HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report• •
BOCC 12/20/93
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
Rescind approval of Special Use Permits for the
construction and operation of a coal mine and
associated facilities and a coal loading facility
including extraction, storage and limited
processing facilities, water impoundments, mineral
waste disposal, access routes, water pumping,
trucking and loading of coal.
A tract of land located in portions of Section 6,
T6S, R9OW; more practically described as a tract
located 2.5 miles east of New Castle, off County
Road 335 and a tract of land located in the SW'/a of
the NW1/4 of Section 23, T6S, R94W; more
practically described as a parcel approximately 3
miles west of Rifle off of the frontage road.
L DESCRIP'T'ION OF TIIE PROPOSAL.
On November 4, 1991, the Board approved by Resolution No. 91-091, special use
permits for the purpose of constructing and operating a coal mine and associated
facilities and a coal loadout facility for NCIG Financial, Inc. Resolution No. 91-091
contained the following condition of approval:
C. The applicant shall have two (2) years from the approval of this Resolution
to comply with all conditions of approval and to have obtained the initial special use
permit. If the applicant fails to comply with all conditions of approval and to obtain
any of the special use permits authorized by this Resolution within the foregoing
specified two (2) year time period, this Resolution, as well as Resolution 90-083, shall
be rescinded and repealed by operation of law. The applicant shall initiate construction
activities or establish a land use authorized by Resolution 90-083 and the issuance of the
special use permit for the specific land use. The County, at its sole discretion, may issue
separate special use permits for each land use or may elect to issue a single special use
permit for all of the uses authorized by this Resolution and Resolution No. 90-083.
H. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS.
The applicant has not met all conditions of approval as required. Even though the
condition of approval contains language that says if conditions are not met, the
Resolutions "shall be rescinded and repealed by operation of Law", the County
Attorney says we must rescind the approval by resolution, after a public hearing.
M. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was
extensive and complete, all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted
and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing; and
2. That the proposed Special Uses approved were subject to certain conditions of
approval being met within a specified period of time; and
3. That the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 91-091 have not
been met within the timeframe required by the Resolution; and
4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Uses are not
in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, order, prosperity and welfare of
the citizens of Garfield County.
IV. RECOMMENDATION.
That the special use permit approval given by Resolution No. 91-091 be rescinded.
• •
BOCC 10/28/91
AMENDED PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST
Special Use Permits for the construction and
operation of a. coal mine and associated facilities
and a coal loading facility including extraction,
storage and limited processing facilities, water
impoundments, mineral waste disposal, access
routes, water pumping, trucking and loading of
coal.
APPLICANT: NCIG Financial, Inc.
LOCATION: A tract of land located in portions of Section 6,
T6S, R9OW; inore practically described as a tract
located 2.5 miles east of New Castle, off County
Road 335 and a tract ofland located in the SW'/a of
the NW'/a of Section 23, T6S, R94W; more
practically described as a parcel approximately 3
miles west of Rifle off of the frontage road.
SITE DATA:
WATER:
An approximately 300 acre tract of land of which
47 acres is to be disturbed to be used for coal
mining activit ies and support facilities. A 3.6 acre
tract to be used for a coal train load -out.
- Portable water containers for domestic use.
- Well water, ditch and river water for industrial
make-up water.
SEWER: Individual Sewage Disposal System (I.S.D.S.) and
Holding Tanks.
ACCESS: County Road 335/I-70 Frontage Road.
EXISTING ZONING: Planned Unit. Development/ R/L.
ADJACENT ZONING: Mine Load -Out
North - PUD, A/R/RD R/L
South - A/R/RD A/R/RD
East - O/S, PUD R/L
West - A/R/RD R/L
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREI IENSIV E PLAN
The proposed coal mine and associated facilities a re located in District B, Subdivisions/
Rural Serviceable Areas, 1/2 to 1 mile radius, moderate environmental constraints.
Under the category 1 b, which is an area wi thin 1 mile of a subdivision with central water
and sewer and moderate environmental constraints. This sub -category classification is
based on the Riverbend PUD location.
• •
The proposed temporary load -out is located in District C, Rural Areas, Minor
Environmental Constraints.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The mine site sits on a bench south of the Colorado River and
at the base of the Grand Hogback (Coal Ridge). Tire portions of the site nearest
to the river are irrigated hay land, with the upper sections of the site having
sagebrush and mountain scrub as 1 he predominant vegetation. The area on the
site that includes the Grand Hogback formation has very steep slopes in excess
of 40%, but the majority of the site sits at the base of the hogback and has gentle
slopes of 5 to 15%. The site has existing benches and roads from previous mine
preparation activities.
The proposed load -out is located west of Rifle along river bottom land that is
relatively flat and has been developed for ra it associated development with some
hay fields nearby.
B. Project Description: It is proposed to develop a coal mine and associated
facilities including a coal train load -out facility that is projected to produce
1,000,000 tons of coal per year, within five years of init iating mining activities.
The proposed mine was previously permitted by Garfield County Resolution
No. 90-083. The applicant has resubmitted all documentation used in support
of that application with some supplementa I information in support of a request
for approving the same sites for a coal mine and coal Toad -out facilities.
The applicant has stated that the conditions of approval contained in Resolution
No. 90-083 are generally acceptable, but they have requested changes to the
following conditions contained in Resolution No. 90-083:
2.B. It is requested that the permits be valid for a period of five (5) years from
the date of issuance of the Special 1 Ise Permits, not the date of approval
as in Resolution No. 90-083. They have also defined "mine activity" as
the mining of coal in excess of 10,000 tons per year.
2.D. Coal will be hauled only on Monday through Friday, between the hours
of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., until production exceeds 400,000 tons per
year. After which, hauling may occur between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and
10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
2.G. This changes the required landscaping requirements by increasing the
number of trees by 150% and adding 700 feet of eight foot (8') high
wooden fence to certain areas of the site.
2.H. This change would tie the road improvements to the commencement of
on-site activities. Prior to any on-site activities, C.R. 335 from the mine
entrance road to the Riverbend subdivision will be chip and sealed and
the remainder of the road back to I-70 will be widened to subgrade width
with a minimum of 61/2' of gravel. In any case, C.R. 335 from the mine
entrance back to I-70 will be paved within 18 months of the
commencement of on-site activities and prior to hauling any coal from
the site.
• •
2.0. The applicant is requesting two (2) years from the approval of a
resolution to comply with all conditions of approval and provides for the
issuance of separate special use permits, rather than one special use
permit.
In addition to the above noted changes the applicant has proposed two
additional conditions:
1. A conditions that would prohibit the use of their property for access to
or location of an electrical power plant.
2. Another condition that would suspend any timelines imposed by the
previous conditions if anyone initial es litigation regarding a new decision
that is not an enforcement action by the County.
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: While this application is termed a "supplemental application for
amendments to Garfield County Resolution No. 90-083"..., the application must
be treated as if it were the original application in terms of procedure and process.
In other words, technically any aspect of the previous application is open to
consideration for modification and/or denial.
If the Board feels that the previous issues and circumstances have not changed,
then the issues to be considered are primarily policy in nature. The following is
a discussion of each proposed modification of cond itions of approval previously
contained in Resolution No. 90-083:
2.B. This condition clarifies that all Special Use permits will be valid for a
period of five (5) years from the date of issuance of the permit.
It is suggested that if this condition is imposed that the condition read
"that by this Resolution shall be limited to live (5) years from the date of
issuance of the first Special Use Permit." Otherwise, the County ends up
with a number of different expiration dates should the County issue a
number of separate permits as allowed in proposed condition 2.0.
2.D. This is a more restricted condition than imposed in Resolution No. 90-
083, which is made at the request of the applicant.
2.G. This condition increased the proposed landscaping requirements to
include additional fencing and landscaping to a level of 150% above what
was originally proposed as a part of the application submitted in support
of the permits approved by Resolution No. 90-083. Condition 2.G. in
Resolution No. 90-083 allows the Board to increase the amount of
landscaping to 200% of that level.
2.H. This condition is similar to the same condition on Resolution No. 90-083,
except that certain timelines are cha nged. The condition requires security
in the amount of $500,000 to guarantee the completion of the off-site
road improvements. There has been a great deal of correspondence
between various parties regarding the adequacy of the $500,000 in
security being enough to actually cover the costs to be incurred due to the
uncertainty as to when the mining and coal hauling activities are going
to start.
• •
2.0. This condition as proposed would give the applicant up to two (2) years
to comply with all conditions of approval acid request the issuance of the
Special Use Permit(s). This is a policy issue that the Board may make,
given there are no specific requirements for compliance with conditions
of approval within a specified period of time, other than the 120 day
limitation after the issuance of a permit. It is suggested that the following
language be added:
"If the applicant fails to comply with all conditions of approval
and to obtain any of the Special Use Permit authorized by this
resolution within the foregoi ng specified two (2) year time perio • of
-the-aft+hogizellaw.Weestmeitor this resolution shall be ..�� •
by operation of law." tt" 4043
There are two additional proposed conditions:
1. This proposed condition would preclude the placement of any
access to or locating of an electrical power plant on any of the
applicants real property. This condition, if approved, could only
apply to the boundaries of the land use permit application. This
condition seems unnecessary and inappropriate given the fact that
there is no electrical power plant proposed in this application.
The fact that the applicant has committed as a part of their
application not to place an electrical power plant on their
property, it would be covered under the first condition of
approval that states "that all verbal and written representations
of the applicant shall be considered conditions of approval unless
specified otherwise by the hoard of County Commissioners."
2. This condition would suspend the timelines imposed the
resolution of approval for th is project, if litigation is initiated that
is not an enforcement action by the County. This is a policy
decision for the Board since there is no requirements for certain
timelines for conditions of approval to be met after a resolution
is approved and the requirement that use commence within 120
days after issuance of a permit may be extended at the discretion
of the Board.
B. Other Comments
1. Road & Bridge Department: There has been correspondence between
King Lloyd, County Road & Bridge Supervisor, and the applicant's
representatives regarding improvements to C.R. 335. Mr. Lloyd has
expressed concerns about road cut slope stabilization and noted that the
County does not have the manpower to either contract for or actually
build the proposed road. He also has concerns about security for the
slope stabilization and cost of improvements (see letters in exhibit
packet).
2. Ray and Sharon Tenney expressed a nuunber of concerns about the
proposed conditions of approval (see letter in exhibit packet).
3. Kenneth and Bonnie Short sent a leiter of support for the proposed mine
(see letter in exhibit packet).
• •
IV. SUGGESTED FIND1 NGS
1. That the public hearing before the Boa rd of County Commissioners was
extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were
submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the hearing.
2. That the proposed Special Use conforms to the submittal requirements in
Section 5.03 concerning the approval or disapproval of a petition for a Special
Use, of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution.
3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land
uses in all directions provided certain conditions of approval are met.
4. That for above stated and other reasons, the proposed Special Use Permits are
in the best interest of the health, sa fety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity
and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
That if the Board feels the proposed coal mine, coa I loadou t and associated facilities are
still appropriate, the condition of approval contained in Resolution No. 90-083 should
be reapproved with any modifications deemed to be acceptable by the Board.
/ SCHMUE_ .. -.MOON MEYER INC.
as4
es rip
el AF
September 4, 1991
Mr. Peter Matthies
NCIG Financial, Inc.
7476 East Arkansas Avenue, Suite 4
Denver, CO 80231
RE: Cost Estimate for County Road 335
Dear Peter:
.001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6727
Fax (303) 945-5948
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS//
n Fri (:"7.T.:."1:-7---.:
r.... Com.-1:...•-�./-...''�
SEP', rj i :::i1
Lii.L5.,,,,_____,_6.1 L
The purpose of this letter is to provide a cost estimate for County Road 335. The cost
estimate is based upon drawings prepared by SGM dated September 14, 1990, Sheets 1
through 14. The unit prices are based upon the average of unit prices for projects of a similar
nature bid by this firm over the last three years. Unit prices have been modified where
appropriate to reflect conditions inherent for this project. We are making the assumption the
project will be bid to several local contractors, and that Performance and Payment Bonds will
not be required. These costs do not reflect any right-of-way acquisition nor any utility
relocations. Finally, these costs may not reflect additional changes that may be required as
the approval process requires.
The enclosed cost estimate reflects a total price of $485,611. This cost does not reflect
paved shoulders which is not a requirement according to Garfield County Road Standards.
If paved shoulders are required, the cost will be increased approximately $65,000.00.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, (0 t-
��
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
/
- — c
Louis Meyer, P.E.
LM:Ic/90158-04.4
Enclosure
cc: Dennis Stranger
640
640
COUNTY ROAD 335 COST ESTIMATE
September 4, 1991
Item
1. Mobilization
2. Clearing and Grubbing
3. Unclassified Excavation
(complete in place)
4. Embankment Material
(complete in place)
5. Dust Control
6. Topsoil
7. Aggregate Base Course
8. Hot Bituminous Pavement
9. 18" Corrugated Steel Pipe
10. 30" Corrugated Steel Pipe
11. 18" End Sections
12. Guardrail, Type 3
13. End Anchorage, Type 3E
14. Traffic Control
15. Revegetation
LM:Ic/901 58.est
Unit
Estimated Unit
Quantity_ Price
Lump Sum L.S.
Lump Sum L.S.
Cubic Yard 15,072
Cubic Yard 1 ,924
Lump Surn L.S.
Lump Sum L.S.
Ton 7602
Ton 4805
Lineal Foot 407
Lineal Foot 20
Each 18
Lineal Foot 4705
Each
Lump Sum L.S.
Lump sura L.S.
2
SCHMUESER GORDON ME YER, INC.
Total
Price
$ 5,000
$ 3,500
$ 5 75,360
$ 7 $ 13,468
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 12 $ 91,224
$ 39 $187,395
$ 27 $ 10,989
$ 40 $ 800
$200 $ 3,600
$ 15 $ 70,575
$600 $ 1,200
$ 2,500
$ 10,000
Total $485,611
SCHMUES. ORDON MEYER INC.
1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2-E
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6727
Fax (303) 945-5948
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 4, 1991 OCT 9 1991
TO: Record (90158)
1
GARFIELD CUUNTY
FROM: Louis Meyer
RE: Recap of Meeting with King Lloyd Regarding Co. Rd. 335
ATTENDEES: King Lloyd, Garfield Co. Road & Bridge Supervisor, Dennis
Stranger, Louis Meyer
A meeting was held to discuss issues on County Road 335. A recap of the issues are
as follows:
1. The first item discussed was King's October 1, 1991 memo which is a
memo with King's comments per his initial review of the drawings for
County Rd. 335.
Weindicated to King we were in agreement with Item #1. The road
improvements will start back at the: interchange.
King's item No. 3 was addressed and we indicated that a type 3 CDOH
standard guardrail would be used.
We were in agreement with King's item No. 4. Any old culverts that are
not in good condition will be removed.
We were in agreement with King's item No. 5. A signing plan will be
provided for final construction drawings.
Items 2 and 6 are related and required an extensive discussion. King is
concerned about the 1 to 1 slopes on the cut and fill slopes. It is our
position that where the road template does not have excessive cut and
fill slopes that 2 to 1 slopes will be used. In many cases however, the
existing cut fill slopes are steeper than a 1 to 1 and proposed slopes
less steep than 1:1 will never catch back to existing grade. Further
slopes Tess steep than 1 to 1 will create scaring of the hillside and
remove existing vegetation. Finally slopes graded less steep than 1 to
1 may result in a road section greater than 80 feet which is the right of
way. It is our position that we will maintain a 1:1 slope but will address
King's concerns by using stabilization and revegetation techniques to
prevent slope erosion. To that extent, we will write a letter to King
outlining the general concept we would propose to use. In addition,
King brought up the concept of an extended warranty period on the
slopes to ensure that proper stabilization occurs.
October 4, 1991
Memo to Record (90158)
Page 2
2. The second main topic discussed included the road construction concept.
that Steve Boat has proposed with NCIG.
Steve Boat an owner of vacant lots in Riverbend would like to have
County Road 335 chip sealed a:, soon as possible. It may be
advantageous to all parties to chip seal the road as soon as possible:
using the following method. Garfield County would initially use their
equipment to widen County Road 335 from the interchange to the
entrance to the mine to the proper subgrade width. NCIG would then
pay the cost of chip sealing the road from the interchange to the
entrance of Riverbend immediately.. Before commercial hauling of coal
commences, NCIG will then pay for the cost of overlaying and installing
final appurtenances on County Road 335. The advantage to this
alternative is that Riverbend will have a chip sealed road early on in the
process.
3. The third issue discussed was the method of constructing County Road
335. NCIG is in the business of constructing mines and to that extent
felt like it might be more appropriate to have Garfield County, who is
more experienced in building roads, actually contract for improvements.
Clearly NCIG would pay for the recommended improvements to County
Road 335. Because the road will eventually be turned over to the County,
it seemed to be a simplier arrangement with the County actually
contracting out the road. Other advantages include the County's right
of eminent domain, and the County's franchise agreement with utilities
within the R.O.W.
A discussion of the County's franchise agreement with the utilities
followed. According to King provided the County Road was built first,
usually the County has authority to have utilities moved at the utilities
expense. To that extent regardless of whether NCIG constructs the road
or the County constructs the road the County will help use its'
authority to have any affected utilities moved at the utility company
expense.
--------LOM
cc: Dennis Stranger
Rush Backer
King Lloyd
Mark Bean
LOM\ ja90158
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC._
GARFIELD COUNTY
ROAD AND BRIDGE
P.O. BOX 2254
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602-2254
Phone 945-6111
DATE: October 1, 1990
TO: Mark Bean
FROM: King
RE: New Castle Energy
After reviewing the proposed plans for improvements to County
Road 335, I have the following comments:
1) STA. 0+00 should coinside with where County maintenance
begins. That point would be where the stop sign is
located approximately 110 feet West of the cattle guard.
2) The cut and fill slopes should be at a ratio that
would not ravel. If the dirt slopes are to ever
stabilize and revegetate, they should be less than a 1:1
ratio as proposed in these plans.
3) There is a guard rail shown in these plans, but no detail
as to strength or type. All guard rail should meet
current Colorado Department of Highway standards.
4) It is indicated on the drawings that existing culverts
would be extended. All existing C.M.P. should be
evaluated as to condition and replaced, preventing damage
to the road at a later date.
5) A signing plan and pavement marking plan should be
incorporated with these plans, showing proposals for
truck warnings and cautions to the general public.
6) The cut slopes that are proposed are of real concern from
a maintenance view point. This area has severe
temperature differential during the Spring and Fall that
could cause failure of steep slopes, and raveling of
rocks. I would like to reserve final comments on the
proposed road plan until engineering is finalized.
• •
Ft F. .I: F . Y Y"-) (`:: Y.::::M u....1 Y,,,,.y ....Y....,,,a,,,.
Y .:C 177.:1::: C .0 , Y:':-.
E: V."111:)
DATE: October 16, 1991
TO: Mark Bean
FROM: King
RE: Meeting Recap with N. C. 1. G.
rigi7K17
OCT 17 1991
GARFIELD COUNTY
With regards to Item #1 paragraph #6, I'iri concerned with the
warranty, in that this type of revogatation is not a single
season effort. I'm sure that it will take at least two (2)
years, possibly more, to reach adequate plant establishment and
soil stabilization. With that in rnind the warranty monies
should be retained until that success is accomplished.
Item #2 regarding County equipment being utilized in building
the road. This could he a sizeable contract .judging by the road
cross-sections. The County has not anticipated the scheduling
of this and already has a sizeable program anticipated for 1992
construction. The only benefit I see coming out of an endeavor
of this type is the economic ones, and that should start with
the local contractors being able to build this road..
Item #3 my office is currently looking at nine (;`)) bridge
replacements for the 1992 season. There is absolutely no way,
at current staffing levels, my office can undertake additional
contractual obligations. Once again there are numerous local
engineering groups that would be more than competent to do this
job.
Lastly, in reviewing their County Road :3a c:::o:.st estimate, the
bond amount needs to have the full cost of the road to the mine
entrance. Items that are not, included in the Road (;ost Estimate
are the paved shoulders, utility relocation, .And construction
management.
KL:cl
cc: B.O.C.C.
Don DeFord
NCIG1091
•
•
Post -Construction Reclamation Seed Mixture
Species
Western wheatgrass
Intermediate wheatgrass
Steambank wheatgrass
Perennial rye
Basin wildrye
Kentucky bluegrass
Smooth brome
Timothy
Alsike clover
Cicer milkvetch
Lewis flax
Agropyron smithii
Agropyron intermedium
Agropyron riparium
Lolium perenne
Elymus cinereus
Poa pratensis
Bromus inermis
Phleum pratense
Trifolium hybridum
Astragalus cicer
Linum lewisii
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYI R, INC
Total
Seeding Rate
jPLS Pounds/Acre)
5.00
3.75
2.50
2.50
1.25
2.50
1.25
2.50
1.25
1.25
1.25
25.00
• •
''4. 1001 Grand Avenue, Suite 2E
SCHMUESEr. CORDON MEYER INC. �'� ��
Si� Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
)�`
(303) 945-1004 (303) 925-6727
,\ ,A� Fax (303) 9455948
�17��•' CONSULTING ENGINEt RS a SURVEYORS/
October 18, 1991
Mr. King Lloyd
Garfield County Road & Bridge
P.O. Box 2254
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 L
RE: Slope Stabilization of Co. Rd. 335 Slopes
Dear King:
The purpose of this letter is to provide our recommended procedures for stabilizing
the cut slopes for County Road 335.
As we discussed, various options are available to address the steep slopes found on
the south or cutslope side of Co. Rd. 335. The first option is to install 2:1 slopes.
This would denude a large amount of vegetation and result in a large cut slope scar.
The second option which we prefer is to go to 1:1 slopes which will leave much of the
existing vegetation and minimize the extent of the cut slopes. This will require
stabilization procedures which are addressed in this letter.
We have consulted with John Taufer of John Taufer & Associates on this issue. The
recommended stabilization procedure is as follows. First the cutstopes will be seeded
through the hydroseed method with the enclosed seed mix and application rates. The
hydromulched area will then be mulched with str aw at a rate of 2.5 tons per acre. An
asphalt derived tacifier will then be sprayed on the mulch to hold the straw in place.
Finally, a jute erosion blanket will be installed over the mulch as per manufacturer's
recommendations.
As you are aware, 1:1 slopes are difficult to stabilize without taking measures such
as these. We feel that the north facing slopes will retain moisture much better and
improve the chances of revegetation. A water truck will be; on site during the road
construction and during mine construction activities and can be used to periodically
sprinkle the slopes until vegetation is established. Finally, we would continually
monitor the extent of the vegetation and rework those areas where vegetation has not
been established.
We believe these methods will ensure a high degree of slope stabilization. If you have
any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to call.
D 15'1i
11
OC( 211991
l.4J,111 raw ,"uiV Y
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
Louis Meyer, P.E.
cc: Mark Bean
Dennis Stranger
Rush Backer
John Taufer
Encl. 1
LOM/ja90158
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC
\v%
ir.o lti
'.
SEP 11 1991 STATE OF COLORADO
Uriact ILLL) COUNTY
MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION
Department of Natural Resources
)313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
303 866-3567 *.,
FAX: 303 832-8106 \e. `
September 4, 1991
Garfield County Commissioners
109 8th Street, Suite 200
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
Roy Rome
Governor
Fred R. Banta,
Division t iirector
RE: Coal Ridge No 1 Coal Mine Permit Approval - File No. C-84-065, PR - 002
Dear Garfield County Commissioners:
Pursuant to Rule 2.07.4(2)(c) of the regulations of the Colorado Mined Land
Reclamation Board for Coal Mining, you are hereby notified that a Permit
Revision (Lacy Loadout Facility) to the existing coal mining and reclamation
Permit was issued to NCIG Financial, Inc. on ';eptember 4, 1991 for the Coal
Ridge No 1 Mine
The coal loading facility is located in the Clough Industrial Park.
approximately 1.5 miles west of the West Rifle Interchange of Interstate 70.
The legal description of the area is as follows:
-Township 6 South, Range 94 West, Section 23: a portion of land
in the SW/4 of the NW/4, approximately 4.35
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
ILL
William B. Crick
Reclamation Specialist
WBC/eke
Enclosure(s)
cc: Larry Routten
4091 G
acres.
Proposed Decision
and
Findings of Compliance
for
Permit Revision No. 2
Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine
C-84-065
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division
David L. Bucknam, Acting Director
prepared by
William B. Crick, Reclamation Specialist
August, 1991
• •
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
Proposed Decision 1
Summary of the Review Process 1
Description of the Environment 2
Description of the Operation and Reclamation Plans 2
Status of Stipulations 3
Findings of the Colorado Mined Land
Reclamation Division for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine
Lacy Loadout Facility 4
I. Legal, Financial, and Compliance Information, Rule 2.03 4
II. Land Use - Rules 2.04.3, 2.05.5, and 4.16 4
III. Cultural and Historic Resources - Rules 2.04.4 and 2.05.6(4)5
IV. Geology.. - Rules 2.04.5 and 2.04.6 5
V. Hydrologic Balance - Surface Water - Rules 2.04.5, 2.04.7(2),
2.05.3(4), 2.05.4 and 4.05 6
VI. Hydrologic Balance: Ground Water - Rules 2.04.5, 2.04.7(1),
2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(3), and 4.05 6
VII. Water Rights and Replacement - Rules 2.04.7(3) and 4.05.15. . 7
VIII. Probable Hydrologic Consequences of Mining and Cumulative
Hydrologic Impact Assessment - Rules 2.05.6(3) and 2.07.6(2). 7
IX. Alluvial Valley Floors - Rules 2.06.8 and 4.24 8
X. Climatological Information and Air Resources - Rules 2.04.8,.
2.05.4(2)(h), 2.05.6(1), and 4.17 9
XI. Topsoil - Rules 2.04.9, 2.05.3(5), 2.05.4(2)(d), and 4.06 9
XII. Vegetation - Rules 2.04.10, 2.05.4(2)(e), and 4.15 9
XIII. Fish and Wildlife - Rules 2.04.11, 2.05.6(2), and 4.18. 9
XIV. Prime Farmland - Rules 2.04.12, 2.06.6, and 4.25 10
XV. Operation Plan - Rules 2.05.2, and 2.05.3 10
XVI. Reclamation Plan - Rule 2.05 4 10
XVII. Explosives - Rules 2.05.3(6)(a) and 4.08 11
XVIII. Roads - Rules 2.05.3(3)(c) and 4.03 11
XIX. Bonding - Rule 2.05.4(2)(b) 11
XX. Sealing of Drilled Holes and Underground Openings - Rules
2.05.4(2)(g) and 4.07 11
XXI. Miscellaneous Compliance - Rules 2.03.3, 2.05.6(5), 4.02,
4.12, 4.19, 4.21, and 4.28 11
XXII. Operations on Lands Subject to Limitations or Prohibitions -
Rules 2.03.7 and 7.01 12
XXIII. Demonstration That Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation
Operations Can Be Feasibly Accomplished - Rule 2.07.6(2)(b) 12
XXIV. Reclamation Fees Required By 30 C.F.R., Chapter VII,
Subchapter R - Rule 2.07.6(2)(o) 12
-i-
Introduction
This document is the decision package prepared by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation
Division (the Division) for Permit Revision No. 2, for NCIG Financial, Inc.'s Coal Ridge
No. 1 Mine. The document includes: 1) the proposed decision to approve the permit
revision application, 2) a sum mary
of the review process for this revision, 3) a description of the environment of the proposed
loadout site, 4) a description of th operation
and reclamation plans, 5) a section which lists the stipulations currently
in effect for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine, and, 6) the written Findings of Compliance as
required by the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act Detailed information
about the required Findings can be found in the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land
Reclamation Board for Coal Mining.
The revision permits a 4.35 -acre facility for the rail loading of coal at Lacy, Colorado, in
an existing industrial park. The Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine
is located approximately 15 miles east of the loadout site, south and east
of the town of New Castle, Colorado.
Proposed Decision
In accordance with Section 34-33-114(1), the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division
proposes to approve Permit Revision Number 2 for NCIG Financial Inc.'s Coal Ridge No. 1
Mine, permit number C-84-065.
This decision is based upon the finding that the operations proposed to be approved will
comply with all requirements of the Colorado Surface Coal
Mining and Reclamation Act, C. R.S. 1973, as a mended, 34-.33-101 et seq., and the
Regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act.
Summary of the Review Process
On October 19, 1990 the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board approved the Division's
decision to approve, in part, Permit Revision No. 1 for the Coal Ridge Mine. That revision
had, during the adequacy review process, proposed to add the coal loading site which is the
subject of this document. The Division, in a decision later upheld by the Board,
determined that the timing of the proposed loadout submittal denied the public a right to
full review of the proposal. The loadout was therefore excluded from the approval of
Permit Revision No. 1. The Findings Document for that Revision stated that New Castle
Energy Corporation, now NCIG Financial, Inc., would be required to submit a separate
Permit Revision for the loadout.
This Permit Revision was submitted by N CIG Financial on February 26, 1991 and was
deemed complete on March 8, 1991 by the Division. The initial adequacy letter was sent
to the applicant on April 16, 1991. Responses to the Division's concerns were submitted
by NCIG on June 6, 1991, and the Division sent a second adequacy letter on June 11, 1991.
Additional adequacy responses were submitted by the applicant on June 21, July 30, and
August 1, 1991. On July 8, 1991 the applicant waived in writing the right to a proposed
decision by the required date of July 6, 1991, as there were outstanding adequacy issues
remaining atthattime.
-1-
On May 8, 1991 The Garfield Citizen's Alliance (G.C.A.), alocal advocacy group,
requested an informal conference and site visit as provided for by
Rule 2.07.3(6). The conference and site visit were scheduled as required. Subsequently,
upon written request by the G.C.A. on June 3, 1991, the conference and site visit were
cancelled by the Division.
Description of the Environment
The site of the proposed loadout facility is a nearly flat, gravel -covered
4.35 -acre tract in the Clough Industrial Park at Lacy, Colorado. The legal description is
as follows:
- Township 6 South, Range 94 West, Section 23: a portion of land in
the SW/4 of the N W/4.
A more detailed legal description is given in Exhibit 2.2-1 of the Permit Revision
Application. Other non -coal railroad loading facilities are located adjacent to the N C IG
facility. The industrial park is located approximately 200 feet north of the Colorado
River, between the transportation corridors of the Denver and Rio Grande Western
Railroad to the south and Interstate 70 and a frontage road to the north. Access to the
site is by the I-70 frontage road, approximately 1.5 miles west of the West Rifle
Interchange.
Operations at the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine site are not directly affected by this revision.
Haul trucks will travel from the mine site via Garfield County Road 335 to the New Castle
Interchange of I-70, continue west on the interstate to the W est Rifle Interchange, and
proceed along the frontage road to the proposed loading facility.
Description of the Operation and Reclamation Plans
The proposed loadout will be operated by N CIG Financial, Inc. for transport of coal from
the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. Up to 10,000 tons of coal will be stockpiled, with a sump to
collect any water percolating through the pile. A stationary conveyor will load the rail
cars as they move past the loading point, and an A -framed structure will flatten the
loaded coal. The loaded cars will then be sprayed with latex to prevent loss of coal dust.
The reclamation plan consists of removal of all structures, regrading of sediment control
facilities, and cleaning of any spilled coal. Since there
is no topsoil on the site, reclamation of the site will return the site to
its pre -mining condition, suitable for industrial uses.
-2-
• •
Status of Stipulations
The Division is imposing no Stipulations in its approval of Permit Revision No. 2, however
the permit for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine (C-84-065) has the following stipulations
currently in effect.
STIPULATION N 0.16
IN THE EVENT THAT NEW CASTLE ENERGY CORPORATION'S(NCEC) LAND USE:
PERMITS ARE INVALIDATED, NCEC SHALL COMPLETE RECLAMATION OF THE
SITE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DATE OF INVALIDATION UNLESS THE DIVISION
MAKES A WRITTEN FINDING TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF TEMPORARY
CESSATION. THE DIVISION'S FINDING SHALL BE BASED UPON INFORMATION
SUBMITTED BY NCEC TO THE DIVISION DEMONSTRATING THAT GOOD CAUSE
EXISTS TO ALLOW FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TEMPORARY CESSATION.
STIPULATION N0.17
FOLLOWING DIVISION INSPECTION OF THE AREA OF WELL OW -4L, THE
APPLICANT SHALL WITHIN 60 DAYS EITHER A)IF THE WELL. HAS NOT BEEN
LOCATED, SUBMIT A REPORT IN COMPLIANCE WITLI RULE 4.07.3(3) WHICH
DESCRIBES THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEHIND LOSS OF THE WELL, OR B) RECLAIM
THE WELL IN ACCORDANCE WITH 4.07.3.
STIPULATION N0.19
SPECIES DIVERSITY ON AREAS RECLAIMED TO NATIVE VEGETATION SHALL BE
DEEMED SUCCESSFUL IF THE PERMITTEE ESTABLISHES AT LEAST FOUR (4)
COOL SEASON GRASSES AND TWO (2) FORBS WITH EACH SPECIES NOT
REPRESENTED BY LESS THAN THREE (3)% RELATIVE COVER OR MORE THAN
40% RELATIVE COVER. COVER TO BE DETERMINED BY MEASUREMENTS MADE:
FROM VEGETATIVE COVER DATA ASSEMBLED DURING SAMPLING FOR
MONITORING OF REVEGETATION SUCCESS DETERMINATIONS.
STIPULATION N 0.21
IN ORDER TO MONITOR THE VOLUME OF COAL MINE WASTE MATERIAL
DISPOSED OF IN THE APPROVED PILE, THE STRUCTURE WILL BE SURVEYED BY
A QUALIFIED REGISTERED ENGINEER DURING EACH QUARTERLY SITE
INSPECTION REQUIRED BY RULE 4.10.2. THE PERMITTEE WILL SUBMIT A
COMPLETE PERMIT REVISION APPLICATION ADDRESSING ALTERNATIVE COAL
MINE WASTE DISPOSAL PLANS BEFORE THE VOLUME OF MATERIAL IN THE
APPROVED PILE EXCEEDS 10,000 CUBIC YARDS. IF NO ALTERNATIVE WASTE
DISPOSAL PLAN IS APPROVED, MINING OPERATIONS WILL CEASE WHEN THE
APPROVED DISPOSAL PILE VOLUME REACHES 15,000 CUBIC YARDS, AND THE
PERMITTEE WILL INITIATE AND COMPLETE RECLAMATION OF THE ENTIRE
MINE SITE WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE CESSATION OF MINING.
-3-
Findings of the
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division
for
Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine
Lacy Loadout Facility
Explanation of Findings
Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2) of the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation
Board for Coal Mining, the Mined Land Reclamation Division or
the Board must make specific written findings prior to approval of a permit, permit
renewal, or permit revision. The findings are based on information made available to the
Division that demonstrates that the applicant will be able to operate in compliance with
the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act and the Regulations promulgated
pursuant to the Act.
I. Legal, Financial, and Compliance Information - Rule 2.03
This section of the permit application has been updated due to an Application for Transfer
of Permit and Succession of Operator recently approved by the Division. During Chapter 7
bankruptcy proceedings the assets of New Castle Energy Corporation (including mining and
reclamation permit C-84-065) were acquired by NCIG Financial, Inc. Ownership and
control information on the new operator has been reviewed by the Division. The applicant
has valid leases with the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad to carry on coal loading
activities at the site. Section 2 of the Permit Revision application contains all Legal,
Financial and Compliance Information on the applicant.
Based upon information provided by the applicant, the Division finds that N CIG Financial,
Inc. has obtained legal right of entry for surface coal mining operations on the proposed
permit area.
Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(g), and on the basis of information provided by
the applicant and by other state and federal agencies, the Division finds
that N CIG Financial, Inc. does not control and has not controlled coal
mining operations with a demonstrated pattern of violations of the Act of
such nature, duration, and with such resulting irreparable damage to the environment, as
to indicate an intent not to comply with provisions of the
Act and of the approved permit.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
II. Land Use - Rules 2.04.3, 2.05.5, and 4.16
The applicant has obtained local government approval for the proposed operation in the
form of a Resolution Concerned With the Approval of an Application for Special Use
Permits (Resolution No. 90-083), passed on
October 17, 1990 by the Garfield County Commissioners. Resolution No. 80-178, approved
by the Commissioners on August 5, 1980, authorizes general materials handling and loading
in the area. Although the special -use permit has not
-4-
been issued as of the date of this document, it has been the position of Garfield County
that Resolution No. 90-083 constitutes local approval for the operation while in temporary
cessation. Issuance of the special -use permit by Garfield County is in part dependent upon
approval of the subjectloadout facility by the Division.
The pre -permit and proposed post -mining land use of the area is industrial, as discussed in
Section 3.1 and 4.4 of the permit revision application. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(1), the
Division approves the post -mining land use of industrial land as being equal to the
pre -mining land use.
The proposed permit area is not within 300 feet of any occupied dwelling.
Itis however, within 100 feet of the right-of-way of a public road, namely the access road
forming the west boundary of the Clough Industrial Park. On April 18, 1991, the Division
held a public hearing in Glenwood Springs as required by Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iv)(C), to
determine whether the interests of the public and affected landowners will be protected.
Based on the fact that no coal storage or loading operations will take place within 100 feet
of the public road, and on a lack of evidence to the contrary presented at the public
hearing the Division finds, pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(d)(iv)(D), that the interests of the
public and affected landowners will be protected fro m the proposed operations.
There are no other existing or proposed surface coal mining operations adjacent to the
site. The Division finds, pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(1),
that surface coal mining and reclamation operations under this permit will
not be inconsistent with other such operations anticipated in areas adjacent to the
proposed permit area.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
III. Cultural and Historic Resources - Rules 2.04.4 and 2.05.6(4)
There are no known cultural or historical resources in the proposed
permit area. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(e), the Division finds that the
proposed operation will not adversely affect any publicly owned park or
place listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
IV. Geology - Rules 2.04.5 and 2.04.6
The local and regional geology is described briefly in Section 3.3 of
the permit revision application. The proposed loadout site is located
in an area of coalesced alluvial fans of Quaternery age. A monitoring
well constructed on the site encountered mixed clastic deposits to a
depth of 20 feet. Since only surface activities are planned, regional
information contained within the existing permit document was deemed
sufficient to describe the stratigraphic section.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
-5-
V. Hydrologic Balance - Surface Water- Rules 2.04.5, 2.04.7(2),
2.05.3(4), 2.05.4, and 4.05
Information on surface water hydrology is contained in Sections 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 4.2.9,
and 4.5.3.1, Exhibit 2.8-3, and Appendix 4.2-1 of the permit revision application.
The entire 4.35 acre site is previously disturbed, and is covered with approximately 10
inches of gravel. Approximately 3.6 acres will drain to the single sediment pond, which
will be constructed at the southwest corner of the permit area, and which is designed to
contain the 10 year /24-hour runoff event without discharging. A small area at the
southern end of the site will be berm ed as a means of alternative sediment control, also
with containment of the 10 year runoff event. The applicant has obtained a valid NP DES
permit authorizing discharge from the sediment pond. Hydrologic calculations for all
surface water control structures are located in Appendix 4.2-1 of the application.
An existing system of upland diversions and culverts will route drainage from the adjacent
undisturbed terrain. Runoff evaluations were submitted by the applicant for these
structures, which will meet the requirements of Rule 4.05.
Adequate information on the regional surface water resources of the Colorado River's
contained in the approved permit application for the Coal Ridge
No. 1 Mine.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
VI. Hydrologic Balance - Ground Water- Rules 2.04.5, 2.04.7(1)
2.05.3(4), 2.05.6(3), and 4.05
Ground water occurrance in the permit and surrounding area is described in Sections 3.3.3,
3.3.4 and 4.5.3.2 of the application, and also in the approved permit application document
of the Coal Ridge Mine.
The proposed loadout site is located on the surface of an alluvial fan approximately 15
feet topographically above the Colorado River. A monitoring well (L0-1) established by
the applicant encountered water at approximately 8 feet below the surface. Water quality
is poor, with Total Dissolved Solids concentration of approximately 5000 mg/1. A
documented sample from a nearby well operated by Ideal Basic Industries confirms the
poor water quality.
The Colorado River alluvium provides nearly all of the ground water supply in the area of
the proposed loadout, and is of much better quality than that sampled in well L 0-1. Based
on available information, it appears that the water encountered below the loadout site is
perched, originates north of the permit area in bedrock, and discharges into the Colorado
River or its alluvium just south and downgradient of the permit area.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
-6-
VII. Water Rights and Replacement- Rules 2.04.7(3) and 4.05.15
Information on ground water and surface water rights in the area of the proposed loadout
facility is found in sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5 of the permit revision application, and are
mapped on Figure 3.3-1. Two wells permitted by the Department of Energy as well as the
Hallet Ditch are located within one-half mile of the proposed permit area. Since ground
water beneath the site is already of very poor quality and since all surface water
discharges will meet applicable effluent standards, coupled with the small size of the
operation, no impact to these water sources is anticipated.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
VIII. Probable Hydrologic Consequences and Cumulative Hydrologic Impact
Assessment- Rules 2.05.6(3) and 2.07.6(2)
Potential impacts from operation of this loadout facility on the hydrologic balance can be
classified as follows:
- Diminution of flow or contamination of surface water of the Colorado River
- Contamination of ground water encountered beneath the permit area
The Colorado River and its tributaries, and associated alluvial bodies, provide nearly all of
the water supply in the vicinity of the proposed loadout. This water is of relatively good
quality (generally between 120
and 800 m g/1 dissolved solids). The sediment pond on the loadout site is designed to
contain the runoff from a 10 year / 24-hour precipitation event prior to discharge, and to
safely pass runoff from a 25 year / 24-hour event. The applicant has obtained a valid
NPDES discharge permit, with which any discharge from the site must be in compliance.
Any quantity of flow from the site will be insignificant in comparison to the average
annual low flow of the Colorado River. The quantity of surface water to be detained in
the sediment pond will not measurably decrease river flows. Therefore there is little or
no possibility of adverse affects on the Colorado River from this proposed
operation.
As described in Section VI of this document, a water table was encountered in well L0-1
below the surface of the permit area, with water of extremely poor quality. Any surface
water which infiltrates the gravel surface and reaches the water table is likely to be of
higher quality, thereby having no negative impact on water quality. Only a negligible
quantity of water will be detained by the liner below the coal stockpile, thereby having no
affect on the quantity of ground water in the permit area and vicinity.
The Cumulative Hydrologic Consequences section of the Coal Ridge No. 1 Findings
Document was updated with approval of Permit Revision No. 1, in December of 1990.
That C HIS considered potential cumulative impacts from the Coal Ridge and Eastside (File
No. C-84-063) Mines. Potential impacts from the proposed rail loading facility now being
considered are minimal, so that C HIS document is not being altered at this time.
-7-
In sum mary, several potential hydrologic impacts of the proposed loading operations have
been identified and discussed above. The overall hydrologic balance is not expected to be
impacted. The Division finds that the operations proposed within the permit application
have been designed to prevent material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the
permit area.
IX. Alluvial Valley Floors - Rules 2.06.8 and 4.24
Section 5 of the Permit Revision application discusses the possible impacts of the loadout
facility on alluvial valley floors. The applicant concludes that the proposed permit area is
not located on an alluvial valley floor, but rather on an alluvial fan extending fro in the
north side of the Colorado River valley. The Division concludes that the permit area and
vicinity may be an alluvial valley floor, but that the proposed coal loading operations will
have no adverse impacts on it.
The proposed permit area, as shown on Figure 5.5-1 of the Permit Revision application, is
located on one of a series of alluvial fans (or terraces) deposited by south -flowing
Colorado River tributaries. Pockets of subirrigated alluvium are found adjacent to the
active stream channel only. Irrigated land is found mainly south of the river, with one
possibly irrigated tract on the north side approximately 1500 feet downstream of the
permit area. Exposed bedrock in the area consists of the Tertiary Wasatch and Ohio Creek
Form ations.
The proposed loadout is located on an alluvial fan complex deposited by streams flowing
south to the Colorado River. There is no evidence of past flood irrigation or subirrigation
on the site, and there is no appreciable vegetation growth. The surface consists of
approximately 10 inches of gravel, therefore there are no salvageable soils on the site.
The area is surrounded by transportation corridors, Interstate 70 on the north and the
Denver and Rio Grande Railroad on the south. The land has been put to industrial use for
approximately the last 10 years.
The permit area vicinity may meet the following Alluvial Valley Floor criteria:
- substrate consists of stream -laid deposits within a stream -holding
valley
- surface water could be made available in sufficient quantity and
quality to support agricultural activities
Several considerations, however, lead to the conclusion that the proposed operation will
have no negative impacts on alluvial valley floors:
- the permit area has no agriculturally viable soil material, and
there is no subirrigated vegetation or evidence of past flood
irrigation;
- there are no flood -irrigated or subirrigated areas directly adjacent
to the permit area that are significant to farming;
- the size of the operation and scope of proposed activities is such
that no measurable impacts to water quality or quantity will occur.
-8-
The Division finds, based on information given above, that the proposed operation will not
interrupt, discontinue, or preclude farming on alluvial valley floors, will not materially
damage the quantity or quality of water in ground and surface water systems which supply
alluvial valley floors, and will be conducted to preserve the essential hydrologic functions
of the alluvial valley floors.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
X. Climatological Information and Air Resources - Rules 2.04.8,
2.05.4(2)(h), 2.05.6(1), and 4.17
Climatological information found in the approved permit application for the Coal Ridge
No. 1 Mine also covers the area of the proposed loadout facility.
Initial approval (Emission Permit N0. 90GA253) has been issued by the Colorado
Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, for the hauling, dumping, storage,
and rail car loading of coal at the site.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
XI. Topsoil - Rules 2.04.9, 2.05.3(5), 2.05.4(2)(d), and 4.06
The entire proposed loadout site is covered with approxi mately 10 inches of gravel, so
there is no salvageable topsoil available. Topsoil replacement will not be required during
reclamation.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
XII. Vegetation - Rules 2.04.10, 2.05.4(2)(e), and 4.15
As mentioned in the previous section of this document, the industrial site is covered with
gravel, which is a poor growth medium, and there is no significant vegetation in the area
to be disturbed. The area will accordingly be exempted from revegetation requirements
during reclamation.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
XIII. Fish and Wildlife - Rules 2.04.11, 2.05.6(2), and 4.18
Information on Fish and Wildlife resources in the area is located in
Section 3.7 of the approved permit application for the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine, and applies
as well to the proposed loadout facility.
Since the loadout is to be located in an existing industrial site located between major
transportation corridors, no impact to wildlife is expected.
No threatened or endangered species are known to occur in the permit area. Measures
used to ensure the safety of fish and wildlife are listed in
Section 4.5.2 of the Permit Revision application.
-9-
The Division finds that the proposed activities will not threaten the continued existence of
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
their critical habitats as determined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or the
Nongame, Endangered or Threatened Species Act.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
XIV. Prime Farmland - Rules 2.04.12, 2.06.6, and 4.25
The proposed loadout site is underlain by gravel. Therefore, due to soil type limitations,
no prime farmland is present.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
XV. Operation Plan - Rules 2.05.2 and 2.05.3
Coal haul trucks will travel from the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine west along Garfield County
Road 335 to the New Castle Interchange of Interstate 70, then west on the interstate 18
miles to the West Rifle Interchange, and finally 1.5 miles west on the frontage road to the
loadout site.
Up to 10,000 tons of coal will be stored in a stockpile overlying a sump with synthetic
liner. The margin of the stockpile will be bermed to prevent surface water from entering
or leaving the structure, and any water collected in the sump will be used for treating the
coal as required by the Air Quality permit.
A front-end loader will be used to load coal into the hopper of a stationary loading
conveyor as the rail cars are moved past the loading point. Following loading, an A -frame
bunt over the tracks will shape the coal in each car, which will then be sprayed with latex
to minimize loss of coal dust.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
XVI. Reclamation Plan - Rule 2.05.4
Reclamation of the loadout site will consist of re moval of the facilities on the surface,
regrading of the sediment control structures and the coal stockpile sump, and cleanup of
any coal on the site. The pre-existing network of structures which route upland runoff
around the industrial park will not be removed. There is no topsoil in the permit area, and
only a small area of first -stage successional vegetation is present, so there will be no
revegetation requirements.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
-10-
XVII. Explosives - Rules 2.05.3(6)(a) and 4.08
No blasting or storage of explosives is to take place.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
X VIII. Roads - 2.05.3(3)(c) and 4.03
The entire site is covered with approximately 10 inches of gravel, and is well -compacted.
Haul trucks will follow public roads from the mine site to the loadout, as described in
Section X V of this docu ment.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
XIX. Bonding - Rule 2.05.4(2)(b)
The Division has calculated costs of $ 8500.00 to re move the surface facilities and return
the loadout site to its current condition. The Division has previously estimated a cost of $
270,000 to perform all required reclamation at the Coal Ridge No. 1 mine. The applicant
has posted bond of
$288,000.00 with the Division, which is deemed sufficient to reclaim both the mine and
loadout sites. Docu mentation of bond liability calculations is available in the public files
at the Division office. The bond consists of three Certificates of Deposit, which were
recently transferred from New Castle Energy Corporation to the new operator, N CIG
Financial, Inc.
The operation is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
X X. Sealing of Drilled Holes and Underground Openings - Rules
2.05.4(2)(g) and 4.07
The applicant has coni mitted to abandoning monitoring well L0-1 in accordance with State
regulations.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
XXI. Miscellaneous Compliance - Rules 2.03.3, 2.05.6(5), 4.02, 4.12,
4.19, 4.21, and 4.28
The application meets requirements for format and supplemental information and signs
and markers.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
-11-
X XII. Operations on Lands Subject to Limitations or Prohibitions -
Rules 2.03.7 and 7.01
The Division finds that the proposed loadout site is not included within an area designated
unsuitable for surface coal mining operations in an administrative proceeding begun under
Rule 7, or 30 CFR 769 of the Federal Regulations.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
X XIII. Demonstration that Surface Coal Mining and Reclamation Operations
Can Be Feasibly Accomplished - Rule 2.07.6(2)(b)
The Division finds that the proposed rail loading and reclamation activities can be feasibly
accomplished.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
XXIV. Reclamation Fees Required by 30 C.F.R., Chapter VII, Subchapter R
Rule 2.07.6(2)(o)
The Division, through contacts with the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, finds that N CIG Financial, Inc. is current with their payment of reclamation
fees.
The application is in compliance with the requirements of this section.
WBC/eke
9997F
-12-
• •
r . i T ` X991
JILI
(lop QU ARFIELD COUIVT4
.0 �iJ 0156 Glen Eagle Circle
j,n0 New Castle, CO 81647
��\ October 3, 1991
Garfield County Commissioners
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Supplemental Application and Proposed Amendments to Resolution
No. 90-083 Concerning the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine Near New
Castle, Colorado
Honorable Commissioners:
We have spent considerable time familiarizing ourselves with
the documents forming the basis for Resolution No. 90-083 and the
proposed amendments contained in the September 24, 1991 Public:
Notice of the October 7, 1991 public hearing. We respectfully
request you take the time to familiar► ourselves with our concerns
as presented below.
General and Requirement 2B
The request by the Applicant that a definition of mining be
included in the resolution is not necessary. The fact that any of
the facilities are associated with a mine requires a Special Use
Permit under County Planning and Zoning requirements. The
definition the Applicant proposes would exclude many activities
related by to the mine which should fall under the Special Use
Permit process. If these items were not "mining" then they would
be a "Use by Right" and would not be subject to the Special Use
Permit process. Allowing the construction of surface facilities,
mine tunnels and the removal of 10,000 tons of outside of the
control of the Special Use Permit granted by Resolution 90-083
would remove most of the controls included in the resolution. The
mine could be constructed and considerable work performed without
such requirements as; road construction, ventilation system noise
control, dust control, runoff control, landscaping, visual impact
mitigation, operational times restrictions, waste control and
disposal, etc. In fact, the requested definition of mining would
allow all these activities and some 500 truck loads of coal to be
removed from the site per year outside of County control!
We doubt that if extraction of "product" from the site were to
cease for a period of one year that the Applicant would apply the
same definition to "mining activity." This would set undesirable
precedents for other activities requiring Special Use Permits.
Garfield County Comissioners
October 3, 1991
Page 2
Requirement 2B
The change in the time frame of the permit term from...five
from
(5) years from date of approval..."
to "...from five (5) years
date of issuance..." is part of the continuing attempt by the
Applicant to delay their obligations under the permit. This change
coupled with other time related items requested in this proposed
"amendment" will unreasonably place the future of adjacent
landowners in limbo. Five years should be adequate time to
determine if a potential business venture is sustainable.
Requirement 2G
We urge the Commissioners to retain if the landscape planh
e right to require
additional tree plantingis deemed inadequate
by the Commissioners as included in Resolution 90-083.
Requirement 2H
We are concerned that provisions for the entrance of the coal
trucks onto County Road 335 are inadequate. The mine entrance is
downhill onto the county road and coal trucks would be required to
stop at the bottom of the grade, unless the intent is to have
through traffic stop when this doesn't work. A deceleration lane
is provided for the unloaded trucks to slow down and make the sharp
turn into the mine site but no acceleration lane is provided for
the loaded trucks leaving the stop sign at the mine road exit to
merge with traffic. This area will likely be the site of many near
misses as the loaded trucks perform their "rolling stops" and then
slowly enter the county road. Additional safety measures such as
street lighting, an acceleration lane and improved site distance
for the entering trucks should be provided.
The cost estimate for the roadway construction prepared by SGM
includes many items. Most of the items have reasonable unit prices
for
iousl respective
missedconstruction
altogether. some
Itemsi whi h ant shoulditems
are
be
ser of
seriously
concern are:
The estimate does not appear to include the paved shoulders.
The paved shoulders are essential for those of us who use the
road for jogging or bicycle rides with our families. The
paved shoulders will also provided additional "recovery area"
helping to prevent accidents in car/truck encounters.
Mobilization of $5,000 will not even cover the contractor's
payment and material bonds. Mobilization will actually cost
the contractor 8-10% of his bid price for all the other
items.
i •
Garfield County Comissioners
October 3, 1991
Page 3
The cost of utility relocations is not included and will
probably be in excess of 15% of the cost currently cited.
The cost of additional right-of-way and slope easements is not
included.
The cost of slope stabilization is not included. There will
be lots of significant slopes requiring stabilization measures
on this road. Depending on the measures chosen these can be
costly to both construct and maintain.
The cost estimated for revegetation reflects unit prices often
used for road work. Successful revegetation actually costs
significantly more and must include irrigation, mowing and
fertilization. The City of Fort Collins has a successful
revegetation program which requires the contractors to provide
two years of maintenance and an additional warranty beyond the
maintenance period. It will be costly for the County to
maintain the road cut and fill slopes without successful
will bbetian.Ve yve xpensive ion after proposition start and wills bethure
e
will
responsibility of the County.
Costs for engineering design, surveying and construction
engineering are not included. These items can be $8-15 per
linear foot just for design. The difficult construction
required for this project will necessitate more design and
survey work. Also, right-of-way acquisition will require
additional engineering effort.
The costs of acquiring additional permits such as a 404 Permit
from the Corps of Engineers were not included.
Runoff controls to prevent non -point source contamination of
the Colorado River from construction site runoff do not appear
to be included.
A more reasonable estimate for the roadway construction would
probably approach $1M. The City of Glenwood Springs might be able
to give you an idea as they have been studying the Midland Avenue
improvements for some time.
Cost -benefit analyses for additional safety measures such as
the shoulders and improved a.ntsectiohavenntdsetgn assign that valuea toollar
ow
value to human lives, we hope you
when considering what improvements are reasonable.
The Applicant previously asserted the roadway construction
could be completed within six (6) months of issuance of a permit.
Considering the amount of construction activity which is likely to
Garfield County Comissioners
October 3, 1991
Page 4
occur it is not reasonable
accept to
e tieighteen
(18) months after commencementof t construcionactivties
Additionally, if the above referencedition of "mine
n
is acceptedsubstantialamoun�of activity can occur outside the
County's permit autho.
Proposed Additional Condition to 2.0
The Applicant's s request for two (2) years in which to pick up
and thus activate the Special Use Permit is unacceptable for the
following reasons:
The condition proposed asks for two (2) y with
ears to comply wlication. These
all conditions of the approval of the app
conditions include the roadsite uction which construction iactis vities.l8
months after commencement of
Items which are apparently excluded from the requirements of
the Garfield County Zoning Regulations Special Use Permit by
the virtue of the proposed mdefinition
amendments owill havene substantial
included in,the requested
impacts on the surrounding area. The two (2) year time frame
coupled with the definition a
of of "mine actimineViventilation" would llow the
system
construction and operationi went the Commissioners
without the noise suppression a equipment
for two years!
deemed prudent and agreed by the
Dust control and other environmental to10,000tons ols such as
control
of waste rock (previously limitedSpecial e),
waste water, etc. would not be under the County'r s Sp
se
Permit jurisdiction for the two (2) Y
The commitment by the sitting Board of County Commissioners
for subsequent Boards of County Commissioners to entertain
application, including the unlimited
amendments to this
extension of the time that the Applicant has to pick up the
permit may be unlawful under the Colorado Constitution.
Operations of trucks for construction
actsivitiescoalwanddthete 500
trucks per year to haul the►
lbe
under the conditions of theSpeccial Use Permit or the County's
jurisdiction for the two(2)
) Y
ear As you can see, the activitiesoutside
ecould the definition continueofnearly
"mine
activity" proposed by the Applicant Commissioners
indefinitely without the controls contemplated
by
the of seemingly
Y
in resolution 90-083. Additionally, rselympact possibility
rights of adjacent
endless extensions may
property owners.
Garfield County Comissioners
October 3, 1991
Page 5
Comments on Additional Conditions Proposed
g the
1. Additional Condit on f is lander 1 uses is a commitment This commitment falls short
permitted land to specs of the
of a protective covenant attached to the property by virtuevr A ofcae
McKennis/NCIG Agreement. The commitment proposed by pP
only applies to the coal leer y iveDoes covenant
this
attached to the property carries with the prop
issue belong in the Special Use Permit anyway?
ing of
2. Reclamation must include more
than the be gradedpton'tnatural' el inesiand
Even the MLRD requires
grades. There must be some assurance that revegetation is
successful.
3. The suspension of the time frames under the proposed
roe
amendments to the resolution due to lack of action by the Applicant
because of pending lawsuits is unreasonable. Experience tells us
the Applicant will go to great lengths to avoid complying
l with
ttue
e
provisions of the Special Use Permit. Permitting the App
suspend time requirements will allow the above referenced activity
outside the proposed definition prow is ne ion awouldtyrelease go" to the
on
endlessly. Additionally,
Applicant from any time requirements if THEY sued the County again
over unreasonable permit requirements. Please ask yourselves, if
ition
e
no lawsuits had beenfiled by mine containedpinsResolutioi►d90h083?ad
have
been paved by the deadlineWoulcl
Applicant continues to make
the landscaping be installed? This App out of.
commitments which they apparently intend to find a way
This would even allow the suspension of time if the Applicant were
taken to court by the County attempting to enforce the Permit
requirements!
General
Our greatest concern about this project is
the assurance that
the project be conducted under the best possible p o ectionst to the
of the
residents of the area, with the least impact
County, and in a responsible manner. Our second greatest concern
is for the value of our property. We know of no other area in
Garfield County which exofficials P nced have openly told us a reduction fthey ow�oul.d
erty
valuations. Politica
"help us out" if the mine became a reality by lowering our
assessments. Documentationof the reduction
Permit forur hisrcoaltminelue �ls
due to the issuance of a Special Use equity on
not the sort of help we need when working hard to build eq y
our first home.
Garfield County Comissioners
October 3, 1991
Page 6
preserving We do ask your help in P ing the health, safety and
reviewing and considering
rights of our family by carefully
Resolution 90-083 and the amendments proposed by the Applicant. We
are deeply interested in the provisions of Resolution 90-083 and
their enforcement.
We thank you for the time you have taken to review our
concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon E. Tenney
4oity Ohl hi
14 TA a
A/(2f ( ,t"aw
110-; c )?2y tAiy,k- rT / An 61 21;n C
1j5)J1
?/
r _
1\1 OCT 1.13 1991
eAL
CilkialLLO COUNT Y
r-cl 'cc/ 70 7/4 »fP//cc(7/i
;
A4' -)y);
a 5 ri
Goo 14 /I
;W,/ii,e_
he/444-La4
4? _-410g61-(444-
/420 4 PP -
5 / C 0/c,
kt_
APTCT.K7
SEP 26 1991
(ity*I iLD uuuNTY
September 26, 1991
31, 2 �..�
COW') Y COM.!I� ;If i p.'i
Arnold Mackley, Chairman
Marion Smith
Buckey Arbaney
GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: NCIG's Supplemental Application to Amend Garfield
County Resolution 90-083
Dear Commissioners:
I have written to you several times in the past regarding
this mine issue and thank you in advance for taking the time
to read my response to the most recent submission from NCIG.
My first question/comment is on the form of this
"Supplemental Application." It was my understanding after
attending all of the Commissioners' hearings on this mine,
in particular the last two, that if the Applicant did not
meet all the conditions of Resolution 90-083 their permit
request would be denied and any new request would need to
proceed through the entire process. My understanding was
that Garfield County had no procedure for amending an
application after denial. In fact, this point was an issue
raised by yourselves before finally denying the permit.
I would like to see this mine issue settled as much as
anyone else, however I am not willing to bend or change the
rules to speed the process. The process was set up for a
reason, for the protection of the citizens of this County.
Any change is not in the best interests of the citizens of
this County.
Page 1 of this Supplemental Application (Introduction)
states that Resolution 90-083 authorized the issuance of
special use permits and was approved. I would like to point,
out that the approval was based on numerous conditions which
were ultimately not met by the Applicant and the permit was
then denied. The Introduction also states that this
supplemental application is intended to be supplemental to
the application used as a basis of Resolution 90-083. The
Applicant failed to comply with the conditions used as a
basis for Resolution 90-083 therefore that Resolution is
void and therefore cannot be amended. It is also my
understanding that the County has no provisions for amending
a Resolution even if the conditions had been met.
The Applicant has requested that several conditions (ie
landscaping) be linked to any on-site construction
activities rather than to a•specific date. Who notifies the
County of the date this on-site construction begins, how is
it monitored??. The Applicant states that County Road 335
from the mine entrance to the Riverbend Subdivision shall be
chip and sealed prior to commencement of on-site
construction activities. Who will monitor this? Does this
mean they will not be able allowed to do any on-site
construction until this provision is completed?
Once again I am disappointed in the Applicants choice of
presenting their application. They have proven to be
consistent in their attempts to side-step the procedures
outlined by this County. This makes me question the
integrity of the Applicant. They have not respected this
County and the citizens in the past and therefore it is
important to "proceed with caution" when dealing with them.
Again, thank you for your time. I will see you October 7th.
Sinc?rely,
`cc
Diane R. Boat
0198 Gleneagle Circle
Riverbend Subdivision
New Castle, Colorado 81647
(303) 984-3421
/db
DREG McKENNIS
f\i SEP 31991
1270 County Road 240 I ; ;, I ._
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 c-%'` ��`�
(;AM 1LLD COUNT`(
5ff-C-KO4e1 5/ ow
/*IA 'e2;' ,'"Il43
6A74 -e6:17-
a,/,,,,,,, -
0.. ciA
,. „yr
pezeha617171--
s ��
6-Zefr.t.e "i'Lp az#e:e
eezi-r--4- ?fr)l-z-;-0 .4 -aria -Le, 1X4V 9)7( a,,e, „ane -43). 07,40
�Zy1 CGg�s � "G �=�
-/i' 1-e-''-‘:-fy -6 Aett7e.aJ).-Zlit° it -C- / 6- /.7(.4141,rai a_',/ -a-c.
`'
ACW � 'e I� �,Gt1zn - i - - It d
e
el\al die
0. cin )-1.,..,7*`-