- L-�.1.'C k CC tLCA /2.424,st.- t Jr, I.O{r tiP t��t nLe (- v L' CPrzo C 2a2 -L c- &rite A'•I-LCC:1.4 L) (�/��7 RICHAHu D. LAMM GOVERNOR '1r;,.y ,.��.,gy1D COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 892-2611 Mr. Dave Bucknam Colorado Land Use Commission 1313 Sherman Street, Room 415 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Dave: The following are the proposed CF&I secs. 26, 27, 28, May 23, 1977 our comments on your letter of May 12, 1977 regarding limestone quarry near Deep Creek in Garfield County, 29, and 33, T.4S., R.87W. 1. The most probable hazard that might be expected on this site is slope stability, which could affect the excavation or the access roads. Rockfall might also be a problem along haul roads built along steep slopes or at the base of cliffs. We believe, however, that the contractor can recognize and control these situations. Our office will, if requested, periodically review any work done on or near the site. 2. Regarding potential ground -motion effects, according to the U. S. Bureau of Mines and Colorado School of Mines guidelines, the two most important factors that determine ground -motion magnitude are 1) the size of the explosive charge in each drill hole and 2) the timing or sequencing of detonations. Although the results of the Monarch Quarry study suggest that similar particle velocities can be expected in other areas of the Leadville Limestone, an optimum charge size and detonation timing at the proposed site must be determined to achieve minimum ground motion. Monitoring equip- ment installed at the quarry and in one or more caverns will help insure that the blast effects on natural and man-made structures farther than 5,000 feet from the quarry are nonexistent or negligible. 3. Limestones occur in many rock formations in Colorado, but known economical high -calcium limestones are limited to the Ingleside Formation in Larimer County and to the Leadville Limestone in central, southeast -central, and northwest -central Colorado. Mining these limestones along the Front Range and in central Colorado is GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE JOHN W. BOLD Director Mr. Dave Bucknam May 23, 1977 Page 2 hampered by thicker overburden, steep dips, and often complicated structure. The leadville Limestone in the White River uplift affords gentler slopes and larger working areas of limestone. Thus, apparently a longer transport distance to Pueblo can be economically offset by easier access and mining conditions. 4. We believe that the surface and near -surface occurrences of the Leadville and older limestones in the White River uplift can be appropriately designated by Garfield County as a mineral resource area (MF.&) under House Bill 1041. Although most of the limestones have not been adequately evaluated, the designation would serve to "signal" the area as one of interest and importance. Afterward, portions of the designated area, such as the caverns, can and probably should be removed from the MRA and administered in some other manner. Perhaps an arbitrary circle of 2,500 feet or 5,000 feet radius can be drawn around the caverns as a buffer zone. In this way both the caverns and the significant portions of the mineral resource are protected. We can see no practical reason at this stage for designating the site as a geologic hazard area. 5. It is important to consider the magnitude of the proposed operation compared to the total area of the site. Assuming a 100 -ft -thick minable limestone stratum and an annual production of 170,000 yd 3 (as stated in the Stearns -Roger EIS), only 1 to 1.2 acres of land would be excavated annually; 2 to 2.5 acres per year if production doubled. Thus, in a long-term 50 -year operation, only a very small percentage of the 5,100 -acre site would be disturbed to any great degree. With a well-planned blasting schedule, adequate ground monitoring, and an approved reclamation plan, we can see no reason why this mining operation cannot coexist with the other natural features such as caverns and associated unique deposits in the area. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, 7 / John W. Rol.d Director and State Geologist ` Q�� JWR/SDS, ALB, WPR/ds vc.a.,,,, t...0 LCVyIt 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 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, a.. D/ MICHAEL J. SPENCER District Ranger cc:BLM Eagle County Planning Commission Garfield County Planning Commission 10jJ � 1 MAR 07 1988 bMRFIELD COUNTY June 9, 1987 Mr. Mark Bean 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: JUN 15 1987 GARFIELD COUNTY This letter and resume are in response to our phone conversation last week regarding the proposals for quarrying on the White River Plateau near Dotsero. As discussed then, I feel that the one-year water quality study of nearby Twenty -Pound Tick Cave could be modified to include a groundwater basin study utilizing dye -tracing techniques. I have worked in this aspect of hydrogeology both in graduate school and as a consultant (see resume), in addition to extensive personal research. A study outlining the drainage basin of this spring probably could be accomplished in 3 to 4 months and determine the relationship and affect this quarry would have on the spring, if any. I would appreciate if this letter and information would be made available to parties interested in quarrying in this area. Thank you. Sincerely, Lawrence E. Spangler March 14, 1977 ..on And Lew$s _orneys abd Counselors at Law 1'he 1650 Grant Street Building Denver, Colorado 80203 Attn: Mr. Warren E. Hoemann Dear Mr. Hoemann: Please find enclosed a copy of CF&I's Application for a Special Use Permit which you requested in your letter dated March 9, 1977. Also please find enclosed a statement in the amount of $10.80 to cover the cost of the same. The Planning and Zoning Commission will consider this application on April 11, 1977 at their regularly scheduled public meeting. The meeting will be held in the Garfield County Courthouse on the corner of 8th Street and Colorado Avenue at 7:30 P.M. The public hearing will be held by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners at a later date. If you have any further comments or questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. WCM/ka y Enclosures Very truly yours, W. C. Milner Building Official September 5, 1976 Welborn, Dufford, Cook & Brown Attorneys at Law 1518 United Bank Center Denver, Colorado 80202 Attn: 14r. Philip G. Dufford Re: Special Use Permit Application of Robert D. Scarrow and C F & r Steel Corporation Dear Mr. Dufford: We are in receipt of your check for $25.00 which we are returning. The fee for a Special Use Permit for industrial operations which includes extraction and processing of natural resources ,is. $5.00.00, Please refer to Section 7.03.02 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulation. If we can be of any assistance do not hesitate to contact our. office. WCM/gay Enclosure Very truly yours, N. C. Milner Building Official iI ROBERT WELBORN PHILIP G. DUFFORD JOSEPH E. COOK THTHOMAS G. BROWN W-FURGASON MILES C. CORTEZ JR WILLIAM C ROBB JOHN F WELBORN WELBORN, DUFFORD, COOK 8 BROWN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1518 UNITED BANK CENTER DENVER, COLORADO 80202 September 2, 1975 SEP = 4 1975 GARFIELD GD, PLANNER Mr. Robert Witkowski Director of Planning & Zoning Garfield County 2014 Blake Ave. Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Special Use Permit Application of Corporation Robert D. Scarrow and CF&I Steel Dear Mr, Witkowski: I did not At the time of submittingder the the captioned of the Garfield CountyIt seems to me that application, ahec5 in fee is payable. Accordingly, regulations it iso ingsourie would youtpleaseunt of return$25. it tolf ourhoffic slscnotrequiredrmthat Very truly yours, , DUFFORD, COOK & BROWN n PGD:ph Enclosure cc: John Robertson, Jr. Phil' • Duffo CF&I STEEL CORPORATION A subsidiary of Crane Co. P. O. Box 316, Pueblo, Colo. 81002 JOHN ROBERTSON, JR. Manager -Mines and Quarries -577 jEP /�RFtf LU _ ``= ,Iuo gust 28, 1975 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 GARFIFLb mum r, or Gentlemen: At the request of Mr. P. G. Dufford, attorney for CFCI Steel Corporation, I am sending you eight copies of the Environmental Impact Statement to be included with the application for a special use permit that Mr. Dufford has mailed to you this date. Sincerely yours, JR/jco Enclosure cc - P. G. Dufford R. J. Slater J. W. Walton ROBERT F WELBORN PHILIP G. DUFFORD JOSEPH E. COOK THOMAS G. BROWN DAVID W. FU RGASON MILES C CORTEZ, JR WILLIAM C. ROBB JOHN F WELBORN WELBORN, DUFFORD, COOK 8 BROWN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1518 UNITED BANK CENTER DENVER, COLORADO 80202 August 29, 1975 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Board of Garfield State of Glenwood County Commissioners County Colorado Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen: TELEPHONE 13031 861-SO13 rr1 SCP - 2 1975 GARFIELD CO. PLANNER Re: Application for Special Use Permit In accordance with the provisions of the planning and zoning regulations for Garfield County, Colorado application is hereby made on behalf of CF&I Steel Corporation and on behalf of Scarrow & Walker, Inc., Robert D. Scarrow and Cynthia M. Scarrow for a special use permit authorizing the extraction and processing of natural resources on those lands which are described on Exhibit A attached hereto. At the present time a portion of such lands are zoned as Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density as shown by the green coloring on Exhibit B attached hereto and the balance of the land is Open Space and unzoned. The proposed use of the land for which this special use permit is sought is as a reserve area for limestone deposits to ultimately be utilized primarily in the steel making process. Extraction will be by open quarrying methods. It is not anticipated that any immediate use of the property will be made. For such reason, the submittals which accompany this application are not fully definitive as to immediate use matters. It is requested that the applicants be allowed the special use permit granted on a conditional basis which will require the filing of any explanatory data not now furnished during a period six months prior to the commencement of actual extraction operations. Addi- tionally, it is requested that, if the Board has the power to do so, it waive at this time the 120 day expiration limit on any conditional permit authorization that might be granted. WELBORN, DUFFORD, GOOK & BROWN Board of County Commissioners Page 2 August 29, 1975 Submitted with this application is the impact study and other findings prepared by Stearns -Roger Corp. which is submitted in compliance with the County's requirements for special use permit applications. It is respectfully requested that notice of this application be given in accordance with law at a time and in a manner which will permit hearing of the application at the Board's regularly scheduled meeting to be held September 8, 1975. Respectfully submitted, , DUFFORD, COOK & BROWN PGD:ph Enclosure cc: R. J. Slater N. Pacun C. Kirk John Robertson J. W. Walton ilip/ . D'uffo C G.gN n 0 ocel n - -9 o a0 ri £.1 o ° I � m� A d^ O fa .i" , n `f a .^-. N~ y :4. C. c ?+ � Cr j a ^ m D, n o Lr M MCI; o o t'< m O r'o o`. • as rD a c o m 3b �ym�2adNn?m.wN O nS4rF ^ 3h �3p'm Eaa, M. sarc'o. aDyti ei N , O M O 0.2 ail ca. c a 9, s 0' \s (1m g. °...-. F.- am` am o..,T f] m O =" H O y"=aero A.0 '? r^ N `G ° m.o m m m i - It cci 13 q •o v, rD m o -5 c 0 W .. a R 0 n cDo d'i r.nCD ' o m m � o ' �' on• .., t ,_, v 'O en y m ; •5.5. _ < ❑ (.7). `" ry. 5 m a E = 0 19 rDCID S'i H 'x c `e e:'� o o0 C $ C ^r .., -1Z A r. ."a y• �o?ar m '0 =:w�? ;;� j��o mo ���? .moo ma o5�co CI °° m'�•o $. °-"'+ �y^ 0..80„,<, ,B o, S'` .. rrD 7. <. n o y SEn m y c ° =i - " en o w ro. .... 'yaa OD Du fa en a �.wm .e3Hy 0-.'.c�o s -m, o5 -.a 0'. 0'o-�a°•"'o �'m `°5o-^ .o+'?.°'5 ��--�`m" mv' "-o om,..: o•o "a D,o m �.:a❑ ao3ano y'oa a, 3H .o 0 ,C MN a 8„ ° mrr`<o mem 0."05003 0 E.aa Sa o(a^-,pog- aaosE.rs ^,BD$ ° NM 3mo 'yco3mw�.ao nyc ymrsacc c • Qm S m ?yam �� m "(. M C d10 ^ N, •0 __ N P b 0 m w '+ cn z : Se : w y y m_ m m O. n. m O 'CJ n ear ^ m^ O n rt. o. - °imam m�m� �7'D m.�ya('D p.ocm c� ‘<,.....oTh 2 oo moc Ew E't g cmn �Ec mn ga o6ts i m m - ^ n _ n, ^� .. as ...e.' `� ;^ (''D m m o o. 7 - tT E a ^ ... w` = $c m '� o. c pm, m m 00 G7 c m ri C �� %% 4 n `.,o y H o av �? m 2 m `° G 2 N 'S� Y m cc .0 C.. c A c S m [i-D� m g yp n .'< 0° n pii m 'c. y Qg 8~ o 817 (6D ° 0 ry2. o n O oa a ,Fr m eV S...,. X, a b c 0, ? DAG ea ^ to 'O 6 p 6 =' o O' d • ,.,� i _£ m N a m (p 0 C E. 0 ,O 0 0 E e a. �. m 01 O m .mgr+ cc. 'aaF m.°mmG.o • ti rs "`� H°."... x,<oi =• m -°ic c ohm "Eo o•c`<mvocy° mm-r��000:-.m�D,��D.gym`e"�-cmrsc-"m ^o �°a^?� voaCN°D�m�^0�E��°d_5'�R^8"qm3aTh 3^py^o<m'1 ,my Sg Q�Yp'G, O'0 m •`• ,-4',,,52n' y.G g'f d=?. g^ d.=_y `G n y oo^•J�,'N M x'y R. aD, -„N U=q S e and O. °m' ' ^5.003 �o 2n'" cm . - .gam _y y?"a�$,E.a S:6na= o- ao. m 57 0 (o °N nay "'coal) ,...° °- Cy�o• ^ D+mm a^w-' ❑ym -oym ; cuttJCZ . o _(3D mo ?°m a03 ..... „. _m gnct merg. ���� ^m �"w mv° in n y7� c - `D Eeri d�'c m m Vl m x• S a O^ G rn ry N `G y.O � w.' • � m Jo . g m en e� d �' a 0 m ali m VI ^ STATE OF COLORADO 8ichard D. Lamm Governor ON ICE OF COLO"a.00 LAND USE COlriUiSS!orti 1a5 Sh:eimnn (COO/ Denver, Colo. 80203 (303; 892-2778 Ph;E•r El. Saw -: Dio EOM:. view Joh;; R Permincharn Denver Vice Cie,irman Max Krty Gr.,nd,l;;,atinn Motley 8 al L: ntine Dur.:ngc F•crtl is H. CEmpbcll Denver !. E. DeVilbist. Carbon:.:::. Alon Mei son Denear Cir,:rls J. f.;Mier Rocky Fnrc Frrd Siin.rarra:mn Colmac'n SF.ives Beverly ;V;,hu:icn Gad lIrrr September 11, 1975 —i11 BSEP l 5 1975 I GARFIELD CO. PLANNER Mr. Lynn Hill, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Garfield County P. 0. Box G40 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Hill: Your letter of September 8, 1975, to John Bermingham, requesting LUC technical review assistance has been passed on to me for evaluation and disposition. Presently our office is understaffed and State economic measures become increasingly restrictive. However, the importance of the nature of your request cannot be ignored. I have assigned Wil Ulman of my staff to assist you in this matter. As you know, a complete technical review will require a. diverse range ofinput from a number of State agencies. For this reason, it may be necessary to extend your public hearings past your presently scheduled early October dates. What I have in mind is a comprehensive reviier, of these issues similar to that which we previously conducted on the Buffalo Basin proposal and Colony's new community. The problems facing Colorado's energy resource counties are some of the most pressing that the State will endure. Since I am a newcomer to the State, it is my intention to personally visit the West Slope energy resource counties soon. Please rest assured that the Staff of the Colorado Land Use Commission will assist you to the fullest extent on these matters. For the sake of expediency, all further communication regarding this issue should be directed to Wil Ulman, 1845 Sherman St., Room 600, Denver, Colorado 80203, or call him, at 892-2778. Sincerely, s 1. 2( .;7 2/ Sym a Philip M. Savage Director cc: J.E. DeVilbiss Wil Ulman r; a ._. 1-1 2014 SLAKE AVENUE GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 September 16, 1975 Welborn, Dufford, Cook & Brown Attorneys at Law 1518 United Bank Center Denver, Colorado 80202 Attn: Mr. Philip G. Dufford Re: Special Use Permit Application of Robert D. Scarrow and CF&I Steel Corporation Dear Mr. Dufford: PHONE 94S-8212 The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the County's position regarding the CF&I Steel Corporation's application for a special use permit. It is the opinion of the staff and the Board of County Commissioners that the information supplied regarding the quarry operation is substantially deficient. According to Section 4.03.07 and 4.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, industrial applications for special use permits must submit a thorough and complete assessment of the operational characteristics of the proposed use, its potential environmental impacts and those measures to be taken in abatement of those environmental impacts. Specifically, in the case of a use as significant as is proposed in the CF&I permit, this would include: 1. Base information would be required indicating the present status and condition of the various natural systems that would be affected, in order to establish a standard by which to judge the degree of environmental degradation. Those systems would include, but not necessarily be limited to, sub- surface and surface water bearing structures and streams, their supply, quality, present use, etc... air quality; vegetative communities; wildlife use patterns, migration routes and critical areas. Mr. Philip G. Dullard Page 2 2. Specific quarry operations and construction schedule, as required in Section 4.03.07 Subsection (1), would be required in order for the applicant to: (a) Outline the total area of land, both federally owned and private, that would be included within the quarry operation. Currently, the federal land does fall within a zone category under our County Zoning ordinance. As a legal matter of zoning the potential quarrying on federal lands must be included in the impact statement, and as a practical matter the full extent of any potential quarrying operation must be addressed. (b) Identify with accuracy and fairness the areas in which conflicts with the environment and existing recreational resources of the area will occur, and the degree to which those conflicts will occur in the specific activities. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsections (1) , (2) , (3) , and (4) . (c) Detail the proposed method of material transpor- tation and location of utility and transportation corridors. Assessment of the impact of construc- tion of transportation structures or roads in the designated corridors, and any evidence of consideratbn of alternative corridors. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsection (1) and (2) and 4.03.12 (d) Assess the impact upon county roads to include Garfield County, Eagle County and Forest Service roads which would require information as to movement over these roads as a result of exploration, construction of facilities, movement of equipment and personnel and actual quarrying operation. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsection (2) (e) Consider a revegetation plan at the time of review of the special use request. The operations that will involve surface disturbance, the overburden obtained, slope configuration, drainage structures or plan to be developed and the particulars involved in the actual revegetation process with regard to materials, method and maintenance. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsection (5) Mr. Philip G. Dufford Page 3 (f) Include specific values for the various catagories as listed under the Industrial Performance Standards Reference: 4.03.08 Subsections (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) , and (6) . (g) Fully assess the security which would undoubtedly be required by the County if the permit is granted. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsection (5)(b). It is our opinion that any requested special use must comply with the above information in full. This also includes the provision of 120 days in which to begin and continue the special use, if granted. It is the prerogative of the applicant as to whether or not this particular application should go to a public hearing. In all candor, in its present condition, we feel the County would have no course of action except to deny the request. If the applicant wishes to withdraw the application, the full application fee of $500.00 will be refunded. RAW/kay CC -Board of County Commissioners Attorney Gerald Rartert Sincerely, W. C. Milner Building Official asi 1 Robert A. Witkowski Planning Director Aeptember 17, 1975 Welborn, Dufford, Cook & Brown Attorneys at Law 1518 United .bank Center Denver, Colorado 80202 Attn: Mr. Philip G. Dufford Re: Special Use Permit Application of Cobert p.. Rcgrrow and CF&I Steel Corporation Dear Mr. Dufford: The following information regarding ytha present special use request is meant t4;0q ASi ,clarify, the x Latus. °f •Cif ,C o . permit request and should be . p ee situs of the to you dated September 16,tiered as suplemertta�j to �y letter Upon receipt of the CF&I's a -. . staff with the result beingtbq n foo was. reviey,►ed by the County of September 16th. Any t .e „information ,s ci:fied �ona1 review, of the X�,to letter the establishment of a h pe-r�t, include possible, hearing to 'oul d pecessi,tate the following action on the part of the a (1) Submission of the information as spec,tfi.ec ,.fin the_ letter of the 16th. (2) A withdrawal of the requeSt pf. the, Board of COu'uty- . Commissioners to waive the 120. day, eJ'pi.ration, limit contained in the zoningArd'jXrance as requested in your letter of application., . _ hope this clarifies the status of CF$.rs. ,rpquetst and any uesti you might have regarding the same. n , q ons zf there is any further information you .feel yot• APO, pease don' hesitate to contact me. t RAW/ka y Sincerely, Robert A. Witkowski Planning Director CC -Board of County Commissione,rs Attorney G. Hartert County Planner Garfield County Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601 Dear Sir: GARFIELD co[ PLANNER Rt. 1, Box 93-A Grand Valley, Colo. 81635 Oct. 15, 1975 The Colorado chapters of the National Speleological Society (dedicated to the exploration, study and conserva- tion of caves) have learned this summer that extensive mining claims have been recorded within the last two years in the Deep Creek area near Dotsero, under the names Deep Creek, Day Break, High Noon, Sun Down, and Mid Night. According to the Glenwood Post of Sept. 11, 1975, C.F.&I. has an option, expiring in October, on 5,100 acres of this land for limestone quarrying, and has applied to the County for a special use permit. We are extremely concerned about these claims, as well as the adjacent High Road claims held by Holly Sugar Co., and urge you not to grant any permits for quarrying in this area. We particularly desire that no such permits be granted without a public hearing. The geologists and consultants for these companies may not have been aware that the Leadville limestone on the White River Plateau, and particularly in the Deep Creek region, is one of the most significant areas of natural caves in the western United States. Some of the Mid Night claims lie directly over Groaning Cave, the longest cave in Colorado and one of the two longest in the U.S. west of the Continental Divide. This cavern, still nbt completely explored, is estimated to have at least ten miles of passages, of which more than four miles have been surveyed. Within half a mile of Groaning Cave are two other known caves each having on the order of a mile of explored passage. Parts of these caves are highly decorated. Many smaller caves are found throughout the region, and at least two of these are known to be within the claims under C.F.&I. option. Long unknown caves, lacking natural entrances, probably exist in some areas under these claims. The locations of such caves cannot be predicted, except perhaps by costly geophysical research. However, Groaning Cave's ten miles of passages (including voids up to forty feet in diameter) occupy a block only 2,800 feet long and 1,000 feet wide. If this is any indication of conditions elsewhere in the area, the scale of cave development may be such as to cause trouble by collapses during quarrying. Aside from the threat of cave destruction, we are concerned about the damage massive quarrying would cause to the surface, in an area which is now pristine, very beautiful, largely de facto wilderness, and an important big game habitat. We do not believe it would be practical to rehabilitate the quarried area, particularly with a scale of oper- ations of the size suggested by the extent of the claims. The short growing season and complex vegetation types would make revegetation very difficult at best. For these reasons, we are strongly opposed to quarrying or strip mining anywhere on the White River uplift where quarries are not already established. We are now seeking to have the largest caves designated by the Forest Service as Geological Special Interest Areas. ((Action to this effect was approved by the former District Ranger in the late 1960s, when the extent of the caves first became known, but was not properly carried through.) We are also alerting the Colorado Open Space Council and the Sierra Club about the situation. Would you please keep us up to date on the status of this matter, and advise us of any additional ways in which we can support the preservation of this area? Yours, Fors Colorado Grotto, NSS QtriA.asL;.k Denver, Colo. Colo. School of Mines Grotto, NSS Golden, Colo. NSS Committee on Conservation Donald G. Davis EAGLE DISTRICT - ie1Ank 1976 Ranger `..........................— For. (Rnu) ------------------------— For. (Tmbr GDA Scaler Clerk COLORADO OPEN SPACE COUNCIL 1325 DELAWARE ST. QEW ER;COLO:-30204 303/573-9241 February 27, 1976 Mr. George Landrum Eagle District Ranger White River National Forest Fifth and Wall Street Eagle, CO 81651 Dear Mr. Landrum: The Colorado Open Space Council (COSC), a coalition of 25 citizen organizations with a cumulative membership of some 20,000, has long been interested in the preservation of important natural areas. COSC strongly supports the request to you by the Colorado Grotto of the National Speleological Society to withdraw from mineral entry the area of the White River National Forest known as the "Groaning Cave Area." This small section of land contains over seventy percent (70%) of the wild cave passageway known to exist in Colorado and includes the largest cave in the state, Groaning Cave. The value of this area as a scientific and aesthetic resource is incalculable. Mining of the immediate area or even nearby blasting could destroy or severely damage the caves. We therefore strongly urge you to withdraw the "Groaning Cave Area" from mineral entry and if existing claims have been filed on this area to make every effort to prevent mining operations from taking place. COSC would like to be informed of any action taken on this withdrawal and on any occurrence which threatens the caves in this area. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MCT/bmc Yours very truly, COLORADO OPEN SPACE COUNCIL /ls' -C - 1/4/27c Mary C. Taylor, Pfesident a state-wide environmental coordinating council CF&I STEEL CORPORATION A subsidiary of Crane Co. P. 0. Box 316, Pueblo, Colo. 81002 J. N. MATHESON Director of Mining December 3, 1975 Mr. Donald G. Davis Rt. 1, Box 93-A Grand Valley, Colorado 81635 Dear Mr. Davis: In your letter of October 24, 1975, to C. C. Crawford, president of CF&I Steel Corporation, you referred to an article in the Glenwood Post of September 11, 1975, from which you learned of an option CFSI had to purchase some claims in Garfield County. You will be interested to learn that the claims involved did not include the Mid Night group of claims. Although the exploration drilling performed did not encounter any caves, we have taken the added precaution of having a controlled test run under very similar circumstances. This test that was run by a consulting geophysicist has shown that not only will no harm come to underground passages, but the effect of quarrying operations, including the use of explosives, will not be perceptible in the underground passages as near as 1,300 feet away. It was estimated that quarrying operations of the size contemplated by CFF,I would disturb on average an acre of ground per year. I'm sure you will agree, Mr. Davis, that such a disturbance will have veru little impact on an area of 5,100 acres. CF&I Steel owns and has operated various facilities in many parts of the western states. It has always conformed to laws and regulations in the various locations. As a natural -resource company, we share your concern in the conservation of the land and all of its resources. Yours very truly, r� e GROUPS: AEran • BOULDER • BOULDER JUNIOR • DENVER • DENVER JUNIOR • EL PUEBLO • PORT COLLINS LONGS PGK • • PIKES PEAK • SAN JUAN • WESTERN GLOP[ TELEPHONE 922-833$ 2530 W. Alameda Ave. DENVER, COLORADO 80219 Or,ICc HOUR, MONDAY TNRV IRIDAY9 A. R. TO 2,.N. ANO TOPCOAT AND THUI{GAY EVvNINO. , TO I I.N. December 9, 1975 Mr. George Landrum Eagle District Ranger White River National Forest 5th and Wall Street Eagle, Colorado 81631 Dear Mr. Landrum: L/ts On December 2, 1975 the Colorado Mountain Club, through its Conservation Committee, voted to endorse the efforts of the Colorado Grotto of National Speleological Society to obtain permanent protection for the Groaning Cave Area located in Sectionsl8, 19 and 30 of T.4S., R.87W. The Groaning Cave Area contains the largest cave in Colorado and approximately 70% of all the combined mapped cave passages in Colorado which are available to the general public. As you are well aware, this unique area has seen recent extensive mineral exploration and is currently being threatened by possible limestone quarrying operations. We, therefore, urge you to withdraw from mineral entry the Groaning Cave Area (as defined by the Colorado Grotto) and take all available steps to nullify existing claims within the area. GEP/mm cc: Jerry Hassemer 531 South Simms Street Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Very truly yours, i Glenn E. Porzak, Chairman Conservation Committee U. S. Department of Agriculture Forret Srrvicr REQUEST FOR MINEltAL EXAMINATION MINING LOCATION Ref; FSM 2811.5 PLACE PRF.r'ARED Eagle Ranger District, White River N.F. DATE 1 March 10, 1976 INSTRUCTIONS: Submit this form in duplicate, but furnish only one copy of attachments, 1. Name of claims) —_-- __- See Attached: Midnight Group, Day Break Group, Highnoon Group 2. Name and address of claimant(s) Midnight Group - Robert A. & Cynthia M. Scarrow, 116 Virginia Road, Glenwood Springs, Day Break Group 1t Highnoon Group r Colorado 81601 (l --de oer ec— — 3. Rind of elnim op/—ar) -- Placer (Lime Stone) 4. LucnU un--'— ---' _ Of elalni(s)Srction Township _.____ __. Range Meridian See Attached Describe haw c l ai m is ntu-ked on the ground Wood Posts and Lathe County Office Garfield (See Attached) Bonk 7. Rnasoa for request Verify mineral locatability for potential mineral withdrawal. Possible conflict of limestone quarrying with extensive cave area, developed campground and developed overlook. 1'n ge a. Attachments (Supplemental memoranda ba needed; copies of recorded Location notice, amended locations, and Ironafrr in6lnimonfs, with book, page, and office of record; maps, etc.) Map and sheet showing claims information. 9. Remarks Colorado Fuel and Iron (Mr. John Robertson) Box 316 Mgr.,Mines and Quarries Pueblo, CO 81002 Ph. 561-6622 REQUESTED--->• APPROVED --,- 6r0 9:b.842 Core drilled in 4 locations in Sec. 29, T4S, R87W in 1975. Highnoon Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Day Break No. 6 TITLE District Ranger TITLE Forest Superrl.or 2800-4 11 /61) March 19, 1976 Mr. Jerry H. Hassemer 531 South Simms Street Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Dear Mr. Hassemer: Mr. Donald Davis was in my office a couple of weeks ago inquiring about C.F. & I. limestone quarry. At thtt time, there was no activity in activating this permit. Since that time, I have met with Mr. George Landrum of White River National Forest about a requdst from C.F. & I. to extract approximately 200 tons of. rock from the claims for testing. To date they or the owners of the claims have not made a formal request to this office for the necessary permits for _this operation_. _ As I explained to Mr. Davis, if we receive an application we will need all the reports and material we can put, together to evaluate. the request. The final decision on whether to grant or. deny a permit is a decision frnmmthe Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing and the more material received fox or against will help in the de&¢sion. We would be most appreciative to receive all the material on Groaning Cave or any suggestion you might have to help in our recommendation to the Commissioners. Thank you for your concern and if we may be, of any_ assistance please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, WCM/kay W. C. Milner Building Official W. B. Milner Building Inspector, Garfield Gounty 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 In reference to the C? & I Dotsero Limestone Quarry Dear Mr. Milner, Last October 27 I talked to you about the CF & I operations, or permit for, on the White River Plateau. You had also received a letter from Donald Davis expressing his concern about the effects of any quarrying operations on caves in the vicinity. At that time you mention that the Garfield County Planning Office was sort -of opposed to these quarrying operations and that if any renewed permit applications were received you would be in touch with Donald Davis. Last week Donald Davis told me that he had been to the County Planning Office and that someone(s) in that office had seen the report submitted to George Landrum, White River National Forest, Eagle District, by the Colorado Grotto about Groaning Cane and a request for withdrawal from mineral entry of the area surrounding it. The persons Donald had talked with stated that they could use a oopy of this report to aid in evaluating any future requests for quarrying operations in that area. I am presently assembling a Dopy of this report, minus the photographs, for such use but would like to have the correct office address and person to whom it should be sent. I would appreciate this information by return mail if possible. JERRY H. HASSEMER 531 SOUTH SIMMS STREET LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228 303-986-7907 March 16, 1976 MAR 1 6 1976 I _ GARFIELD CO. PLANNER Thank you, JERRY H. HASSEMER 531 SOUTH SIMMS STREET LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228 303-986-7907 March 23, 1976 Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attn: Mr. W. C. Milner In reference to the C.F. & I. Dotsero limestone operations On behalf of the Colorado Grotto of the National Speleological Society, I am enclosing a copy of the report on the Groaning Cave Area and cover letter to Mr. George Landrum from the Colorado Grotto, Nov. 5, 1975. This material is being sent to you as an aid in evaluating any requests for quarry operations on the White River Plateau. The; Groaning Cave Area is defined on a map attached to the letter to Mr. Landrum and is about 2 miles northwest of Willow Peak. The enclosed copy of the Groaning Cave Area report dose not contain the color photographs as mention in the report. These were not immediately available but could be forwarded at a later date if your Planning Department believes that they will be of help. It may also be possible to arrange a slide show of the eaves in the Groaning Area for the Planning Department but it would have to be in the evening. Additional information about the caves on the White River Plateau can be found in a recent book Caves of Colorado by Lloyd E. Parris, especially pages 139 thru 172. I might add that the members of the Colorado Grotto are opposed to any distur— bance of the surface of the White River Plateau, not only for the adverse effect it will have on the caves there but also for the fact that this area would be permanently destroyed as a recreational area for the temporary use of a common mineral. Sincerely, vY Jer$y H. Hassemers for the Colorado Grotto, NSS GARFIELUR CO. I LANNE tSr. George Landrum Eagle District Ranger White River National Forest 5th & Wall Street Eagle, Colorado 81631 Dear Lir. Landrum: COLORADO GROTTC NAL SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY % John Stroicr 7144 Winona Street/ Westminster, Colo. 80030 November 5, 1975 Several individual cavers have been in contact with you concerning the future status of the land area surrounding Groaning and Fixin'-To-Die Cavos. This letter, written on behalf of the Colorado Grotto of the National Speleological Society, states the position and concern of tho Colorado Grotto, the largest organized caving group in Colorado, with regard to the preservation of this area. The location of the concerned area, within the Eagle District of the White River National Forest, is shown on the accompanying map. The two slashed areas outline the location of mapped cave passages in Groaning and Fixin'-To- Die Cavos. The heavy line outlines the minimum area considered essential for the preservation of those caves. This area encompasses about two-thirds of a square mile and is referred to as the Groaning Cave Area. The Groaning Cave Area contains the largest cave in Colorado, Groaning Cave, and about 50% of all the combined mapped cave passages within Colorado as well. The mapped passage length of the eaves within the Groaning Cave Area is over 29,000 feet. Host of this passage is crawlways and hig, narrow fissures con- necting large halls decorated with the usual spelothems. ILdescription of Groaning Cave, with color photographs and a map showing the locations of the photographs, accompanies this letter. The report as well presents some infor- mation regarding Fixin'-To-Die Cave and Wednesday Afternoon Cave, with a map of the former. Within the past year there has been extensive, mineral exploration near and in the Groaning Cave Area. It is the understanding of the Colorado Grotto that this work is for the determination of the suitability of the Leadville Limestone (which contains the caves) for quarry operations,in the near future. Such quarrying would not only destroy the land surface of this popular area, but it would also destroy the caves. Even nearby blasting would substantially damage the caves by inducing extensive rockfalls The destruction of the caves Hr. George Landrum Page 2 November 5, 1975 within the Groaning Cave Area would not only be a devastating blow to the sport of caving here in Colorado by eliminating about 70% of the cave passage available to the general public (about 20% of the cave passage in Colorado is private end closed to the public) for sport caving but is also contrary to the multiple use concept of the National Forest Service. We understand that an area above Groaning Cave either has been or is in the process of being designated a Special Interest Geologic Area. However such designation does not afford adequate protection. The Colorado Grotto therefore requests that the unique Groaning Cave Area, in parts of sections 18, 19, and 30 of T. 4 5., R. 87 W., as defined on the attached map, be made unavailable for mineral development, i.e. withdrawn from mineral entry, as soon as possible. If mining claims already exist in the Groaning Cave Area, it is requested that every possible means be taken to nullify such claims. The Colorado Grotto also requests that it be informed by the Forest Service of any action taken on this request for withdrawal. If the Colorado Grotto can be of any further assistance to the National Forest Service in this matter, please contact us. The Grotto will also furnish what data are avail— able regarding other caves within the White River National Forest to assist in any other management problems relating to cave use. Sincerely yours, Tom Taylor Chairman Colorado Grotto, NSS Enclosure: The Groaning Cave Area p showing_1the� locwtion of ,t the J L • 2020 Hermosa Boulder, Co. May 9, 1976 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Dear Sirs: ..0 L; . ti x � e, Dr. 80 31OUTING SLID r/ Hill Gef'iao +c UUdi r4' Return to \►N .N.�N nwr I am writing to you in regard to proposed quarrying operations in the Deep Creek -Willow Peak area of the White River Plateau. I am deeply concerned about any surface disturbance to one of the few remaining wilder- nesses in Colorado. It has come to my attention that Colorado Fuel and Iron has applied for a permit to mine a sample in the area. I feel that any surface disturbance in the area would be detrimental to the wildlife and general beauty of the Plateau. It would also promote the destruction of the varied outdoor recreation in the area. Therefore, I urge you not to grant permission for quarrying of any sort on the White River Plateau. We must preserve the Colorado wilderness now, before it becomes virtually nonexistant. Sincerely, Go AA J Tim Hubbard :_. <..Li APR 1 c 1976 11 GARFIELD CO. PLANNER ; Garfield County Planning Office Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601 Dear Sir or Madam; Department of Psychology University of Denver Denver, Colorado 80210 April 15, 1976 It has come to my attention that the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation (G, F, &I) has placed mining claims in areas north and east of Willow Peak in Garfield County, and that these claims enclose land in the National Forest as well as BLM and privately owned land. Similarly, Holly Sugar has claims south and southwest of Willow Peak in National Forest land. I strongly object to this; National Forest land is important wilderness land, and must not be taken over by mining concerns. We must protect wilderness areas; once lost, they are gone forever. To use this land for mining purposes, especially in the manufacture of refined sugar, a totally useless,Wa$teful,and potentially nutritionally harmful product, would be a crime against the people of Colorado and America. I hope that you will take the needs of the people into consideration in your planning of land use. Thank you. Sincerely, -SAAR. 0, &L4 - Susan D. Baillet 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 September 16, 1975 Welborn, Dufford, Cook & Brown Attorneys at Law 1518 United Bank Center Denver, Colorado 80202 Attn: Mr. Philip G. Dufford r s_ 191575 I' GARFIELD l;,':i.'iY T;•;"'' Re: Special Use Permit Application of Robert D. Scarrow and CF&I Steel Corporation Dear Mr. Dufford: PHONE 945-8212 The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the County's position regarding the CF&I Steel Corporation's application for a special use permit. It is the opinion of the staff and the Board of County Commissioners that the information supplied regarding the quarry operation is substantially deficient. According to Section 4.03.07 and 4.03.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, industrial applications for special use permits must submit a thorough and complete assessment of the operational characteristics of the proposed use, its potential environmental impacts and those measures to be taken in abatement of those environmental impacts. Specifically, in the case of a use as significant as is proposed in the CF&I permit, this would include: 1. Base information would be required indicating the present status and condition of the various natural systems that would be affected, in order to establish a standard by which to judge the degree of environmental degradation. Those systems would include, but not necessarily be limited to, sub- surface and surface water bearing structures and streams, their supply, quality, present use, etc... air quality; vegetative communities; wildlife use patterns, migration routes and critical areas. Mr. Philip G. Rufford Page 2 Specific quarry operations and construction schedule, as required in Section 4.03.07 Subsection (1), would be required in order for the applicant to: (a) Outline the total area of land, both federally owned and private, that would be included within the quarry operation. Currently, the federal land does fall within a zone catagory under our County Zoning ordinance. As a legal matter of zoning the potential quarrying on federal lands must be included in the impact statement, and as a practical matter the full extent of any potential quarrying operation must be addressed. (b) Identify with accuracy and fairness the areas in which conflicts with the environment and existing recreational resources of the area will occur, and the degree to which those conflicts will occur in the specific activities. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4). (c) Detail the proposed method of material transpor- tation and location of utility andtransportation corridors. Assessment of the impact of construc- tion of transportation structures or roads in the designated corridors, and any evidence of considerat±n of alternative corridors. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsection (1) and (2) and 4.03.12 (d) Assess the impact upon county roads to include Garfield County, Eagle County and Forest Service roads which would require information as to movement over these roads as a result of exploration, construction of facilities, movement of equipment and personnel and actual quarrying operation. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsection (2) (e) Consider a revegetation plan at the time of review of the special use request. The operations that will involve surface disturbance, the overburden obtained, slope configuration, drainage structures or plan to be developed and the particulars involved in the actual revegetation process with regard to materials, method and maintenance. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsection (5) Philip G. Dufford /4,r t (f) (g) Include specific values for the various catagories as listed under the Industrial Performance Standards Reference: 4.03.08 Subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) , and (6) . Fully assess the security which would undoubtedly be required by the County if the permit is granted. Reference: 4.03.07 Subsection (5)(b). our opinion that any requested special use must comply with the information in full. This also'includesthe provision of 120 ,: in which to begin and continue the special use, if granted. t! :s the prerogative of the applicant as to whether or not this ,articular application should go to a public hearing. In all candor, :ts present condition, we feel the County would have no course t action except to deny the request. If the applicant wishes to • !!:,!raw the application, the full application fee of $500.00 will to refunded. CC -hoard of County CommissionersI/ Attorney Gerald Hartert Sincerely, W. C. Milner Building Official Robert R. Witkowski Planning Director disz SECTION I LOCATION OF THE QUARRY AND RELATED FACILITIES Quarry & Crushing Plant The limestone project for which a permit is sought will be located on a tract of land approximately 3 to 5 miles WNW of Dotsero, Colorado. The tract slopes upward from an elevation of approximately 6,500 feet on the east boundary to 10,000 feet in the NW corner. The entire tract is underlain by a 40- to 150 -foot thick stratum of metallurgical grade limestone which is covered with varying depths of overburden and which generlaly follows the monoclinal dip of the land to the east. Sl" The quarry will be located in the EZ of section 28, T. 4 S., R. 87 W. An initial area amounting to approximately 80 acres in the northeasterly portion of Tract No. 40 would comprise the active quarry site which will include topsoil storage area, drill roads, overburden stripping, and production benches. Initial production of metallurgical grade limestone will be scheduled at a rate of 300,000 tons per year. Limestone will be quarried from 30 -foot high benches. These benches will proceed up a slope surface which dips to the northeast at about 13 degrees. Initial drilling indicates a thin layer of overburden 5 to 20 feet which will minimize requirements for waste disposal. As shown in the q`,��'ro(6�2z the quarry and the crushing and screeningnfacilities willibit 6, �be via aac65-footwwide haulroad which trends easterly at a minus five -percent grade. Conventional quarrying methods will be used; i.e., drilling with medium-sized rotary drills, blasting with water -gel and ANFO blasting agents with millisecond delay periods to minimize ground vibrations. Primary blasting will normally occur on a three-week cycle with occasional small secondary shots for "toe" and boulders. Shot rock will be loaded by a 31/2- to 4 -yard shovel and/or front-end loader into 35- to 50 -ton trucks. This will be hauled 4500 feet to the primary crusher (located as shown in Exhibit B) for crushing to minus 4 inches. From the primary crusher, the minus 4 -inch product is conveyed by belt to an adjacent secondary crushing and screening plant. At this plant, the stone will be separated into different sizes and stored in piles for later blending and shipping. The screened fine material (-3/8 in.) will be discarded. Fine stone and overburden waste will be used to level parking and storage areas around the quarry and mill sites and to provide surfacing for the construction and maintenance of the main haul road. Excess waste stone will be disposed of in a draw east of the mill area, terraced, treated, and revegetated. The main haul road from the crusher to the railroad will trend easterly 6.4 miles with an alignment which provides for an average -9 percent grade. Location of this haul road is shown in Exhibit C. Additional location information may be found on Exhibit A. r /04:'i3Otte404/ 074 lr)p-perp «fes ? X47 2aor °;,;//4i L WA 1 r lie g!city" (24( 4 SCC — -5 30 — -2 - Transfer Feeder Facility Thirty-five to 50 -ton quarry trucks will haul the product limestone over the main haulroad to a transfer facility which will span the Colorado River at a point 0:6 mi. south of where the Forest Service Road No. 600 Junction meets the county road. This facility will consist of a conveyor belt in a tube or completely covered structure to loading facilities on the east side of the Colorado River. A detailed description and artist's sketch are shown in Exhibit D. The exact C location is still under study and will be co-ordinated with the D&RGW Railroad. A short spur will connect to the D&RGW's Dotsero/Denver cutoff. From there, the stone will be shipped to CF&I's Steel Plant in Pueblo, Colorado. Electric Power A ,substation at the mine site will be required to step down incoming primary voltage to the secondary voltages required by the Shovel and Mill equipment. The substation location is not final because ultimate location depends where the Holy Cross REA transmission line will enter the property. A possible location is shown in Exhibit B. This utility corridor would also include a telephone line. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Storage The location of underground storage tanks for 2,000 gallons of gasoline and 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel with the associated dispensing facilities are shown on Exhibit B. A small, separate, lubricatir ail and grease storage building will be located near the main shop's building. Shops and Office Facilities Two two-story metal Butler -type buildings will be located near the mill site as shown on Exhibit B. The shop building will be 50 by 80 feet and will be large enough to handle large quarry equipment inside. A parts warehouse will be incorporated into the shop facility. The office building will be 20 feet by 30 feet in size, and will be placed nearby the shop building. See Exhibit B. Stockpile and Storage Areas Sized stone stockpiles from the secondary crushing and screening portions of the mill will be located as shown on Exhibit B, and will ultimately cover approximately 40 acres, which will include loading and blending access ways between separate piles. The equipment area as shown is approximately 150 feet by 200 feet, and will be used for storageof large parts and items, such as drill steel and stems, fence posts, and lengths of pipe. • Explosives Magazine The storage of explosives require a very substantial building at a remote location • r10u on J 9-05 v✓r/SJ (Ah 47cc- — vl ice. Li i/Je. e/r-: i 1. � �� �"Lr.,:�F'2.,,. a 71 ,fes/9,5 7 -3 - from the mill and quarry sites, as set forth by state and federal regulations. An underground facility set into a hillside may be feasible if ground water can be avoided, and roof conditions assured. Final site selection is under study. See Appendix 1. Conveyors All outside conveyor belts used to transport stone will be covered to protect them and the stone from the weather, and to control dust. Water Water for quarry operations will be obtained from on-site wells and/or ditches and catchment basins. Primary use of approximately 40,000 gpd will be for allaying dust. Potable water for personnel use will either be developed onsite from wells or delivered. Surface water rights acquired with the property will be ample for primary uses. No significant effect on stream flow, natural drainages, or ground water is foreseen. Construction Phase The schedule plan forconstruction of the project is presently planned in four annual phases, as shown in the project schedule. Phase I consists mainly of engineering, preliminary mill -site preparation, preliminary haulroad construction, and detailed drilling on the quar- site. Phase II consists of installation of fuel storage, completion Sd-hauluad construction, construction of a conveyor across the Colorado River, and construction of the rail spur and loading tipple. Phase I (1977): A. Engineering: 1. Haulroad alignment and structures 2. Mill -site layout 3. Railroad spur and loading facilities 4. Transfer feeder B. Preliminary Construction: 1. Clearing and rough -in of haulroad alignment 2. Mill -site clearing and topsoil stockpiling 3. Installation of fuel storage 4. Installation of septic tanks. Phase II (1978): 1. Construction of major haulroad structures and road surfacing. 2. Clearing of quarry site and topsoil stockpiling. 3. Initial quarry stripping and bench layout. 4. Rough -in of roads to waste dumps and powder magazine. 5. Excavations and footings for transfer conveyor and loadout facilities. 6. Drilling of water well(s) and completion of catchments. 7. Fencing of haulroad, mill site and storage areas. 8. Layout and construction of office building. -4 - Phase III (1979): 1. Install substation and utilities. ‘o, <,f ;), 32 2. Layout of buildings for shop and oil storage. 3. Continue bench development and stripping. 4. Rough -in of storage areas and waste disposal area. 5. Install transfer conveyor and loadout facilities. 6. Layout of primary crusher and mill installation. 7. Delivery of three trucks, drill and loader. Phase IV (1980): 1. Primary crusher installation. 2. Secondary crusher and screening construction. 3. Stockpile storage initiated. 4. Primary blasting for limestone production. 5. Powder magazine construction. 6. Final construction of shop building and warehouse. 7. Shovel delivery and setup. 8. Initial production. /44' r � � ,>r ii?) For further construction details, consult the Project Schedule in Appendix 2. Heavy construction and rough grad4 g of roads, mill site, and quarry site, all of which lie at elevations of 8,000+ feet, will usually not be started until June of any year, to allow for Afalting of snow cover and subsequent drying out. Similarly, most work will cease in the latter part of October because of freezing conditions. Work at the lower elevations can start earlier and run later in most years. -5 - SECTION II PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT Vegetation Impact Impact on vegetation during the construction phases will be considerable, but will only be temporary. The Reclamation Plan (Appendix 3) describes the various reclama- tion steps to be taken during and after construction, and goes into detail concerning procedures that will be followed in the quarrying phase. Wildlife Impact Large game animals, such as deer, elk, and bear, as well as grazing livestock, frequent the area. Experience at other locations in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, demonstrate that wildlife is disturbed only minimally, since they are often observed during the day watching operations from or near cover. Operations have been halted at times to allow deer to cross roads and bears to wander through the mill and office areas. Small predators, such as eagles, hawks, foxes, and bobcats may become more numerous due to the higher population of small prey, such as mice, ground squirrels, and chipmunks, which are attracted to the more secure habitat provided by the rocks and boulders around the quarry site. In the more arid areas, small catchment basins created during operations provide water for large and small animals, game, and song birds. Most wildlife go to water at dawn and dusk, or during the night-time hours, when operations are shut down. Th -re will be no impact on wildlife migration routes. Stream and Water Quality The operation will not alter any natural drainage patterns and will not create or destroy water tributary to the natural drainage of the area. Siltation from disturbed areas will be controlled adequately by diversion bars, catchment basins or "tanks" which will settle out any unusual amounts of sediments. Culverts and other structures will allow normal runoff to by-pass the haulroad. Industrial and human wastes will be collected in an approved fashion in septic or holding tanks for neutralization and/or recycling in compliance with county and state codes, including the standards of the Colorado State Department of Health. Solid wastes, cardboard, paper, glass, and metal that cannot be recycled will be disposed of by landfill methods on the site, or-bur4e4-with-write-rock-tet the -dump hole -when --actual wa Erosion of the waste rock disposal area will be mitigated largely by the continuous covering of the completed areas with topsoil, fertilization, and reseeding with grasses and forbs. (See Appendix 3.) �+ di A' -1-c <o �� N/C''GG'L.!'Z -6 - Visual and Aesthetic Impact The location of the mill and quarry sites have been chosen so that casual observa- tion of them is unlikely, except from the air. Some of the proposed haulroad can be seen from a few vantage points on Forest Service Road 600. The transfer conveyor across the Colorado River will be visible from the Colorado River Road. A before - and -after comparison of views from this road can be made by viewing the photograph of the undisturbed site (Fig. 3, Exhibit D), and a computer drawing of the proposed facility. In all cases, building materials and colors will be selected to harmonize as much as possible with the natural surroundings. The Reclamation Plan is designed to further reduce the visual impact of the project by landscaping and planting of native vegetation in disturbed areas to harmonize with surrounding terrain. Noise Impact Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is measured as pressure, and for convenience is expressed in decibels (db). Since the sensitivity of the human ear varies with sound frequencies, a scale has been devised which emphasizes the frequencies at which the human ear is more sensitive. This scale is known as the "A Scale" and measured levels are expressed in units of dba. The accompanying table shows dba for various common -sound sources. Due to the logarithmic nature of the A Scale, a 10 - decibel increase in noise level is heard as an approximate doubling in loudness. Within the confines of the mill and quarry zone fences, the noise attendant with blasting and the operation of equipment is not expected to exceed the L-10 ambient noise level of 75. (The L-10 levet is that which is exceeded 10% of the time.) At the property boundaries, ambient and operating noise levels will be about 62 dba, well below the 90 dba maximumset by Section 4.03.08(1) of the Zoning Resolution. No significant adverse effects on adjacent land use due to noise will occur from operation of this project. Vibration The blasting will not result in any vibrations perceptible without instruments at any point along the boundaries of the property, and there will be no hazards generated by the blasting operations outside the immediate area of the quarry site. All blasting will be conducted in accordance with state and federal regulations. Impact on Certain Caves in the Leadville Limestone Formation Concern has been expressed about possible damage quarrying operations might have on nearby natural caves which occur in the Deep Creek Region of the White River Plateau. One of these, Groaning Cave, is the longest cave in Colorado and one of the two longest caves in the western United States. This cave may have up to ten miles of passageways, four miles of which have been surveyed as of October 1975. These passages occupy a block only 2,800 feet long and 1,000 feet wide. This block is located two miles WNW from the proposed quarry site. • -7- CF&I shares the concern of the Colorado chapters of the National Speleological Society. In order to determine what effects might occur, a controlled test was conducted in the Leadville limestone formation at Monarch Quarry in 1975. In this test, old existing underground tunnels were instrumented to monitor the effects of a production scale blast. A consulting geophysicist's report is attached as Appendix No. 3. This test work indicated no perceptible effects in underground passages as near as 1300 feet from the blast. ., _ —,2te, y Based on the results of the Monarch testing, we do not expect any damage to the immediate area. To verify this, the effects of blasting, gradually increasing to production scale shots, will be closely monitored during the preliminary phases of Dotsero quarry development. Dust, Smoke, and Particulates Smoke and dust from blasting will be of very short duration, and will be confined to the immediate area of the quarry site. Minor amounts of smoke will come from the diesel engines of the haul trucks and other equipment, along with smoke from the heating furnaces for the office and shop buildings. Dust from the handling of crushed stone will be allayed by water spray control at transfer points and covered belt conveyors. Dust from the haul road will be minimized by wetting from water spray tankers. Colorado law limits smoke and dust opacity to less than 20 percent by reference to the Ringleman Smoke Chart attache as Appendix No. 4 in Bureau of Minns I.C. No. 7718.` Traffic Impact Atm" in�A r,�, A11 quarry traffic pertaining to operations for which a permit is sought will occur on a private road. All casual public traffic will be denied for safety reasons. The private road will cross, by means of an overpass, Forest Service Road No. 600 at one point only. This private haul road will be constructed to meet or exceed all applicable federal, state, and county regulations. Traffic will be increased on arterial highways by approximately 30 vehicles per day by employees coming to and leaving from work. Car pooling would reduce this to some extent. Heat, Glare, Radiation and Fumes There will be no radiation and negligible emission of heat and glare. There will be some emission of exhaust fumes from diesel -powered equipment, but no adverse effects are foreseen. Visual and Aesthetic Impact The location of the mill and afry sites have been chosen so t casual observa- tion of them is unlikely, e apt from the air. Some of t roposed haulroad can be seen from a few vantag points on Forest Service Ro 600. The transfer conveyor across the Colorado Rivft will be visible from the orado River Road. A before - and -after comparison of views from this road can made by viewing the photograph of the undisturbed site (Fig. 3, Exhibit D), a a computer drawing of the proposed facility. In all cases, building materials d colors will be selected to harmonize as much as possi le with the natural surro ridings. The Reclamation Plan is designed to further re Gce the visual impact of t� project by landscaping and planting of native vegetation in disturbed areas to/harmonize with surrounding terrain. Economic Impact,,_ Present plans call for a work force of about thirt,,persons. This work force would come primarily from surrounding communities and would impose no excessive burdens on educational or housing facilities. Certain supplies and services such as, gasoline, diesel fuel, electric power, small parts, and tools will be purchased locally which would be a favorable economic impact. It should be noted that since all facilities will be on private land, county services, such as road maintenance, will not be required. With this project, the county tax base will be extended to an as yet unknown extent. Alternative Haulage Several haulage schemes were considered before the final selection of all truck haulage viz: (1) All conveyor belt; (2) Part truck, part belt; (3) Aerial tram; and (4) All truck. Aerial trams were discounted early for three reasons: (a) Excessive length; (b) Small capacity as per (a); and (c) Lack of versatility. Conveyor belt haulage as in (1) and (2) was discounted because of three factors: (a) Versatility - in case of breakdown all production ceases until repairs are made; (b) High first cost for installation; and (c) Excessive environmental and visual impact due to the belt structure itself plus the need for an access road along the entire length for maintenance. Supportive foundations would also be required about every 40 feet. This, plus the movements of the belt itself would have more adverse effects on the wildlife of the area than any other choice. Truck haulage is much more flexible and versatile from both an operating and maintenance standpoint and would be more environmentally acceptable. The adverse environmental effects of truck over conveyor would be road dust from haulage and some exhaust emissions. The haul road will be kept wetted to control the dust and proper engine maintenance will keep exhaust emissions to low levels. The trucks will operate entirely on CF&I's private haul road. Fences The quarry area (approximately 8r ;res), the mill site (approximately 80 acres) and the haul road (approximatel1 61 acres) will be fenced to control grazing cattle. This fence will be of 48 -inch -5 -wire barbed wire construction with stretchers. These fences will pose no problems to wildlife, but will keep cattle out of the active areas of the operation. North to south movements of cattle will be allowed by gates at the option of the grazing lessee. East to west movements will not be hindered to any appreciable extent. APPENDIX 3 The reclamation plan for the proposed Dotsero Mine must be divided phases and each treated independently of the other. Phase I deals with the reclamation of disturbed areas in the haul road construct Phase II deals with reclamation procedures during and after actual the quarry site. into two exclusively ion. mining at It should be noted that CF&I has entered into contract with Colorado State University, Department of Range Science, to evaluate mine wastes from dolomite, limestone, and underground coal mines and their suitability as plant growth media and to determine the most suitable method of reclamation for each waste product. Although road excavation cuts and fills may or may not fall within the "waste product" category, the information gained in these experiments will be helpful in determining the proper type of reclamation methods to be used. Phase I Haul Roads The haul road to the quarry will be approximately 7.5 miles in length and 65 feet in width. This road will traverse many types of terrain and pose several unique reclamation problems. Reclamation for a spoil pile, compacted fill area, and a near vertical high wall all differ in procedures and must be considered individually. All vegetation in the right of way that will interfere with the haul road construction will be removed and disposed of in areas not visible from any roadway, by burying in areas designated as spoil areas or by burning. Every effort will be made to minir the destruction of vegetation during the construction phase. Adequate amounts of topsoil will be removed from the right of way and stockpiled for reclamation purposes. This topsoil will be used to prepare seed beds along the haul road where insufficient amounts of topsoil may exist. The haul road construction will rigidly adhere to road construction standards. All fills will be properly compacted. to prevent sliding and/or subsiding. Fill slopes will be no greater than the ratio of 1.5:1 or an angle of 33.7 degrees. Cuts of any magnitude, in excess of 20 feet in height, will be either stepped off in benches or properly sloped to prevent or contain slides. The roadway will be properly ditched to take care of water runoff. A road patrol will be provided for road maintenance after completion of the haul road. Prior to seeding, topsoil will be properly placed and a seed bed prepared. Haul road slopes and high walls will be revegetated by one of several approved methods, by hand, hydro -mulched or aerial method. Current plans call for use of a hydro-mulcher. A hydro-mulcher can mulch, fertilize, and seed approximately ? acre in eight (8) to ten (10) minutes. This machine can also be used for irrigation and to water roads. Initial vegetation will be started as soon as possible following reshaping of slopes to their final configuration and will continue as long as necessary to insure regeneration of the applied species. Native mixtures will be used where possible unless imported mixtures prove to be superior in adaptation and regeneration qualities. Phase II. Quarry Site The purpose of the quarry site reclamation plan is to stabilize disturbed lands, reduce downstream damage that might occur from runoff water and sediment and rehabilitate lands for wildlife habitation. All vegetation that will interfere with the mining cycles will be disposed of in areas designated for this purpose. Topsoil will be stockpiled for future use in connection with the reclamation cycle. Roads and benches will be established to minimize disturbance of adjacent lands yet compatible with good mining practices. The initial phase of waste disposal calls for establishing a waste dump east of the proposed mill area. Waste material will also be hauled back into the open pit and contoured. Reclamation will be a continuous process. As each phase of mining is started or completed, it has a limited impact on each phase of reclamation. Each phase of mining and reclamation shall be so co-ordinated that soon after a mined area is agandoned, it shall be ready for the final phase of reclamation. Seeding will be accomplished in the same manner as that used to seed roadway slopes and high walls. This will continue as long as necessary to insure adequate cover and regeneration of the applied species. Reclamation will not restore the disturbed area to its exact original contour. However, overburden stripping will be brought to worked out bench areas and dressed so that vertical high walls will be eliminated. Every effort will be made to make the vegetation on the mined out area compatible with that of the surrounding area and to minimize the adverse effect of mining on adjacent lands. Overburden waste will be placed in worked out bench areas as soon as adequate room has been developed in each mining phase. Finer waste from mill operations will be placed over the relatively coarser overburden waste and leveled. Finally, topsoil will be graded over all; compacted, harrowed and drilled or hydro - mulched with fertilized seed mixtures. Shrub and tree seedlings will be transplanted to more nearly conform with surrounding vegetation types. Ditching or furrowing will be used for the retention of natural precipitation if needed. Temporary irrigation will be available for seedling establishment. Fences will isolate reclamed areas from grazing livestock. Excess runoff will be diverted from waste and reclaim areas to avoid stream pollution and turbidity. See attached prospectus referred to in Paragraph 2 of Reclamation Plan. Lcroltirlect2 eenbrif 40i ereyfrr „ize_ LANDS WITHIN WHICH THE DOTSERO LIMESTONE QUARRY WILL BE LOCATED The actual affected land will amount to about 4,411 acres in Garfield County and 779 acres in Eagle County. The tract includes sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 33 and portions of section 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34 and 35 in T. 4 S., R. 87 W., of the 6th Principal Meridian in Garfield and Eagle counties, Colorado. As proposed, the quarry and quarry operation will lie in portionis locatedsinfsections About Eagle County and while none of EaglenCounty hland twillrbeal tused for the quarry, a haul road, transfer feeder, and rail -loading facility will be located in Eagle County. A precise legal description of the entire tract is as follows: Patented Land - Garfield Count , Colorado: A parcel of land situate in sections 22, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34 and 35 in T. 4 S., R. 87 W, 6th P.M., according to G.L.O. Resurvey approved January 30, 1933, said parcel consisting of approxi- mately 2,281 acres more or less in the following tracts and lots: Tracts nos. 37, also the SW;SW; said section 28 said section 34 said section 34. 38, ), 40, and Lot 11 , Lots 1 and and Lots 1, 41, 43, and 44 in said sections, in said section 27, Lot 7 in 4 in section 33, the WZNW', of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Together with all improvements thereon, and all ditch, water and reservoir rights appurtenant thereto and used in connection therewith, specifically including the water rights owned by Robert D. and Cynthia M. Scarrow in the Coffee Pot Ditch No. 221, Willow Spring Well, Bill Lee Spring and Stock Watering Tank, and J. L. Well. The patented land described above is shown on the Area Map submitted herewith (Exhibit A) and is outlined in red. The parcel of land excepted thereform is crosshatched. Unpatented Placer Mining Claims - Garfield and Eagle Counties, Colorado: There are unpatented placer mining claims located on approximately 1,459 acres of patented land (or on unpatented land as specifically noted) in Garfield County, Colorado: T. 4 S., R. 87 W., 6th P.M. Sundown No. 1 Section 33 (this claim lies entirely on unpatented land) Sundown No. 2 Sections 33 and 34 Sundown No. 3 Section 33 Sundown No. 4 Sections 33 and 34 (a portion of this claim also affects unpatented land) Sundown No. 5 Sections 33 and 34 Sundown No. 6 Section 34 (a portion of this claim also affects unpatented land) Sundown No. 7 Section 27 (a portion of this claim also affects unpatented land) Sundown No. 8 Section 28 ( a portion of this claim also affects unpatented land) Sundown No. 9 Sectinrs 27 and 34, and Sundown No. 10 Sec' as 27 and 34. There are also unpatented placer mining claims located on approximately 2,616 acres of federally owned land in Garfield and Eagle counties, Colorado: T. 4 S., R. 87 W., 6th P.M. High High High High High Deep Deep Deep Deep Noon No. 1 - Noon No. 2 - Noon No. 3 - Noon No. 4 - Noon No. 5 - Creek No. 1 Creek No. 2 Creek No. 3 Creek No. 4 Daybreak No. 1 Daybreak No. 2 Daybreak No. 3 Daybreak No. 4 Daybreak No. 5 Daybreak No. 6 Section 29, Garfield Section 29, Garfield Section 29, Garfield Section 20, Garfield Section 20, Garfield - Section 25, Eagle - Section 25, Eagle - Sections 23 and 24, Garfield and Eagle - Sections 22 and 23, Garfield - Sections 26 and 27, Garfield - Sections 22 and 27, Garfield - Sections 21 and 28, Garfield - Sections 21 and 28, Garfield - Sections 28 and 33, Garfield - Section 29, Garfield Daybreak No. - - Daybreak No. d - Daybreak No. 9 - Daybreak No. 10 Daybreak No. 11 Daybreak No. 12 Daybreak No. 13 Daybreak No. 14 Sections 26, 27, and 35, Garfield Section 26, Garfield Sections 26 and 35, Garfield - Section 26, Eagle - Section 35, Garfield and Eagle - Section 26, Eagle - Section 26, Eagle - Section 35, Eagle All of these mining claims are shown on the Area Map (Exhibit A) submitted herewith. Total area of patented lands in Garfield County together with unpatented placer mining claims in Garfield and Eagle counties is 5,190 acres. /1/4-, 9),,M.. _/ — ,rt_ 60Ac)C� ,r� t'tcf cr— LLei, 3 �6 6,, Q4/ A ) )0 May 24, 1977 CF&I Steel Corporation P.O. Box 847 Canon City, Colorado 81212 A t to : Mt. Curtis Miller Superintendent of Quarries Dear Curt: Please find enclosed a copy of the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 1977. The minutes were approved at a special meeting held on May 23rd. If you have any comments or questions, do not hesitate to contact this office. RAW/kay Enclosures Sincerely, Robert A. Witkowski Director (Reproduced by the Colorado Department of Health - May 1971) CHAPTER 36 ARTICLE 23 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND FACILITIES 36-23-1. Definitions. 36-23-2. Unlawful to operate site or fa- cility without certificate of designation. 36-23-3. Application for certificate. 36-23-4. Factors to be considered. 36-23-5. Licenses 36-23-6. Private disposal prohibited - when. 36-23-7. Designation of exclusive sites and facilities. 36-23-8. Contracts with governmental units authorized. 36-23-9. Department to promulgate rules and regulations. 36-23-10. Minimum standards. 36-23-11. (Repealed). 36-23-12. Departments to render assistance. 36-23-13. Revocation of certificate. 36-23-14. Facilities deemed public nuisance - - when. 36-23-15. Violation - - penalty. 36-23-16. County Solid Wastes disposal site and facility fund - tax. 36-23-17. (Repealed); 36-23-18. Effebtive Date -July 1, 1971 (Chapter 36, Article 23, CRS 1963 (Vol. 11 Perm. Cum. Supp. as amended in 1971 by Senate Bill 132, Effective July 1, 1971). 36-23-1. Definitions. - (1) as used in this act, unless the context other- wise indicates: (2) "Solid wastes" means garbage, refuse, sludge of sewage disposal plants, and other discarded solid materials, including solid waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial, and from community activities, but shall not include agricultural wastes. (3) "Department" means the department of health. (4) "Approved" site or facility means a site or facility for which a certificate of designation has been obtained, as provided in this act. (5) "Person" means an individual, partnership, private or municipal corporation, firm, or other association of persons. (6) "Solid wastes disposal" means the collection, storage, treatment, utilization, processing, or final disposal of solid wastes. (7) "Solid wastes disposal site and facility" means the location and facility at which the deposit and final treatment of solid wastes occur. (8) "Transfer station" means a facility at which refuse, awaiting trans- portation to a disposal site, is transferred from one type of collection vehicle and placed into another. (9) "Recyclable materials" means a type of material that is subject to re- use or recycling. (10) "Recycling operation" means that part of a solid wastes disposal facility or a part of a general disposal facility at which recyclable materials may be separated from other materials and for further processing. 36-23-2. Unlawful to operate site and facility without certificate of designation. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section on and after July 1, 1967, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate a solid wastes disposal site and facility in the unincorporated portion of any county without first having obtained therefor a certificate of designation from the board of county commissioners of the county in which such site and facility is located. (2) Any site and facility for the disposal of mill tailings, metallurgical slag, mining wastes, junk automobiles or parts thereof, or suspended solids collected, treated, or disposed of within a sanitary sewer system, in operation immediately prior to July 1, 1971, shall have until July 1, 1972, to comply with the provisions of this article and the rules and regulations adopted by the department. 36-23-3. Application for certificate. Any person desiring to operate a solid wastes disposal site and facility within the unincorporated portion of any county shall make application to the board of county commissioners of the county in which such site and facility is or is proposed to be located for a certifi- cate of designation. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty- five dollars which shall not be refundable, and shall set forth the location of the site and facility; the type of site and facility; the type of processing to be used, such as sanitary landfill, composting or incineration; the hours of operation; the method of supervision; the rates to be charged, if any; and such other information as may be required by the board of county commis- sioners. The application shall also contain such engineering, geological, hydrological, and operational data as may be required by the department by regulation. The application shall be referred to the department for review and for recommendation as to approval or disapproval, which shall be based upon criteria established by the state board of health, the state water pollution control commission, and the air pollution control commission. 36-23-4. Factors to be considered. (1) (a) In considering an application for a certificate of designation, the board of county commissioners shall take into account: (b) The effect that the solid wastes disposal site and facility will have on the surrounding property, taking into consideration the types of processing to be used, surrounding property uses and values, and wind and climatic conditions. (c) The convenience and accessibility of the Solid Wastes Disposak site and facility to potential users. (d) The ability of the applicant to comply with the health standards and operating procedures provided for in this article and such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the department. (e) Recommendations by Local Health Departments. (2) (a) Except as provided in this article, designation of approved solid wastes disposal sites and facilities shall be discretionary with the board of county commissioners, subject to judicial review by the district court of appropriate jurisdiction. (b) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of designation, the board of county commissioners shall require that the report which must be submitted by the applicant under section 35-23-3 shall have been reviewed and a recommendation as to approval or disapproval made by the department and shall be satisfied that the proposed solid wastes disposal site and facility conforms to the compre- hensive county land use plan, if any. The application, report of the department, comprehensive land use plan, and other pertinent information shall be presented to the board of county commissioners at a public hearing to be held after notice. Such notice shall contain the time and place of the hearing and shall state that the matter to be considered is the applicant's proposal for a solid wastes disposal site and facility. The notice shall be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the county in which the proposed solid wastes disposal site and facility is located at least ten but no more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. 36-23-5. Licenses. If the board of county commissioners deems that a certificate of designation should be granted to the applicant, then it shall issue the certificate, and such certificate shall be displayed in a prominent place at the site and facility. The Board of county commissioners shall not issue a certificate of designation where the department has recommended dis- approval pursuant to section 36-23-3. 36-23-6. Private disposal prohibited - when. No private dumping of solid wastes shall be made on any property within the unincorporated portion of any county except on or at an approved site and facility; but private dumping of one's own solid wastes on one's own property shall not be subject to the provisions of this article as long as it does not constitute of public nuisance, endangering the health, safety, and welfare of others and so long as such dumping is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the department. 36-23-7. Designation of exclusive sites and facilities. The governing body of any city, city and county, or incorporated town may by ordinance designate and approve one or more solid wastes disposal sites and facilities, either within or without its corporate limits, if designated and approved by the board of county commissioners, as its exclusive solid wastes disposal site and facility or sites and facilities, and thereafter each such site and facility shall be used by such city, city and county, or town for the disposal used, surrounding property uses and values, and wind and climati conditions. (c he convenience and accessibility of the Solid:Waakes Disposal; site and facilio potential users. (d) The.Sbility of the applicant to comply/With the health standards and operating procedii �s provided for in this article end such rules and regulations as may be prescrtbed,;,by the department. N. (e) Recommendation by Local Health Departments. \; (2) (a) Except as provided in this/article, designation of approved solid wastes disposal sites and facilities shall be discretionary with the board of county commissioners, s .ject'to judicial review by the district court of appropriate jurisdiction.. (b) Prior to the issuanc of a ce ificate of designation, the board of county commissioners shall re lire,that th= report which must be submitted by the applicant under section/36-23-3 shall ha been reviewed and a recommendation as to approval or disappro al made by.the depar 'ent and shall be satisfied that the proposed solid waste: disposal site and facil conforms to the compre- hensive county land us: plan, if any. The appliaati•' report of the department, comprehensive land u - plan, and other pertinent inform: ion shall be presented to the board of cou ty commissioners at a public hearing e be held after notice. Such notice shall/contain the time and place of th&.hearing nd shall state that the matter o be considered is the applicant's proposal for a solid wastes disposal site d facility. The notice shall be published! n a newspaper having general circ ation in the county in which the proposed solid wastes disposal site and flity is located at least ten but no more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. 36-23-5. Licenses. If the board of county commissionarWedeems that a certificate of designation should be granted to the applicant, then it shall issue the certificate, and such certificate shall be.displayed in a prominent place at the sate and facility. The Board of county coysmissioners shall not issue a certificate of designation where the department has recommended dis- approval pursuant to section 36-23-3. 36-23-6. Private..diappsal prohibited - when. No private dumping of solid wastes shall be made on any,property'within the unincorporated portion of any county except on or at an approvedeite and facility; but private dumping of one's own solid wastes on one's!owtp 9perty shall not be subject to the provisions of this article ae%long as i toes not constitute of public nuisance, endangering the health, safety, and welfard Q& others and so long as such dumping is in accordancc/e/With the rules and regi,ationa of the department. 36-23-7. Desi ation of exclusive sites and i liti.es. The governing body of any city,/C.ty.and county, or incorporated to may by ordinance designate anda p'ove'one or more solid wastes disposal ites and facilities, either within ',Without its corporate limits, if designat d and approved by the board of unty commissioners, as its exclusive solid waces disposal site and facility or sites and facilities, and thereafter each -such site and facility shall be used by such city, city and county, or town for the disposal of its solid wastes; but prior to any such designation and approval, such governing body shall hold a public hearing to review the disposal method or methods to be used and the fees to be charged, if any. 36-23-8. Contracts with governmental units authorized. (1) An approved solid wastes disposal site and facility may be operated by any person pursuant to contract with any governmental unit. (2) Any city, city and county, county, or incorporated town acting by itself or in association with any other such governmental unit or units may establish and operate an approved site and facility under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governing bodies of the governmental units involved. In the event such site and facility is not operated by the governmental unit involved, any contract to operate such a site and facility shall be awarded on a competitive bid basis if there is more than one applicant for a contract to operate such site and facility. (3) Any city, city and county, county, or incorporated town acting by itself or in association with any other such governmental unit may acquire by condemnation such sites as are needed for trash disposal purposes. 36-23-9. Department to promulgate rules and regulations. (1) (a) The department shall promulgate rules and regulations for the engineering design and operation of solid wastes disposal sites and facilities, which may include: (b) The establishment of engineering design criteria applicable, but not limited, to protection of surface and subsurface waters, suitable soil characteristics, distance from solid wastes generation centers, access routes, distance from water wells, disposal facility on-site traffic control patterns, insect and rodent control, methods of solid wastes compaction in the disposal fill, confinement of windblown debris, recycling operations, fire prevention, and final closure of the compacted fill. (c) The establishment of criteria for solid wastes disposal sites and facilities which will place into operation the engineering design for such disposal sites and facilities. 36-23-10. Minimum Standards. (1) (a) The rules and regulations promulgated by the department shall subject to the provisions of section 6 contain the following minimum standards; (b) Such sites and facilities shall be located, operated, and main- tained in a manner so as to control obnoxious odors, prevent rodent and insect breeding and infestation, and shall be kept adequately covered during their use. (c) Such sites and facilities shall comply with the health laws, standards, rules and regulations of the department, the water pollution control commission, and all applicable zoning laws and ordinances. (d) No radioactive materials or materials contaminated by radio- active substances shall be disposed of in sites or facilities not speci- fically designated for that purpose. (e) A site and facility operated as a sanitary landfill shall provide means of finally disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner to minimize nuisance conditions such as odors, windblown debris, insects, rodents, smoke, and shall provide compacted fill material, adequate cover with suitable material and surface drainage designed to prevent ponding and water and wind erosion. 'prevent water and air pollution and, upon being filled, shall be left in a condition of orderliness, good esthetic appearance and capable of blending with the surrounding area. In the operation of such a site and facility, the solid wastes shall be distributed in the smallest area consistent with handling traffic to be unloaded, shall be placed in the most dense volume practicable using moisture and compaction or other method approved by the department, shall be fire, insect and rodent resistant through the appli- cation of an adequate layer on inert material at regular intervals and shall have a minimum of windblown debris which shall be collected regularly and placed into the fill. (f) Sites and facilities shall be adequately fenced so as to prevent waste material and debris from escaping therefrom, and material and 8ebris shall not be allowed to accumulate along the fence line. (g) Solid wastes deposited at any site or facility shall not be burned, provided, however, that in extreme emergencies resulting in the generation of large quantities of conbustible materials, authorization for burning under controlled conditions may be given by the department. 36-23-11. (Repealed) 36-23-12. Departments to renr':er acsistrce. The department and local health departments shall render Loenni ai edv'ee and services to owners and operators of solid wastes disposal sites and facilities and to municipalities and counties in order to assure that appropriate measures are being taken to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. In addition, the department shall have the duty to coordinate the solid wastes program under this article with all other programs within the department and with the other agencies of state and local government which are concerned with solid wastes disposal. 36-23-13. Revocation of certificate. The board of county commissioners, after reasonable notice and public hearing, shall temporarily suspend or revoke a certificate of designation that has been granted by it for failure of a site and facility to comply with all applicable laws, resolutions, and ordinances or to comply with the provisions of this article or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto. 36-23-14. Facilities deemed_public nuisance - when. Any solid wastes disposal site and facility found to be abandoned, or that is operated or maintained in a manner so as to violate any of the provisions of this article or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto shall be deemed a public nuisance, and such violation may be enjoined by a district court of competent jurisdiction in an action brought by the department, the board of county commissioners of the county wherein the violation occurred, or the governing body of the municipality wherein the violation occurred. 36-23-15. Violation penalt . Any person who violates any provision of this article shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this article shall preclude or preempt a city, a city and county, or an incorporated town from enforcement of its local ordinances. Each day of violation shall be deemed a separate offense under this section. 36-23-16. County solid wastes disposal site and facility fund - tax. Any county is authorized to establish a county solid wastes disposal site and facility fund. The board of county commissioners of such county may levy a solid wastes disposal site and facility tax, in addition to any other tax authorized by law, on any of the taxable property within said county, the proceeds of which shall be deposited to the credit of said fund and appropriated to pay the cost of land, labor, equipment, and services needed in the operation of solid wastes disposal sites and facilities. Any county is also authorized, after a public hearing, to fix, modify, and collect service charges from users of solid wastes disposal sites and facilities for the purpose of financing the operations at those sites and facilities. 36-23-17. (Repealed). 36-23-18. Effective date. July 1, 1971. 36-23-19. Safety clause. • March 10, 1976 Garfield County N M M V O N 0 a\ O u\ W x PA 51 a O N a ▪ C U Z as 1/42x a) a) c. 0 A. a) a) Ca 1-, P. a) 0 a) 0 4-1 •,1 '004 ., o a1 U 0 a t3 0 to 0 .g pUp ( . a RI M a w O tra1 ai m m a) H v t M M D \ -t \0 N r1 co N O M a M 1n • �S0 oe. N M CO H m mEan ss 0m co 0 1/40 rr NF% Sec. 29, T4S, R87W z0 w N 02 cli SE< Sec. 29, T4S, R87W ri 0 z a 8 SW!4 Sec. 29, T4S, R87W N z a 0 ya E E CCI 0 U a 0 0 0 Location tr 0 .1 NW!4 Sec. 29, T4S, R87W z Highnoon No. 3 • 2 o c, m 1+ o V) N V r f! • 0 • • X41 U A - d O V E o :- • �, oto pa GC Uhx 0' 4` S4 SW4 Sec. 20, T4S, 1287W -4- 0 0 0 0 S ON ao 1/40 0 CO SYz SE{. Sec. 20, T4S, R87W 0 z 0 0 0 O E U NYz NEg Sec. 32, T4S, R87w d 01 CO 0 Sh NEg Sec. 32, T4S, 1287W 0 z a 8 x d E 02 CO 0 Ot -t 0 03 NYz SFg. Sec. 32, T4S, R87W 00 • z0 0 0 60 9-4 Roy Mosher & others OD OD CO 00 3 rl 0 v w 0 m 03 N 3 1/40 N .c0 Ana 0 0 fn o� aF 1/40 M N n 0 z 0 b co m 0 O f y Robert D. Scarrow m m m a) m m m c6 as n cd 01 U) U) U) V> U) U) N- 0-• R R LIN LI\ n N- e- t- n -t _ _t -t _t s - - c0 r•\ H Cr, -I' N- m c� ri S11/40 H rl H Hr -1 H ri r1 ` O 1/40 ri 0.1- b 0 W U O y Y O . O R G) r4 r1 r-1 N 14 U 'CO CO 0q0r1 u) W W IX LZ U) u5 O M N• W V 0 0 [�• .-. V O U oL' -c;N !� 0 U) N N N N N o� m CO moo moo (n F c x H H U N V R f6 co61 N to N. ab n p o U) )+1 SriH O rrl a W# H a1 n co Tp N � rl N - dl n o 0 y a U\ lti M IX G• O -7 1x HFA r-1 F H U) U) t.3 m - •4 a NO rI H m HI m U) (11 +) • 0 . Y U) . Y a) +• • U) 4)0,4) t U) V rd U) N N V W W -S pp at m c. 3 m o m �C -.t- m u) 14H .-7 4U) EH 3H edH b)F N mN U\ U\ U1 U\ +m+I Midnight No. 1 N r•\ 4- N 'O N 00 z z z z z z z i O co W r tic +3 O a. '4 0 Y E E O 4) P. 111 ▪ C > ri f- 60 O 4 N O C N N O N•.a t. •O DI CO • O a 1i .- q C5 rI V) 1. N O 6G 0 • ON O 0) 4) a) 0) 4) 1 pX 0 :14 E 8 E E E >>co W N • 3 • ti 0)) 0)1n N � 0 ° •8 C O • O F. 0 N .z 04 O x N n v !• N\ UN 1 if (- \O o i c. \O r l0 N N N 3. •.O -t .-1 1--1 rl 0 \O v\ V\ *fl C 'I O 0 0 0 0 0 0 .U, c, cC cL x cO 00 o 1 Q r-1 s 3 0- c- cc cc r. 7, 00 Cr Ct • x a • 0) (1) '1) V) cU 4- 1 1l :I\ if\ Ei c+ E E• • • N -. LI\ i•\ Y\ J • V 0 • U U V N 4) 4) V 4) 4) c7 '.'7 cn 1n 1n 32, T4S, R87W 32(Approx) T4S, U 4a 4) z 01� V ( h �I d u)a 4)I Sec. 52(Aonrox) T2.S, 80 32(Approx) T4S, r1 N )+\ -t u\ 1O l‘• CO T High Road No. z° z 0 z▪ ° z° z• ° z° z° February 22, 1977 STATE OF COLORADO RICHARD D. LAMM,-:•nve,nor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director MINED LAND RECLAMATION 723 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 892-3567 To all persons concerned with mining in the State of Colorado: GA c44 -I CN - pc' c_^ iAL opekiJ uw.44 The attached resolution by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board represents a significant attempt to resolve the administrative problems created by the provisions of C.R.S. 1973, 34-32-120: "Permit Refused Defaulting Operator No permit for new mining operations shall be granted to any operator who is currently found to be in vio- lation of the provisions of this article with respect to any operation in this State." Essentially, this resolution is a standard compliance plan and provides an opportunity for any operator, whether a private individual, firm or governmental agency, to bring past and present mining operations into compliance with the law without having to discontinue any present mining activities. It is mandatory that any operator who wishes to take advantage of this plan meet all the date deadlines outlined in the attached resolution. The first dere deadline, May 1, 1977, requires the operators to identify all operati.:s which are presently unpermitted or were being operated illegally pr:.viously. Any operators who chose to enter into this plan, or who initiate the plan and then fail to meet the established deadlines are subject to the enfo ement provisions o± the Act. 1; Harris D. Sher ma`, Executive Director Colorado Department of Natural Resources HDS:lh STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MINED LAND RECLAMATION 615 CENTENNIAL BUILDING 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO $0203 It , RESOLUTION CONCERNING COMPLIANCE PLANS FOR UNPERMITTED OPERATIONS WHEREAS, the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board takes notice of the problems which exist in the issuance of permits to engage in mining activities within the State: 1) C.R.S. 1973, 34-32-120 prohibits the Board for new mining operations to operators who past violations of the State's reclamation 2) The Mined Land Reclamation Acts of 1973 and to obtain a permit from the Board to engage from issuing permits have not rectified laws; 1976 require an operator in mining activities; 3) The Board is faced with the problem of being unable to issue per- mits so long as an operator has not obtained a permit and pursued reclamation plans with respect to all operations he mined or is currently mining without such permits; WHEREAS, the Board finds it necessary to invoke its enforcement powers pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. 1973, 34-32-123 and 124, as amended in order to obtain rectification of violations and obtain reclamation; WHEREAS, the Board will not consider an operator to be in current vio- lation of the Act, within the meaning of C.R.S. 34-32-120, if that operator pursues the program set forth herein. WHEREAS, the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board adopts this resolu- tion to offer an opportunity to all operators with unpermitted operations to obtain necessary new permits while bringing unpermitted operations into com- pliance; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby orders its Staff to commence notification of all operators of this resolution that the procedures for operators to follow are: 1. By May 1, 1977, identify and describe all operations for which no permit has ,been obtained. This includes all mines operated after July 1, 1973, whether or not such mines are currently in operation. The operator shall asterisk each operation which he believes to have been successfully reclaimed and the Board will inspect such operations with the operator or his representative. An operator need not submit a reclamation plan for that operation until after the inspection and a determination as to whether further reclamation is required. Reclamation will be judged according to the standards and criteria in use by the Board when the mining occurred. Identification and description shall include: a) A map or written description of the location of the property in sufficient detail to enable the Board to visit the site; b) Approximate number of disturbed acres; c) Indicate the type of mining operation conducted and the present status, i.e., currently active, abandoned, or reclaimed. -2- 2. By June 1, 19>,, the Board will issue cease ana desist orders which shall remain in force until the Board approves the reclamation plans submitted for the unpermitted operations or relieves the operator from the duty to perform further reclamation. The cease and desist order shall recite that the unpermitted operations shall cease by July 1, 1978, and further provide that if the Board should deny a permit for any operation, that operation shall cease on the date of that denial. The Board shall act on such applications no later than July 1, 1978. By this date, each operator shall have obtained a permit. If the permit is denied, the operator shall cease any ongoing mining operations for which the permit was sought. 3. By July 1, 1977: a) The operator shall sign a consent agreement agreeing: i. To be bound to the terms of the cease and desist order; ii. To plead no contest to having conducted the unpermitted operation identified on the listing presented to the Board; iii. To waive the statutory time periods established for the issuance of permits by Article 32 of Title 34, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, only for the permits to be obtained for the previously unpermitted operations. b) Post bond or other form of acceptable surety of general application guaranteeing the submission of reclamation plans and the undertaking of reclamation on the non -complying operations in accordance with the standards in Para. 6, in the amount of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars per acre, unless any operation shall be under ten (10) acres in which case the maximum total amount of such bond shall be Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500.00) Dollars; such bond amount shall, further, be subject to review, if justification exists, to be decreased or in- creased on the basis of the plans submitted by the operator, and the Board may, thereafter, make such adjustment. c) The operator shall submit reclamation plans for five (5) unpermitted operations, if he has five or more such operations, according to the time schedule set forth below. 4. Reclamation plans shall be submitted in accordance with the following schedule: a) First five operations on or before July 1, 1977; b) Next ten operations on or before September 1, 1977; c) All other operations on or before March 1, 1978. 5. Reclamation for abandoned or inactive operations must commence on or before December 31, 1978. 6. The reclamation standards to be applied shall be those existing under the applicable law, policies and regulations of the Board existing on the date the reclamation plan is submitted, provided, however, that any operator who completed reclamation prior to July 1, 1976, may request approval by the Board of such reclamation and the Board shall determine whether the dual objectives of equity and reclamation may be achieved by the application of some other standard to the completed work. Such completed reclamation shall be considered for approval on a case-by-case basis and the staff shall recommend an appropriate applicable standard prior -3 - to approval by the Board. By March 15, 1977, the Board shall issue a resolution stating what procedural requirements shall apply to re- clamation plans submitted for abandoned or unreclaimed pits. 7. The dates established by the resolution, i.e., May 1, June 1, July 1 and September 1, 1977, and March 1, 1978, and December 31, 1978, are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Failure to satisfy the dates set forth herein and all terms set forth in the cease and desist order shall be deemed a violation of the provisions of the Mined Land Reclamation Act, C.R.S. 1973, 34-32-101, et seq., and result in en- forcement of the cease and desist order in court. Dated 2/22/77 COLORADd INED LAND 'CLTION BOARD //y J� By �Q (Cr ( , / , 4 -_ GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTOR GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE PHONE 945-8241 February 15, 1977 Colorado Division of Wildlife Department of Game & Fish 526 Pine Hotel Colorado Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Gentlemen: Please find enclosed a copy of an application submitted by CF&I Steel Corporation for a Special Use Permit for construction and operation of a limestone quarry and related facilities. The Board of County Commissioners and this Department would like your organization to review this application and submit your comments and opinions before a public hearing is scheduled on this application. We would appreciate your comments as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If we can be of assistance to you, do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, /i WCM/kay W. C. Milner Building Official Enclosure XC -Board of County Commissioners February 15, 1977 Eagle County Planning Department P.O. Box 789 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Attn: Mr. Mike Blair Dear Mike: Enclosed is a copy of the impact statement for the Special Use request submitted by Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. The request is being reviewed by the BLM and the Forest Service, as well. The County Commissioners have not set a date for the public hearing as yet. Our intention now is to solicit timely comments from various people add organizations before we do conduct a hearing. If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate contacting me. I have not sent any additional copies to your County Commissioners or your Planning Commissioners, so this should be considered your regiew copy. I would appreciate it if you would make it available to your Commissioners for me. Thank you very much. Sincerely, RAW/kay Robert A. Witkowski Director Enclosure XC --Board of County Commissioners