Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 06.08.2009fors' )2;/- F - Oil i 3/ "4) PW BOCC 06/08/09 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST LIMITED IMPACT REVIEW FOR A "KENNEL" PROPERTY OWNER #10 ENTERPRISES, LLC LOCATION ACCESS EXISTING ZONING RECOMMENDATION Approximately 4.5 miles west of the intersection of CR 204 and CR 200 and 7 miles northwest of DeBeque, CO CR 200 RESOURCE LANDS (GENTLE SLOPES / LOWER VALLEY FLOOR) ZONE DISTRICT APPROVAL with conditions GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner requests approval from the Board of County Commissioners to construct and operate a "Kennel" on their property which will be used as a complimentary component to their approved and existing Guiding and Outfitting Resort operation known as the High Lonesome Ranch which supports fishing, wing shooting, and big game hunting and guest lodging uses on the property. (The Board of County Commissioners approved a Special Use Permit for this use in 2006.) The purpose of the kennel is to be able to house and care for the bird dogs used for guided bird hunting on site. The County permits Kennels in the Resource Lands (Gentle Slopes / Lower Valley Floor) zone district and defines them as an establishment other than a pet shop or veterinary clinic, in which adult dogs or 1 domesticated animals are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, or trained Dogs used as a part of a legitimate agricultural activity are exempted from the definition. As mentioned above, the kennel is to be located on a 40 -acre tract surrounded on three sides by BLM land and crossed by CR 200 on the southern portion of the property. The site plan below shows the general lay out of the site with the kennel and associated access, water system, wastewater system. Site Plan The site is generally described as a combination of open -range sage brush hills bordered to the north and west with fairly steep slopes. The site proposed for the kennel as shown above is a flat site where some clearing has begun with a direct access point off of County Road 200. 2 The proposed kennel is a single -story building that is approximately 33 feet wide and 157 feet long with enclosed outdoor yards at each end of the building. The kennel would contain up to 46 kennel bays each at 40 sq. ft. Additionally, the facility proposes a food preparation area, grooming area, rest room, storage room, and office. The kennel floor plan and south elevation are shown below: Floor Plan South Elevation Ir I I I uni r I! !j 1 1 I II CIADANG 0. I. REVIEW STANDARDS & STAFF COMMENTS Limited Impact Reviews are required to adequately address topics in Section 4-502(D)( nd Suitability Analysis, Section 4-502(.1 Impact Analysis h :eneral development standards found in Article VII w h specific attention to Section 7-811 which a - additional standards a..licabl- . ,-nnel as codi ied in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). The following section provides a review of those standards in bold italics below followed by a Staff Response. A. Section 4-502(E) Land Suitability Analysis 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. Staff Response: The site plan adequately shows that the property has direct access to CR 200. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. 3 IST3 IVL• 1 3F°y U KE000J 0 SW LOC N.IIs•.r 2" {. .. 15 za.r zna (I zoo zaa zca _ } } Si0 .{ II..AiMuns iTtt it' aNenna % qy p (�ran MOD Pln ...Enna? n an (.i OMPNL In( Al ORKF sr,µ., South Elevation Ir I I I uni r I! !j 1 1 I II CIADANG 0. I. REVIEW STANDARDS & STAFF COMMENTS Limited Impact Reviews are required to adequately address topics in Section 4-502(D)( nd Suitability Analysis, Section 4-502(.1 Impact Analysis h :eneral development standards found in Article VII w h specific attention to Section 7-811 which a - additional standards a..licabl- . ,-nnel as codi ied in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). The following section provides a review of those standards in bold italics below followed by a Staff Response. A. Section 4-502(E) Land Suitability Analysis 1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site. Staff Response: The site plan adequately shows that the property has direct access to CR 200. 2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and intersection constraints. 3 Staff Response: The site plan adequately shows that the property has direct access to CR 200. There are no access / intersection constraints as a result of this project. 3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access. Staff Response: The site plan, prepared by Rhino Engineering shows an easement for Grand Valley Power for an overhead electric line which does not affect this project. The application mentions a pipeline easement (Enerwest, Inc. and Northern Natural Gas Company) and a Celsius Energy Company. The site plan needs to show these latter two easements to determine if the proposed project has any impact to these two easements. 4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination. Staff Response: The site plan, prepared by Rhino Engineering shows the topography of the property at 2 -foot contours which accurately defines the site. The Application provides a geotechnical report prepared by Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC which indicated that there were no slope instabilities and there are no geologic hazards which should preclude development of this site. 5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site. Staff Response: There are no significant features on or off the site that would be affected by the proposed kennel. 6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade. Staff Response: The Application contains a Drainage Report, prepared by Rhino Engineering, which indicates the proposed kennel is positioned on an alluvial fan that was formed by runoff from an existing drainage basin. The report recommends a berm to be constructed east of the Kennel to divert runoff. This structure has been designed and shown on the site plan. Additionally, the report recommends a "V" shaped channel between the existing duplex and the Kennel and an additional swale be constructed between septic absorption field and the steeper side slopes to the north. These features will require periodic cleaning maintenance to ensure they perform as required. 7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply plan pursuant to Section 7-104. Staff Response: The Application contains a Water Supply Sufficiency opinion prepared by Resource Engineering addressing the adequacy of physical water supply for the kennel. The property has a well that has been permitted by the State Division of Water Resources as an Exempt Well and has been drilled in February, 2009. The well was pump tested at a 24 hour rate and produced as a strong well. Ultimately, the report states that the well is an excellent well and more than adequate to reliably supply the amount of water required by the kennel (260 gallons per day.) Water quality 4 analysis indicated water treatment should be required for consumption. The final approved well permits were supplied providing the legal basis for the water supply. 8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations. Staff Response: The project is not located in a floodplain. 9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable. Staff Response: The Application provides a geotechnical report prepared by Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC which indicated that the property containCslightly collapsible clay soils. The report recommends specific mitigation for all foundations, floor slabs and exterior flatwork, lateral earth pressures, drainage, excavations, and pavements. Ultimately, the report states that there are no geologic hazards which should preclude development of this site. The report also studied the soils percolation rates for ISDS. Ultimately, the percolation rates are adequate for an I5D5 with certain specific mitigation measures. The report states that "with proper design, construction, and maintenance of ISDS, the effluent produced from the kennel are not anticipated to adversely impact surrounding properties. 10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site. Staff Response: The site plan, prepared by Rhino Engineering shows the topography of the property at 2 -foot contours which accurately defines the site. The Application provides a geotechnical report prepared by Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC which indicated that there were no slope instabilities and there are no geologic hazards which should preclude development of this site. 11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes,. Staff Comments: The application contains a "Preservation of Native Vegetation for Improvements at the High Lonesome Ranch" report which proposes an approach to the total site disturbance of approximately 4 acres. The site to be disturbed is a very small amount of low-lying sage open cover. Because there was no professional opinion presented, Staff cannot comment if flora, fauna, wetlands, or migration routes that will be impacted by this minimal proposal. 12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, palentological and historic resource areas. Staff Comments: The application states that there are no known or previously identified Protected or Registered resources on the property. No supporting documentation from a professional capable of making this determination was provided to support this assertion. 5 B. Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis. The Impact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis. 1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and the mailing address for each of the property owners. Staff Comments: The application contains a list of surrounding properties of the larger High Lonesome Ranch property held by #10 Enterprises, LLC. 2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1500' radius. Staff Comments: The application contains a list of surrounding properties of the larger High Lonesome Ranch property held by #10 Enterprises, LLC. 3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Staff Comments: The application contains several documents (geotechnical, drainage, and engineered site plan) that provide adequate descriptions of the site's natural features to aid in the staff review. 4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comments: The Application provides a geotechnical report prepared by Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC which indicated that the property contains slightly collapsible clay soils. The report recommends specific mitigation for all foundations, floor slabs and exterior flatwork, lateral earth pressures, drainage, excavations, and pavements. Ultimately, the report states that there are no geologic hazards which should preclude development of this site. The report also studied the soils percolation rates for ISDS. Ultimately, the percolation rates are adequate for an ISDS with certain specific mitigation measures. The report states that "with proper design, construction, and maintenance of ISDS, the effluent produced from the kennel are not anticipated to adversely impact surrounding properties. 6 5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Staff Comments: The Application contains a Drainage Report, prepared by Rhino Engineering that indicates the proposed kennel is positioned on an alluvial fan that was formed by runoff from an existing drainage basin. The report recommends a berm to be constructed east of the Kennel to divert runoff. This structure has been designed and shown on the site plan. Additionally, the report recommends a "V" shaped channel between the existing duplex and the Kennel and an additional swale be constructed between septic absorption field and the steeper side slopes to the north. These features will require periodic cleaning maintenance to ensure they perform as required. The Application provides a geotechnical report prepared by Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC which indicated that the property contains slightly collapsible clay soils. The report recommends specific mitigation for all foundations, floor slabs and exterior flatwork, lateral earth pressures, drainage, excavations, and pavements. Ultimately, the report states that there are no geologic hazards which should preclude development of this site. The report also studied the soils percolation rates for ISDS. Ultimately, the percolation rates are adequate for an ISDS with certain specific mitigation measures. The report states that "with proper design, construction, and maintenance of ISDS, the effluent produced from the kennel are not anticipated to adversely impact surrounding properties. 6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requirements of Section 7-104. Staff Comments: The Application contains a Water Supply Sufficiency opinion prepared by Resource Engineering addressing the adequacy of physical water supply for the kennel. The property has a well that has been permitted by the State Division of Water Resources as an Exempt Well and has been drilled in February, 2009. The well was pump tested at a 24 hour rate and produced as a strong well. Ultimately, the report states that the well is an excellent well and more than adequate to reliably supply the amount of water required by the kennel (260 gallons per day.) 7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater. 7 The Application contains a Water Supply Sufficiency opinion prepared by Resource Engine( that states "the well is capable of reliably and continuously pumping at a minimum rate of 15 gallons per minute, the maximum pumping rate allowed under an exempt well permit. The minimal groundwater withdrawal will have a negligible impact on the regional groundwater resource." As mentioned above, the property is not located in a floodplain and the geotechnical analysis (through test pits) did not encounter any groundwater. 8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna. b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, palentological, historic resources. c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat. (1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable. Staff Comments: The application contains a "Preservation of Native Vegetation for Improvements at the High Lonesome Ranch" report which describes the Applicant's approach to the total site disturbance of approximately 4 acres. The site to be disturbed is a very small amount of low-lying sage open cover. There are no significant flora, fauna, wetlands, or migration routes that will be impacted by this minimal proposal. Also, as mentioned above, the application states that there are no known or previously identified Protected or Registered resources on the property. No supporting documentation from a professional capable of making this determination was provided to support this assertion. There are no known radiation hazards or need for a SPCC plan. 9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance with Section 4-502(1). Staff Comments: The application states that the Kennel will result in approximately 6 vehicles per day. This will have a minimal affect on traffic in the area. Having the kennel on site in support of the bird hunting activities will eliminate the current practice of housing dogs off-site thereby eliminating off-site trips. Bringing the kennel on-site will reduce the current traffic generated by off-site kenneling. 8 10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Staff Comments: The kennel will house hunting dogs that will bark. The surrounding properties are either vacant BLM land or the owned by the Applicant. This is a remotely located property that is not in the relative proximity of other residences. Staff finds that the location of the kennel will not result in nuisance impacts to adjacent properties. 11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212. Staff Comments: The site disturbance results in approximately 4 acres of disturbance. The application does not propose a reclamation plan as described in Section 7-212; however, their Exhibit G does provide that the Applicant will re -seed all disturbed areas after construction. Staff assumes the kennel to be a long term facility that has adaptive reuse capabilities. Staff recommends that the following provisions be required as conditions of approval: A. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural -appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed slopes. B. Contouring and Revegetation. Abrupt angular transitions and linear placement on visible slopes shall be avoided. Areas disturbed by grading shall be contoured so they can be re - vegetated, and shall be planted and shall have vegetation established and growing based on 70% coverage as compared with the original on-site vegetation within two (2) growing seasons, using species with a diversity of native and/or desirable non-native vegetation capable of supporting the post -disturbance land use. C. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. To the maximum extent feasible, disturbed areas shall be revegetated to a desired plant community with composition of weed -free species and plant cover typical to that site. D. Application of Top Soil. Top soil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. E. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation or other materials that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut slopes and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation. F. Slash Around Homes. To avoid insects, diseases and wildfire hazards all vegetative residue, slushiness, branches, limbs, stumps, roots, or other such flammable lot -clearing debris shall be removed from all areas of the lot in which such materials are generated or deposited, prior to final building inspection approval. G. Removal of Debris. Within six months of substantial completion of soil disturbance all brush, stumps and other debris shall be removed from the site. H. Time Line Plan. Every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the reclamation of the site approved by the County and a security shall be provided to Garfield County in an 9 amount of $2,500 per disturbed acre to be reclaimed prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. C. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions Staff Comments: A kennel is a permitted use that is allowed in the Resource Lands (Gentle Slopes / Lower Valley Floor) zone district. The site plan shows the ability to meet the required dimensional standards (building height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). 2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental Agreements Staff Comments: The property is located in Study Area 5 as shown below: Comprehensive Plan Study Areas. Garfield County, Colorado Study Area 5 /7 Study Area 3 YF<i��r.i / Study Area 4 I F smdy� , t Area 2) Study Area 1( Study Area Five provides a variety of recreation activities for residents and tourists, although these activities are primarily primitive in nature and casual in terms of utilization of the resource base except for the highly developed "guided and organized" hunting activities covered above, where the region provides some of the highest quality hunting experiences available nationally. This Plan anticipates and predicts that in some logical places private entrepreneurs may wish to develop recreational opportunities that utilize the surrounding environment for both summer and winter sports and recreational activities over time. Ample opportunities exist for such developments, within the constraints identified herein and the County's development regulations, for the provision for potential fishing, hunting, hiking, back country skiing, various forms of shooting sports and other forms of recreation on both public and private lands. Staff finds the kennel to fit well within the land uses promoted in Study Area 5. 10 3. Section 7-103 Compatibility Staff Comment: The kennel facility will only disturb 4 acres of a 40 acre property which is bound on three sides by vacant BLM and to the south by the owner's property. The scale, nature and intensity of this use (in support of the overall guiding and outfitting / lodging operation of the High Lonesome Ranch is compatible with the surrounding property. 4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water Staff Comments: The Application contains a Water Supply Sufficiency opinion prepared by Resource Engineering addressing the adequacy of physical water supply for the kennel. The property has a well that has been permitted by the State Division of Water Resources as an Exempt Well and has been drilled in February, 2009. The well was pump tested at a 24 hour rate and produced as a strong well. Ultimately, the report states that the well is an excellent well and more than adequate to reliably supply the amount of water required by the kennel (260 gallons per day.) Resource Engineering conducted a water quality test. Based on the water quality testing results, Staff suggests the BOCC require the proposed water system shall be modified with a water treatment component to include manganese removal and softening for all water pumped from the well plus reverse osmosis treatment for all water used as potable water for both humans and animals as recommended by Resource Engineering Note, the trigger for required compliance with HB 1141 is 8 Single Family Equivalents (SFE) or 2,800 gallons per day (gpd) of water usage. The proposed kennel is estimated to use only 260 gpd at peak demand therefore falling well below the HB 1141 threshold. It appears that the High Lonesome Ranch is in the service area for the Debeque Fire Protection District. No comments were sent in from that district. The proposed water system does propose two water tanks on the hillside northwest of the kennel. Staff recommends the BOCC require the Applicant to obtain a letter from the Fire Protection District that indicates the district will serve the property and that there is an adequate water supply for fire protection at the site or recommend improvements to meet that requirement. 5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply Staff Comments: The trigger for required compliance with Section 7-105 (aka HB 1141) is 8 Single Family Equivalents (SFE) or 2,800 gallons per day (gpd) of water usage. The proposed kennel is estimated to use only 260 gpd at peak demand therefore falling well below the HB 1141 threshold. 6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems 11 Staff Comments: The application proposes a water system that provides water from a well piped to a storage tank and then gravity fed to the kennel facility. It is unclear if the system has been designed by an engineer which is required in Garfield County. County Staff Engineer provided the following comments: a. Storage Tank Volume: The last plan sheet gives the sizes of the two water storage tanks. Tank 111 that serves the duplex is 4700 gallons (10' diameter and 8' tall). Tank 112 that serves the kennels is 6,770 gallons (12' diameter and 8' tall). b. Duplicate Water Lines: 1 see no reason why they have two different water systems for the kennel and duplex. Some State requirement? Why have two sets of pump controls and double the length of pipe? c. ISDS/Water Line Separation: The water lines are too close to the drain field. According to the ISDS regulations, a 25' separation is needed. d. Pipe Route on Hillside: 1 also disagree with running the water lines straight up the hillside. The propose PVC pipe needs to be buried to prevent freezing. I think that it would be a lot easier (and much less visually impacting) to bury the pipe on the tank access road. The application proposes to handle waste from the kennel facility using a Biological Recycle / Discharge System. A diagram of that system is shown below. The County Staff engineer reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: a. Solid Waste: Presumably they will be manually removing the solid waste and sending it to the landfill. b. Recycle Water Storage Tank: The submitted plans don't provide adequate detail to know how the system works. If they are going to recycle the treated wastewater, they need some sort of storage tank to hold the effluent until it's needed. c. Sludge: The treatment system will produce a sludge. What do they plan to do with the sludge? Send it to the septic tank? d. Treatment System Drain. The treatment schematic shows an arrow from the treatment system to the drain. What is this flow? Where does this drain go? To the septic tank? 12 Proposed Waste Building Biological Eecyciing System 131D -r 8-;MSo 23)1'. 1 A. 20 arias. 12' x 6' x 4' ECO Gallon Pretreatment Tank w; media and aeration 58'x58"x 1OJ'1 Walk Door 2" Freah Water W0;4111,2;41 Vnlr Le. Electrical Service 8' O'.erhead Door Floor Heating Ma 'gold s • '.' Second Sump Wier Softner Pressure Washer Pro Tank PVC —j 1' Return recirtulati• 'line 2"PVC return line etimert fi! 0 mos&%Yate H Pressure Wash water Kennel Fkgr Dram Fi rip w/screen c earout No Ramp 7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities Staff Comments: It appears there are adequate public facilities (electricity service) to serve the use. 8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways Staff Comments: The applicant has graded an access into the property directly from CR 200. The Applicant's representative stated that the Road and Bridge Department has approved driveway permit. Also, the proposed internal road is consistent with the requirements in Section 7-307 for the trips generated by the kennel as well as the duplex for the ranch / hunting and guiding employees. 9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards Staff Comments: As discussed above, the Application provides a geotechnical report prepared by Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC which states that there are no geologic hazards which should preclude development of this site and the Drainage Report also provides some mitigation measures that properly deal with some runoff / debris flow issues from the steep slopes to the north and west of the facility. D. Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS 13 1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricultural Lands Staff Comment: The proposed use will not adversely affect active agricultural operations in the area. The dogs are to be properly contained within the confines of the kennel facility. There is no need to construct additional perimeter fencing around the property as the facility already has two fenced areas and the road is adequate to access the facility. The site plan or application does not show that there are any active irrigation ditches to be impacted by this facility. 2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas Staff Comment: The application did not contain an analysis or communication from the Colorado Division of Wildlife or a qualified wildlife biologist that determined if there were any sensitive wildlife areas to be mitigated. The Application does discuss the attempt to minimize site disturbance to the 4 acres and a revegetation method. Regarding wildlife, the County's wildlife mapping system is based on the Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) produced by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. This mapping shows the site to be located in Elk, Mule deer, and Black Bear overall range, Mule Deer severe winter range, Wild turkey overall range. If the kennel is operated as it is intended, there should not be an impact to wintering Mule Deer. 3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies Staff Comment: From the documents provided and site visit conducted by Staff of the Building and Planning Department, the property does not contain any wetlands, or other waterbodies. 4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants Staff Comment: There are no surface waterbodies on the property. The application proposes a waste disposal system that will be required to meet state and federal standards for disposal and that also do not conflict with drainage features on the site. There are no fuel storage areas proposed on the property. 5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation Staff Comment: The facility will be required to meet all local, state and federal requirements for ensuring that the best management practices are in place during construction of the facility. 6. Section 7-206 Drainage & Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off 14 Staff Comments: The Application contains a Drainage Report, prepared by Rhino Engineering, that indicates the proposed kennel is positioned on an alluvial fan that was formed by runoff from an existing drainage basin. The report recommends a berm to be constructed east of the Kennel to divert runoff. This structure has been designed and shown on the site plan. Additionally, the report recommends a "V" shaped channel between the existing duplex and the Kennel and an additional swale be constructed between septic absorption field and the steeper side slopes to the north. These features will require periodic cleaning maintenance to ensure they perform as required. 7. Section 7-208 Air Quality Staff Comments: The facility shall be operated such that it shall not cause air quality to be reduced below acceptable levels established by the CDPHE. 8. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards Staff Comments: The property is located within a low to moderate wildfire hazard area as mapped by Garfield County based on Colorado State Forest Service wildfire hazard mapping practices. The site and 16 -foot wide access road is flat and access is directly located off of CR 200 with an emergency turn -around radius of 60 feet. As mentioned above, the application did not propose a wildfire protection plan. Staff recommends the BOCC require the Applicant to obtain a letter from the Fire Protection District that indicates the district will serve the property and that there is an adequate water supply and access for fire protection at the site or recommend improvements to meet that requirement. 9. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards Staff Comments: The Application contains a Drainage Report, prepared by Rhino Engineering, that indicates the proposed kennel is positioned on an alluvial fan that was formed by runoff from an existing drainage basin. The report recommends a berm to be constructed east of the Kennel to divert runoff. This structure has been designed and shown on the site plan. Additionally, the report recommends a "V" shaped channel between the existing duplex and the Kennel and an additional swale be constructed between septic absorption field and the steeper side slopes to the north. These features will require periodic cleaning maintenance to ensure they perform as required. The Application provides a geotechnical report prepared by Huddleston -Berry Engineering and Testing, LLC which indicated that the property contains slightly collapsible clay soils. The report recommends specific mitigation for all foundations, floor slabs and exterior flatwork, lateral earth pressures, drainage, excavations, and pavements. Ultimately, the report states that there are no geologic hazards which should preclude development of this site. 15 10. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance Staff Comments: The application indicates that there are no previously identified archeological, paleontological and historical resources that exist in areas to be affected by the proposed development. There is no documentation to support this comment. 11. Section 7-212 Reclamation Staff Comments: The site disturbance results in approximately 4 acres of disturbance. The application does not propose a reclamation plan as described in Section 7-212; however, their Exhibit G does provide that the Applicant will re -seed all disturbed areas after construction. Staff assumes the kennel to be a long term facility that has adaptive reuse capabilities. Staff recommends that the following provisions be required as conditions of approval: A. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural -appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed slopes. B. Contouring and Revegetation. Abrupt angular transitions and linear placement on visible slopes shall be avoided. Areas disturbed by grading shall be contoured so they can be re - vegetated, and shall be planted and shall have vegetation established and growing based on 70% coverage as compared with the original on-site vegetation within two (2) growing seasons, using species with a diversity of native and/or desirable non-native vegetation capable of supporting the post -disturbance land use. C. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. To the maximum extent feasible, disturbed areas shall be revegetated to a desired plant community with composition of weed -free species and plant cover typical to that site. D. Application of Top Soil. Top soil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. E. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation or other materials that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut slopes and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation. F. Slash Around Homes. To avoid insects, diseases and wildfire hazards all vegetative residue, slushiness, branches, limbs, stumps, roots, or other such flammable lot -clearing debris shall be removed from all areas of the lot in which such materials are generated or deposited, prior to final building inspection approval. G. Removal of Debris. Within six months of substantial completion of soil disturbance all brush, stumps and other debris shall be removed from the site. H. Time Line Plan. Every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the reclamation of the site approved by the County and a security shall be provided to Garfield County in an 16 amount of $2,500 per disturbed acre to be reclaimed prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. E. SECTION 7- 811 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO KENNEL The following set of standards are required to be met by all kennel facilities in Garfield County. Most of these standards are "operational" which mean they must always be met throughout the life of the facility. While these are codified in the ULUR, Staff recommends they be required as specific conditions of any approval. 1. All kennels shall be completely enclosed with a building that prevents any sounds from emanating from the property boundary in excess of the Residential Zone District standards contained in CRS § 25-12-103, with the exception of CRS § 25-12-103 (2) & (3), that no noise in excess of 55 db(A) from sunrise to sunset and 50 db(A) from sunset to sunrise will be allowed. Sunrise and sunset shall be based on the official time determined by the Old Farmers Almanac charts of sunrise and sunset for the location of the kennel. A kennel may have dogs outdoors if the noise from the kennel does not exceed the noise standards cite previously and complies with other Garfield County regulations as provided. Staff Comments: The kennel is primarily an enclosed building with two small enclosed outdoor areas at either end of the building. This standard can be met. 2. No dust, noise in excess of the Residential Zone District standards contained in CRS § 25-12- 103, with the exception that no noise in excess of 55 db(A) from sunrise to sunset and 50 db(A) from sunset to sunrise as defined above will be allowed, odors or source of filth shall emanate from the property. Staff Comments: This standard can be met. 3. Individual sewage disposal system shall be capable of handling all feces and urine waste from the kennel, or the feces and urine waste shall be stored in a sealed container capable of being pumped for disposal by a commercial hauler to dispose of the feces and urine waste at an approved solid waste disposal site. Staff Comments: The site plan shows two ISDS on the property where one serves the duplex under construction, and the other serves the kennel facility. As mentioned earlier, the County Engineering Staff reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: a. Solid Waste: Presumably they will be manually removing the solid waste and sending it to the landfill. b. Recycle Water Storage Tank: The submitted plans don't provide adequate detail to know how the system works. If they are going to recycle the treated wastewater, they need some sort of storage tank to hold the effluent until it's needed. c. Sludge: The treatment system will produce a sludge. What do they plan to do with the sludge? Send it to the septic tank? d. Treatment System Drain. The treatment schematic shows an arrow from the treatment system to the drain. What is this flow? Where does. this drain go? To the septic tank? 17 4. All liquid and solid wastes, as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act CRS § 30-20-100.5, shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. Staff Comments: Again, the site plan shows two ISDS on the property where one serves the duplex under construction, and the other serves the kennel facility. As mentioned earlier, the County Engineering Staff reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: a. Solid Waste: Presumably they will be manually removing the solid waste and sending it to the landfill. b. Recycle Water Storage Tank: The submitted plans don't provide adequate detail to know how the system works. If they are going to recycle the treated wastewater, they need some sort of storage tank to hold the effluent until it's needed. c. Sludge: The treatment system will produce a sludge. What do they plan to do with the sludge? Send it to the septic tank? d. Treatment System Drain. The treatment schematic shows an arrow from the treatment system to the drain. What is this flow? Where does this drain go? To the septic tank? 5. No permanent disposal of any waste shall be permitted on-site. This does not include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of solid waste in CRS § 30-20-100.5 Staff Comments: Again, the site plan shows two ISDS on the property where one serves the duplex under construction, and the other serves the kennel facility. As mentioned earlier, the County Engineering Staff reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: a. Solid Waste: Presumably they will be manually removing the solid waste and sending it to the landfill. b. Recycle Water Storage Tank: The submitted plans don't provide adequate detail to know how the system works. If they are going to recycle the treated wastewater, they need some sort of storage tank to hold the effluent until it's needed. c. Sludge: The treatment system will produce a sludge. What do they plan to do with the sludge? Send it to the septic tank? d. Treatment System Drain. The treatment schematic shows an arrow from the treatment system to the drain. What is this flow? Where does this drain go? To the septic tank? 6. Special events that attract more than twenty-five (25) participants shall be prohibited on-site unless the proposed special events are well defined as a part of the permitting process and approved as a part of the original permit. Staff Comments: This standard can be met. 7. Animal and food wastes, bedding, debris and other organic wastes shall be disposed of so that vermin infestation, odors, disease hazards and nuisances are minimized. Such wastes shall be removed at least weekly, or more frequently, from the facility and hauled by a commercial hauler to an approved solid waste disposal site. Staff Comments: This standard can be met. 18 8. Kennels requiring a Limited Impact Permit shall be allowed a maximum of 15 adult dogs with no more than two liters per any one calendar year. Staff Comments: The proposed facility shows 46 kennel bays which provides the opportunity to significantly exceed this requirement. Perhaps the interior bay design could be redesigned to better match this codified requirement. 9. All approved Kennels shall be required to provide the Board of County Commissioners with a copy of the license issued by the State Department of Agriculture as a requirement for Kennels and Breeders in the County. Staff Comments: Should the BOCC approve this request for a Kennel, the Applicant shall provide all the required permits from the State of Colorado Department of Agriculture prior to the issuance of any Land Use Change Permit. III. SUGGESTED FINDINGS Should the BOCC decide to approve the request for a Kennel through this Limited Impact Review, Staff suggests the BOCC make the following findings: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the Land Use Change Permit for a Kennel is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application, if all conditions are met, can be in conformance with the applicable Sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a Land Use Change Permit for a Kennel on a property owned by #10 Enterprises, LLC located in the NW '/< of the NE '/< of Section 9, Township 8 South, Range 89 west in Garfield County with the following conditions: 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the interior of the property. 19 3. The Applicant shall provide a Revegetation / Reclamation Plan to the Building & Planning Department that addresses the following points prior to issuance of a Land Use Change Permit: a. Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural -appearing landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed slopes. b. Contouring and Revegetation. Abrupt angular transitions and linear placement on visible slopes shall be avoided. Areas disturbed by grading shall be contoured so they can be re -vegetated, and shall be planted and shall have vegetation established and growing based on 70% coverage as compared with the original on-site vegetation within two (2) growing seasons, using species with a diversity of native and/or desirable non-native vegetation capable of supporting the post - disturbance land use. c. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. To the maximum extent feasible, disturbed areas shall be revegetated to a desired plant community with composition of weed -free species and plant cover typical to that site. d. Application of Top Soil. Top soil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas. e. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation or other materials that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut slopes and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation. f. Slash Around Homes. To avoid insects, diseases and wildfire hazards all vegetative residue, slushiness, branches, limbs, stumps, roots, or other such flammable lot -clearing debris shall be removed from all areas of the lot in which such materials are generated or deposited, prior to final building inspection approval. g. Removal of Debris. Within six months of substantial completion of soil disturbance all brush, stumps and other debris shall be removed from the site. h. Time Line Plan. Every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the reclamation of the site approved by the County and a security shall be provided to Garfield County in an amount of $2,500 per disturbed acre to be reclaimed prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. 4. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the ApplicanyshalLQbtain a letter from the Debeque Fire Protection District that indicates the Distric he property and that there is an adequate water supply for fire protection at the site or recommend improvements to meet that requirement. 5. That based on the water quality testing results, the proposed water system shall be modified with a water treatment component include manganese removal and softening for all water pumped from the we 1pturreveerre osmosis treatment for all water used as potable water for humans a Thein uL, as recommended by Resource Engineering. 20 6. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide the County Building and Planning Department with a copy of all the required permits required by the State of Colorado Department of Agriculture. 7. This kennel shall be completely enclosed with a building that prevents any sounds from emanating from the property boundary in excess of the Residential Zone District standards contained in CRS § 25-12-103, with the exception of CRS § 25-12-103 (2) & (3), that no noise in excess of 55 db(A) from sunrise to sunset and 50 db(A) from sunset to sunrise will be allowed. Sunrise and sunset shall be based on the official time determined by the Old Farmers Almanac charts of sunrise and sunset for the location of the kennel. A kennel may have dogs outdoors if the noise from the kennel does not exceed the noise standards cite previously and complies with other Garfield County regulations as provided. 8. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide an engineered ISDS system to the County to review that meets the following standard: "Individual sewage disposal system shall be capable of handling all feces and urine waste from the kennel, or the feces and urine waste shall be stored in a sealed container capable of being pumped for disposal by a commercial hauler to dispose of the feces and urine waste at an approved solid waste disposal site." 9. Special events that attract more than twenty-five (25) participants shall be prohibited on-site. 10. Animal and food wastes, bedding, debris and other organic wastes shall be disposed of so that vermin infestation, odors, disease hazards and nuisances are minimized. Such wastes shall be removed at least weekly, or more frequently, from the facility and hauled by a commercial hauler to an approved solid waste disposal site. This kennel shall be allowed a maximum(of 15 adult dogs with no more than two liters per any one endar year. 12. Prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide the Building and Planning Department with angmeered water system design hat meets the required standards in Section 7-105 and 7-106 f the U 13. The County shall not issue a building permit for the kennel facility until and unless all of these if- i' conditions have been met and a Land Use Change Permit has been issued by the BOCC. ., }, d)/ 0141 14. The Applicant shall provide an opinion to the County Building and Planning Department from the Colorado Division of ildlife or a qualified wildlife biologist that the proposed facility will not result in an adverse imp ct to wildlife / migration routes Prior to the issuance of a Land use Change Permit. 15. The Applicant shall provide an opinion to the County Building and Planning Department from a qualified professional regarding the presence or not of Protected or Registered Archaeological, 21 cultural, palentological and historic resource areas on the property. This shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit. 16. The Applicant shall provide documentation to the Building and Planning Department to satisfy the following questions raised by the County staff Engineer prior to the issuance of a Land Use Change Permit regarding the water system and waste -water system: a. Storage Tank Volume: The last plan sheet gives the sizes of the two water storage tanks. Tank 111 that serves the duplex is 4700 gallons (10' diameter and 8' tall). Tank 112 that serves the kennels is 6,770 gallons (12' diameter and 8' tall). b. Duplicate Water Lines: 1 see no reason why they hove two different water systems for the kennel and duplex. Some State requirement? Why have two sets of pump controls and double the length of pipe? c. ISDS/Water Line Separation: The water lines are too close to the drain field. According to the ISDS regulations, a 25' separation is needed. e. Pipe Route on Hillside: I also disagree with running the water lines straight up the hillside. The propose PVC pipe needs to be buried to prevent freezing. I think that it would be a lot easier (and much less visually impacting) to bury the pipe on the tank access road. f. Solid Waste: Presumably they will be manually removing the solid waste and sending it to the landfill. g• Recycle Water Storage Tank: The submitted plans don't provide adequate detail to know how the system works. If they are going to recycle the treated wastewater, they need some sort of storage tank to hold the effluent until it's needed. h. Sludge: The treatment system will produce a sludge. What do they plan to do with the sludge? Send it to the septic tank? i. Treatment System Drain. The treatment schematic shows an arrow from the treatment system to the drain. What is this flow? Where does this drain go? To the septic tank? 22 ■®■®REEOU °■®�® RCE ■Els■■ NEREVIENGINEERING I N C. Collin Kenny Building Construction and Maintenance Manager #10 Enterprises, LLC PO Box 88 DeBeque, CO 81630 RE: #10 Enterprises, LLC Kennel Water Supply Sufficiency Dear Collin: EXHIBIT 5/27/2009 In compliance with Section 7-104 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution adopted January 1, 2009, this letter summarizes the opinion and findings of Resource Engineering, Inc. RESOURCE) regarding the adequacy of the physical and legal water supply for the proposed kennel. Findings and Opinion The well drilled to serve the kennel is adequate in both quantity and quality. The well is capable of reliably and continuously pumping a minimum of 15 gallons per minute (gpm), the maximum pumping rate allowed under a domestic exempt well permit. This is approximately 85 times the estimated demand of the kennel. The minimal groundwater withdrawal will have negligible impact on the regional groundwater resource. Water quality testing for basic Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards finds that the water quality is high in sodium, magnesium, sulfate, dissolved solids, hardness, and manganese, constituents all common to the ground water of the area. Treatment is strongly recommended. Recommended treatment includes manganese removal and softening of all water pumped from the well and reverse osmosis treatment for drinking water provided for human or animal consumption. The well has been awarded domestic, exempt well permit #280717 by the Colorado Division of Water Resources. The allowed uses include fire protection, ordinary household uses in up to three single family dwellings, the watering of poultry, domestic animals and livestock on a farm or ranch and the irrigation of not more than one acres of gardens and lawns. The permit is appropriate for the intended uses. These conclusions and opinions have been reached on the basis of a 24 hour well pumping test, water quality testing by Grand Junction Laboratories and issuance of the well permit by the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Well Construction The kennel well was constructed in late February, 2009 by Shelton Drilling, Corporation under monitoring and observation well permit No. 279876. The well is 95 feet deep and Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue g Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 ffil (970) 945-6777 at Fax (970)945-1127 Mr. Collin Kenny, Building Construction and Maintenance Manager #10 Enterprises, LLC 5/27/2009 Page 2 of 4 is completed with 7 5/8" steel surface casing and 5 inch PVC production casing. Slotted casing was installed in the producing zone from 75— 95 feet below the top of the surface casing. At the time of drilling the static water level was 56 feet from the top of the well casing (TOC). A two hour pump test was conducted by Samuelson Pump Co. on March 2, 2009 which concluded that the well was capable of 21 gallons per minute (gpm) with total drawdown of 2.8 feet. 24 Hour Pump Test A 24 Hr. pump test was conducted under the direction of Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) on April 17 and18, 2009. The pump was set approximately 68 feet below the top of casing. The initial water level was 54.84 feet below the TOC. The pumping rate was adjusted over the first 10 minutes of the test. After 10 minutes the pumping rate was a constant 15.5 gpm. Drawdown data was collected at 1 minute intervals during pumping and recovery using a pressure transducer and data logger. Hand data was collected for the first 30 minutes using a well sounder. The drawdown in the well during the pumping period is shown in Figures 1 and 2. The maximum drawdown was 1.76 feet (56.60' from TOC) after 573 minutes of pumping. The pump was off from 573 — 599 minutes after which time pumping resumed. The data suggests that the total drawdown at the end of the 24 hour test might have been approximately 1.9 feet had the pump run continuously. The majority of the drawdown occurred in the first 5 minutes of the test; there was only 0.17 feet of drawdown from 5 minutes to the maximum drawdown of 1.76 feet at 573 minutes. At the end of the test approximately 38 feet of water remained in the well. This is a large safety margin against the well pumping dry. Over the 24 hour pumping period 22,180 gallons was pumped. This is 85 times the a maximum estimated daily demand of 260 gallons for the kennel (see Demand section below) Figure 3 depicts the water level recovery in the well in the 24 hours after pumping ceased. The 'well approached, but did not reach complete recovered at T/T' = 2 indicating that, at the time of the test, the well is not completely recharged at a rate equal or greater than the 15.5 gpm pumping rate. This is typical of wells situated in aquifers that are seasonally recharged. The well can be expected to drawdown for most of the year and then recover during snowmelt or rainfall events. The majority of water wells in Western Colorado exhibit this behavior. RESOURCE EEEEEEEEEEEEE INC Mr. Collin Kenny, Building Construction and Maintenance Manager 410 Enterprises, LLC 5/27/2009 Page 3 of 4 Water Demand The kennel will house up to 46 dogs. Two caretakers will care for the dogs. There will be sanitary facilities for the caretakers and washdown capability for the kennel. Wastewater will be treated in a septic system. The kennel washdown system will use a water treatment and recovery system so the water is recycled and reused for washdown. Only makeup water is required for the washdown which makes the entire kennel operation very water efficient. The maximum annual kennel demand has been conservatively estimated to be 94,900 gallon per year (260 gallons per day) based on the following assumptions: i. 2 caretakers @ 15 gal/day V. 46 dogs @ 5 gal/day. The majority of this demand is allocated to washdown with the conservative assumption that there is no recycling system. With the recycling system annual demand is estimated to be approximately 30,000 to 50,000 gallons per year, or an average of 0.6 to 0.1 gallons per minute. This is far below the domestic exempt well permit limitation of 15 gallons per minute. Water Quality A water quality sample was obtained approximately 30 minutes after starting the 24 hour test and submitted to Grand Junction Laboratories for analysis. The water is typical of the groundwater in the area, exhibiting high levels of sodium, magnesium, sulfate, dissolved solids, hardness, and manganese. Turbidity was also high, although this is common in new wells and is expected to decrease over time. Water treatment is strongly recommended. Appropriate treatment is likely to include manganese removal and softening for all water pumped from the well plus reverse osmosis treatment of all water used as potable water for both humans and animals. Summary and Conclusions • The kennel well is an excellent well and more than adequate to reliably supply the amount of water required by the kennel. • The water quality is typical of groundwater in the area and, with common, readily available treatment, is adequate for human and animal consumption. Treatment including manganese removal and softening for all water pumped and reverse osmosis for drinking water is strongly recommended. • The well permit is appropriate for the intended uses. The well has been awarded domestic, exempt well permit 4280717 by the Colorado Division of Water RESOURCE ENGINEFRING I N C. Mr. Collin Kenny, Building Construction and Maintenance Manager #10 Enterprises, LLC 5/27/2009 Page 4 of 4 Resources. The allowed uses include fire protection, ordinary household uses in up to three single family dwellings, the watering of poultry, domestic animals and livestock on a farm or ranch and the irrigation of not more than one acres of gardens and lawns. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, — oaADo REit‘ RESOURCE ENGINE o�j( j� ttea. I/ i : 9P . m �j Ii mss cQ i John M. Currier, P.E.II ,04. ENS" -. Water Resources Engir4aN v..' JMC/jmc file:848-1.9 attachments RESOURCE NGINEERING INC. A N a N O O O CD 00 0 A N o 0o m O O O O O O O _ Drawdown (feet) !m a33 70 m i O O Pumping Time (minutes) A N Oco Drawdown (feet from TOC) CA O O O O O- O 01 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O b O b o O O O O O O O O O O O -o 3 to IL Co a., o3 a*y O m 7 A y 3 r r c n N W m co C 1 0 O O O W N O W O Residual Drawdown (feet) O P P N N (T O U1 O 0 O O O qt O CD 7 CD m m a CD S r r n Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 #10 ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 88 DEBEQUE, CO 81630- EXST WELL PERMIT NUMBER 280717 DIV. 5 WD70 DES. BASIN MD (970) 283-9420 CHANGE/EXPANSION OF USE. OF AN EXISTING WELL APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 9 Township 8 S Range 98 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 1117 Ft. from North 2210 Ft. from East Section Line Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters Zone:13 NAD83) Easting: Northing: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) as the only well on a tract of land of 37.3 acres (37.93 acres less Garfield County Road 200, Right -of -Way of approximately 0.63 acres) described as that portion of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Sec. 9, Twp. 8 South, Rng. 98 West, 6th P.M., Garfield County, more particulady described on the attached exhibit A. Well location address being 4400 County Road 200, DeBeque, CO 81630. 4) Approved for the installation of a pump in, and the use of, an existing well, constructed on February 23, 2009, to a depth of 95 feet, under permit no. 279876 (canceled). Issuance of this permit hereby cancel permit no. 279876. 5) The use of ground water from this well is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside not more than three (3) single family dwellings, the watering of poultry, domestic animals and livestock on a farm or ranch and the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns. This well is known as Kennel Parcel Well (aka Kennel Location #2 Well). 6) The pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM. 7) The return flow from the use of this well must be through an individual waste water disposal system of the non -evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system in which the well is located. 8) This well shall be located not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permit. NOTE: Parcel Identification Number (PIN): 23-2443-091-00-001 NOTE: Assessor Tax Schedule Number: R290151 (totaling 200 acres) // Oo 9 APPROVED DMW ,Receipt No. 95032248 (� 13,,4‘v State n ' r By DATE ISSUED 05-21-2009 EXPIRATION DATE G JOHN C. KEPHART & CO. t) NCT CA AT ( 435 NORTH AVENUE ♦ PHONE: (970) 242-76 8 • FA%• (970) 243 7235 + GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 Received from: — ANALYTICAL REPORT — High Lonesome Ranch, #10 Enterprises, Collin Kenney PO Box 88 DeBeque, CO 81630 970-283-9420, 812-6731 cell, 970-283-1152 F 8377 Customer No. Laboratory No. water Sample 4/17/09 5/22/09 Date Received Date Reported Lab number Sample ID Arsenic(As) Barium(Ba) Cadmium(Cd) Chromium(Cr) Fluoride(F) Lead(Pb) Mercury(Hg) Nitrate(N) Selenium(Se) Silver(Ag) Color(Co/Pt unit) pH Conductivity@25 deg. C Sodium(Na) Calcium(Ca) Magnesium(Mg) Potassium(K) Chloride(C1) Sulfate(SO4) Phenol. Alkalinity(CaCO3) Total Alkalinity(CaCO3) Bicarbonate(HCO3) Carbonate(CO3) Dissolved Solids Hardness (CaCO3) Turbidity(NTU) Boron(B) Copper(Cu) Iron(Fe) Manganese(Mn) Molybdenum(Mo) Ammonia(N) Phosphate(P) Zinc(Zn) Total Coliform Bacteria See notes on next page. 8377 Kennel 4/17/09 12:15, C. Kenney 0.000 mg/1 0.05 mg/1 0.0027 mg/1 0.001 mg/1 0.16 mg/1 0.000 mg/1 0.00000 mg/1 1.90 mg/1 0.010 mg/1 0.0000 mg/1 0 7.30 5260 umhos/cm 670 mg/1 204 mg/1 263 mg/1 8.8 mg/1 14 mg/1 2450 mg/1 0 mg/1 530 mg/1 641 mg/1 0 mg/1 4050 mg/1 1590 mg/1 44 0.26 mg/1 0.012 mg/1 0.05 mg/1 0.204 mg/1 0.032 mg/1 0.17 mg/1 0.01 mg/1 0.024 mg/1 0 col/100m1 Limits, Public Supplies, by Colo. Dept. Health 0.01 mg/1 2.0 mg/1 0.005 mg/1 0.1 mg/1 4 mg/1 0.015 mg/1 0.002 mg/1 10.0 mg/1 0.05 mg/1 0.05 mg/1 no official limit 6.5-8.5 acceptable no official limit 20 mg/1 no official limit 125 mg/1 no official limit 250 mg/1 250 mg/1 no official limit no official limit no official limit no official limit 500 mg/1 200 mg/1 1 no official limit 1.3 mg/1 0.3 mg/1 0.05 mg/1 no official limit no official limit no official limit 5.0 mg/1 must be less than 1 Lab Dir.: Brian S. Bauer G RN JOHN C. KEPHART & CO. J Gl LA ATI 435 NORTH AVENUE • PHONE: (970) 242-7618 ♦ FAX 243-7235 ♦ GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 NOTES on sample # 8377 Kennel 4/17/09 12:15, C. Kenney Your water tests show levels outside public water supply limits for Sodium, Magnesium, Sulfate, Dissolved Solids, Hardness, Turbidity and Manganese. The Sodium level may be of concern to those restricting dietary Sodium; for each liter of water, 670 milligrams of Sodium would be consumed. Magnesium is a mineral salt contributing to Hardness and overall salt content. The Sulfate may cause gastro-intestinal problems if much water is consumed. The Dissolved Solids reading indicates the water is higher in overall salt content than recommended for drinking and household use. Hard water can leave mineral deposits and lessen effectiveness of soaps. Turbidity can interfere with disinfection. Manganese is similar to Iron, and can cause stains on surfaces and in laundry. Not all factors which might be harmful were tested, but the analysis performed covers many common problems. The Conductivity indicates that overall salt content is too high for many plants. To: Fred Jarman Garfield Count -37] EXHIBIT From: John Niewoehner Project Engineer Date: June 3, 2009 RE: High Lonesome Ranch Duplex and Dog Kennel — Engineering Comments The following are my comments on the proposed High Lonesome Ranch water and wastewater system designs: 1. WATER DESIGN • Storage Tank Volume: The last plan sheet gives the sizes of the two water storage tanks. Tank #1 that serves the duplex is 4700 gallons (10' diameter and 8' tall). Tank #2 that serves the kennels is 6,770 gallons (12' diameter and 8' tall). • Duplicate Water Lines: I see no reason why they have two different water systems for the kennel and duplex. Some State requirement? Why have two sets of pump controls and double the length of pipe? • ISDS/Water Line Separation: The water lines are too close to the drain field. According to the ISDS regulations, a 25' separation is needed. • Pipe Route on Hillside: I also disagree with running the water lines straight up the hillside. The propose PVC pipe needs to be buried to prevent freezing. I think that it would be a lot easier (and much less visually impacting) to bury the pipe on the tank access road. 2. ISDS: There are 2 ISDS proposed. See comment above regarding drain field and water line separation. 3. DOG KENNEL WASTE TREATMENT • Solid Waste: Presumably they will be manually removing the solid waste and sending it to the landfill. • Recycle Water Storage Tank: The submitted plans don't provide adequate detail to know how the system works. If they are going to recycle the treated wastewater, they need some sort of storage tank to hold the effluent until it's needed. • Sludge: The treatment system will produce a sludge. What do they plan to do with the sludge? Send it to the septic tank? • Treatment System Drain. The treatment schematic shows an arrow from the treatment system to the drain. What is this flow? Where does this drain go? To the septic tank? 4. COMPLIANCE WITH WATER SUPPLY SECTION OF COUNTY CODE • Section 7-104 A - Determination of Reliability of Water Supply: (i) Quantity is adequate. (ii) No information is provided for water quality so we can't determine if any treatment is necessary. (iii) Fire District may dictate fire protection water requirements. Typically, if sprinklers are required, water is stored in an on-site tank. Thus, fire protection water demands are minimal. • Section 7-104 B — Individual Wells: Per this section of the Code, 'water quality of the well shall be tested'. No water quality data was provided with the application. • Section 7-105 — Adequate Water Supply: Provision does not apply to this proposal. This Section only applies to development greater than 8 single family equivalents (2800 gpd). Per Resource Engineering's report, the kennel will consume 720 gpd. The duplex will consume an estimated 700 gpd. 5. OTHER OBSERVATIONS • PE Stamp: The plans were stamped by a surveyor, not a professional engineer. • Duplex Parking: Plan should show location of parking for duplex. MAC Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Jeff Dolan Hogan & Hartson LLP One Tabor Center, Suite 1500 1200 Seventeenth Street Denver, CO 80202 June 4, 2009 Dear Mr. Dolan: Following are the results of the Class I cultural resource inventory for Section 9, Township 8S Range 98W: Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (MAC) completed a Class I cultural resource inventory of Section 9 in Township 8S, Range 98W (Sixth PM). A files search was conducted by MAC staff archaeologist Nicole Sauvageau on June 4, 2009, with the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). The files search revealed that five projects have been performed within this Section, all of which were for energy exploration projects (Table 1). However, no archaeological sites were recorded in the section as a result of these projects. Thus, based on this Class I inventory, MAC recommends a finding of no historic properties affected. Table 1 Results of files search, protects in T.8S R.98W Section 9 Project No. Project Type Client Company Year Sites GF.LM.NR127 Pipeline Northern Natural Gas Powers Elevation 1981 none GF.LM.NR347 Well pad/ access road Celsius Energy Company MAC 1991 none GF.LM.NR378 Pipeline Williams Field Services Company MAC 1993 none MC.LM.R239 Pipeline Rooney Operations Company Grand River Consultants, Inc. 1982 none MC.LM.R81 Pipeline Northwest Pipeline Corporation Grand River Consultants, Inc. 1980 none Thank you for the opportunity to perform this work and should you require any further assistance, please do not, hesitate to contact our office. Sinc rely, Kenneth P. Cannon, Ph.D., RPA Project Manager (970) 328-6244 FAX: (970) 328-5623 P.O. Box 899 Eagle, CO 81631 mac @metcalfarchaeology.com (303) 425-4507 FAX: (303) 425-8911 4955 Miller Street, Suite 201 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-2234 (701) 258-1215 FAX: (701) 258-7156 P.O. Box 2154 Bismarck, ND 58502 macnodak@metcalfarchaeology.com o CD 4E4 c 0 }, C m L N CO co U 0 _ a) 46 a 0)L -3 a Q -2 N < p .c4 O m [L' 0 0 CD UU L N -o U 0 TD `E all Nca a c 0 E O —1 -o -c a) 0) +▪ = _ E J © 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. ntroduction sentatives of Ranch -Hogan & Hartson, LLP ® 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Background on High Lonesome Ranch • Location iffs North of DeBeque - Near the Book C - 300 square miles of private deeded and BLM-permitted lands S. t w CD 0 c 12 E .0:a xp N > V O 0co = v c O J N 0 0ct1 as t 0) 0 c/) •C . 2 R ,_p u1 tl! L "' 0 U .co C a ca a) d v E cCa 2 47. V 0 0' y L Y Z ii N L a) p >, O O u- r a) C) c CO o a) a) 0 i 'a N .0 'a cv m 2 r c>a3 d� °E N>+ o O ta CC L L 0)M a) Cu p Q a) ... C 0 " a) C C C -a = 7 •1 O p 2 C >- c L E �2 E ca• O 0 o c N 1 1 2 ® 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. T2 L co E C° ° m Ecu 0 C 1+ (6 cu V% r 0 c a) ° >, U a) L Al L VJ c-+ OL co co a) t a) y -+co - C c Qct cn O ca • a co co o CO o o c Q O (n �L N c O c a) c co • O E a N U° C C O 5 � a) vi a) E 5 "— C U) 'C > C a ecg L M > (0 N CO as N N V L C- c E E O a°i > c 0 a c 0 >, o U L▪ ° f V) o C W E Atis =�vs a.� coo� 0 0 O E ,a`)ia)c) ,a) `- v c Of L. ca a >, .(3 �• 0 ' 1 O1 2 0 in CI 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved Enhances Ranch Operations c c - Big -Game Hunting - Wing Shooting - Horseback Riding - Mountain Biking Currently, bird dogs are kept off-site (near Montrose) �o �45 s O C J • C t co as 0 -0 c 2 • c O • U C▪ 'N Q N 4) (p L • C O 0 • f6 C C (0 O 0 m N (6 7 >, 0- "0 U -0 L O L -O U o vc t O C O Q_ ;a C 2® (n0 0_ p ca Z H L C 0 (6 t as c op CC .° N O- C N N OL 0 > O Q (0 C (A V O 0 C C 0) p) •-- O (p 4) L 0_O C 0 0) 0 N CC 4 D Y.E YfY i 0 2009 Hogan & Hanson LLP. All rights reserved. mpact Review 0) Ais c a) O o "— U O WN) E CO L Q D co C c O c J = O i a) -O oW J • D U L o N J a) E « c L c O .SQ f N • c C O a) c0Y Y _- Oo.O N o co Q 0M a) .c o I M Uc O O •�� U (/) a) c C a) Y N 0 O 0 O a) L t a N C '> Rf a) O U a) as • a 4 •_ a) E c (B co t U (6 z <0 mpact Review Process: We have complied with the Limited 0 N ( 2 ▪ c m o 0 4c -. 0 0 Li_ E a o m Q n >, 10 p co c a) c N c c d 'c (o >, c C cot o D N U, �cf 2 W V Y �� c ca c m N 4) N -c c > o : N 0 c U 0 2 o o cE O 4)-a > = N v Q o c •O • Q 0 0 Q O •Q N Cl- (N < r - County issued Determination of Completeness letter on April 29, 2009. 0) c 0 c a) E 0 0 N O 0 N t co 0) (0o 0 C N a) E co a 4 0 0 C u) c O 03 0) c = Y m to To c L :30 0 < - Board of County Commissioner's Hearing. 0 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. 2 `v O a Standards for Kenne Q) 'C c CD CI3Q Q)- Q) 0) 0) c c (B a v C O) 0 : O Q) m y +Q) c ca O?5, u) U O c Q) E .c N O Q) co Q� Q) < (O - Land Suitability Analysis (Section 4-502(E) of ULUR). a) rn= magi >.0'3 EO c . N U O 8OE- —N -° 4 p 3 u' 7 ._ rn 2 2 2 5 N N N ccn ,+L, O N -a N c0 (6 N N t0 O c N O (6 O co E c N N c N c co `-cow ,C '->, co U N 4- 0 j N a N N O N c o ca 2 U O .3 Q -r act:, c E c o _N14 ui W O n o m O c a)-a_E In :a O co _ 3 .- c c0 cm O L E .� E v *" U c (0 O QQ 3 E .c ac) - c o `0 > TU c_ ._ TiC c fi. a) TS 0 ,E Q ? c m U o J m O N a. as Q -a E c ® 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. AU rights reserved. "Conditions" Recommended by Staff as - G O 0 ./ m § 0 c / 7 .% 0 q 2 .0 ® 2 t -c 2 ' 0 2 S 2 R 2 c E £ 0 $ m $ 2 2 m () 1 \ u) -a0 e k Cr') > 2 ® E 0 % E ® I $ 0 .2 C co $ ° / � d 7 E 0 /ezi / @ I.11] k �•- k ) n ¢ E E Q$ f `. *_ a) 3 m 2 62 2 %/ &. co o _c ® 2 (15 —01 0 CO E @ 7 - .§2 3 / \ E .2 i E 2 § f — S �.2 E 2 k k» >, / 2 0 @ 2 § ® § 0 Q 22 r m m 7 2CO¢CO m 70 a) C) E0 t k§ 0 0 \ k k 2 k ��c 'a§ °R m �® ) E / E § @ $ f \ \ p c -E.0 0 E I 1 \ \ / 3 3 / 6 \ 2 l © 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights res 2 qO m Z H- 0CC < Oi 1 Conditions, cont'd co al > » o - a 13 E 2 -o >, § } \ ) / k $ 7 5 / G > 2 &/ C/ mG S/ �U ®k °° as >0 cto o L._ e= ]0 $2 k� #o E/ 12 o � a) >, u) a) »/ k- rE /k \) �/ 0� $o ma §2 c }2 @4 §f 17 o \ c2 2® c� =m [k E� t= 52 '\ I« £E E/ °M k= C® :S �� L. �% f� �\� `= 0) �c c\ oa Eƒ o % -a\ as 7-0 ®� =2� & ac 70 \� C d�\ a 2 m m = $ 2$ #0 \a CT ,L, 7t 2f� 42EQ k^ _/ c' a= \§E�±= # 4 /�- a) 2 15 ( f% >, B a a F. \\ o //J (�% /k\ _ : _ 2 E % _ § $ .2 $ ca e m 2 o& 2 ct» § g» # 2= Ec E1 \ƒ #2« m:E Eow /.0/m o mea $&o =__ ck c2 {§ &o of0 {.7m o: 7§ E� 2F» �o� 02= .0 E 2 2 J 2 o) 0 7 7 7 E \ �k $P %2 f§ @E= E9\ ce c0 cy > \-c- ±A f \ f% f\/ r \ k a= r± fl fl k02 0.0 <Q Oco 1 1 1 1 1 1 ® 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. z t40 < 0< Oz 1 O •0 c g 2 o mE c = o o c O (nt u, a) co 1 4 n �. • >, O -D a) u, E S 00 0 = • E y=ap Q- O c (n O c as --=c U t a) O c C } N a) 3 a) .. L co co Q .0 -o -0 (L) * Ti a) L (6 co C (A -1.. .Q CO N ▪ O? c O COo a) Q a) - -O CO .cf2 Q � � � O▪ ) (6 9= C a) > -a (0 • U a) a) W N O co in ..se ct Q E c0 co = a) ▪ c6 > C ▪ i L O c% O i QUO 0) a O Q c ,� Ec Lw ES Q O C 0 C N - 12 as O V Y a) RI o -O I— ▪ Q 0 H J O (n U C 2009 Hogan & Hartson ISP. All rights reserved Questions? ® 2009 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF LANDOWNERS ADJOINING #10 ENTERPRISES, LLC BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 50629 HIGHWAY 6 & 24 GLENWOOD SPGS, CO 81601 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 2850 YOUNGFIELD ST LAKEWOOD, CO 80215-7076 h( 9 HOVLAND, ROBERT A.1/32,QUIRK,DENNIS 3/32 TRUST NO. 1,7/16 & TRUST NO. 2,7/16 PO BOX 659 WICHITA FALLS, TX 76307 SCOTT, MURRILL THOMAS & SUE ANN 2795 COUNTY ROAD 207 DEBEQUE, CO 81630 LAMICQ, JOHN JR. 635 19 1/2 RD GRAND JCT, CO 81503-9501 DOUGHERTY RANCH TRUST, THE 6/7 & DOUGHERTY, J V JR 1/7 2250 J ROAD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505-9328 LATHAM, JOHN RICHARD & MARGARET K. PO BOX 237 DEBEQUE, CO 81630 COX, JULIA ANNE & THOMAS A. PO BOX 441 COLLBRAN, CO 81624-0441 FURR, DAVID L. PO BOX 186 DEBEQUE, CO 81630 #12 ENTERPRISES, LLC 1218 WEBSTER HOUSTON, TX 77002 \\\DE- 034643/000001 -4116)7 vl MINERAL INTEREST OWNERS (with addresses when possible) A.G. Tilton (deed, 1950) Tilton Trustee Attn: Arch Tilton 1441 Paterson Road, Unit 103 Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 Flora A. Walker (patent, 1937) No assessor records United States of America Bureau of Land Management 2850 Youngfield St. Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Phillip A. Moore (deed reservation, 1947) No assessor records Wayne N Aspinall (mineral deed, 1947) No assessor records N.E. Pyeatt (mineral deed, 1947) No assessor records L. H. Tilton and G. H. Tilton (deed, 1950) Tilton Trustee Attn: Arch Tilton 1441 Paterson Road, Unit 103 Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 O. C. Tidwell (deed, 1952) No assessor records Charles E. and Dorothy E. Burg (deed, 1952) No assessor records Harry H. Satterfield (deed, 1960) Satterfield Family Trust Dated 2/5/2001 651 S Road Mack, Colorado 81525 Joseph E. Clarkson and Norma S. Clarkson (deed, 1960 No assessor records IDE - 03464)/00000I - 412266 v1 Richard D. Darley (deed, 1964) No assessor records M. Peyton Budy (oil and gas lease, 1973) 555 17`h St. Denver, Colorado 80202 William T. Spears and Clara A. Spears (oil and gas lease, 1973 and 1989) P.O. Box 310 DeBeque, Colorado 81630 Enerwest, Inc. (deed, 1981) 3600 South Yosemite Street, Suite 900 Denver, Colorado 80237 Koch Industries (oil and gas lease, 1981) P.O. Box 2256 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Celcius Energy Company (oil and gas lease, 1989) P.O. Box 11070 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 Dorthula E. Smith (deed, 1924) No assessor recrods \\\DH- 034643/000001 - 412266 vl AERIAL IMAGE AND PROPERTY LINE DATA TAKEN FROM THE GARFIELD COUNTY GIS DATABASE. PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE FOR BOUNDARY USES. 5 PROJECT SITE PROPOSED KENNEL PROJECT #10 ENTERPRISE, LLC #10 ENTERPRISE, LLC 0 ie 1000 f g1�'Fpf.r�{p 2000 SCALE (FEET) LEGEND PROPERTY LINE SECTION ROAD STREAM S10, 8 S, R J' ()W at.:�:trri•: �_c.. Pie Bib Lonesome Rash 0111GFLT /SS wa.Eo ss yco nessir_ �q a�c •'syr ,;� X SECTION: 9 TOWNSHIP: 8S RANGE: 98W DESIGNER: RML DRAWN BYRML HLR KENNEL PROJECT SITE MAP DeBEQUE, CO FIGURE 2 PROJECT #:08-007.4 GATE: 3/2009 SITE MAP 18 \17 #10 ENTERPRISES, LAX #10 -ENT RPRI-SES-LLC- 241"520200W3 19 241515300953 30 16 20 21 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 5 15 241512300952 BUEA& FLA,N�4/1. EM Px* 23 24 241309201)952 BUREAU 0- 241 RPRISES, LLC 131 26 0 ~' 0 6 D MANA/99E JTMCLENNON, MALCOLM & 13400 16 CHEVRO USA INC IeABETH ( .. .. 24 311200951 REA1} OF LAN 216921400026 OXY USA INC 241110100015 SHELL FRONTIER OIt & GAS -1N SAVAGE UMI D PARTNERSHIP! MIAGIEMENT , 17 241108200954 F LAND MANA #k1Q W RP) RISES, LLC 31 32 'REAU OF AND MANA MENT 241533,200 0 ENTE, 'RISES, LLC 6 # 12 ENTERPRISES, LTD 7 244110200951 5 25 19 SAVAGE UMI 16 19 UNITED STATES •FAMERICA 2413 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 1 FURR,PAVID L. 39 29 28 FURR, DAWID L. 26 241312200953 241327400014 CHEVRON U 2413362 35 36 34 ARTNERSHIP I 21 \ 22 24 SHELL FRONTIE OIL & GAS-INC.2411101000155 - 2411342009 6 29 28 27 OF LAND MANAGEMENT TERPRISES, #10 ENTERPRI S E 4 (/ ERPRISES, LLC 2 244504300W,2-- 33 34 1 #12 ENTERPRISES, LTD 2441 8 9 BUREAU OF LAND MANA EMENT R99W #10 ENTERPRISES, LLC ASSESSOR'S MAP OF TAX PARCELS DAfilD 1 rr c DK& 10 11 12 8 2244 9 #10 ENTE #10 ENTERPRI RR, DAVID L. ERGY, INC. // f 8 9 BUREAU OF LAND MANAG ,.244510100951 / C R98W R97W 2ALBERTSON CA TTLE CO, LLLP 004 1 LE CO, LLLP 13 \\*N\\2122 23 24 1917400951 24 241913300951 ALBERTSON CATTLE CO, LLLPBUREAU OF LAND MANAGEM 28 2419271003 26 1.1 24350 00951 BUREAU OFL,9 D;MANAGEMENT 16 bio 15 R101W 24 7 #10 ENTERPRISES, LLC; ASSESSOR'S MAP OF TAX PARCELS T A CIL"? n ur t riJL Lr - J. 11 14 36 12 13 4705200001 ^ "# 13 ENTE PRISES, LLC NTERPRISES, LLC 2497,08400072 DOUG HERT Y '/ NCH TRUST, THE . 7'& - UNITED S ATES OF AMER,CA #10 ENTERPR! 18 ,LLC 17 UNITED STATES OF ERICA 16 15 #10 ENTE PRISES, LLC 241715400005 19 20 21 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT • 241716300952 4 30 31 D ENTERPRISES, LLC 7 #10 ENTERP #SES, LLC 41729100008 2) 28 33 6 3905100001 5 #10 ENTERPRISES, LLC 4 243903300951 24171130000. #14 ENTERPRI 'S, LLC 14 13 18 #10 ENTERPRISES, 22 23 24112240000724 19 X103=NTERPF S€S, LLC #10 ENTERPRS, 24173200010 3 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 2439 ----II�TJ�RyM.JO#�ly_RICHARD & MARGARET K 1/2 & •� 9#10 LLC 243909400002 243' COX, JULIA ANNE & THOMAS COX, JULIA 17 16 15 L4THAM JOHN 4 C 26 241527 -00 2 • R100W 36 12 1 0 ENTE 0 ENT #10 #12 THO '1 H & 17 YC #10-E1V ERPRISES, LLC 241520200073 PRIS S, 11C 31 BUREAU OF LA RPRISES, C NTERPF5 SES, LLC 6 NTERPRISES, LTD 244106300036 ASli244110200951 7 GA RET K 20 2415 / 32 MANAG 241533 NT 5 00 9 10. NA OIL &GAS (USA) ! 241519400s. 24111230095 BUREAU OF LAND WANAG�FJJ1 N 16 21 4 33 15 #13.ENTE _P IS 14 —24-151530 .3 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 24153340 "L05 BUREAU #10 Ei ERPR!SES, #}10 ENTERPRI 4 # 12 ENTERPRISES, LTD 24 '1 BUREAU OF LAND M GEMENT 8 9 ID_K-& 23 35 F LAND MANAGEM S, LLC 1L10 ENT 3 N RPRISES, LL( 2 10 11 BUREAU OF LAND MAN/1-6E- 215716300951 ANAGE215716300951 2 , 57 TER #11 ENTERPRISE i LTD S., LAM HN JR. BfyREAUOF L ND MANAGEMENT 216315 0951 2159211 y0951 U #1 9 ENTERPRISE LLC 2159 REAU OF LAND MANAGEMEN EAU OF LA D M 216 2020 AGEMEN .1 R SES, LTD 216123300957 REAU OF LAND MANAG NT HI -TECH YFUELS CoR 'ORATION 21632 400012 FIREMOUJ1 TVN I MILLS, P-Arl 21,3282.0c LAMI Q, JOHN R.21 %` : ' • 21 63 PAUL H,& 1 IA .,TRUS BUREA6 OF LANs MANA ESTMENTS, INC. JULIA L.,TRUS • + y & TRACYK ``+, 2165 519100956 FRANCIS, LARRY A.& CINDY R. SCC lt 1MLLIAM SCOTT, CAROL B )2423211 TERISES, LTD 4 ENT; RPRJSES, LLC #14 ENTERPRISE+, • LAM!CQ JOHN BUREAU OF ND MANAGEMENT 2417052000101 #14 ENTERPRISES, LLC 241504100071 CANA OIL & GAS (USA) INC HITCHB , K. DON CENTRAL APPALACHIA MINING LLC BRI G HAM, THOM • S K': T & RUTH ANN 0951 24 BURE • U OF LANQ.MANAGEMENT 24211 00951 BUR AU OF LAND ANAGEME OUGHERTYRA t TRUST,17-1E 67 & UNITED ST TES OFA ERICA S, LLC AL:ERTSONC 7TL IUNNE ,-LAURA JOAN IS S, LTD 0 ENTERPR! 2419 24191300951 241 • ,, '0951 BUREAU •FLAND MANAGEMENT REA 0 ANANAGE ENT 24192 100W3 BUR�'A"U OF LAND MANA #10 ENTE •'PRISES, LLC U'ITED STATES OAMERICA 2417 241716300952 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 241 2 400077 #1 ENTERPRI LLC PRISES, LT "PRISES, LTD P ISES, LTD ISES, LTD ES LTD ALBERTSON CJ4TTLE CO, LLLP ENT241515800953 0 ENTERPRISE • LLC 2415 #10 ENTERPRISES; LLC BESKADI, LL BES fLLLP LLLR BUREA 24331020 OF AND MAN 433 #10 E RPRISES, C I?TERPRISES, LLC #10 ENTE; a RISE BU , LLC EAU OF LAND MAN AND MAN TER_PRIS • ,LLC 271'00006 2415 200 EMENT 1 243503400951 #11.1 ENV'1'EKPKISL+'S, LLC ASSESSOR'S MAP OF TAX PARCELS _PAGE:3OF-5. #Z�.E TERPRISES, LLC BUREAU OF 243903300951 2439 \ 1.0-E-NTERPRaSES LLC `rte 2439094000022 #10 LAND MANAGEMENT #12 ENTER BUREAU OF LAND M 0 E 'PRI TERP ISES, SES, LTD AGEMENT24 JOHN RICHARD & MAR 1 11020095 ARET1/2 & �"{C IGAN LAND 2149Bu ? 214731200960 LLC 56 FLT & i&2AU r LAND MANAG SCHWENTN (4TH7YWCSLL JR, IGAN LAND & CA UOFLAND MANAG GAN 71 & CATTLE LLC 5 LE LLC 56 MENT 21.4130400 147 2147 LA MIC JOHN JWITWITR, BUREA OF LAND 2143103 214316200010 ERS, W. RUSSELL JR. SAVAG MIT DRTNERSHIPI 45 D-WIi-L1AM & KATHYGARF-J LD COUNTY ANA GEMENT 0951 CHEVRON USA INC21 ALTENBERN& SONS./ ALE CORP.! CONOCO F3FIILL LEIS 214119100005 BUREAU OF LAND MANA G EM NT #11 EN BUREAJI OF LAND Aft FLANIGAN LAND & CATTILELLC 56 PCT & 111 RI ES, LTD 1 E EMEN BUREAU OF LAND ANAG = ENT WITHERS, W. RUSSELL 2143234000)4 BUREAU Of LAND MANAGEMEA 2141 GAN LAND & CA LELLC 56 FLT & EAU OF LAND M AGEMENT SHAMROCK ILL LLC SHAMROC HILL LLC AU OF L ND MANAGEMEN #10 . NTERP #10 ENTE BUREAU OF LA #10 ISES, LLC PRISES, LLC 214328100007 BUREAij'OFLAND MANAGEMENT I MICA JOHN JR. ALTENBERN, LEO ' & N,MAX S -C TRUSTEES 214127300009 SCOTT, MURRILL�THOMAS & SUE A N BUREAU O LAND MANAGEMENT D, RO'ERT` ,1/32, UIRK,DENN(S 3/32214326300006 TENBERN, 0 R. & N.MAXASC TRUSTEES SCO AMU RILL THO AS & SUE ANN BUR AU OF LAND MANAG T • B&REAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 214 1100961 D MANAGEMENT 214335300954 LAM! JOHN JR. 216103400072 RO K 'DWARD W ROSZY DWARD W ROSZY, EDWARD �.. ROSZYW DWARD W BURE OF LAND ANAGEM ENT 215,7-163 0951 AU OF LAN VANAGEMEN 216308100003 21 CREEK 340000NVE MENT OHN JR, MCDONALD, DAVID S REAU OF LAND M 21592110095 AGEMENT219#11 ENTER RISES, LTD 0 ENTERPRI ES, LLC 216111300003 216120200951 BUREAU OF AND MAN ' ENT BU, EAU OF LAND MANAGEM NT2161 216123W0951 #10 LAMICQ, J #11 ENTERPRIS TERPRI : S, LL ND MANAGEMENT R SES, LTD 1632410001 MILLS, PAUL H. & L L.,T'USTE BUREAU IFLAND ANAGL Fes' NC1 S, LARRY A, & CINDY R. AN!OTT 0,. RICHARD JR e TT, IMLLIA 21100951 `2423 OTT; CAROL 6 7EA u OF LAND MAN GEMENT #111 ENTERPRISES, LLC; ASSESSOR'S MAP OF TAX PARCELS PAGE 4 OF =5 ISES, LTD 24 BUREAU OF LA 115200951 RPRJ8ES; LLC ANAGEM NT 21633510001 =FIB N, K. DON LAMICQ, JOHN REAU OF LAND MANAG 24191740Q951 BUREA 2419 NT LAD MANAGEMENT ►�REAU OF LAND MANA 1913300951 :J-'•, e #14 ENTERP,RI'i S, LLC241716300952 EMENT241705200001 % 7 TWIN UTTES LAlV ? CO. LLC. BUR AU OF LAND 11.(ANAGEMENTBUREA'17'0 \ TaMN BUTTES AGEMEN LLC, WITHERS, W 'J LL JR. WIT ERS, W. R SSELL BUREAU OF LD MANAGEMENT .4110-30 951 VAGE LIMITED PARTN MANTER, DAVID G SAVAGE LIMITE BARNA REAU r- L ND 1 • AGEMENT21 410000 LAMICQ, J 214316200010 WITHERS, W. HN JR. 214720400958 #11 EN BUREAU OF LAND MAN GEMENT A LE LLC 56 PCT #10 NTERP • ##10 ENTE SSELL J ALTENBERN, LEO R. WITHERS, W.RU&S 1 2143 214323400034 LAMICQ, JOHN JAR. 214328100007 B(JRF-A1.1-0 LAND MANAGEMENT N. MAX OIL TER, ID,G 12.5% & SHIPI SA AGELIMITEDPARTNERSHIP! 45% 2.5% 4PARTNEASITII 2.14109200017 D, WILLIAM & H�Y •EAU OF (A, DATMAN GEMENT CHEVR GARFIELD GOUNTY ALTENBERN & SONSSCf , DOUGALD G TRUST D� 10/04/91 CO ALTENBERN, OR N MAX& GERALDINEL.216730300026 S CO -TRUSTEES ALE CORP./ CONO CO P ILL PS 214119100005 2141 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF LAND MANA BURE •'U QF, LAND MANAGEMENT N, LEO R. & NIMAX AS CO -TRUSTEES 213906400020 RON USA INC CHEVV QJs! USA INC 21390740 015 SHAMROC. HILL LLC SH OCK HILL LLC ROSZYI' EDWARD W ROSZYK EDWAR W 2157 215716300951 1 BUREAU OF L 1110 SCOTT, MURR ILL THOMAS &�SUEANNALTEN: UIRK,DENN1S 3/324326300006 DRILL THO AS & SUE ANN BURET REAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 214335300954 D MANAGEMENT OF LAND MANAGEMEN 244 1100961 CHEVRON USA INC 006 214127300009 TENBERN, LEO R. & N.MAXAS CO-TRUS BUREAU OF,L / f JOHN JR. 21610340000 LAM/CQ 216308100003 OHN JR. MCDONALD, DAVID S 2163 340 -R CREE INVEST NOBLE EDWIN A,&PAULIN No .\4, BUREhf OF LAND CNR.BRANDED, OCK RN & SONS 3/4 lilt & NA D, DA REY THOMAS BRYANT S LLC REAU OF LAND ANAGEMEA 21413549012 •ARTNERSHIPI REAU OF LAND M 21592110095 OF LAND MANAGEMEN AGEMENT 21 901 ENTER'RISES, LTD 0 ENTERPRI ES, LLC 216111300073 07N 2135 USA INI GEMEN7 AG EMEA GE Lf 216120200951 BUREAU OF AND MAN486ENT EAU OF LAND MANAGEM NT2161 21612 00951 #10 - TERPRI . S, LL D S. LAMICQ, J •HN JR. #11 ENTERPRISE r 216 15400951 BUREAU OF L n HI -TECH S D MANAGEMENT DAVID S & 165 EMENT2 LAM 21<'328200'03 LAND CO, JOH JR. 522200 CABLE T 7 UST 242 3BUREA 242321100951 TER -RISES, LTD E; ANAGEMENT 242115200951 BUREAU LAND MANAGEMENT 21 EAU 0 RPS$, LLC #14 ENTER/R SES, LLC 216335100011 #10 ENTERPRISES, LLC ASSESSORS MAP OF TAX PARCELS PAGE 50FF-5- REAU OF LA DMANA TLAMICQ JOHN JR(2419 1414,91 RPRISES, LLC 16300952 300951 SURE a =' L.,TR RNUM, GRA BEDELL, CHR! •519100956 LAND MANAG ENT BURSE OF LAN M ENCANA OIL & GAS (U A) I 41504100001 AGEMEN C.