Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.04.2012 - Exhibits A - MMMBoard of County Commissioners — Public Hearing Exhibits Bedrock Resources LLC -- Contractors Yard and Accessory Uses Major Impact Review — Land Use Change Permit September 4, 2012 (File MIPA-7250) Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit Description A Proof of Publication B Return Receipts from Mailing Notice C Photo evidence of Public Notice Postin. D Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 F Application G Updated Staff Report dated 8/27/12 H Staff Presentation Clarification Cover Letter from the Applicant (SGM, dated 5/25/12) J Referral Comments County Vegetation Manager K Referral Comments from County Consulting Engineer L Referral Comments from County Road and Bridge Department M Referral Comments from Rifle Fire Protection District _ N 0 Referral Comments from Colorado Division of Water Resources Referral Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife P Public Comments from !Ilene Pevec Q Public Comments from Gwen Garcelon (7/1/12) R Public Comments from Kenneth Sack (6/30/12) S Public Comments from Kenneth Sack (6/30/12) T Public Comments from Kenneth Sack (6114/12) U Public Comments from Fred Pulver V Public Comments from Kenneth Sack (6/27/12) Public Comments from Amy Hutton W X Public Comments from Mary Russell Y Public Comments from Jason White Z Public Comments from Kenneth Sack (7/1/12) AA Email from the City of Rifle on Water Shed Permit BB Public Comments from Stephanie Syson CC Supplemental Application Information from SGM (received 5/6/12) DD Public Comments from Eden Vardy EE Public Comments from Adrian Fielder FF Public Comments from Dawne Vrabel GG Public Comments from Dylan M. Johns HH Supplemental Application Materials on Crusher Location & Noise 11 Supplemental Application Materials on CDPHE Permitting JJ Public Comments from Lisa Dancing — Light KK Supplemental Application Materials on Noise LL Public Comments from Catherine Leonaitis MM Public Comments from Caitlin Bourassa NN Public Comments from Jason White (7/11/12) 00 Public Comments from Matthew Shmigelsky PP Public Comments from Jennifer Vanian QQ Public Comments from Gwen Garcelon (6/25/12) RR Public Comments from Diane Argenzio SS Public Comments from Shirley Mobley TT Public Comments from Paul Huttenhower UU Public Comments from Terry Kirk VV Public Comments from Sean McWilliams WW Public Comments from Michael Gorman XX Public Comments from Catherine Leonaitis YY Public Comments from Jeannie Perry ZZ Public Comments from Ken and Gail Kuhns AAA Public Comments from Meredith Oakley BBB Public Comments from Sue Schmidt CCC Comments from Debby Ellsworth (8/8/12) including photographs Comments from Debby Ellsworth (8/10/12) including photographs Comments from Debby Ellsworth (8/10/12) including photographs DDD EEE FFF Public Comments from Skye Sieber GGG Public Comments from Mischa Popoff HHH Public Comments from Jim Finch Ill Public Comments from Shiloh McCollum JJJ KKK Public Comments from Michael Thompson Public Comments from Jody Powell LLL Public Comments from Laurie Loeb MMM Supplemental Application Materials — Crushing Im •acts & Visual Models NNN 000 PPP QQQ RRR SSS 111 EXHIBIT G Board of County Commissioners September 4, 2012 Edited 8/27/12 MIPA-7250/GH PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) PLANNER/CONSULTANT LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION ACRES ZONING Major Impact Review — Land Use Change Permit for a Contractor's Yard for Operation of an Asphalt Paving Business and Related Accessory Uses Bedrock Resources LLC, Charles Ellsworth, Manager Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Inc (SGM), Jefferey Simonson, Engineer The site is located off of County Road 315, approximately 1/3 of a mile south of the Interstate 70 Mamm Creek Interchange and 1/3 of a mile east of the Garfield County Airport. A tract of land being situated in Section 18, T6S, R92W and also known by Assessor's Parcel No. 2179-184-00-720. The site consists of 35.72 acres. Rural I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND BACKGOUND Project Description The Application requests Major Impact Review approval for a Contractor's Yard for the operation of their paving business. The Application indicates that an Asphalt Batch Plant is not proposed for the site. Uses that are requested include: a. Office Space b. A shop for vehicle/equipment and truck repair c. A covered parking/storage area d. Storage of materials used in the asphalt/contracting business such as recycled asphalt, millings, road base, rock, pit run, and concrete. e. Some crushing activity of the stored materials such as rock, asphalt and concrete will be performed on a seasonal basis using portable crushing equipment f. Storage of landscaping materials such as topsoil and rock for use by the business with no vegetation or landscape contracting. Improvements associated with the Contractor's Yard proposal include: a. A 1440 sq.ft. office located on a lower portion of the site adjacent to the County Road. The Office will be accessed by a paved section of driveway. The office will be provided with 7 parking spaces. b. A maintenance shop, 5,000 sq.ft. in size and located on the upper portion of the site accessed by a gravel surfaced driveway a minimum of 24 ft. in width. The site plan shows 6 parking spaces and areas for additional equipment or vehicle parking. c. A covered storage building, 8,000 sq.ft. in size also located on the upper portion of the site along the northern edge of the developed area. It includes parking and vehicle storage areas. The overall shop and storage area is 1.5 acres. d. A stockpile storage area, approximately 1.5 acres in size, for materials used in the paving contracting business such as recycled asphalt, millings, road base, rock, pit run, and concrete. e. Temporary and seasonal operation of a portable crusher at the stock pile area. f. A well has been drilled and will be used for potable water, limited irrigation and fire protection pond refilling. g. A septic system serving the office and shop will be installed. h. Water distribution and sewer line infrastructure. i. A fire protection system including hydrants and water storage. J. A stormwater drainage system including detention areas. k. Berms along property boundaries utilizing earthen materials from the site_ L Landscaping plantings. Background Historically the property had been the site of a modular home and limited rural - agricultural activities. More recently Bedrock Resources had applied to the County to locate an Asphalt Batch Plant on the property. That Application was denied by the County in March of 2012_ Findings associated with the denial included ULUR Section 7-103, regarding compatibility. The public hearing on the Application included extensive testimony and review of environmental concerns associated with the proposed Asphalt Batch Plant, emissions, and impacts on adjoining uses including the organic farming operation. In May of 2012, the Applicant applied to the County for a grading permit for the construction of an access road, creation of a bench adjacent to the County Road and creation of an upper level bench to be accessed by the driveway. That grading permit was issued and included conditions requiring compliance with dust mitigation plans and revegetation. Grading activities associated with the permit are nearing completion or completed at this time. 2 Site Description The site is approximately 35 acres in size and is located along the east side of County Road 315 (Mamm Creek Road). The site slopes up steeply to the east. The upper portion of the site along the east property line has variable terrain but is much more level. Several draws exist on the site with some drainage and seeps evident within or along the draws. The site is modestly vegetated with various grasses, sage, and some shrubs. Very few trees exist on the site. Vicinity Map BEDROCK RES O +`' CES, LLC TO RIFLE ^.7d L44CIy 4 rNd 11. ADJACENT USES Adjacent properties and land uses are summarized below and reflect the character of the area including rural agricultural uses and oil and gas activities: North: Single family residential, agriculture, open space, and oil and gas pad. East: Organic agriculture, solar power generating facility, and oil and gas pads West: Mamm Creek Road (County Road 315), open space, and further west Garfield County Airport, industrial, storage, and oil and gas production. South: Agriculture, residential, and oil and gas production. 3 Zoning adjacent to the site: North: Rural (R) East: Rural (R) West: Airport PUD and Industrial (I) South: Rural (R) III. AUTHORITY AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS A. The Land Use Tables contained in Section 3-501 of the ULUR, designate Contractor's Yard within the Rural Zone District as requiring a Major Impact Review. The list of activities proposed (i.e. office, vehicle maintenance, storage, and stock piling of materials) are represented to be accessory to the Contractor's Yard use. The processing requested for crushing activities while accessory to the contractor's yard also is a Major Impact Review use. The storage use typically is a Limited Impact Review use but is being reviewed as part of the overall Major Impact Review Application. B. Section 4-108 of the ULUR outlines the Major Impact Review Procedures including public notice requirements. The process includes public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. C. Article 7 of the ULUR includes general standards for review in Divisions 1, 2, and 3. Article 7, Division 8 also includes standards for specific uses including Section 7-810, Industrial Uses (see excerpts below). Section 7-704 and Section 3-405 contain standards for activities in the vicinity of airports including avigation easements, lighting, reflective materials, industrial emissions, height issues, and wetlands. SECTION 7-810 ADDITIONAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO INDUSTRIAL USE. A. Enclosed Building. All fabrication, .service and repair operations shall he conducted within an enclosed building or obscured by a fence, natural topography or landscaping. B. Loading and Unloading. All operations involving loading and unloading of vehicles shall he conducted on private property and ,shall not he conducted on a public right -of --way. C. Outdoor Storage Facilities. All outdoor storage facilities for, f uel, raw materials and products shall be .screened by natural topography or enclosed by a fence or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. 1. X111 outside storage abutting or facing a lot in a residential or commercial zone shall be screened by natural topography or enclosed by a site -obscuring fence 4 to obstruct the storage area from view. The fence shall be of naaterial and design that will not detract from adjacent residences. D. Industrial Wastes. All industrial wastes shall he disposed of in a manner consistent with statutes and requirements of CDPHE. E. Sound. The volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes. F. Ground Vibration. Every use shall he operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible without instruments at any point of any boundary line of the property G. Interference, Nuisance or Hazard. Every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or faatnes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signal and reflective painting of'.storage tanks, or other legal requirements for safety or air pollution control measures shall be exemptedfrom this provision. IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Site is designated by the Comprehensive Plan of 2030 as Residential Medium High (MH) with residential densities of 2 to < 6 acres/dwelling unit. Chapter 3, Section 4, Economy, Employment and Tourism includes a number of goals, policies, and strategies relevant to the current application. Several key elements are summarized below: Goal #1: Maintain a strong and diverse economic base (for both employment and income generation). Policy #5: The County will direct industrial development to the airport center and other appropriately designated areas. Strategy #4: Ensure that commercial/industrial development are compatible with adjacent land uses and preserve the visual quality of the county. V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Public and Referral Comments: Extensive public comments have been received in response to the public notice and are attached as exhibits to the Staff Report. Public comments received express concern regarding environmental impacts, impacts on the neighboring organic agriculture business and greenhouses, public health, and compatibility. 5 Referral packets were also sent to the following agencies with comments summarized below and included as exhibits. 1. Garfield County Vegetation Manager: Notes that previous comments have been addressed and a reclamation security in the amount of $14,725 for revegeation of disturbed areas of the site has been provided to the County. 2. Garfield County Environmental Manager: No new comments have been received. 3. Garfield County Consulting Engineer: Engineering comments focused on City of Rifle Watershed permitting, potential fueling areas, wetlands permitting, and pump testing for the well. 4. Garfield County Road and Bridge: Did not identify any new or additional impacts indicating that the Applicant will need to fulfill the requirements of the recently issued Driveway Permit #GRB12-D-4. 5. Garfield County Airport: No comments have been received. 6. Holy Cross Electric: No new comments received, previously requested a 30 ft. easement for the existing power line and noted power line relocation issues. 7. Town of Silt and City of Rifle: No comments received. 8. Rifle Fire Protection District: Noted the need for the Applicant to file a water supply construction permit with the Fire District prior to building and that all other questions from the previous submittal have been adequately addressed. 9. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Provided an update on the status of the well permit issued for the site (Permit No. 75904-F) and its allowed uses. The Division indicated that "So long as the applicant maintains the validity of the permit and uses the well in accordance with the permitted conditions, this office has no objection to this application." 10. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: No comments have been received. 11. Colorado Parks and Wildlife: Comments on the lack of significant habitat impacts, limiting new construction to outside of the winter concentration period, the need for noxious weed control, and wetlands topics. B. Application Clarifications: The Applicant has provided clarifications and explanations in a supplemental cover letter and throughout the Application indicating that the proposal no longer includes an Asphalt Batch Plant facility. The Application utilizes updated information/plans and in some cases still includes original reports (Le. wildlife impacts, cultural resources etc.) that are not affected by the change. This format resulted in some gaps of information or inconsistencies that warrant clarification. The Applicant's letter dated May 25, 2012 (packet Exhibit 1) and letter with supplemental Application Materials dated July 5, 2012 (packet Exhibit CC) address a number of the concerns. The following items have been identified as needing additional information. • Some concern clearly exists regarding the proposed recycling of asphalt. The Applicant's proposal includes transportation of recycled materials including asphalt to the site, stockpiling, and crushing of the materials to allow for future reuse as road base. The Application would benefit by additional information regarding any environmental concerns including dust or vapors. 6 • The location for stock piles of materials is shown on the site plan but the submittals do not include details on the crushing activity (type, location, noise, duration, dust mitigation). Staff Note: Additional information has been provided (packet Exhibit CC items #2, #3, and #5). • A fueling component is discussed in the submittals but not shown on the site plan. Staff Note: The Applicant has clarified that no fuel storage or station is proposed on site. Proposed= Site Plan. KFS u. :cam .-is� BEDROCK RENOMTS t7.e m ii erzeaYrpj vIntuc 5JT PMN ai .3 • The noise analysis has an update but does not demonstrate compliance with ULUR and State Standards. The analysis does not include the crusher. Staff Note: The Applicant has provided additional noise analysis (packet Exhibit KK) including crusher and additional mitigation. • The updated traffic analysis should include a conclusion identifying the reduced impacts. Staff Note: The Applicant has provided additional traffic conclusions (packet Exhibit CC item #6) indicating that the modified application reflects projected daily trips of 47 a reduction of 38 trips from the original study. • The access shown on the site plan is separate from the neighboring residential driveway and the Road and Bridge access approval has allowed a separate access. The submittal text seems to indicate a combined access is still possible. 7 Staff Note: The Applicant has clarified that a joint access is not proposed. Access for the adjacent property would remain separate and unchanged. • The Water Quality Test is very detailed and identifies poor water quality and recommends treatment. ULUR Section 4-104 calls for a treatment option to be presented. Staff Note: The Applicant has clarified their treatment option (reverse osmosis at the point of use) ■ Information on the new well is lacking the production or pump test details as required by the ULUR Section 4-104. Staff Note: Production test results have been provided. • The Army Corp Wetlands verification was valid until March of 2012 due to anticipated changes in the Nationwide Permit program. An update is needed. Staff Note: Work was initiated pursuant to a grading permit prior to expiration of the permit. • Permits previously issued such as the FAA 7460-1 and Rifle Watershed permits may still be valid but confirmation from the issuing entities should be provided. Staff Note: City of Rifle has indicated the previously approved watershed permit should suffice (packet Exhibit AA) C. Site Suitability: The Applicant's Site Suitability analysis meets the ULUR requirements and addresses key issues for the site as follows: 1. Access is documented with plans for upgrading identified in the submittals. 2. A new access permit has been approved by the County Road and Bridge Department. 3. A copy of the easement document for the adjoining property needs to be provided and the status of easements for Holy Cross Electric clarified. New easements for electric service may be required. 4. The topography of the site warrants careful review of detailed engineering and soils analyses that have been provided. 5_ Natural features on the site are well documented in the submittals and make note of the topography and significant slopes on the site. 6. Drainage features include several swales/draws and small wetlands areas. Mitigation in the form of detention ponds are proposed along with obtaining approval or Nationwide permits from the Army Corp of Engineers. 7. Plans for potable water to serve the site are provided and a production well has been permitted and drilled. With no irrigation rights on the property and limited irrigation from the new well, the Applicant will need to address provision of water for landscaping and re -vegetation. 8. No flood plains are mapping on the site. 9. A detailed soils and geotechnical analysis has been provided including recommendations on the site development. 10. No major geologic hazards were identified by the analysis, however, the presence of an alluvial fan in the vicinity of the proposed office and secondary detention pond has received additional engineering review. 8 11. The Applicant's Wildlife Impact Study indicates that the natural vegetation on the site supports only low wildlife habitat value and "No threatened, endangered, or candidate species are known to occur within the area..." 12. The applicant's analysis of archaeological resources on the site did not identify any features that meet the criteria for protection or additional study. D. Impact Analysis: The Applicant's Impact Analysis addresses the requirements of the ULUR and identifies the following attributes in support of the application: 1. Adjacent properties and mineral rights owners have been identified per code. 2. Adjacent land uses have been noted and include a mix of agriculture, oil and gas production, vacant lands, and residential uses. Topographic and physical separation helps to mitigate some impacts on adjoining agricultural uses. The property immediately adjacent and east of the site has been approved for development of a major solar power generating facility and is operated as an organic farm and livestock production. 3. The Application includes grading plans, road engineering and road profiles addressing slope issues associated with the topography of the site. 4. Soils information is detailed in the Geotechnical Engineering Study and supplemental opinion letter prepared by H.P. Geotech. 5. The Applicant's water supply involves the use of the recently permitted and drilled well on the site. 6. The geotechnical evaluation and test pits did not encounter any ground water. Percolation test have been conducted and compliance with Garfield County regulations for Individual Septic System will be required. 7. Irrigation of re -vegetation and landscape planting is anticipated. 8. No significant impacts on the environment were found in the ERG Resources Corporation study of the site. 9. The Applicant has provided a detailed Traffic Study prepared by SGM. The study addresses traffic generation from the originally proposed use, improvement warrants, and impacts on off-site intersections. A reduction in traffic generation is anticipated by the change in the proposed use_ 10. A noise analysis update is provided along with a supplemental analysis of the crusher operation, which demonstrate State and ULUR compliance. 11. Dust mitigation plans are provided and the Applicant has further clarified wetting as the primary dust suppression for the proposed crushing activity. CDPHE air quality permitting for the crushing activity needs to be addressed. 12. The Applicant has quantified the areas of disturbance and has provided a restoration bond in accordance with the Garfield County Vegetation Manager's recommendations and County policies. E. General ULUR Standards 1. The proposal is in compliance with general zoning provisions including setbacks and building heights. 9 2. The off-street parking areas meet the code requirement for the number of parking spaces for the office and shop areas. The site plan includes extensive areas for parking vehicles and circulation of trucks. 3. The Applicant has documented the legal and adequate physical supply of water in accordance with Section 7-104. Water quality testing has been completed. 4. Wetlands and/or marshy areas have been identified on the site and will be largely avoided by the development. Mitigation for minor encroachments will be accomplished by the detention ponds and storm water management improvements. Compliance with Nationwide Army Corp permits shall be required. 5. Water Quality protection is benefitted by the detention ponds, filtering of debris and settlement of sediment facilitated by the design. Provisions for ongoing maintenance should be required. 6. The landscaping plan is appropriate for the site and will provide some visual screening. 7 Lighting for the site should be the minimum amount necessary and should be directed downward and inward toward the interior of the site. Compliance with FAA and Avigation easement limitations on lighting shall be required. 8. Limitations on hours of operation should be set forth and are recommended for 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. based on the need to comply with the State limits on noise. 9. Updated FAA permits and confirmation of no height issues should be required. 10. Conditions of approval should require compliance with all applicable sections of the ULUR related to airport compatibility including Sections 3-405 and 7-704. Of note these sections prohibit industrial emissions that obscure visibility, guidelines for lighting, restrictions on reflective materials and electrical interference, height limitations, and wetlands restrictions to avoid conflicts with wildlife associated with bird movements. F. Specific Industrial Use Standards — Section 7-810 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as Amended 1. The site plan includes a 5,000 sq.ft. shop building allowing service and repair operations to be conducted in an enclosed building. Topography, slopes, and site grading will also reduce visibility of the site. 2. All operations including loading and unloading are accommodated on the site. 3. The Applicant should demonstrate compliance with screening for outdoor storage. Visibility from properties to the east may be an issue. 4. Proper disposal of industrial waste in accordance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment shall be required. 5. The applicant's sound/noise analysis subject to updates and supplements demonstrates compliance with State standards subject to implementing proposed mitigation. 6. Impacts from ground vibration have not been identified in the Application submittals. 7 Nuisance impacts inconsistent with a typical industrial operation have not been noted. 10 VI. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing held on July 11th The hearing included extensive public comments and deliberation by the Commission. Much of the Commission's discussion and deliberation focused on compatibility issues relative to Section 7-103 of the ULUR. In addition to standard considerations including traffic and noise, the Commission actively considered other compatibility concerns such visual screening, dust mitigation plans, the scale of operations, and road surfacing. The Commission considered two options provided by Staff and after further discussion and editing, the Commission formalized a motion for approval of the Land Use Permit — Major Impact Review for the Bedrock Resources LLC Contractor's Yard and Accessory Uses subject to the following conditions. 1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners; 2. The operation of this facility and any future amendments shall be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State and Local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility including but not limited to the FAA and Avigation Easement approvals and notifications. 3_ The Applicant shall maintain compliance with the provisions of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 including but not limited to 7-810, Standards for Industrial Uses including the provision of additional screening of outdoor storage or demonstration of effective screening through topography and berms. 4. The Applicant shall maintain existing security for revegetation until released by the County Vegetation Manager upon acceptance of successful completion of the revegetation requirement. Revegetation shall be completed during the next growing season after completion of construction. The Applicant shall supplement the revegetation and landscaping plans with details on irrigation and protection of trees and shrubs from wildlife damage. 5. The Applicant shall implement the proposed weed management plan dealing with Tamarisk and Russian Knapweed. E. The relocated access to the site shall be constructed in accordance with the Applicant's submitted plans and access permit from the County Road and Bridge Department. 7. Prior to operation of the facility the Applicant shall provide documentation of issuance by the CDPHE of all required permitting including but not limited to air 11 quality - Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) permits and spill prevention permits/plans. Said permits shall include the proposed stockpiling and crushing activities. 8. The Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be required to meet Garfield County Permitting and design requirements and engineered systems may be required based on additional site specific soils evaluations. The Applicant shall properly abandon the existing septic system location on the site per Garfield County Regulations. 9. The Applicant shall implement all storm water management improvements as represented in the Application, obtain State Storm Water Management Permits, and construct wetland mitigation if required by the Army Corp of Engineers. An updated Nationwide Permit evaluation by the Army Corp of Engineers shall be provided. The Applicant shall provide ongoing maintenance of detention ponds and wetlands areas. 10. Prior to construction of buildings on the site the Applicant shall file a water supply construction permit with the Rifle Fire Protection District. 11. Engineered foundations, on-site observation of excavations, and compliance with the recommendations of the H.P. Geotech Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study and supplemental opinion letter dated 1/26/12, shall be required for all new construction and grading activity on the site. 12. Prior to the issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide utility easements for Holy Cross Energy's existing electrical service and any relocation. The Applicant shall also document Holy Cross Energy's ability to serve the proposed use. 13. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit the Applicant shall provide written confirmation of an updated approval of the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation". 14. The Applicant shall comply with standards contained in the ULUR for uses in the vicinity of Airports contained in Section 3-405 and Section 7-704 including but not limited to lighting, use of reflective materials, industrial emissions, electrical interference, wetlands, utilities, structure height, and avigation easements. In addition, lighting for the site should be the minimum amount necessary and should be directed downward and inward toward the interior of the site 15. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to facilitate compliance with the State limits on noise. The Applicant shall provide a complete update of the noise analysis for the new proposed use which analysis shall demonstrate compliance with the State noise limits. Said analysis shall include the closest adjacent residential property north of the site and the proposed crusher activity. 12 The Applicant may extend the hours of operation from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. upon demonstration of operating under the 50 db (A) noise level. 16. The site plan shall be updated with additional details on the location of fueling operations and crusher activities. Spill protection and prevention plans shall be provided as required by the State. 17. Asphalt recycling shall be limited to stockpiling asphalt and crushing for future use as road base type materials. No heating, refining, or similar processing of the material shall be permitted. The Applicant shall provide additional documentation indicating that the stockpiled materials will not produce harmful vapors, ground water impacts or similar environmental concerns and will be in compliance with all CDPHE standards and requirements. Supplemental dust mitigation for the stockpiled materials and crushing shall be included in the dust mitigation plans. Crushing activities shall be limited to colder temperatures (based on technical recommendations) and limited to not more than 4 weeks total per year. The maximum quantity of stock piled material shall be 17,000 cubic yards. Materials are to be crushed by a maximum of one crusher operating at time. 18. The Applicant shall comply with the Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the Applicant's Environmental Consultant ERO Resources Corporation recommendations for wildlife mitigation including avoiding construction activity during critical winter months. 19. The Applicant shall further mitigate dust particulates by the application of magnesium chloride to the drivable surfaces that are unpaved, at the conclusion of construction. 20. The Applicant shall post a 4' x 8' sign with the Emergency Contact information, consistent with past practice of the Board, excluding mining uses. VII. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERATION Options for the Board of County Commissioners regarding this request. OPTION A A motion for approval subject to conditions including reference to the Planning Commission recommendation. Such a motion should include the following findings. 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 13 3. That for the above stated and other reasons the proposed Land Use Change Permit for a Contractor's Yard and Accessory Uses related to the Bedrock Resources LLC Major Impact Review Application, on 35.72 acres, off of County Road 315 and zoned Rural is in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 5. That with the adoption of conditions, the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended. In regard to the Planning Commission's recommendation Condition #19 was added to further specify the importance of dust suppression on all drivable surfaces and Condition #20 added to provide a more immediate system of notification/feedback from the public and neighbors if problems such as dust generation are noted on the site. As indicated in the Staff analysis some of the Planning Commission's recommended conditions of approval have been satisfied or partially satisfied by the Applicant. OPTION B: Should the Board desire additional information on key items of concern including compatibility topics a continuation with direction to the Applicant to provide additional details, analysis, or studies is an option for the Board. OPTION C: Denial based on lack of compliance with the ULUR and/or the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 and other concerns as may be noted during the public hearing. 14 View of the Site from Adjacent Organic Farm View of Access Road Under Construction 15 View of Upper Bench Looking North View of Stockpile Area Looking South • •••,0411r,: 16 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE PRIOR TO GRADING Looking South - View of the Upper Portion of the Site View Looking South -East from Mamm Creek Rd. 17 May 25, 2012 Mr, Glenn Hartman, Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8t" Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Bedrock Resources Major Impact Review Submission Clarification on Application Dear Glenn, 65GM ww.sgrn-inc.corn The purpose of this letter is to provide you more insight on the recent application that you have started reviewing for Bedrock Resources, Inc on their property adjacent to Mamm Creek and the Garfield County Airport. As you are aware, this application has been prepared on the heels of the BOCC denial of Bedrock's prior application that consisted of the office, shop, material storage, contractor's yard, equipment, machinery and product storage, recycling processing facility .-1 perhaps th 1 contentious halt batch plant. A.. had and r,IGII1Ci FfJ U1�. most 1aVEll'GYILIVUJ 1.13G, an Cll rll l[Y11 LlCILLII tJlGil ll. As YYG 11�U discussed in the pre -application conference, the uses anticipated for this site will be in support of the asphalt/contractor business for Frontier Paving, Inc. To restate the uses, those mentioned in your Pre -application Conference Summary are restated and slightly more detailed as follows: a. office space b. a shop for vehicle/equipment and truck repair c. a covered parking/storage area d. storage of materials used in the asphalt/contracting business such as recycle asphalt, millings, road base, rock, pit run, concrete, etc... e. some crushing activity of the stored materials such as rock, asphalt and concrete will be performed (portable and limited -- seasonal) f. storage of landscaping materials such as topsoil and rock for use by the business (no vegetation _. landscape contracting) As the previous application considered the above uses in conjunction with the asphalt batch plant, this application removes the asphalt batch plant and therefore the intensity of use to the property such as continuous/daily truck traffic hauling asphalt out and "ingredients for asphalt paving" in. However, the occasional traffic needed to move the other materials in and out are needed to be GIENWOOD SPRINGS 1 18 West Sixth St, Suite 200 1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1 970.945 1004 SSGM www.yn) 1rIL.ccm anticipated. The only "daily" employee anticipated at the site on the upper mesa will be that of a mechanic. There will also be occasions when a crusher will be brought in to "process" those materials listed in item d., above. These are likely times of the year when the asphalt business is "shut down" for the season or during inclimate times for paving. As noted previously, the major change in the application submittal is that of removing the contentious use, the asphalt batch plant. In this manner, we are able to reutilize nearly every report previously prepared as the remaining uses sought for this application are less intensive from an impacts standpoint. Note that as the prior application dealt with the machinery and equipment associated with the batch plant, such issues as needing to modify the FAA avigation easement are not necessary as the batch plant was the controlling factor from a height standpoint. This application remains consistent with the conditions of approval required therein. Likewise, the City of Rifle watershed permit is not necessary to be adjusted as the conditions of approval of the prior defined uses remain applicable and more easy attainable as the concerning aspect of the prior application, the asphalt batch plant, has been removed. Likewise, the drainage grading and best management practices for stormwater management remain as previously proposed even thought the grading plan now impacts less area. The prior application was riddled with concerns over the air quality aspects and emissions from the asphalt batch plant. In addition, as there was an asphalt batch plant, the APEN permit was a requirement. Now, the area of disturbance and the fact that no asphalt batch plant is proposed, there is not a need for an APEN. We have adjusted the Noise Assessment Report (prepared by Engineering Dynamics, Inc.) and the Traffic Study (prepared by SGM). Obviously, in both cases, the respective concerns and impacts have lessened as the batch plant has been removed. Such reports as the erosion control plan, weed management plan, archaeological, cultural and wetland reports remain effective for this project as with the prior and therefore, have not been mortified even though the rises are to be Tess intense from a land use standpoint. For the landscape plan, the grading SSGM rvwv.' r1+ 1I c, c,nn permit application previously submitted by Bedrock Resources contains such and is required to be executed regardless of the outcome of this land use action. Finally, as with the prior application (and processing/review thereof}, you will find that Divisions 2 and 3 of Article 7 of the County's Land Use Resolution are addressed throughout the application as the application has been prepared in accordance with the outline as provided in the Pre -application Conference Summary of 3/20/12. hope this letter and the attached information meets its intended purpose. If you have any questions or need additional information please don't hesitate to contact me. Respectfully, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Jefferey S. Sirnonson, PE, CFM Cc: Charlie Ellsworth David Smith Garfield (7untp Vegetation Manrr$entent July 2, 2012 Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Building & Planning Department RE: Bedrock Resources Contractors lard MIPA-7250 Dear Glenn, Thanks for the opportunity to comment the permit. The concerns I mentioned in my memo to you dated 12119/2012 have been addressed in the new application. A reclamation security in the amount of $14,725 for the 5.89 acres to be reseeded has been posted for the County Grading permit. Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0298 County Road 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Phone; 970.825-8801 Fax: 970.625.8627 June 29, 2012 Mr. Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN EXHIBIT RE: Bedrock Resources, LLC, Contractor Yard & Accessory Uses: MIPA-7250 Dear Glenn: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Major Impact Review of the Contractor Yard and Accessory Uses for Bedrock Resources, LLC. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The following comments were generated: 1. There are requirements for the City of Rifle watershed concerning storage of fluids and fueling area. The construction drawings do not show any details for these appurtenances. 2. The Nationwide General Permit for disturbance of wetlands expired on March 18, 2012. The Applicant should verify that they are in compliance with permitting. 3. The ULUR requires that a 24-hour pump test be performed on the well. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mountain Cross Engirlee 4 g, Inc. Chris Hale, PE 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH:970.945.5544 s FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: Mr. Hartman: Ray Sword Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:06 PM Glenn Hartmann MIPA-7250 After reviewing the MIR for Bedrock Resources LLC; File# MIPA7250, and their application for a Contractor Yard and Accessory use area, the Road and Bridge department finds that there will be no additional impact or concerns from the original application for an Asphalt Batch Plant; File# MII'A- 7030. However, the applicant will still be obligated to fulfill the requirements of the original Driveway Permit #GRB12-D-4 issued on 1/24/2012 under File# IOWA 7030. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you, Ray Gcr field Count Ray Sword District 3 Foreman Road & Bridge 0298 CR 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Mobile: 970-987-2702 Office: 970-625-8601 x4311 Fax: 970-625-8627 rsword@garfield-county.com www.garfield-county.com 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: Glen, Kevin Whelan f kewhelan©rifiehredept.orgg] Friday, June 29, 2012 1:42 PM Glenn Hartmann Bedrock Resources- Major impact review HIUIT I have reviewed the Major Impact Review(MIPA-7250) for Bedrock Resources LLC —contractors Yard & Accessory Uses located approximately 1/3 mile south of the 1-70 Mamm Creek interchange, adjacent to C.R. 315, approximately 1/3 mile east of the Garfield County Airport. The following are the fire district comments: 1. Fire Protection Water supply design appears to meet all fire code requirements. Applicant will need to file a water supply construction permit with the fire district prior to building. Generally, a fire protection water supply system is installed prior to any building construction activity so as to be readily available during building construction activity. 2. All other questions and comments from the previous Bedrock submittal have been adequately addressed. Kevin C. Whelan Division Chief/ Fire Marshal Rifle Fire Protection District 1850 Railroad Ave Rifle, CO 81650 kewhelan@riflefiredept.org Office- 970-625-1243 ext 12 Fax- 970-625-2963 CeII-970-618-7388 " We are dedicated to protecting life, home, and property through leadership, education and partnerships. Safety is our highest priority." 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Glenn, Adams, Karlyn [Kariyn.Adams@a state.co.usj Friday, June 29, 2012 10:09 AM Glenn Hartmann Rubin, Edward; Martellaro, Alan RE: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Impact Review application comments r, EXHIBIT 4 .1 1 We have reviewed the revised application for the Bedrock Resources Contractors Yard and Accessory Uses. The applicant has revised their existing MiR to retract the inclusion of a batch plant on site. Since our last review of the application, the applicant has obtained a production well permit for the Bedrock Weil No. 1. Permit no 75904-F was issued on March 8, 2012 to operate pursuant to a contract with the West Divide Water Conservancy District. The use of ground water from the well is limited to fire protection, drinking and sanitary facilities for a commercial business, drip irrigation for brush and tree vegetation, dust suppression, truck and equipment washing and the refilling of a fire protection pond (surface area of 1,325 square feet) for evaporation losses only. The pumping rate shall not exceed 15 gallons permit with an annual appropriation rate not to exceed an average of 1.41 acre-feet per year. This well permit will expire on March 8, 2013 unless the applicant submits a Pump installation Report prior to the expiration date. The uses allowed on the permit appear to coincide with the uses proposed in the application. So long as the applicant maintains the validity of the permit and uses the well in accordance with the permitted conditions, this office has no objection to this application. The other comments previously provided regarding this application still apply; they are below for your convenience. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. if you or the applicant have any questions, please contact me in this office. Sincerely, Karlyn Adams, E.I.T. Water Resource Engineer Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3581 office (303)866-3589 fax From: Adams, Karlyn Sent; Wednesday, December 14, 2011 4:22 PM To: `ghartmann@garfield-county.com' Cc: Rubin, Edward Subject: FW: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Impact Review application comments Glenn, I would like to update you on the Bedrock Resources MIR. Since my original email they have submitted an application for a monitoring well on the property; the permit is attached. So long as this well is constructed in accordance with the Water Well Construction Rules for production wells, this well could be eligible to be converted to a production well in the future. The applicant will need to submit a full production well permit application, with all applicable documentation (as described in my original email), prior to any well production taking place. Note that a monitoring well permit does allow for limited pumping for the purposes of a well production test. Sincerely, Karlyn From: Whitehead, Dwight Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:36 PM To: Adams, Kartyn Cc: West, William Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Pian Major Impact Review application comments Karlyn, attached for your review is a copy of the permit file for Bedrock Resources LLC, Monitoring/Observation Well, permit no. 287244. Hope it helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards Dwight From: Adams, Karlyn Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:42 AM To: Whitehead, Dwight Subject: FW: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major impact Review application comments From: Adams, Karlyn Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:18 AM To: 'ghartmann@garfiield-county,com' Cc Martellaro, Alan; Rubin, Edward Subject: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Impact Review application comments Glen, We have reviewed the Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Impact Review application. The applicant is proposing to construct a new facility that will include an asphalt batch plant, rock crusher, stock pile areas for aggregate, and office, parking areas for their asphalt transport vehicles and other equipment necessary for the operation. - This office has no record of any previous well permit on this property. The applicant is proposing to drill a new well under a well permit that would be issued pursuant to a contract with West Divide Water Conservancy District (WDWCD) in "Area A". The proposed uses for the well are for an office and shop, fire suppression and dust suppression through the filling of a pond, and landscape irrigation. This office has no record of a new well permit application being submitted either in Section 18 of Twp 6 5, Rng 92 W or by Bedrock Resources. The applicant must submit this application, with a signed copy of their contract with WDWCD and a breakdown of the proposed uses, to this office before any permit evaluation can take place. The applicant proposes that, in the event the well does not produce an adequate amount of water for the proposed uses, a second option would be to haul in water from an outside source. If the applicant chooses to take this path, any water they haul in needs to be legally available for their proposed uses. 2 The application is not clear regarding how much, if any, water will be needed to operate the plant. The submitted water supply plan and draft well permit application do not indicate an intent to use water from the well for these purposes, nor would water be legally available if a permit was issued as currently proposed. If the applicant requires water for these operations, they will either need to include these uses in their use breakdown sheet for their well permit application and have a contract with WDWCD for enough water to cover these additional uses, or haul water to the property from an outside source that is legally available for these uses. A cursory review indicates there may be one water right located on the property. The Adolfo Spring No. 2 was decreed as an absolute water right for domestic uses in 1979 at a rate of O.033 cfs. Though the other water rights in this decree were decreed as conditional rights and were later abandoned, 1 did not locate any record that would indicate this water right has been abandoned. The land owner should be aware that if this water right is not used for its decreed beneficial use, it could be subject to abandonment in the future. So long as the applicant obtains a valid well permit for their proposed uses, or hauls water from offsite where water is legally available for their proposed uses, this office has no objection to this application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you, or the applicant, have any questions please contact me in this office. Sincerely, Karlyn Adams, E. I. T. Water Resource Engineer Colorado Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3581 office (303)866-3589 fax 3 28 June, 2012 COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Northwest Regional Service Center 711 Independent Ave., Grand Junction, CO 81505 Phone (970)255-6100 FAX (970)255-6111 wildlife.state.co.us • parks.state.co.us Mr. Glenn Hartman, Planner Garfield County Building and PIanning 108 8`i' Street — Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Bedrock Resources Major Impact Review EXHIBIT O Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bedrock Resources proposed project. The project is located adjacent to Mamm Creek and the Garfield County Airport and consists of an office, shop material storage, contractor's yard, equipment, machinery and product storage, and recycling processing facility. Analysis of our Natural Diversity Information System data indicates that no significant habitats of rare or sensitive ground-based species of wildlife are known to exist within the disturbance zone. The primary wildlife concern is minimizing disturbance of this Mule Deer Severe Winter Range and Winter Concentration area. We recotnmend new construction of the site take place outside of the winter concentration period of 1 December through 15 April. The CPW is also concerned about the spread of invasive plants and recommends that Bedrocks Resources consults the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan for revegetation guidelines and noxious weed control. The CPW recommends the conservation of wetlands located on the project site. Wetlands are biological hotspots and provide vital moisture in an arid area. Precautions should be taken to protect wetlands, drainages, and riparian areas from erosion, sedimentation and spills. Map wetlands prior to development to identify and properly permit these sensitive areas. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed developments, and your willingness to incorporate wildlife protections into the development process. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss these comments in further depth. Sincerely, Levi Atwater, District Wildlife Manager Cc. Ron Velarde, NW Regional Manager JT Romatzke, Area Wildlife Manager Bill Buchholz, Land Use Specialist File STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor • Mike King, Executive Director, Department of Natural Resources Rids D. Cables, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Commission: David R. Brougham • Gary Buttero Orth, Vice -Chair • Chris Castilian Dorolhea Farris • Tim Glenn, Chair • Allan Jones • Bill Kane • Gaspar Perricone • Jim Pribyl • John Singletary Mark Smith, Secretary • Robert Streeter ■ Lenna Watson • Dean Wing end Ex Officio Members: Me King and John Salazar 25 June, 2012 COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE Northwest Regional Service Center 711 independent Ave., Grand Junction, CO 81505 Phone (970)255-6100 • FAX (970)255-6111 wildlife.state.co.us • parks.state.co,us Mr. Glenn Hartman, Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8'h Street — Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Bedrock. Resources Major Impact Review Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Bedrock Resources proposed project. The project is located adjacent to Mann Creek and the Garfield County Airport and consists of an office, shop material storage, contractor's yard, equipment, machinery and product storage, and recycling processing facility. Analysis of our Natural Diversity Information System data indicates that no significant habitats of rare or sensitive ground-based species of wildlife are known to exist within the disturbance zone. The primary wildlife concern is minimizing disturbance of this Mule Deer Severe Winter Range and Winter Concentration area. We recommend new construction of the site take place outside of the winter concentration period of 1 December through 15 April. The CPW is also concerned about the spread of invasive plants and recommends that Bedrocks Resources consults the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan for revegetation guidelines and noxious weed control. The CPW recommends the conservation of wetlands located on the project site. Wetlands are biological hotspots and provide vital moisture in an arid area. Precautions should be taken to protect wetlands, drainages, and riparian areas from erosion, sedimentation and spills. Map wetlands prior to development to identify and properly permit these sensitive areas. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed developments, and your willingness to incorporate wildlife protections into the development process. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss these comments in further depth. �T Romatzke, Area Wild ife Manager Cc. Ron Velarde, NW Regional Manager Levi Atwater, District Wildlife Manager Bill Buchholz, Land Use Specialist. STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor • Mike King, Executive Director, Department of Natural Resources Rick D. Cables, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Parks and Wildlife Commission: David R. Brougham • Gary Butterworth, Vice -Chair • Chris Castilian Dorothea Farris • Tim Glenn, Chair • Allan Jones • Bill Kane • Gaspar Perricone • Jim Pribyf • Jahn Singletary Mark Smith, Secretary • Robert Streeter • Lenna Watson • Dean Wingfield Ex Officio Members' Mike King and John Salazar Glenn Hartmann From: !Ilene Pevec[achildsgardenofpeace©gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 8:36 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: no asphalt production facility near food growing please l Eilr Dear Glen, I am deeply concerned about any asphalt plants being approved near to food production for our valley that is already low in access to fresh vegetables locally grown. The toxicity of dust from asphalt does not belong near to food sources and is not something to fool around with. Garfield County, Bedrock Asphalt and/or Eagle Springs Farm could all waste a bunch of money and time monitoring for harm done to the organic food produced at Eagle Springs Farm from neighboring industrial activity, not to mention the stress and bad feelings that will accompany that activity. Or we could decide that at this moment on the planet, we need to start to prioritize in the direction that climate trends are making necessary. With climate impacts increasingly unpredictable the only thing we can predict is that feeding an increasing population with a limited water supply is going to be a huge challenge. What are we doing about that? Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute writes, "When the Indian monsoon failed in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson's administration shipped one-fifth of the U.S. wheat crop to India, successfully staving off famine. We cant do that anymore; the safety cushion is gone." With mare summers like this one we may have trouble feeding ourselves domestically, When we start to feel these pains more acutely I wonder if we wilt be concerned with how we can produce more concrete for decorative landscape features, or even sidewalks. I expect we will all be grateful we looked ahead and protected an existing, productive, energy efficient (due to that onsite solar array) organic local farm. Thank you. Illene Pevec, PhD, Design and Planning, Univ. of CO 7949 Hwy 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 Inane Pevec A Child's Garden of Peace creates food and medicinal plant gardens with children and their families. "Whatever you can do or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius and power and magic in it. Begin it now! " Goethe Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Glenn, Gwen Garcelon igwen a©highlifeunlimited.com] Sunday, July 01, 2012 4:04 PM Glenn Hartmann For the Planning Commission Just wanted to formally be in touch to weigh in from the Roaring Fork Food Policy Council. Thank you, Gwen Garcelon Dear Planning Commission, When the Garfield Board of County Commissioners unanimously voted in February against allowing Bedrock Asphalt to operate on land immediately adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic Farm in Silt we felt that was a definitive act on this matter. Commissioner Martin shared that the BOCC had received more letters and emails from citizens about this issue than any other he could recall — alI in support of protecting the valuable asset that Eagle Springs is to our local food supply. And over 100 citizens rallied outside the County offices before the vote representing a regional groundswell of support to prioritize local agriculture. Commissioners Martin, Jankovsky and Samson all expressed concern that the asphalt plant would adversely affect the ability of the farm to successfully operate its business. Then they stood together in affirming the existing code that disallows any land use that impedes existing business or agricultural operation. Bedrock's current application, including some "processing," a "recycling processing facility," and "some crushing activity of the stored asphalt and concrete" still represents the kind of harmful industrial activity from which the code is set up to protect existing agricultural operations. Eagle Springs management has already reported adverse effects from the substantial dust deposited on their crops (even inside their greenhouses) from Bedrock's moving of dirt to build roads on the site. If this dust were to include toxic chemicals from asphalt processing and storage the Eagle Springs recently audited, and exemplary, USDA organic status would be at risk. The Roaring Fork Food Policy Council urges you not recommend this application to the BOCC for approval. Let's not go through this again. With the climate stakes as high as they are, this occurs as a time to draw a line in the sand to protect our ability to feed ourselves locally and protect our agricultural assets. Respectfully, Gwen Garcelon Roaring Fork Food Policy Council 970-963-9182 And here is a second Letter to the Editor I submitted last weekend: I spent about 30 seconds googling the toxicity of dust from asphalt and that was enough to confirm that it's not something to fool around with. Garfield County, Bedrock. Asphalt and/or Eagle Springs Farm could all waste a bunch of money and time i monitoring for harm done to the organic food produced at Eagle Springs Farm from neighboring industrial activity, not to mention the stress and bad feelings that will accompany that activity. Or we could decide that at this moment on the planet, we need to start to prioritize in the direction that climate trends are making necessary. With climate impacts increasingly unpredictable the only thing we can predict is that feeding an increasing population with a limited water supply is going to be a huge challenge. What are we doing about that? Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute writes, "When the Indian monsoon failed in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson's administration shipped one-fifth of the U.S. wheat crop to India, successfully staving off famine. We can't do that anymore; the safety cushion is gone." With more summers like this one we may have trouble feeding ourselves domestically. When we start to feel these pains more acutely I wonder if we will be concerned with how we can produce more concrete for decorative landscape features, or even sidewalks. I expect we will all be grateful we looked ahead and protected an existing, productive, energy efficient (due to that onsite solar array) organic local farm. Please join the Roaring Fork Food Policy Council in urging the Garfield Planning Commission to prioritize our precious agricultural lands. Join us at their next meeting July I l.th, 6:30pm, at the Garco Admin offices on 8th St. in Glenwood across from the Courthouse. Respectfully, Gwen Garcelon Carbondale 963-9182 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: Kenneth Sack [paneraiworthave c@me.com] Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:51 PM Glenn Hartmann; Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky; John Martin Asphalt Plant EXHIBIT I IC, Glenn Since they did not indicate how they would process the asphalt, nor provide studies, I looked up what they could possibly do. If not a batch plant, they would probably use Cold Plant Mix Recycling, which presents similar problems to the batch plant. Cold Plant Mix Recycling Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Material Handling and Storage RAP is produced by milling, ripping, breaking, crushing, or pulverizing types of equipment. To ensure that the final RAP product will perform as intended, inspection of incoming RAP and rejection of contaminated loads (excess granular material, surface treatment, joint sealant, etc.) should be undertaken. Some jurisdictions also require that RAP from a particular project not be blended or commingled with RAP from other projects. Once processed, RAP can be handled and stored as a conventional aggregate material. However, because of the variability of RAP in comparison with virgin aggregates, many agencies do not permit the blending of RAP from different projects into combined stockpiles, The Asphalt Institute recommends that the height of RAP stockpiles be limited to a maximum of10 ft to help prevent agglomeration of the RAP particles. l44 Experience has proven that conical stockpiles are preferred to horizontal stockpiles and will not cause RAP to re - agglomerate or congeal in large piles. RAP has the tendency to form a crust (due to a solar/thermal effect from the sun) over the first 8 to 12 in of pile depth for both conical and horizontal stockpiles. This crust tends to help shed water, but is easily broken by a front-end loader and may help keep the rest of the pile from agglomerating. RAP has a tendency to hold water and not to drain over time like an aggregate stockpile. Therefore, low, horizontal, flat stockpiles are subject to greater moisture accumulation than tall, conical stockpiles. It is not unusual to find RAP moisture content in the 7 to 8 percent range during the rainy season at facilities using low, horizontal stockpiling techniques. ('4,15) RAP stockpiles are typically left uncovered because covering with tarps can cause condensation under the tarp and add moisture to the RAP stockpile. For this reason, RAP stockpiles are either left uncovered or RAP is stored in an open -sided building, but under a roof. (14,15) Some producers are beginning to pave underneath the RAP stockpiles. This practice may help to improve stockpile drainage (when graded properly) and it reduces potential moisture absorption from the ground. Possible contamination is also eliminated when a front-end loader collects materials from close to grade level £154 When large quantities of RAP from different sources are available, it is advisable to keep stockpiles separated and identified by source. Consistent RAP from a "composite" or "blended" pile can be produced using a crushing and screening operation and reprocessing stockpiles from different sources. Material handling machinery, such as front - 1 end loaders and bulldozers, should be kept from driving directly on the stockpile. Agglomeration can result, making it very difficult for the loader to handle the RAP. Mixing, Placing, and Compacting The RAP processing requirements for cold mix recycling are similar to those for recycled hot mix, except that the graded RAP product is incorporated into cold mix asphalt paving mixtures as an aggregate substitute. RAP is mixed with new aggregate and emulsified or foamed asphalt in either a central plant or a mobile plant. The blend is then placed as conventional cold mix asphalt. The pavement removal or milling is performed with a self-propelled rotary drum cold planing machine with RAP transferred to trucks for removal from the job site. Colcl mix asphalt is usually placed on low-volume roadways with traffic volumes less than 3,000 vehicles per clay and covered with either a double surface treatment or a hot mix wearing surface, (27) Cold plant mix recycling can be accomplished either by hauling the RAP to a central processing location, where it is crushed, screened, and blended with a recycling agent in a central mixing plant, or the RAP can be processed at the project site and prepared in a mobile mixing plant that has been transported to the job site. in either case, a pugmill mixing plant is commonly used. (97) Recycled cold mix material can be normally placed with a conventional paver, provided the mixing moisture can be adequately controlled to a level not requiring aeration. Cold mix pavement construction requires several warm days and nights for adequate curing. (24) Successful placement using conventional pavers requires that the mix be sufficiently fluid to avoid tearing. Alternatively, a Jersey or towed spreader can be used. Using a Jersey or towed spreader (which is essentially a front -wheeled hopper fastened to the front of tractor or the rear of a haul truck), the cold mix is dumped into a hopper and falls directly on the road where it is spread and struck off to the required thickness. The same equipment and techniques used to compact and cure conventional cold mix asphalt pavements are applicable to recycled cold mix. Quality Control To ensure the consistency and quality of a recycled cold plant mix, quality control of the RAP is essential. Random samples of the RAP or recycled material should be analyzed for aggregate gradation, asphalt cement content, and moisture content. The recycled material must be closely inspected to make sure that the RAP is consistent in size and appearance and that subgrade soil (or other possible contaminants) have not been included iri the RAP. Plant operations should be monitored to ensure that the proper amount of emulsified or foamed asphalt is being added and that the moisture content of the recycled mix is in the proper range for maximum compaction at the project site. The amount of any additional aggregate being mixed with the RAP should also be monitored. Loose samples of the recycled mix should be obtained and extraction tests performed to monitor mix gradation and asphalt content, as well as moisture content. Mixes should be sampled in accordance with AASHTO T168. (2) Achieving the proper compaction or densification of the paving material is essential to proper performance. A test strip should be used at the start of the project to establish a target density and number of roller passes needed to achieve that density. The in-place density of the cold mix paving material can then be monitored by using a nuclear density gauge in accordance with ASTM D2950. (9) 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Asphalt pavement consists of aggregate and petroleum derived asphalt binder containing volatile and semi -volatile constituents (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)) Additionally the asphalt pavement roadway may contain surface treatments, rubberized materials or contaminants from vehicle or other emissions (e,q., historically lead). The environmental issues are different for RAP based upon various beneficial uses. For bound applications such as cold -in-place recycling, research into the difference in emissions to that of virgin materials have not been conducted Leachability would be a concern if RAP was stockpiled or stored arid exposed to precipitation UNRESOLVED ISSUES While cold asphalt pavement recycling technologies are well established, there is still a need for additional performance information, particularly with regard to the percentage of RAP that can be incorporated and the relationship to creep (rutting resistance), fatigue endurance, and durability. In addition, there is a need to assess whether RAP can be used in wearing surface cold mixes. Further investigation is also needed to evaluate the ability of cold recycled plant mixes to perform on higher traffic volume roadways. There is also a need for more correlation of field and laboratory measurements to refine guidelines for laboratory prediction of field performance, including, for instance, laboratory curing procedures that best simulate field conditions. Some specific issues that require resolution include: • further information on the variability of RAP, especially from blended stockpiles; • a consensus regarding mix design and testing procedures for plant recycled cold mix and CIR asphalt mixtures; "• the suitabilityof CII forI- with ],sGAn 4treDtrrients UIVlor rubberized 'cving1Gtericl; • a more accurate determination of the structural layer coefficient for plant recycled cold mix and CIR asphalt mixtures; and an environmental evaluation of any potentially harmful impacts From cold mix plant recycling and/or cold in- place recycling REFERENCES 1. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington , DC , 1993. 2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Method of Test, "Sampling Bituminous Paving Mixtures," AASHTO Designation T168-82, Part 11 tests, 16th Edition, 1993. 3. Asphalt Institute. Asphalt Cold -Mix Recycling , Manual Series No. 21, Lexington , Kentucky , March, 1983. 4. Asphalt Hot -Mix Recycling . Asphalt Institute. Manual Series No. 20, Second Edition, Lexington , Kentucky 1986. 5. "A Study of the Use of Recycled Paving Materials .. Report to Congress," Federal Highway Administration and Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. FHWA-RD-93-147, EPAJ600/R-931095, Washington , DC� , June, 1993. 3 6. ASTM D692-94a. "Standard Specification for Coarse Aggregate for Bituminous Paving Mixtures." American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards , Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken , Pennsylvania . 7. ASTM 01073-94. "Standard Specification for Fine Aggregate for Bituminous Paving Mixtures." American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards , Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken Pennsylvania . 8. ASTM 01559-89. "Standard Test Method for Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus." American Society for Testing and Materials,Annua! Book of ASTM Standards , Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken , Pennsylvania . 9. ASTM D2950-96, "Standard Specification for Density of Bituminous Concrete in Place by Nuclear Methods," American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards , Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken , Pennsylvania . 10. ASTM D4215_ "Standard Specification for Cold-Mixed, Cold-Laid Bituminous Paving Mixtures." American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards , Volume 04.03, West Conshohocken , Pennsylvania . 11. Basic Asphalt Recycling Manual, Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association, PUB:NHI 01-022, Annapolis , Maryland , 2001. 12. Castedo, Humberto. "Significance of Various Factors in the Recycling of Asphalt Pavements on Secondary Roads." Transportation Research Record No. 1115 , Washington , DC , 1987. 13. Collins, Robert J. and Stanley K. Ciesielski. Recycling and Use of Waste Materials and By-Products in Highway Construction . National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 199, Transportation Research Board, Washington , DC , 1994. 14. Decker, D. S. and T. J. Young, "Handling RAP in an HMA Facility"AT Proceedings of the Canadian Technical Asphalt Association , Edmonton , Alberta , 1995. 15. Designing HMA Mixtures with High RAP Content, A Practical Guide, National Pavement Association, Quality Improvement Series 124, Lanham , Maryland , 2007. 16. Epps, Jon A. Cold-Recycled Bituminous Concrete Using Bituminous Materials . National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice 160, July, 1990. 17. Epps, J. A., D. N. Little, R. J. Holmgreen, and R. L. Terre!. Guidelines for Recycling Pavement Materials . National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No, 224, Washington , DC , September, 1980. 18. Epps, J. A., D. N. Little, R. J. O'Neal, and B. M. Gallaway. Mixture Properties of Recycled Central Plant Materials . American Society for Testing and Materials, Special Technical Publication No. 662, Recycling of Bituminous Pavements, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania , December, 1977. 19. Kandahl, Prithvi S. and William C. Koehler. "Cold Recycling of Asphalt-Pavements on Low Volume Roads." Transportation Research Record No. 1106 , Washington , DC , 1987. 20. Kennedy, T. W. and Ignacio Perez, "Preliminary Mixture Design Procedure for Recycled Asphalt Materials." Recycling of Bituminous Pavements , American Society for Testing and Materials Special Technical Publication No, 662, West Conshohocken , Pennsylvania , December, 1977. 21. McKeen, R.G., D.I. Hanson, and J.H. Stokes. " New Mexico 's Experience with Cold in-Situ Recycling." Presented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington , DC , January, 1997. 4 22. Mix Design Methods forAsphalt Concrete and Other Hot -Mix Types . Asphalt Institute. Manual Series No. 2, Lexington , Kentucky , 1993. 23. Murphy, D. T. and J. J. Emery. "Modified Cold In -Place Asphalt Recycling." Presented at the 1995 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada , Victoria , British Columbia . 24. Scholz, Todd V., R. Gary Hicks, David F. Rogge, and Dale Allen. "Use of Cold In -Place Recycling on Low - Volume Roads." Transportation Research Record No. 1291 , Washington , DC , 1991. 25. Tia, Mang and Leonard E. Wood. "Use of Asphalt Emulsion and Foamed Asphalt in Cold -Recycled Asphalt Paving Mixtures." Transportation Research Record No. 898 , Washington , DC , 1983. 26. Wayne Lee, K., Brayton, T.E., Huston, M. Development of Performance Based Mix -Design for Cold In -Place (C/R) of Bituminous Pavements Based on Fundamental Properties, FHWA-CIR-02-01, Federal Highway Administration, September, 2002. 27. Wood, Leonard E, Thomas D. White, and Thomas B. Nelson. "Current Practice of Cold In -Place Recycling of Asphalt Pavements.'" Transportation Research Record No. 1 178 , Washington , DC , 1988. 28. Brantley, A.S. and Townsend l ., Leaching of pollutants from reclaimed asphalt pavement, Environmental Engineering Science, Vol. 16, no. 2, pp, 105--116. Apr. 1999. 29. regret. M. Odie. L., Demare, D.. Julien, A. Leaching of heavy metals and plycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from reclaimed asphalt pavement, Water Research, Vol. 39, 3675-3685. 2005. 50. Grosenheider, K.� Bloom, P., Halbach T., Johnson, M., A Review of the Current Literature Regarding Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Asphalt Pavement, Mn1DOT contract No. 81655, October, 2005, Ken Sack Eagle Springs Organic and Owner 482 County Rd 315 Residential Property 5 Glenn Hartmann From: Kenneth Sack [paneraiworthave ci me.com] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:43 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: John Martin; Tom Jankovsky, Mike Samson Subject: Bedrock Resources Glenn 1reviewed the application documents that you provided and have the following comments The following are excerpts from their application Impact Analysis 8. Environmental Effects. ERO Resources Corporation, HP Geotech and John L Taufer have each provided reports (attached hereto and in Tab F) that identify the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed land use. Reference to those reports is herein given. As there is proposed a fueling area and associated processing and storage activities, there is the requirement of developing a Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures Plan associated with this project Prior to implementing any on-site fuel (and asphalt) storage, a SPCC Plan will be prepared and submitted to the County in accordance with application State criteria. They should be required to submit SPCC with application so it can be reviewed EXHIBIT 5 10. Nuisance As this is an industrial use, there are anticipated to be impacts on adjacent lands from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, etc As such, the owners of Bedrock Resources and Frontier Paving, Inc. are committed to conducting their operations within State requirements at all times. Because of the nature of the proposed activities, Frontier Paving will be sensitive to mitigating dust and noise. The residence to the north of the Bedrock Resources property will be most impacted by the use and it should be noted that the proposed activities have been located as far from this use as possible. Likewise, the access road to the mesa and the proposed uses are located so as to minimize the traffic impacts and dust. Frontier will be committed to providing dust palliatives to keep the operations and access ways from generating dust. Their own admission is that this will impact the adjacent properties Vapor (PAH — carcinogenic), Dust (affects farm and solar) .. Smoke (pollutant and carcinogenic), Noise (affects nearby Pig and animals being raised there.. etc ) (the ETC is not acceptable what is the unknown ) The residence to the north of the Bedrock Resources property will be most impacted by the use - I purchased that property and closed on June 201'. This property is going to be used as a residence and possible employee housing ,it is zoned agriculture. Water Plan Problem Statement: The following report describes the methods of providing water (both potable and non -potable) to the Bedrock Resources, LLC property development. Water will be needed as follows: 1. Potable water to the office and shop 2. Non -potable water to use for fire suppression and dust suppression 3. Potable or non -potable water for landscape irrigation They will need a lot of water to keep control dust and airborne particulate. The real fact is that they have no water rights. we have no idea if their proposed well will even produce water. Since that well would be a domestic well, I assume, they would only be able to use that for potable water. They claim they will be trucking water in for dust suppression. Think of the hundreds of trucks needed to fill a holding pond. As we have seen presently, they do NOT abide by their current dust suppression plan as required in their permit. Why would we think this would be any different? FROM LAND SUITABILITY DOCUMENT 7. No irrigation water rights have been transferred to this site and therefore, no irrigationisis proposed[r"�other than for therestablishment of the vegetation �j identified iii tl Fi. landscape. plan. Seeding- for revege1.C2tion is Intended to take place in late fall of 2013 to assure that the dryland seed mix will properly germinate and mature to required coverage. The water demand for the project will be in two forms. The first is that of the demand of the office area considering the employee population of 10 employees per day. The second will be the demand from the shop area that will have 2 employees per day. A well has been drilled on site and is sufficient to meet the demands. The water from the well is backed by a West Divide Contract which provides a legal source. Where are they getting the massive amounts of water to keep dust and airborne particulate down NARRATIVE OF APPLICATION PURPOSE The purpose of this application is to seek land use approval under the Major Impact Review criteria of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR). Bedrock Resources, LLC has purchased the subject property for relocation of their asphalt paving and construction business to a currently undeveloped property located approximately 1/3 of a mile south of the 1701Mamm Creek interchange, east of and along side of Mamm Creek Road (CR 31 5) and approximately 1/3 of a mile east of the Garfield County Airport. As the property is 2 currently used as irrigated and grazed agricultural land and as the property is zoned as "Rural" under the ULUR, the proposed uses for the property are subject to the Major Impact Review as noted in Table 3-501 of the UL UR. The relocated business generally includes a contractor's yard with processing and storage of natural resources. An office is intended to be located on the lower portions of the site (immediately accessible to CR 315) while the stock piles, processing and ioracae ,iI e.5.-,_, (,e equipment sheds and shop will be on the bluff out of view of CR 315. An internal roadway is proposed between the bluff and the office with grades under 10% to provide safe access for the uses intended. Definition of Natural Resources Natural resources are substances that exist naturally in the earth and were not made by human beings They are applying to process and store asphalt, cement, road base NOT Natural Resources by any means Excerpt from Pre App Conference The Applicants representations are consistent with a contractor's yard definition, however, subject to review of additional details on the scale and characteristics of the crushing and material storage components, the Application may need to include storage (a limited impact review use) and processing (a major impact review use) use with the proposed application. Both additional uses can be reviewed concurrently with a Contractor's Yard through the Major Impact Review Process. They are disingenuous to call this a contractors yard application. This is the identical application as denied previously and in no way is consistent with a contractor's yard definition. Although they claim that NO batch plant will be included, they have failed to remove that from their application. They have not included studies on their current asphalt processing plant, there are no specifics on what they are going to do. The impacts to ESO and Our organic certification (agricultural property) are NO different than the previous application and are not allowed under the GARCO land use regulations. Any asphalt recycling activity and storage will result in airborne pollutants and FLAP's and leaching of the materials into the ground and water supplies. 3 The issue before was NEVER just the Batch Plant, It always has been the Asphalt Plant and storage of these products and byproducts. After careful review, the commission denied the application 3 to 0. Any court of law, does not allow for a "double bite of the apple" Their application was denied , it should not make it pass P and Z this time and wind up in the laps of the commissioners for a second time. Thank you in advance for reviewing this information, I am hoping that it helps you with your decision. Ken Sack cell 954-249-5674 Eagle Springs Organic and owner 482 County Rd 315 4 John Martin Frorn: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Commissioners Kenneth Sack [kensack c@me.coml Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:51 PM John Martin; Mike Samson; Tom .9ankovsky Asphalt Plant I understand that you all have visited Eagle Springs Organic and have seen what we are doing there with our organic farm and.Solar Project. I have also renovated Eagle Springs Crossing Shopping Center in Rifle, which will have a year round organic farmers market, USDA Butcher Shop, spaces for community members to sell their goods and crafts and a meeting space large enough for business meetings and weddings. We anticipate a combined job addition to Garfield County of over 150 people. As you recall you unanimously voted against approving the land use change requested by Bedrock Resources to build an asphalt processing facility next to my farm. For the past month or so, Bedrock has been moving a tremendous amount of dirt on their property, whieh I understand they received a permit from the County. Although they had water trucks spraying as they worked. their was still a tremendous amount of dirt and dust that was blow all over our crops. With winds up to 50 plus MPH, it is nearly impossible to control the blown particulate downwind. They have left an open space, devoid of vegetation. which continues to send clouds of dust towards our crops Yesterday, I received notice that once again they are applying for land use change to build an asphalt processing plant on the property. The processing, recycling facility, storage of Asphalt products. storage of material used in Asphalt/contracting business, crushing activity of the stored materials such as Rock, asphalt and Concrete, and storage of rock for use by the business has already been denied. All of these activities are still contrary to the land use code and would dramatically affect the viability of Eagle Springs Organic LLC and therefore not allowed. PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that Bedrock Resources LLC, Charles Ellsworth, Manager, has applied to the Planning Commission, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to request approval of a Land Use Change Permit, Major Impact Review (File Number MIPA-7250), for a Contractors Yard, including accessory uses of general service establishment, processing, professional office for the conduct of a business, recycling processing facility, storage of machinery, equipment or products, located within the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: Request: The Application requests Major Impact Review approval for a Contractors Yard in support of the Applicants asphalt contractor business, . The uses will include office space, a shop for vehicle/equipment and truck repair, a covered parking/storage area, storage of material used in the asphalt/contracting business, some crushing activity of the stored materials such as Rock, asphalt and concrete, and storage of landscaping materials such as topsoil and rock for use by the business. The overall property size is approximately 35.72 acres. The property Is Zoned Rural. The Applicant% designated representatives are Damien Ellsworth, Vice -►resident, Jefferey Simonson, Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., David H. McConaughy and David D. Smith, Garfield & Hecht, PC. This new application is just another attempt by Bedrock Resources and Charles Ellsworth to circumvent the Counties Land Use regulations. I would hope that this does not get past your staff, however if it does I would hope that you all will deny the application again. Please let me know if I can provide you with any further information. Thank you once again for your support. Yours truly Ken Sack Eagle Springs Organic 954-249-5674 2 From: Fred Pulver [fredpulvert@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:43 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Torn Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Please Oppose Bedrock's Land Use Change Permit Garfield Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Planning Commission Attn: Glenn Hartmann In February it is my understanding that the Garfield County Planning Commission unanimously voted against. allowing Bedrock Asphalt to operate on land immediately adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic Farm in Silt. I also understand that Commissioner Martin shared that the BOCC had received more letters and emails from citizens about this issue than any other he could recall — a tribute to everyone who clearly communicated their value of the asset that Eagle Springs is to our local food supply. Furthermore, I understand over 100 supporters against the Bedrock request rallied outside the County offices before the vote representing a regional groundswell of support to prioritize local agriculture. Admirably, I also understand Commissioners Martin, Jankovsky and Samson all expressed concern that the asphalt plant would adversely affect the ability of the farm to successfully operate its business, and stood together in affirming the existing code that disallows any land use that impedes existing business or agricultural operation. Many people were gratified by the decision of the commissioners who favored protection of the Eagle Springs organic enterprise. However, it is my understanding that. Bedrock is back at the table, now asking for a Land Use Change Permit to allow a "Contractors Yard" that would include some "processing," a "recycling processing facility," and "some crushing activity of the stored asphalt and concrete." This is still the kind of harmful industrial activity from which the code was established to protect existing agricultural operations. A concern is that should this activity be allowed it would then require ongoing monitoring and code enforcement. Would the County make sure that Bedrock paid for neutral third -party monitoring? And if there were damage done, would Eagle Springs pay the ultimate cost of losing their organic status? To me, that's too big a gamble to take. Eagle Springs management has already reported adverse effects from the substantial dust deposited on their crops (even inside their greenhouses) from Bedrock's dirt moving to build roads on the site. If this dust were to include toxic chemicals from asphalt processing and storage, the farm's recently audited, and exemplary, USDA organic status would be at risk. With the climate stakes so high, this is the time to draw a line in the sand to protect our ability to feed ourselves organically and locally, and protect our local agricultural assets. Many thanks for your continued commitment to this process. Thank you for helping us see this through! Sincerely, Fred. Pulver Carbondale 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Kenneth Sack [kensack@rne.ccrm] Sent: Wednosday, June 27, 2012 11:O6 PM To: Glenn Hartrnann Cc: Toby Subject: review Glenn thank you for visiting today EXHInIr 1 reviewed the application and as we discussed, this applicant has already been denied the land use change based on the adverse effect on our organic farm. I see little difference between this application and the previous one. In fact, the application still requests approval and references asphalt recycling and asphalt batch plant. In their application, they admit of the nuisance that their project will cause to our farm property and the residential property, that i am purchasing on Friday. 10. Nuisance As this is an industrial use, there are anticipated to be impacts on adjacent lands from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, etc As such, the owners of Bedrock Resources and Frontier Paving, Inc. are committed to conducting their operations within State requirements at all times. Because of the nature of the proposed activities, Frontier Paving will be sensitive to mitigating dust and noise. The residence to the north of the Bedrock Resources property will be most impacted by the use and it should be noted that the proposed activities have been located as far from this use as possible. Likewise, the access road to the mesa and the proposed uses are located so as to minimize the traffic impacts and dust. Frontier will be committed to providing dust palliatives to keep the operations and access ways from generating dust In the past few months, they have demonstrated their inability to mitigate dust and noise. Windblown dirt and dust have continued to rain upon our crops and fields. We have been forced to add an outdoor washing area to clean the dust off of our crop, prior to it entering our greenhouse. We expect that the County will require them to adhere to their mandated dust mitigation plan or sanction them for not following it and impacting our property. Based on the foregoing, this application should he denied,it will severely negatively impact my farm and residential property, which under the Garco land use code, is NOT allowed and must he denied. Our Commissioners, two of which are running for re election, should not be presented with this issue again, which they already have denied. It should not pass P and Z. please let me know if you have any questions for me Ken Sack 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:50 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Bedrock Asphalt Land Use Change Permit From: Amy Hutton [mailto:huttonac@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 9:10 AM To: Glenn Hartmann; Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Bedrock Asphalt Land Use Change Permit Dear Garfield County Planning Commission and County Commissioners, Thank you for voting to protect Eagle Springs Organic Farm from asphalt plant pollution several months ago! Once again, Bedrock Asphalt is posing a threat to this treasured local business by requesting a land use change permit to carry out asphalt processing on their nearby property. Please do not approve this permit! I am a local organic farmer in Basalt and am acutely aware of the importance to organic food production to this valley's beloved but fragile ecosystems as well as the rapidly growing demand for healthier food. Outdoor recreation and natural beauty are the lifeblood of this community, and we should make every effort possible to protect the remaining resilience and diversity of water resources and wildlife habitat through sustainable agriculture and limiting industrial pollution. I realize that job creation is also very important to keeping our valley communities healthy, and that Bedrock Asphalt would probably hire some employees. On the other hand. unlike industrial development, organic food production such as at Eagle Springs creates local produce and income that recirculates in the community! Also, there is incredible room for growth in the "green job" sector in the Valley, and businesses like organic farms can grow with only positive impacts on the surrounding environment and local community. Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion and for all the work you do for the county! 'Amy Amy Hutton Livestock and Wildlands Manager Rock Bottom Ranch 303-250-6027 i Glenn Hartmann From° Tom Jankovsky Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:52 PM To: Genn Hartmann Subject: FW: Deny Bedrock, LLC's application to change land use Frorn: Mary Russell [mailto:maryinline©gwmail,com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:43 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Deny Bedrock, LLC's application to change land use Dear Sirs I am writing to you today to request that you deny Bedrock, LLC's request for a Land Use Change Permit to allow a "Contractor's Yard" that would include some"processing", a "recycling processing facility", and "some crushing activity of the stored asphalt and concrete". This is still harmful industrial activity which the current code successfully protects existing agricultural operations. Prevention is always the best answer to any question arising from the effects of one land owner's behavior on the other. Again, Bedrock, LLC is attempting to use their property in a manner that does not align with the land use designation existing when they purchased their property. It would behoove them to look at selling this property and purchasing land that already meets their needs. The time and effort already exerted by Bedrock, LLC, adjacent land owners, and yourselves to address the issue that Bedrock,. LLC was encouraged to purchase a piece of land for their less -than -environmentally friendly operation by a Garfield County Planner is, in my viewpoint, becoming an extremely expensive mistake for not only Bedrock, LLC, but for our county government and the owners of Eagle Springs Organic Farre. Thank you for your time. Mary Russell 2917 Sopris Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)618-1450 https://sites.google.comisitetcrossciencerussel l In the end, it's about love, I'm up to inspiring young people to create their possibilities by leading and empowering them to think about the world, and their relationship to it, in order to influence it in a way that fits their vision of their future. i Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:50 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Please say NO to Bedrock, again From: Jason White[mallto:coldrnountainstream@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:44 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Please say NO to Bedrock, again Esteemed Conunissioners, Please deny Bedrock Resource's second land use change permit to allow a contractors' yard and other industrial uses. Yes, these uses may not be as toxic but their cumulative externalities will greatly affect the organic food growing next door. The three of you stood unified during their first request for the batch plant: "Commissioners Martin, Jankovsky and Samson all expressed concern that the asphalt plant would adversely affect the ability of the farm to successfully operate its business. Then they stood together in affirming the existing code that disallows any land use that impedes existing business or agricultural operation." This yard use still impedes the pureness of growing organic food. Garfield County is huge and there are plenty of places for these industrial uses to be grouped. Please make the right decision once again and protect agricultural land use and the growing popularity and positive economic development of organic food production and distribution. Sincerely, Jason White Carbondale, CO 1 Glenn Hartnnann From: Kenneth Sack [kensack r@me,com] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 10:10 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Re: Asphalt Plant EXHIBIT Glenn As there is in any court of law, isn't there a prohibition against them applying again for the same thing that was turned down already? This is not substantially different than the first request for an asphalt plant, contractor yard and office in an agricultural zoned property Now another issue is the Residence that i just closed on that !plan on using for residence and employee housing. Since' we thought that this was a dead issue, 1 was comfortable with the purchase. The homesite 482 County Rd 315 abutts the bedrock land and my land. This should never make it past P and Z and get stuck in the commissioners laps again in this election year. [ am sure we are coming up with more information from our loyal food co op people Let me kno Ken Sack if you need anything from me. Glenn Hartmann From Rick Barth [rbarth@rifleco.orgi Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:49 PM To: Jeff Simonson Cc: Glenn Hartmann; Damian Ellsworth; David D. Smith; Charles Ellsworth Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources Watershed Permit 1 EXHIBIT 1 Ak Hi Jeff and thank you. i concur. It would appear that if anything your permit application has actually lessened in scope. Therefore, we can simply note that "asphalt batching equipment removed" in the permit application. We do request, should asphalt or other equipment/materials processing enter (or re-enter) into the desires of Bedrock Resources that we are notified to rnake sure the watershed permit covers such uses. It would appear, however, that such uses are reviewed by the County and therefore would be obvious to all involved. That being said, I will note this email in the previously applied for permit and that should suffice. Thanks, Rick B From: Jeff Simonson [mailto:JeffSC sgm-inc.com] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:33 PM To: Rick Barth Cc: Glenn Hartmann; Damian Ellsworth; David D. Smith; Charles Ellsworth Subject: Bedrock Resources Watershed Permit Hi Rick, Per our discussion this morning, I am providing this email to receive email concurrence that my client, Bedrock Resources Inc. does not need to reapply for a Watershed Permit for the City of Rifle given the scope and conditions set forth in the prior permit. As we discussed, Bedrock Resources has modified their prior proposal by removing the most contentious part of the prior application, the asphalt batch plant. The remainder of the application, particularly as related to drainage and water quality control standards has remained the same even though the surface disturbance has been reduced considerably. Please note the following: 1. The prior permit proposed the subject property be developed with a wider roadway (28 feet wide) and the new application has reduced this width to 24' wide. This has, in turn, reduced the acreage of disturbed area. 2. The prior permit had the asphalt plant proposed in it. As such, additional roadway and earthwork were necessary to accommodate access and material piles. These are all gone. 3. All of the prior proposed drainage features remain as per the prior application. 4. All BMP's per the prior application will be continued to be implemented. Thank you for your timeIf you concur, we would request that you "reply all" to identify if our assessment "that we can operate under the existing permit" remains valid or if we need to resubmit for a watershed permit. Thanks again± Jefferey S. Simonson, PE, CFM Principal Glenn Hartmann From: Steph Syson [stephgardens©yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 6:09 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tam Jankovsky; John Martin, Mike Samson Subject: The Planning Commission Mr. Hartman, EXHIBIT 1 € 6 As a concerned citizen I would like to request that you do not approve the request of Bedrock Asphalt for a Land Use Change Permit. The community has already expressed their concern and disapproval of this type of activity so close to Eagle Springs Organics. It is evident that the land use change would adversely affect the existing business that is situated on the neighboring property. Garfield County, Bedrock Asphalt and/or Eagle Springs Farm could all waste a bunch of money and time monitoring for harm done to the organic food produced at Eagle Springs Farm from neighboring industrial activity, not to mention the stress and bad feelings that will accompany that activity. Or we could decide that at this moment on the planet, we need to start to prioritize in the direction that climate trends are making necessary. Eagle Springs management has already reported adverse effects from the substantial dust deposited on their crops (even inside their greenhouses) from Bedrock's moving of dirt to build roads on the site, If this dust were to include toxic chemicals from asphalt processing and storage the farm's recently audited, and exemplary, USDA organic status would be at risk. This attempt by Bedrock Asphalt to "get their foot in the door" by changing the proposed operations of this site is not acceptable to this community. The citizens have already dealt with this issue during their previous attempt and this new request is no different. We do not approve and neither should you. I represent a local non-profit, our employees, volunteers and neighbors in this request. Please consider the citizens and their wishes, not just corporate interests. Thank You, Stephanie Syson 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [Jeffs@sgm-inc.comj Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 2:31 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Charles Ellsworth; Damian Ellsworth; David D. Smith Subject: Bedrock Resources -Requested additional information Attachments: July 5 letter to Glenn.pdf Glenn, EXHIBIT Icc, Please find attached the additional information that you requested. Note that the pump testing data is found on the last 5- 6 pages of the attachment Call with questions! Thanks, Jefferey S. Simonson, PE, CFM Principal SGM 118 W Sixth Sir, Strife 200 Glenwood Springs, CC) 81601 970.384.9005 / 970,379.4691 c5II w wv,,,sgen4nc,coni 1 July 5, 2012 Mr. Glenn Hartman Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Bedrock Resources, LLC July 11, 2012 Staff Report Request for Additional Information/Clarification Dear Glenn, SSGM www.sgm-inc.com Per our meeting of July 3, 2012 and per your staff report prepared for the July 11, 2012 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting for the Bedrock Resources Major Impact Review, please note following: 1. Fueling: There is to be no fueling performed on site as each vehicle utilized by Bedrock Resources is filled at local gas stations such as Master Petroleum in Silt, Colorado. It is intended to continue this practice. The only instance that filling would take place is through the use of a mobile fuel truck. 2. Stock pile locations and crushing equipment locations: Sheet 3 of the drawings reflects the locations of the stockpile for the crushing of asphalt. You have accurately noted that we did not identify the specific location of the crusher. The crusher is intended to be located along the south side of the storage area noted on sheet 3. It will be 270' from the closest property line which is the east property line. From the north property line, it will be approximately 660' at its closest location. 3. General description of crushing operations: As we discussed with you in your site walk, the crushing operations are to be performed when temperatures are cool and there is no chance for the asphalt in the asphaltic concrete to "gum up" the crushing equipment. This operation will not allow the asphalt to be heated nor processed in a warm state as is typical of an average late spring/early autumn and summer day. However, this process could be performed an a cool day when during that time period (such as a rainy dav). The only intent is to crush piles of asphalt that have been hauled to the site from construction projects that Frontier Paving or other associated contractors have been involved in. There are going to be two piles of asphaltic concrete on the site. One that has been processed (crushed) and is now ready to be used as road base and pipe bedding and one that is yet to be crushed. The only time that a crusher GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 j Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 6SGM www.sgm-1nc.com will be placed on site is when the volume of the uncrushed material has economically justified rental and haul of a crusher into the site. Past history has demonstrated that this process is typically every 2 years, however, there is a possibility that this could be a yearly occurrence. The crushing operations typically occur over a ten day period. During the crushing operations, the weather needs to be cool enough to keep from gumming up the crusher equipment and warm enough to allow personnel to wet the piles and to keep the water from freezing. Wetting of the material during the crushing and loading process is needed to mitigate the production of dust from the operations. Because of the sensitive weather conditions, the crushing operations typically ensue during the fall, winter and early spring time periods. Note that this process never HEATS up the existing asphalt. The material processed in this operation remains in the same physical state as those associated with the roads we drive on. 4. Noise Study Compliance: As you accurately pointed out, EDI's update letter did not address the location of the crusher relative to the ability of the plan to meet the standards of the ULUR. As identified in note 2., above, the crusher is to be located at least 270 feet from the east property line. Likewise, the crusher is noted to produce 73 dB(A) at 100 feet. In the report, it is noted in Table 3 that the noise reduction of 8 dB(A) exists at 270' (by interpolation). Likewise, the reduction due to the berm construction reduces the noise by 24 dB(A). Therefore, the total reduction for the crusher is 24+8 = 32 dB(A) at the property line. This will reduce the noise emanated from the crusher to 41 dB(A): Note that for the north property line, the noise will be reduced further as the unprocessed base pile will exists prior to the crusher starting operation, the distance to the north property line is greater and the proposed storage buildings exist. 5. Particulate Material from Unprocessed or Processed Asphalt Base Piles: A further clarification is requested from you as to the particulate matter expected to be generated from the asphalt base piles. It should be noted that the particulate matter to be generated will be that of the clay soil particles that exist in the gravel that becomes mixed with the asphaltic concrete when excavated. The asphalt binder in the mix is not expected to contribute to the particulate matter due to the fact that it has been bound to the various particles during its initial "manufacturing" phase and, in fact, will help to bind to some of the clay particles that may come with the base. In any case, during the crushing operations of the unprocessed base, water is to be used in the operation to mitigate dust and, thus, the production of particulate matter. The very nature of adding water to the soils to mitigate dust is to enhance the weight of the particles by increasing density, surface tension and cohesiveness of the particles with SSGM www.sgm-inc.com adjacent particles. This is the same end result already achieved by the asphalt binder when the asphaltic concrete was manufactured. 6. Traffic Volumes expected: As an additional clarification, you have requested the anticipated volumes of traffic to be generated from the site in comparison with the prior proposal that included the asphalt batch plant. With the asphalt batch plant included in the trip generation calculations, the average daily trips anticipated for the project was 85 trips per day. By removing the asphalt batch plant, but still including some truck traffic for hauling materials in and out of the storage area, we anticipate the projected average daily trips to be 47 trips per day. 7. Treatment of Well Water: Per our February 3, 2012 memorandum, the water, from the well, is recommended to be treated using point of use reverse osmosis treatment. By choosing this technology, the water quality will meet the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Standards. 8. Well Pump Testing: Upon completion of the well drilling, the well was pump tested and the results were reported accordingly. You will find attached the previously submitted information on the well. 9. US ACRE 404 Permit: There is a timing provision of the February 14, 2012 correspondence required to commence work prior to March 18, 2012 and to complete it within 12 months. Please note that work physically commenced on the driveway construction in February and will be completed prior to the end of this year. hope that this letter suffices to clarify the information submitted. Upon your receipt and review, if you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call. Respectfully, SGM Jefferey S. Simonson, PE, CFM Principal Ce: Charlie Ellsworth Damian Ellsworth David Smith Jeff Simonson Page 1 of 1 From: Charles Ellsworth [Charles@FrontierPavinginc.com] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 8:39 AM To: Jeff Simonson Subject: Fw: Bedrock Resources Well Attachments: 120126.NDG.Whitehead. Enclosed w_General Purpose Water Well Permit Application & Check for $100.PDF; 120127. Letter - J. Simonson to NDG re_ 600 -foot spacing.PDF; submitted Well Construction and Test Report - 287244, Drillers fag. PDF -w-- Original Message ----- From: Nicole D. Garrimone To: charlesafrontiernavinvinc.corn ; Damian Cc: David D. Smith Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:07 PM Subject: Bedrock Resources Well Charlie and Damian, Attached is the well permit application we submitted to Dwight Whitehead with the Division of Water Resources (DOWR) yesterday. Also attached is a letter from Jeff Simonson regarding 600 - foot spacing that we submitted today to supplement the application. h'inally, Wayne Shelton filed his Well Construction and Test Report with the DOWR, a copy of which is also attached. Dwight did a preliminary review of the application yesterday, and he recommended that we increase the maximum proposed pumping rate (we requested only 5 g.p.rn. based on Wayne's production estimate). That way, if you ever deepen or improve the well so that it is able to produce more water, the permitted pumping rate will allow for the increased productivity. We agreed and authorized Dwight to increase the pumping rate on the application to 15 g.p.m. I will let you know when the well permit is issued. Nicole Nicole D. Garrimone Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 phone: (970) 947-1936 fax: (970) 947-1937 toll free: (877) 947-1936 n Qarr i m oneggarf ieidhecht.co m NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (970-947-1936) and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. Tax Advice Disclosure: Any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be use and cannot be used or relied upon, for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending any entity, investment plan or other transaction. 1/3012012 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE The Denver Center 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone (970) 947-1936 Facsimile (970) 947.1937 Hand Delivered GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com January 26, 2012 Dwight Whitehead Colorado Division of Water Resources Water Division No. 5 202 Center Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Bedrock Resources LLC — A Dear Dwight: •• Nicole D. Gan/mime, Esq. ngarrim on e®ga treldh ech t.c orrt Iication for Water Well Permit Enclosed is a General Purpose Water Well Permit Application (Form GWS -45) for processing on behalf of Bedrock Resources, LLC. Also enclosed is a check in the amount of $ 100 for the required application fee. The application is for an existing well, permitted as Well Permit No. 287244. Shelton Drilling Corp. drilled the well and should be faxing you a copy of the Well Construction and Test Report today. The well is augmented pursuant to West Divide Water Conservancy District Water Allotment Contract # 120119BR(a). A copy of the contract is enclosed for your reference. Please contact me if you need any additional information to process this request. Enclosures cc: Bedrock Resources, LLC 782405-1 Sincerely, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Jio6 Qr, 4,Qlm 0. Nicole D. Garrimone ®Prtntedvnrecycledpaper Aspen • Avon • Basalt - Glenwood Springs • Rifle COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1 Office Use Only DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Fenn GWS --45 (07/2009) 1313 SHERMAN 5T, RM 818, DENVER, CO 80203 phone—info: (303) B66-3587 main: (303) 866-3581 fax: (303) 866.3589 htIpllwAw.water.state.co.us JI GENERAL PURPOSE Water Well Permit Application Review Instructions on reverse side prlorto completing form_ The form must be completed In black or blue Ink or typed. 1. Applicant Information 6. Use Of Well (check applicable boxes) Name of applic.nf Bedrock Resources, LLC Attach a detailed description of uses applied for. ® Industrial 0 Dewatering System maim address 1014 CR 311 ❑ Municipal 0 Geothermal (0 production or 0 reinjection) ® irrigation ®Other (describe): Fire Protection, Pond Filling Ci1r • New Castle Siete CO Zip code 81647 ® Commercial 7, Well Data (proposed) Tetsptwn.5 E-mail (Optional) (970)876-0916 . charles@frontierpavinginc.com mfoorrumpumpi`g tate 5 yam """°'s""'" "° qawithdrawn 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) 1.5 acre-feet ❑ Construct new well 0 Change source (aquifer) ❑ Replace existing well 0 Reapplicalion (expired permit) Toted depth 250 feet Aquifer tributary ® Use existing well 0 CIJGCC well 8. Land On Which Ground Water Will Be Used 0 Change or inaease use 0 Other: Legal Description (may be provided as an akarhmarar 3. Refer To (if applicable) Well ponld% 287244 Designated essin enation N Water Court case* Na Wel norm or# Bedrock Resources Well No. 1 See Attachment A 4. Location Of Proposed Well (Important! Sae Instructions) County (r ted used for crop irrigation. attach a soaked map that shows irrigated area.) Garfield NW 114ore,a SE yw A. okras { B. owner Seddon T,nvntrup N or s Range E or r>'rinapal Menden35.72 acres 1 Bedrock Resources, LLC 18 6 0 ® 92 ©® 6th P.M. C. List any other wells or water rights used on this lend: Disatflce oiled Tram section lines (section rues ere typically not property lines) nla 2,325 FL Imam ❑ N fill S 1,890 Ft from ®E ❑ w 9. Pro .. = ed Well Driller License - o. conal : For replacement walla oily_ dretance end three ion from old waif to new well reel 10. Signature Of Applicant(s) Or Authorized Agent direction The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second wet local(, address (Irdade City, state. Zip) ❑ Check h well addnms is same as in hem 1. tbd County Road 315, Garfield County, CO degree, which is purishahle es a class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to C.R.S. 24-4-104 (13)(a). I have read the statements herein, know the contents thereof and state that they are true to my knowledge. sign here (Must be orieiieralgeapte] Pate rquiredl: GPS well location lefonnation in UT.M format You must check GPS unit for required settings as follows: i • � f� g4 �l? �0tici li 2 }.] �'� 1 v� Fcrr at moat be UTlfl El Zone Dor 0 Zone 1sFeeling Pent Warne & Rile Nicole D. Garrimone, attorney, Garfield & Hecht, P.C. Unite must be refers Datum mutt be NAMNorthing Office Use Only unit must tie set to tale ruse was GPS un it chocked Tor above? ❑ YES Ronssmb.r to sot Datum to HADS3 USGS map nam. DWR map no. Su gaols afar. 5. Parcel On Which Well Will Be Located (YOU MUST ATTACH A CURRENT DEED FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL) Receipt area only A. Legal Description prey be provided as an etiachment): See Attachment A -- property deed with legal description B. # f aces in parcel 35,72 acres r C. Owner Bedrock Resources, LLC AQUAMAP w>= D. iMil lhs be Ito only well on sac parcal7 IXIYES ONO rd no —5s1. other welt) WR cwcs E, State Parcel ID# lopsonel}: TOPO MYLAR slid DIV_ WD_ BA_____ 510 _ __ !W PIr+P2111116111i Ill R1ee ILuIW • eI 54 g�1131 spit Foo,51a2 P11 .1man RIO. Vee I et I Ree Faa:Sta- O Doc Fee :3 5O 91tl1Fi ELe [OMIT•! W Recorded ar o'clock M. Reorpion H. Recorder WARRANTY DEED MISDEED, oak on May 11. IlI l I ATTACHMENT A Bowen Speelaky Tsvame. lair. a Nerd Corperotioda ■ corporation du'a areinimedand metrtins aider and by vires of die Ivey ofdt#Sego afNV debt this paw and Bedrock ReeaUIVEN LLC whose keel oda n is : 1014 County Read 311 . CO 11647 of the Canny of Garfield and Sale of CO of the mond put WITNESSETH. That Ills said parry of du Ala W. for cad in eo ssidemion of rite son of 1I5S0A0.0Q COLLARS, o ehw Mid party of the first part k fund paid by de said Pau*les altoselaad part the me* whereof is berebyaoeLeeaed and admovdedRed, hu tonal bergrne4 sold end conveyed, and iyr throe pry dao gime, earpest sed1, arson sod oon6m opo the old parties of elle :acted pam is summon and snips farree , ell onto Wooing described lot or oval af#rtd, auwe.lyia6 sod eche in 6u COMO4I Osdield and Sine ofCold'ado. en v.* See Attached Exhibit "A" TOOETHER with ell rd >w:pSae the neredidmedu and apporhorareet thereto behuagag, or lo QrMee apperntaing, and the mime= and rcvaesiwls. =alder tad erznaldwa, reins. issues end patio thereof, and all the vasty reel, elk inter dab and darned whatsoever elite gnaw either in kw or eget, or. la aid tads above baptnd pianists, with 0e beeeditamr ns and apperreowoes. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Lad osiers above bsrgded and dumbed. with the appurtensnea. ado s he sad parties of the secaad pan ir= erceesaars add detigiis &rem. Add rbc Said SPreill17 Team. Inca Nevada Cmporstim. pity bf life Asst pet for ieslf. and is wcsessees, does mem* giro, bargain, sad agree to end with the acid paths of the vetoed pert. In lamellar' sad $1 els, that at the Hake of the edrsedbe and delivery of these presents. it § Well seized of the prem{Ies above emvged. sh orzood, shit, perkd, [baokte had iedrfreafbk tstm of inbediabea ie Ila, in Re ample, end las goad right, fell pone end lawful =Wily to FOO. hrgaia, Sell pd nem eY the $oar bt !wrier all form as afeetedi, eat dot to woe we pee Ind delis foreill fanner and other plea, bargdns. Ades. Nee, aaara. anesamaaer, altumbrmcea edd rtstricdons of %totem kind err IMII s wear: except general Sou cod ywasrdents lQ the: yam RO t I sad subsegaant pow sad all meat secnd1 exception described by edawa to recorded daeamenti p reflected in ConernawaaldhTin Campaaya Camra traced No. 1105005 Txeic, and the abovefisgaierrd pre nbee ip tae — end pestsatik poameiao or de said pares a f Ina sacred pert. its woman end ssslgn mini i1i and every pan err persons irefully da;milg the whole or any pas thersef, the sold posy of tee first per skaI sad wlI WARRANTY' AND FOREVER DEFEND. The sinteler rumba shin Maeda the p1va1 fid the penal she singular, sad Ina use of say Sender shill be applicable ro a] I geodes. IH WfINESS WHEREOF. no said party ofdie first paths ceased its corpora. haw to be howndo subscribed by its Vim President, and dos corporate sued to ba hereunto' hind, t+cday and yea frig above adder. • .vans, Tees, IshL Vise set STATE OFCALMFORNIA las COUNTY OF ORAHO1i ) 'foe vrcipin5 hnfnyment was sdwordedeed before me or May l 2011, by Damn L Soh!. VIM Prwideir of Sp:wel1y Tavasm. Inc,. a Nem& n epOrs[ion. My cs rnisslon aghast 3 4 f' 64 CoDera ndw A4 xa- I I eSCOS IXOC Imre h. lcshnleIMM 1611@•, 1II I WITNESS soy pond and ;Alicia seal cf Ihr PIT fidli'h lANIM1 lF1a 1111 ttreept.onit• 882554 0511372311 02,39.42 MT Jowl Rtberlce 2 er 2 Rae Frei .00 D°u Fre:25.5O GRRFIELO COUNTY CO File No. €105005 UGC EXHIBIT "A" A tract eland being situated in Section 18, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. County of Garfield, State of Colorado. said tract of land being described by metes and bounds as fa€lows: Beginning al a point from whence the Southeast corner of said Section 18 beats S.04°06'53"E. 1304.87 feet, said point being an aluminum cap, PLS No. 31944 found in place; thence S.88°44'03'W. 1003.93 feet to a point on the Northeasterly Rlght of Way of Garfield County Road No. 315; thence along said Right of Way the following five courses: !) thence 454.05 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right having a radius of 558.40 feet, a central angle of 4695`18" and sub -tending a chard which bears N.40056'34"W. 441.64 fret; 2) thence 271.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the lett having a radius of 919.50 feet, a central angle of 16°5312* and sub -tending a chord which bears N.26°053t "W. 270.02 Feet; 3) thence N3492'061V. 151.77 feet; 4) thence 465.64 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 799.92 feet, a central angle of 33°21'48" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.51°12'40"W. 459.09 feet; 5) thence 59.71 feet along the etc of a curve to the right having a radius of 783.33 feet a central angle of 04°22'04" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.65°42'12"W. 59.70 feet; thence departing said Right of Way N.81°24'12"E. 39.30 feat.; thence N.75659'58'E. 43.68 feet; thence N,54°42'50"E. 125.13 feet; thence N.41°58'31"E. 98.48 feet; thence Mei 5`00"E. 56.32 feet; thence N.58°0349"E. 148.75 feet; thence N.72°51`07"E 70.62 feet; thence N.89430'19"E. 79.15 feet thence S.68°53'03"E. 71.82 feet thence 5.68°3829"E. 108.08 feet; thence 6.80°5521"E. 78.00 feet; thence N.74°35003"E. 73.66 feet; thence N.58e044'05"E. 135.69 feet; thence N.82°36'32 E. 46.72 feet Thence 3.73°57'56"E. 84.78 fret~ thence S.84°32115"E. 133.€7 feet; thence S.60°S8'161E. 75,18 feet; thence S.02°37757"E. 120.69 feet; thence S.23'1T10"E. 12136 feet; thence S.30°t4'52"E. 141.82 feet; thence S.35'47`40`E. 151.00 feet; thence S.30°56'09"B. 126.67 feet; thence S.42°08'1I"E. 92.15 feel: thence 5.73°5126'E. 99.23 feet; thence 14.64309'45'B. 112.73 fret; thence N.55612'50"E. 55.15 feet; thence S.00°43'33°E. 638.39 feet to the Paint of Beginning. APPLICATION TO LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 818 Tal}ghenbaugb Blvd. #141, P. 0. Dox 1478, Rifle, Colorado 81650 I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: ogdrock Resources. LLC Mailing address: 1414 Courcy Road 311 New Cane. CO 81647 Telephone; I87W 989-5394 Email: cta(Ieatairontiewavinoinr;,pom Authorized agent: Nicole Garrimonq, Gg¢ield& Hetet. P.C. 2. COURT CASE #s: Decree Case No. NIA Augmentation Plan Case No. MIA 3. USE OF WATER RESIDENTIAL Number of main residences: No. ADU's Subdivision: No, constructed units: No, vacant lots Horne garden/lawn irrigation of total sq. It. Method of irrigation: flood_ sprinkler other Non-commercial animal watering of animals Fire Protection Evaporation: Maximum water surface to be exposed: Description of any use, other than evaporation, and method of diversion, rate of diversion, and annual amount of diversion of any water withdrawn from the pond: Well Sharing Agreement for multiple owner wells tonal he submitted, greater than two owners, application must be made under a homeowners association. COMMERCIAL Number of units; 2 Total sq. ft, of commercial units; 6,44Qs1 Description of use: sender/pm inside Z committal bufidlrtxs to serve a combined tote) cd 12 employees and drip !rrloatlon to eetabI ah brush end Vee v detetiao. INDUSTRIAL Description of use: , a and refi1ilQg ol5[e nrotectjgn gond and rgate eniertLof eyaLlora9on from the. fire prgtgelrQ nd. dust _ suggreasigp, aid Jim protection uses. Evaporation: Maximum water surface to be exposed: 1.325 Description of any use, other than evaporation, and method of diversion, rate of diversion, and annual amount of diversion of any water withdrawn from the pond: ,. 41.0 .. . . . . I •r..1. .; .1 , • r . ..y sumDm 1 from_the Lyell r a Lprper amounts on th9 p efts had_ gginaeri chart. DIRECT PUMPING Tributary: Locstion: 4. SOURCE OF WATER Structure: Well Structure Name: Bedrock Resources Well Ho. 1 Source: surface_ storage ground water x Current Permit # 287244 ((onitorir i well) (attach copy) Contract #1201.196R(a) Map # 643 Date Approved: 1/19/12 5. LOCATION OF STRUCTURE Garfield County 15 Section NW114 Quenerlquarter 6 South 92 West Township Range SE1/4 Quarter 5th P. M. Distance of welt from section lines: 2.„,125 Feel from the South_Section Ijpe. 1,p9O feat from the East Sediorillne Elevation: Weil location address: Ibd County Road 315,arri&d County (Attach additional pages for multiple structures) 6. LAND ON WHICH WATER WILL BE USED (Legal description may he provided as an attachment.) See attached Exhibit "A". Number of acres in tract:_ annrox. 35,72 saes_ Inclusion into the District, at Applicants expense, may be required 7. TYPE OF SEWAGE SYSTEM Septic tankiabsorption leach field X Central System Other_ District naive: 9. VOLUME OF LEASED WATER NEEDED IN ACRE FEET: 1.5 acre-feet (minimum of 1 acre foot except augmentation from A1shury Reservoir vrdrere a lesser amount is allowed) Provide engineering data to support volume of water requested Commercial, municipal, and industrial users matt provide diversion and consumptive data on a monthly basis. A totnitring flow meter with remote readout is required to be installed and usage reported to West Divide. Applicant expressly ac. nawledges It has had the gpporlunkv to review the District's form Witter Allotment Contract and agrees this application is made 'moan( and sublets' to the terms and conditions contained Ibersrin. Applicant Signature Application Date: ,lanuary 11.2012 ISSUED AS AREA B CONTRACT YES �ND Printed portions of this form, except differentiated additions or deletions, have been approved and adopted by the West Divide Water Conservancy District. Form ' WDWCD 2009 APPLICATION EXHIBIT "A" A tact of land being situated in Section 18, Township 6 South, Range 92 West of the 6th P.M. County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said tract of land being described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the Southeast corner of said Secribn 18 beats S,04°06'53'E. 1304.87 feet; said point being an aluminum cap, PLS No. 31944 found in place; thegee S.88°44'.03"W. 1003.93 fee to a point on the Northeasterly Right of Way of Garfield County Road No. 315; thence along `said £lght .of. Way the flth:ming five courses: 1) thence 454.05 feet along the aro of a non -tangent curve to the tight haiii4g4 radius dP 55$.40 fee; -a centre' angle of 46°35'18" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.40°5694"W. 441.64 t; 2) thenrae 271.011 feat along the are of a curve to the left having a radius of 919.50 feet. a central'anglr:-sof 16°5342" and sub40eeding a chord Veltich: bears N.26°05'3' 1'W. 270.02 feet; 3) thence 10.34°32'06"W. 151.77 feet; 4) thQnee 465.64 ffeci.along the arc(f a curve to the left having a radius of 799.92 feet, a central angle of 33°21'08" end.aeb-tending a sated which beers N.51°12'40"W.. 459.09 feel; 5) thence 59.71 Feet along the are of a curve to the-tight.having-a•t'adhs of 783.33 feet; a central angle of 04°22'04* and sub -tending a chord which hears 11.65°42'12"W. 59:70 Feet; thence departing said Right of Way N.81°2442'E. 39.30 feet; thence N.75°59'58" E, 43.68 feet; thence N.54°42'50"E. 125.13 feet; thence N.41958'31'E 98.48 feet; thence N.46°15'00" E. 56.32 feet; thence N.58°03'491. 148.75 fee , theme N:7W"51'07"E. 7042 feel; thence 14.89°30119'E. 79.15 feet; thence 5.68°53'03"£.71.82 feet; thence S.6838'' 9"E, 108.08 feet: thence 3.80°5511"E. 78.00 feet; thence N.74°3903"E. 73.66 feet; thence N.58°04'45"E. 135.69 feet; thence N.112°3612°E. 46,72 feet; thence S.73°57156"E. 84.78 feet thence S.84°32'IS'E. 133.17 feet; tltestce 5:60°581'6"E. 75.18 feet; thence S.02°3757"F, 120.69 fbel thence 5.23°1710"E. 121.36 feet; thence S.30°14'52"E. 141.82 feet; thence S35°47140"E. 151.00 feet; thence S.30°56'09"E. 126.67 feet; thence 5.42°0811"£. 92.15 feet; thence 5.73°51'26"E. 99.23 fee4 thence N.64°09'45°E. 112.73 feat; thence N.55° 12'50"E 55.15 feet; thence S.00°43'33"E. 638.39 tie to the Potnt of Beginning. Forrn No. GWS•25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bidg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver. Colorado 80 03 (303) 866-3581 BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC 1014 COUNTY ROAD 311 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647- (970)876-0916 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL 1095 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 287244 t7IV. 5 WD 45 DES. BASIN MO d APPROVED WALL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY 114 SE 114 Section 18 Township 6 S Range 92 W Sixth P.M. DISTAN.CES FROM SECTION LINES Ft. from Section Line Ft. from Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters.Zone:13,NAD83) Casting: Northing: ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL i) This wall shall be used in such a way as to cause no Material injury to exfating svaterrights. 'rite Issuance of this permit does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or prelude another owner of a vet=ted water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shell be in compliance with the Water Weil Conettueticn Rules 2 CCR 402-2. unless approval of a variance has dean granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Cone ration end Primp Instellatlon Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant lo CRS 37-92-602(3Xb)e) for uses as described In CRS 3742402(1M. Use of this weir is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling. This well Is known as Bedrock. Resources MonitoringlObseleation Weil no. 1. This well must be equipped with e locking cap or Beal to prevent wel centmnination or posslbte hazards as en open well. The well must be kept capped and locked et all limes except during semplIne or measuring. Records of water level measurements and water quality analyses shall be malntained by the well owner and submitted to the Division of Water Resources upon request. Upon conclusion oI the monitoring program the well owner ehtel plug this well In accordance with Rule 16 of the Water Welt Construction Rules. A Well Abandonment Report must be completed and submitted Fettle Division of Water Resources within 60 days of plugging. The owner shall mark the welt in a conspicuous place with the well permit number and narne of aquifer as appropriate, and shall lake necessary means and precautions to preserve these martdnge. This well must be constructed by or under the superwlsIon of a licensed Weil driller or other authorized Individual according to the Water Well Construction Rules. If non-elendard construction is anticipated, a verteneeMe0at muel.bo submitted in accordance with Rule 18 and approved prior to well cnnstruetion. A Well Construction and Test Report (Form OWS-31), Including lehologic log must be.eubmtited by the individual authorized to construct the well. For non-standard construction, IIie report must Include an as -built drawingshove'mg details such as dopth, cosine, perforated zones. and a description of the greulieg type and Interval. 10) Pursuant to Rule 6.2.3 of the Water Well Construction Rules, the well conetruollon contractor shah submit the es -burp well location on work reports requked by Rule 17.3 Within 60 days of completion of the well. The measured location must be accurate to 200 feet of the actual location. The location information must Include a GPS looaticin (UTM ceordinetesj pursuant to the Division of Water Resources' guidelines. NOTE: Issuance of this Ferree does not guarantee that this well can be converted to a production well under a future permit. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 14.2 of the Water Well Construction Rules (2 CCR 492.2), monitoring holes constructed pursuant to a monitoring hole notice shall not be converted to a production well. (Upon obtaining a perm* from the Stele Engineer. s monitoring hole may be converted to a monitoring well, recovery well for remediation or the aquifer, er a dewatering systemTordewetering the aquifer.) NOTE: Election 18 is an Irregular "Narrow' section. ..• }ti,- NOTE: Parcel Identification Number(PIN); 23-2179-184.00.720 NOTE: Assessor Tax Schedule Number: R043569 (totaling 35.72 acres) ."2{ { /-i O er APPROVED DMW .. SIMG Rece'•t No. 9503513 DATE ISSUED 1 -44-2011 By DATE T 12.74-20 3 Volume . of .Leased Water Request Monthly Diversion and Consumptive Use Data Project S9edraek R4s0Woss Monthly Diversion Table Awned Wester Use January Carrie Wee. gallons Step thee, gibes File Paid RrddI {eYap},: patens Drip kook* Oust crew Total MateblvDreend, gaSbne Tetrtl Merebry Clamant acre 11141 °Mee 9191111.per. euv sh udoul91i9r1: Mop uss g11tlon Per month ealeyistiorc f"eale d7rf8I 0 itt:LAW:on: Prm krtprikon Salevta5nm; Dine eariltarsimdNian: 2,900.00 720.03 2520100 February I4Uth Apra May June July August September Octabar No*rtilier Dfcembr 7:800.00 1.60000 3.000.00 3,000.00 3.000.00 3.000.00 6000.00 3,000.00 3,030.90 1,902.0 7$00.0o 720,00 72000 720.00 720.00 720.00 72000 726.00 720,00 720.00 723.00 720.00 1,053.00 3.760.00 3,90&03 3,790.00 3.906.00 3,906.06 3,7!!0.00 13*3.00 - - 660.03 960.00 360.00 960.00 960.03 960.00 960.00 - 30,333.00 50,000.00 60,030.03 03,900.00 s0,000.00 60000.00 30.000.00 2:020.410 4,473.00 36.060.03 60565.03 66,460,63 CB 586.00 68,566.00 68,460.00 36,633.00 2.220..00 2,22¢.00 '0.006 0.008 0.014 8116 02210 3210 0.210 0.210 0.210 0.112 1037 tr007 Consumptive Use Table Defined Viola' Una OmFoa 1.11•3, spakne Srwp.Uias, gagpne Fos -Peed Resq lelc$ ps69r1 Dep inipatien. 3uatC6edra TDIs1 Mcn01y Dem Brut. wanes Tatar Mon65fy Demand sem Vet :Jona~ 270.00 13&00 01 au son;4hrniald s.6 emplorisax 20Year ,p yaw gaftraiTiarld'$'I*Onyakiyai' 78et 9uTltrnPr tuunt7 seawn.duean'd=10'eoii>t Perm c 20',Wair9da3R x16 9sbcns Pet OW Der 451op10jree+303004909.:or al Damara F 2.terplcye s.I/ 24 060 per Fee.n?li&darjpr; derek s 4 weeks) 113pa8ans7717day pet PMPICYMIAL720:oeiiina Per month Demme • I2egraltela lien Oarweepenllign ail ea "egen wrier prw•Me 4»ver]" !brie Wats Demme .11tre4:8gallons per eene4pee Pe* eft 38strnbs*4 000n$gelwsekoar.8hnAleltrblgApril1507 oOctObar15th Demand • 3.000 pe lorle'per.0dy .5. deed; per week Road%Will be deuidd rdtttlmprrsf4wm cldgrrda. rev Yarn asrlanad, FbWaary Marsh April May June July August September October November December 270.00 270.00 450.00 450.00 450,33 450.30 450.33 450.00 450.00 225.00 225 W 10&00 108.00 106.00 108.00 106,00 100.00 106.03 106.30 138.30 106.00 106.00 1,953.00 3.780.00 3.90600 3.750.00 3,906.00 3,936.00 8.780,00 1.953.30 - - 950.00 960.30 960.06 96000 960200 9604-00 96330 • 30.300.03 60000.00 63.030.00 03,003.00 60,000.00 50,030.00 30.000.03 376.00 379.90 2.371.00 35.298.00 65324.00 65.298.00 65,424.03 14424.00 65,296-00 33.471 00 333.00 333.00 0.001 0.001 0337 0.106 0-209 0.200 0.301 0201 0-200 0.103 0.301 0.001 Cvn4aeap'rs u{s far Ole Wee and seep rs 1556 f1`0iparatetappitetrile 10013 cu OLip irsgatianis 10014.0v Dist Wppteskivr js 1100%w Tab& 29.400,00 952 os 6,640.00 gWWns 26,964,03 paeans 6,720.90 gallons 360,000.00 9a9er11 431,724.00 galloe10 1.33 80-41. Totals 4,410.00 gallons 1.296.00 gallon& 26,964_03 gallons 6,720.00 gallons 350.000.03 gallons 399.390.00 Wang 1.23 ac -R. WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT Name of Applicant: Bedrock Resources. 1.1,C Quantity of Water in Acre Feet: 1.5 acne -feet Contract #12O119BR(a) Map # 543 Date Approved: 1/.9/12 Applicant, hereby applies to the West Divide Water Conservancy District, a politica] subdivision of the State of Colorado, organized pursuant to and existing by virtue of C.R.S. 1973, Section 37.45-101, et seq.. (hereinafter referred to as the "District") for an allotment contract to beneficially and perpetually use water or water rights owned, leased, or hereafteracquired by the District. By execution oftbis Contract and the attached Application, Applicant hereby agrees to the following terms and conditions: I. Water Ranhtsi Applicant shall own water rights at the point of diversion herein lawfully entitling Applicant to divert water, which will be supplemented and; augmented by water teased herein. If Applicant intends to divert through a well, it must be understood by Applicant that no right to divert existsiuntil a valid well permit is obtained from the Colorado Division of Water Resources. 2. Ot ntitr Water applied for by the Applicant in the amount set forth above shall be diverted at Applicant's point of diversion from the Districts direct flow water rights, and when water is unavailable for diversion purauentto administration by the Colorado State Engineer during periods when said dire] t flow water right is not in priority, the District shall release for the use ofAppli cant up to said quantity in acre £bet per year of storage water owned or controlled by the District. It is understood that any quantity allotted from direct flow, storage or otherwise, to the Appl leant by the Aistrilet will be limited by the priority of the District's decrees and by the physicsl and lcgal availability of water from District's sources. Any quantity allotted will only be provided so long as water is available and the Applicant fully complies with ail ofthe terms and conditions of this Contract. The District and the Applicant recognize that some of the Districts decrees may be in the nota of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and the ability of the District to allot direct flaw right to the Applicant may be dependent on the consent of the Colorado River Water Conservation District. If at any time the Applicant determines it requires less water than the amount herein provided, Applicant may so notify the !District in writing, and the amount of water allotted under this Contract shall be reduced permanently in accordance with such notiee. Rates shall be adusted accordingly in following water years only. 3. Beneficial Uae and Lorgtion_ofBeneficial Use: Any and all water allotted Appl icant by the District shall be used for the following beneficial use or uses: industrial, municipal, domestic and related uses, or commercial (except for commercial use from Alsbury Reservoir and except to the extent that liuedi Reservoir water may not be available for commercial as that term is defined on Page 5 of Contract No. 2.07-70-W0547 between the United States and the West Divide Water Conservancy District). Applicant's beneficial use of any and all water allotted shall be within or through facilities or upon land owned, leased, operated, or under Applicant's control. 4, Decree and De]iyyrv: Exchange releases made by the District out of storage from Ruedi Reservoir, Green Mountain Reservoir, Alsbury Reservoir, or other works or facilities of the District, or from other sources available to the District, shall be delivered to the Applicant at the outlet works of said storage facilities or lathe decreed point of diversion for said other sources. and release or delivery of water at such outlet or points shall constitute perf8 mance of the District's total obligation. Delivery of water by the District frorn, Ruedi Reservoir or Green 1 Mountain Reservoir shall be subject to the District's cease contracts with the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Releases from other facilities available to District shall be subject to the contracts, laws, rules, and regulations governing releases therefrom. Furthermore, the District hereby expressly reserves the right to store water and to make exchange releases from structures that may be built or controlled by the District in the future, so long as the water service to the Applicant pursuant to this agreement, is not impaired by said action. Any quantity of the Applicant's allocation not delivered to or used by Applicant by the end of each water year (October 1), shall revert to the water supplies of the District. Such reversion shall not entitle Applicant to any refund of payment made for such water. Water service provided by the District shall be limited to the amount of water available in priority at the original point of diversion of the District's applicable water right, and neither the District, nor those entitled to utilize the District's decrees, may call on any greater amount at new or alternate points of diversion. The District shall request the Colorado Division of Water Resources to estimate any conveyance losses between the original point and any alternate point, and such estimate shall be deducted from this amount in each case. Water service provided by the District for properties located within the Bluestone and Silt Water Conservancy Districts is provided pursuant to Agreements with said Districts. The intergovernmental Agreement between the District and the Silt Water Conservancy District, dated January 25, 2001. is recorded as Reception No. 575691, Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office. The Intergovernmental Memorandum of Understanding b etween the District and the Bluestone Water Conrvancy District, dated April 26, 2001, is recorded as Reception No. 584840, Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 5. Alternate Feint of Diversion and Plan of Auwnentetion; Decrees for attenuate points of diversion of the District's water rights or storage water may be required in order for Applicant to use the water service contemplated hereunder. Obtaining such decree is the exciusive responsibility of Applicant. The District reserves the right to review and approve any candid= which may be attached to judicial approval of said alternate point of diversion as contemplated or necessary to serve Applicant's facilities or lands. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that it shall be solely responsible for the procedures and legal engineering costs necessary for any changes in water rights contemplated herein, and further agrees to indemnify the District from any costs or losses related thereto, Applicant Is solely responsible for providing works and facilities necessary to obtainldivert the waters at said alternate point of diversion and deliver them to Applicant's intended beneficial use. Irrespective of the amount of water actually transferred to the Applicant's point of diversion, the Applicant shall make annual payments to the District based upon the amount of water allotted under this Contract. la the event the Applicant intends to apply for en alternate point of diversion and to develop an augmentation plan and institute legal proceedings for the approval of such augmentation plan to allow the Applicant to utilize the water allotted to Applicant hereunder, the Applicant shall give the District written notice of such intent. in the event the Applicant develops and adjudicates its own augmentation plan to utilize the water allotted hereunder, Applicant shall not be obligated to pay any amount under Paragraph 19 below. In any event, the District shall have the right to approve or disapprove the Applicant's augmentation plan and the Applicant shall provide the District copies of such plan and of all pleadings and other papers filed with the water court in the adjudication thereof 6. Contract Payment; Non-refundable, one time administrative charge, in the amount determined by the Board of Directors of tete District from time to time, shall be submitted with the application for consideration by the District. 2 Annual payment for the water service described herein shall be determined by the Board of Directors ofthe District The initial annual payment shall be made in full, within thirty (30) days after the date of notice to the Applicant that the icitial payment is due. Said notice will advise the Appficaut, among other things, of the water delivery year to which the initial payment shall apply and the price which is applicable to that year. Annual payments for each year thereafter shall be due and payable by the Applicant on or before each January 1. Han annual payment is not made by the due date a flat $50 late fee will be assessed. Final written notice prior to cancellation will be sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Applicant at such address as may be designated by the Applicant in writing or set forth in this Contract or Application. Water use for any part of a water year shall require payment far the entire water year. Nothing herein shall be construed so as to prevent the District from adjusting the annual rate in its sole discretion for future years only. rfpayment is not made within fifteen (15) days after the date ofsaid written notice, Applicant shall at District's sole option have no further right, title or interest under this Contract without further notice, and delivery may be immediately curtailed. The allotment of water, as herein made, may be transferred. leased, or otherwise disposed of at the discretion of the Board of Directors of the District. Upon cancellation of this water allotment Contract with the District, the District shall notify the Division of Water Resources offices in Denver and Glenwood Springs. The i)ivision of Water Resources may then order cessation of all water use. 7. Additional Feta and Costs; Applicant agrees to defray any expenses incurred by the District in connection with the allotment of water rights hereunder, including, but not limited to, reimbursement of legal and engineering costs incurred in connection with any water rights and adjudication necessary to allow Applicant's use of such allotted water rights. 8. Assignment; This Contract shall not inure to the beaefrt of the heirs, successors or assigns of Applicant, without the prior written consent of the District's Board of Directors. Any assignment of Applicant's rights under this Contract shall be subject to, and must comply with, such requirements as the District may hereafter adopt regarding assignment of Contract rights and the assunnption of Contract obligations by assignees and successors. Nothing herein shall prevent successors to a portion ofApplieant's properly from applying to the District for individual and separate allotment Contracts. No assignment shall be recognized by the District except upon completion and filing of proper forms for assignment and change of ownership. In the event the water allotted pursuant to this Contract is tobe used for the benefit of land which is now or will subsequently be subdivided or held in separate ownership, the Applicant may only assign the Applicant's rights hereunder to: 1) No more than three separate owners all of whom shell be party to a well sharing agreement satisfactory to the District; or 2) A homeowners association, water distrix, water and sanitation district or other speeiai district properly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, and then, only if such parties, association or special district establishes to the satisfaction of the District that it has the ability and authority to perform the Applicant's obligations under this Contract. In no event shall the owner of a portion, but less than all, of the Applicant's property to be served under this Contract have any rights hereunder, except as such rights may exist pursuant to a welt sharing agreement or through a homeowners association or special district as provided above. Upon the sale of the real property to which this Contract pertains, Applicant shall make buyer aware of this Contract and proper forms for assignment and change of ownership must be completed. 3 9. Other Rules: Applicant shall be bound by the provisions of the Water Conservancy Act of Colorado; by the rules and regulations of the Board of Directors of the District; and all amendments thereof and supplements thereto and by all other applicable law. . 10. Operation and Maintenance Atzreement: Applicant shall enter into an "Operation and Maintenance Agreement" with the District under terms and conditions determined by the board of Directors of the District, if and when, the Board of said District determines in its sole discretion that such an agreement is required. Said agreement may contain, but shall not be limited to, provisions for additional annual monetary consideration for extension of District delivery services and for additional administration, operation, and maintenance costs; or for other costs to the District which may arise through services made available to the Applicant. 11. Change of Ilse: The District reserves the exclusive right to review, re -approve or di sapprove any proposed change in use of the water allotted hereunder. My use other than that set forth herein or any lease or sale of the water or water rights allotted hereunder without the prior written approval of the District shall be deemed to be a material breach of this Contract. 12. Ilse and Place of l lse: Applicant agrees to use the water in the manner and on the property described in the documents submitted to the District at the time this Contract is executed, or in any operation and maintenance agreement provided by Applicant. Any use other than as set forth thereon or any lease or sale of the water or water rights herein, other than as permitted in paragraph 8 above, shall be deemed to be a material breach of this agreement. 13. Title; It is understood and agreed that nothing herein shall be interpreted to give the Applicant any equitable or legal fee title interest in or to any water or water rights referred to herein. 14. Conservation; Applicant shall use commonly accepted conservation practices with respect to the water and water rights herein, and hereby agrees to be bound by any conservation plan adopted hereafter by the District for use of District owned or controlled water or water rights. 15. Restrictions: Applicant shall restrict actual diversions to not exceed the contract amount for ordinary household purposes, the watering of domestic livestock, fire protection, and the irrigation of lawn and garden as specified in the Application - Applicant shall also comply with all restrictions and limitations set forth in the well permit obtained from the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Watering of livestock shall be restricted to Applicant's domestic animals not to be used far commercial purposes unless Applicant obtains approval from the Colorado Division of Water Resources for commercial use/livestock watering, provided that in no event shall actual diversions exceed the amount of water provided by this Contract. Violation of this paragraph 15 shall be deemed to be a material breach of this Contract. 16. Well Permit; If Applicant intends to divert through a well, then Applicant must provide to District a copy of Applicant's valid well permit before District is obligated to deliver any water hereunder. 17. M : •urineDevice ox Meter: Applicant agrees to provide, at its own expense, ameasuring device deemed acceptable by the District's Engineer after consultation, or atotalizing flow meter with remote readout to continuously and accurately measure at all times all 4 water diverted pursuant to the terms of Applicant's water right and the tams of this Contract. Applicant agrees to provide accurate readings from such device or meter to District upon District's request. Applicant acknowledges that failure to comply with this paragraph could result in legal action to terminate Applicant's diversion of water by the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources. By signing this Contract, Applicant hereby specifically allows District, through its authorized agent, to enter upon Applicant's property during ordinary business hours for the purposes of determining Applicant's actual use of water. 18. Representations: By executing this Contract, Applicant agrees that it is not relying on any Iegal or engineering advice that Applicant may behave has been received from the District Applicant further acknowledges that k has obtained al! necessary legal and engineering advice from Applicant's own sources other than the District. Applicata further acknowledges that the District makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances whatsoever about the quantity or quality of water available pursuant to this Contract. Should the District be unable to provide the water contracted for herein, no damages may be assessed against the District, nor may Applicant obtain a refund from the District. 19. Costs 11 War& Cows Filing and Augmentation Nan' Should the District, in its own discretion, choose to include Applicant's Contract herein in a water court filing for alternate point of diversion or plan of augmentation, then Applicant hereby agrees to pay to the District, when assessed, an additional fee representing the District's actual and reasonable costs and fees for Applicant's share of the proceedings. Applicant shall be assessed a pro -rata share of the total cost incurred by the District in preparing, filing and pursuing to decree the water court case, The pro -rata share shall be calculated by dividing such total cost by the number of contractees included in the filing. To the extent that the District is caused additional costs because of objection filed specifically due to the inclusion of Applicant's Contract in the filing, such additional costs may be charged specifically to Applicant and not shared on a pro -rata basis by all contractees. 20. Bindinst Agreement: This agreement shall not be complete nor binding upon the District unless attached hereto is the form entitled "Application to Lease Water From West Divide Water Ceaservancy District" fully completed by Applicant and approved by the District's engineer. Said attachments shall by this reference thereto be incorporated into the terms of this agreement. All correspondence from the District to Applicant referring to or relating to this agreement is by this reference incorporated into this agreement as further tarns and conditions of this agreement., 21. Warning: IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A VALID WRI.1. PERMIT OR OTHER WATER RIGHT IN ORDER TO DIVERT WATER, INCLUDING THE WATER ACQUIRED UNDERTHIS CONTRACT. 1T IS THE CONTINUING DUTY OF THE APPLICANT TO MAINTAIN THE VALIDITY OF THE WELL PERMIT OR WATER RIGHT INCLUDING FILING FOR EXTENSIONS OF PERMITS. FILING WELL COMPLETION REPORTS, FILING STATEMENTS OF BENEFICIAL USE, OR OTHERWISE LAWFULLY APPLYING THE WATER TO BENEFICIAL USE ON A REGULAR BASIS WITHOUT WASTE. 22, AREMi. CONTRACTS: 1F APPLICANTS WELL OR OTHER WATER RIGHT THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS CONTRACT IS LOCATED OUTSIDE "AREA A' AS DESIGNATED BY THE DISTRICT, THEN THIS PARAGRAPH APPLIES; THE AUGMENTATION WATER PROVIDED BY THE DISTRICT UNDER THIS CONTRACT MAY ONLY PROTECT APPLICANT'S WATER RIGHT FROM A CALL ON THE COLORADO RIVER AND MAY NOT PROTECT APPLICANT FROM A CALL FROM ANY OTHER 5 SENIOR RIGHT. NO REPRESENTATION OTHERWISE IS MADE BY THE DISTRICT. IF THIS ISA CONCERN TO APPLICANT, THIS CONTRACT MAY BE RESCINDED UPON WRITTEN NOTIa DELIVERED TO THE DIS'T'RICT BY THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS FOLLOWING THE AFFiXIAIO OF SIGNATURES ON THIS CONTRACT IN WHICH EVENT ALL SUMS PAID BY APPLICANT FOR THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REFUNDED TO APPLICANT. Applicant STATE OFC. 1104O ) ) SS. COUNTY OF if t The foregoing inn urnent was aaknaw1edged he llt�r+�o c,-- ,h G! v1) tf dal400► . � . fyL� if �1DT,q4,� = T irlotRry Pu clic STATE OF ) z '� �OBLtC Zr COUNTY OFffr, COLO 4P,a`��� rhrf�inn!'iifl��v�r The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _. day of , 20 , by . Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires; Applicant ,9 119 (IIIc t day of .,20_ by 8/4/x,5 Notary Public ORDER After a hearing by the Board of Directors of the W est Divide Water Conservancy District on the Application, it is hereby ORDERED that said Application be granted and this Contract shall be and Is accepted by the District. WEST DIVIDE WA`fl SERV Y D*ICT 7 By resident Date This Contract includes and is subject to the term and conditions of the following documents which must accompany this Contract. I. Map showing location of point of diversion (use map provided) 2. Application and Data Form fully completed and signed Toe printed portions of this form, except differentiated addi done or dde dons, have been approved and Adopted by the West Divide Water Conservancy District. Foran: WDWCDOt.01-ngCONTRACT. GARFIEL© AND HECHT OPERATING #20 420 7TH STREET, SUITE 100 GLEPNWOO© SPRINGS, CO 81601 E,FelkoFcblorricin )w stm ( oda &At ki vscireck cf&i i ars flAeBm* FOR 'i D tak t err= j -A- I E.- oo r ce$ 1 $ lcc - nnuLARs ©© 188 20 1: L❑ 2 L034,071: 1Q Lo06 i 1581. 1882 820/1021 SCI-IMUESER j GORDON f MEYER 6 G LENWOQS] SPri INC S. ENGINEER S 1 5 U R V E Y O R 5 January 27, 2012 Ms. Nicole D. Garrimone Garfield and Hecht, P.C. 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Well Spacing Bedrock Resources Dear Nicole, f 18 WEST SOLD -I STreter, Suit 200 G LENWOOO SPRINGS, CO 81601 370.945.1004 970.045.5945 FAX We have had an opportunity to review the well location for Bedrock Resources in relationship to all wells within the area. We have used information obtained from the Division of Water Resources web site to investigate such. Given our findings, no wells are within 600 feet of the Bedrock Resources well. Upon your receipt and review, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to cal] Respectfully, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Jefferey S. Simonson, PE CFM Principal ASPEN 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT 102 PO BOX 2155 A5PEk, CO 8 1 6 1 E 970.925.6727 970:925.4157 FAX GUNNISON 1 03 WE6T TDMICHI AVE. SUITE A GUNNISON, CO 970.64 I .5355 970.841 .5358 FAX GRAMD JL hCTlOf MEEMER 573 WEST CRETE CIRCLE 320 THIRD STREET BUPLDINO 1 , SU*TE 205 MEEKER, CO 81841 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81 505 970. 878. 51 80 970.245.2571 970.878,4181 Fax 970.245.2871 FAx Shelton Drilling Corp. (970) 927-3801 p.1 WELL CONSTRUCTION AND TEST REPORT STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER FOR OFR CE USE ONLY E1VED 2 6 12 �e Ot1RC{ 5 ODmnFFROYAL 4OWS31-91-03 I- WELL PERMIT NUMBER 287244 2 Owner Name(s): Bedrock Resources LLC Mailing Address: 1014 County Road 311 J City, State. Zip : New Castle, Co 81647 WATER PhoneFi% E� LL'ELL_LOCAT]DN AS DRILLED '' N W 1)4 SE 1/4 Sec: 18 Two: 6 S Range: 92 W 6th PM DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES ft_ from Sec. line and ft. from Sec. Line OR Easting: 2 67 388 Northing: 43 73 610 SUBDIVISION; LOT: BLOCK: FILING (UNIT): STREET ADDRESS AT LOCATION 4 GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION ft. DRILLING METHOD Air Rotary DATE COMPLETED: 122112011 TOTALL, DEPTH: 250 DEPTH COMPLETION: 250 5. GEOLOGIC LOG 6. HOLE DIAMETER (in) -r VR ChM (ft) TO (ft) Depth Type of Material (Size, Color, and Type) 9,0 0 40 000-006 Cobbles, Dirt 6,5 40 250 006-108 Dirt, Clays, Cobbles 013-250 'Wasatch Formation 7. PLAIN CASING Oa (in) Kind WaII Size From (R) To (1 1) 7.0 Steel 0.240 - I 40 . 5.5 PVC 0.250 30 30 5.5 PVC, 0.250 140 200 5.5 PVC 0.250 _ 225 250 PERF. CASING : Screen Slot Size 5.5 PVC 0.250 80 - 140 5.5 PVC 0.250 200 225 Water Located: 75, 115, 210 Remarks : 8. Filter Pack Material : Size : Interval : 9. Packer Placement Type : Depth : 10. GROUTING RECORD Male els] Amount Density Interval Placemealt Cement 6 sks 6 gaits k 10-40 poured 11. DISINFECTION : Type : HTI-I Amt. Used : 8 oz. 12. WELL TEST DATA : () Check I3nx If Test Data is Submitted On Supplemental TESTING METHOD : Air Compressor Static Level : 34 ft. Date/Time Measured 12/21/2011 Production Rite 2 gpm Pumping Level : Total tf. Date/Time Measured 12/21/2011 Test Length : 2 hours Test Remarks : 13. S h ova read tilt starcmenls made lurcin atal Tutuµ the cuatents thercaf, and thot t,ey ace m to my knowledge. (Pursuant to Scctinn y --I-14 4:11)(n) CiLS, the making of fake slat ' enk constitnt�s a jury iu the ssccr4 degree and i� peaisltatde as a clic L m:sd:msnor} CONTIb.CTOR : Shelton Dulling Corp. Phone : (970) 927.4 182 Mailing Address : P.O. Box 1059 Rasa C6. ; 2I Lic. No. 1095 Name 1 Title (Please Type or Print) Wayne Shelton ! President Signaturd'= - Y .r ..r. Dale 1/512012 SCHMUESF.R 1 GORDON MEYER MEMORANDUM TO: Bedrock Resources File FROM: Jefferey S. Simonson, P.E. DATE: February 26, 2012 SUBJ: Bedrock Resources Pump Testing Summary Based upon the attached data, summarized in Excel format, the calculated recovery for the Bedrock Resource well is 3.51 gpm. Wayne Shelton has reported 2 gpm to the State for his well drillers report. Having done so, and given the minimum yield, we recommend maintaining the reported results of 2 gpm for system design. {See attachments} 118 W. 6th Street, Suite 200 Sehmaeser Cordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX Well Drawdown and Recovery #rams Wayne Shelton Depth to Water Pumping Curran. Volume Pumped Dept to Water Drawdown Time Minutes Foot inches Rate ft tenths feet 10:00 0 34 2 5 34.17 0 227.0833 1 35 11 5 5 35.92 1.75 1 227.0833 2 37 1 5 10 37.08 1.17 2 226.75 3 38 7 5 15 38.56 1.50 3 226.5833 4 39 11 5 20 39.92 1.33 4 226.4167 5 41 6 5 25 41.50 1.58 5 228.1867 6 44 8 5 30 44.67 3.17 6 226 7 47 1 5 35 47.08 2.42 8 225.0833 8 49 7 5 40 49.58 2.50 10 225.0833 10 55 2 5 50 55.17 5.58 12 224.25 12 59 2 5 60 59.17 4.00 15 223.0833 15 62 1 5 75 62.08 2.92 20 222,3333 20 72 4 5 100 72.33 10.25 30 221.5833 30 84 4 5 150 84.33 12.00 45 219.9167 45 101 2 5 225 101.17 15.83 80 218.3333 60 122 7 5 300 122.58 21.42 90 217.5 90 136 0 5 450 136.00 13.42 120 216.0833 120 138 1 5 600 138_fl8 2.08 150 218.0833 150 139 0 5 750 135.00 0.92 180 214.1667 180 139 0 7 960 139.00 0.00 210 211.6667 210 139 0 7 1170 139.00 0.00 240 209.75 240 139 0 7 1380 139.00 0.00 300 208.1667 300 139 0 7 1800 139.00 0.00 360 207.8667 360 139 0 7 2220 139.00 0.00 240 207.6667 480 139 0 7 3060 139.00 0.00 360 200.1667 600 144 1 3.5 3480 144.08 5.08 480 193.3333 720 148 2 2.6 3792 148.17 4.08 600 179.1567 840 158 1 2.6 4104 156.08 7.92 720 166.0833 960 180 2 2.8 4416 160.17 24.08 840 150.3333 1080 210 2 2.6 4728 210.17 30.00 960 137.1887 1200 227 1 2.6 5040 227.08 16.92 7080 126.1557 1320 227 1 2 5280 227.08 0.00 1200 113.75 1320 85.08333 1440 61.33333 THE WELL RECOVERED TO 85.08 FEET AFTER ONE DAY. 1560 40.1 7 DURING PUMPING, FROM THE 85.08 FEET DEPTH TO 1680 38.08333 THE BOTTOM 227.08 FOOT DEPTH, WE PUMPED A TOTAL OF 5280-225 5055 GALLONS THE WELL, THEREFORE RECOVERED AT 3.51 GALLONS PER MINUTE Client Name: Well Location: Well Depth: Pump Type: Pump Set Depth L Y1Q ?4 �JJI5e • m2 ROm ff,, r Tele; M:6CREda afilesima[ksheeta]purnptestdatashee1.2010.xls BM Depth to Water Pumping Date Time Ipm Min Ft inches Rate Notes 7?904 /rift Re Q 54' 2 " .7 1 as-' 1/ " 2 57' i" 3 Ref 7 '' 4 3P N` 5 fit • 4 ,. $ 7. /" 10 mf, ? " 12 5,5 Z i! 15 F(Q 7'! 20 f �' 3L: + ,�'' /C2 ' 4/"' . . 45tf4" / /' q' 10 fp:`/ o_' ? 90 127' 7" 5 17• .0 120 f v ' o r• 150 !.3h ' 1.. 1.'170 180 ► f d7 ` 21� 3 D n .2 r r!/.'� 240 t?* D n ,/: 360 r ' 0" +yree !a. e • &I'i I'/' t " /i • 0" / y, i 'r "5'•.D JOA` AP ec lit' 2 '" 9.1.E /0 /Ab) 1" We, 02 CO021 1 .-7`' .i:./ ' 447' i 1, 1n, n-1.27' i'' 41 M:6CREda afilesima[ksheeta]purnptestdatashee1.2010.xls Client Name: Well Location: Well Depth: Pump Type: Pump Set Depth: /~f%7 /t1 /9•4(1./Ai‘ i /-71.1",4..1,11121.17" lei i71,0 IPA/Ye ./T Tete: M:1C R E datailes\worhsheet stp u mptestda lash a et 2010.xl s am Depth to Water Pumping Date Time /pm Man Ft Inches Rate Notes // , ,#0 it ?2%R 1.2 / u 224' 4" 7 ' 7' 224 �i " �'zre 6 z..t p" - 8 ��+�r i.]J� f,p � 10 __724-1 } / r, 12 ,2,21/, .5" _ 15 723 f i 20 Zg v Lf " 30 / 1" 45 , e Il" PIP 60 alp .C,r" 90 f, /,7i' 120 ,2J j " 150 ,.2,rjc, /" /.'P/2 160 ,9/41 & " 210 z7 r 240 __g,7 f ' 300 rY 2 " ,?:ei2 360 ,-2' 7 ;.. -. ,4147e,_ 7e7 of r` cr /6,3' Li"io. / /7 ' z" j2.6,7 //'/f' i" 7' , it -e) /1., %l" -A, 4-'54 / 1, - - .�1. 4, "7,/,' g" 'f7•'r 3,o' ■/ M:1C R E datailes\worhsheet stp u mptestda lash a et 2010.xl s Mesa County Health Department Regional Laboratory MESA COUNTY 510 29.5 Rd. Grcmd Junction, CO 81504 HEALTH DEPARTMENT US Mali. PO Box 20,000, Grand Junction, CO 81502-5033 (970) 248-6999 fax (970) 683-6608 httpdiheatth.rnesocounty.usilah Customer 1 and M Pump, Inc. 8611-117 Rd Glenwood Springs, CO 8160! Sample Invoke # 4791-11 DAT LOS Collected d Collected 12127/2011 too PM Rich System Ellsworth Received 12/28/2011 10:43 AM MAIM Corte Matrix Raw Water Silt CO 81652 Purpose Spada! Primrose Chlorine Location Weft Comments Test Horne &Eel Total coliforms PA ABSENT ColiforrntABSENT E coh or fess than one OD. Indicates a rnIcrobiologkagy safe sample 12/29/20119:2026 AM Glenn Hartmann From: Eden Vardy and Aspen TREE [permacussion@gmail.cornj Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 6:24 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: To The Planning Commission: say 'no' to Bedrock Asphalt Planning Commission, My name is Eden Vardy and I write you this letter on behalf of Aspen TREE (and our 1,500 students, participants members, and staff), a roaring fork valley nonprofit focused on sustainability through a healthy food shed, and I urge you to say "no" to Bedrock Asphalt's new request. First off, thank you so much for supporting local farming in your decision making thus far, especially with the first ruling in favor of organic farming and Eagle Springs Organics. Eagle Springs Organics is a focal farmer and key element of our local food system, and an asphalt processing facility adjacent to the farm may have adverse effects on the quality of food they can produce. Please say NO Please continue to support local fanning and the best interest of our community! Sincerely, Eden Vardy, MSc Director / founder Aspen Tree PO Box 8064 Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 379-2323 www.asnen-tree.org "Together Regenerating the Environment through Education" Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Fielder, Adrian [afielder@coloradomtn.eduj Monday, July 09, 2012 3:37 PM Glenn Hartmann Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson; Fielder, Adrian appeal for our local food economy To the Planning Commission: EXHIBIT t am writing to urge you to disallow Bedrock Asphalt from crushing, processing and recycling asphalt, as they have proposed, at the site adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic Farm, Such industrial activity is not allowed in rurally -zoned areas for many good reasons. The most important is that the vapors and the dust emitted by this activity alone would be more than enough to poison all the food in the immediate vicinity, where our area's largest organic agricultural producer is growing food that we will desperately need in the future near and far, and to significantly degrade the air quality throughout Garfield County and beyond. The risks are too high and the dangers too well known for us to consider allowing this unwise development, Moreover, there are uncountable positive benefits to protecting Eagle Springs and other local food producers from such industrial effluvium: benefits for our economy, for our health and our children's health, and for the integrity with which we carry ourselves in our community. It is crucial to protect our largest organic food producer by following the precedent set by our county commissioners in February when Commissioners Martin, Jankovsky and Samson expressed concerns about the potential adverse effects an asphalt plant could have on an existing agricultural operation and affirmed existing land use code. Our local agriculture is a big part of our county's history and will be critical to the future of our public health and local food economy. Our local food producers and agricultural land can and will feed us and generations to come if we support and protect them. Thank you for your wise consideration of this important issue. Best regards, Adrian Fielder i Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT _rf__ From: Dawne Vrabel [dawnevrabel@gmail.cornl Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 3:00 PM f To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Torn Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: To the Planning Commission - Please support and protect Eagie Springs Organic Dear Planning Commission, On behalf of the Roaring Fork Food Policy Council, Garfield County Public Health recently asked me to join the newly forming Garfield County HEAL Coalition (Healthy Eating and Active Living) to help move our county from 17th to 1$` healthiest county in Colorado. The burning question is: What will it take to make Garfield County the #1 healthiest county in Colorado? So my question to you is: Does a contractor's yard of crushing, processing and recycling asphalt promise no health threat? So many organizations and citizens are hard at work and dedicated to the health of our county and were thrilled when our Garfield Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of protecting our largest organic food producer, Eagle Springs Organic Farm from the potential dangers of a neighboring asphalt plant. My questions are: Can we promise our county residents that asphalt processing/recycling will not pose health risks and dangers? What are the most important risk factors and are our county commissioners willing to address these risk factors? Who will take on this responsibility to investigate, monitor and mitigate these risk factors if they are in fact able to be mitigated? And given the rapid state of change we are seeing in our world today, is it all worth it and can we afford this? If Garfield County is to be the healthiest county in Colorado, it is crucial to protect our largest organic food producer and to secure the precedent set by our county commissioners in February when Commissioners Martin, Jankovsky and Samson expressed concerns about the potential adverse effects an asphalt plant could have on an existing agricultural operation and affirmed existing land use code. Our local agriculture is a big part of our county's history and will be critical to the future of our public health and local food economy. Our local food producers and agricultural land can and will feed us and generations to come if we support and protect them. Please do not allow Bedrock to establish any operations adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic or any other organic farming business. The RFFPC looks forward to seeing you at the July 11th Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully, Dawne Vrabel Roaring Fork Food Policy Council Carbondale 732.284.8477 Dawnc Vrabel, HHP, AADP Food Choices, LLC 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Dylan Johns [djohns a@zone4architects.corn) Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 9:25 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky, John Martin, Mike Samson Subject: Bedrock Asphalt application Dear Planning Commission, EXHIBIT I am writing to you today regarding the application by Bedrock Asphalt, and the proposed crushing plant. While on the surface, this application is not nearly as impactful as a batch plant, having myself served on Aspen's Planning and Zoning commission for six years, there are some concerns that 1 have regarding this application. Please consider the factors that led to your previous decision to deny the zoning change based on the desire to protect an agricultural asset for the County and the entire valley. While crushing would certainly appear to be less impactful to the operation of a farm than a batch plant, Ido not know what the true impacts with respect to dust and chemical leeching would be from such an operation. Dust is certainly a significant factor to both the airport operations (listed as a criteria for the FAA to review) and to raising crops. With government budgets being what they are, is it realistic to think that even if you include criteria that dust will be monitored and mitigation steps put in place to contain it, that anyone will be following through with making sure that these conditions are adhered to? The other main concern that the crushing facility may evolve over time back into the batch plant. It will then become the onus of the adjacent property owners to prove that there has been a degradation of air/soil/water quality, rather than the applicant. Maintaining these sorts of records, while certainly a good idea, is expensive and not what these property owners are geared to do- they will thus not likely be prepared to make a suitable demonstration in their defense. Crop foss will thus be coincidence, and the expanded operation will have argued its way in. This application serves as an affirmation that healthy and vibrant agriculture is a vital component to our lural community, especially as an insurance policy when fuel prices rise to a point where we are forced to rely on our local resources rather than shipping products halfway around the world. 1 am sure that jobs will be used as a reason why the application should be approved. Please ask this question, are new jobs being created at Bedrock or simply being moved from one location to another? Are those employee estimates reasonable, or inflated to sound good? How many jobs are in jeopardy of being lost if the farm can't operate, or production yield is lost? Will this application solve any comprehensive unemployment issues that the County is facing? Please vote to uphold the principals that you had felt were of critical importance a few months ago, and be wary of the placement of requirements which will sound like responsible management, but will not be enforceable from a practical standpoint. Thank you for your time and dedication to making the community be as strong and vibrant as we all want it to bei Dylan DYLAN M. JOHNS ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS 970.948.6787 www.zone4arc kite cts,c om CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [Jeffs©sgm-inc.com] Sent: Monday, July 09. 2012 11:38 AM To: shirley©engdynarnics.com Cc: Glenn Hartmann Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources Noise Study Attachments: Sheet 3 Redline to Howard.pdf Hi Howard,. EXHIBIT Please note that I am following up on Garfield County Planning comments indicating that our noise study update of 4/30/12 for Bedrock Resources did not adequately demonstrate compliance with the County's ULUR and State Standards. 1 have reattached the site plan indicating where the crusher is to be located (down by the storage area). Could I have you respond how compliance to the standards are met? If we need to move the crusher or need to do anything else to meet the standards, let us know of the alternatives and we can inform the County likewise. Note that an email reply to this is sufficient at this point. Thanks and call with questions, Jefferey S. Simonson, PE, CFM Prrneipaf 6SGM 118 W Sixth St, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9005 7 970.379 4691 cell w ww,sgrn-roti, om III From: Shirley McGregor jmailto:shirleyOengdynamics.comj Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:44 PM To: Jeff Simonson Subject: Bedrock Resources Noise Study 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [JeffSa'asgm-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:18 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Bedrock Resources Attachments: Air Quality information from CDPHE.pdf Hi Glenn, EXHIBIT r 1 have been trying to contact you via phone, but am not getting past the switchboard. Regardless, you will find attached the previously submitted air quality information for the construction of Bedrock Resources. You will find the construction permit application and permit. Also, you will find correspondence from Chip Hancock of CDPHE identifying that there is not an APEN required for grading projects that are under 25 acres in size and less than 6 months in duration. Also, in talking with Chip, an APEN is required for the crusher. Since the APEN is equipment specific, the proposal would be that there would not be any crushing operations ensue until the specific rental equipment is found and specified. As the crushing operations proposed are very intermittent, the APEN will need to be applied for when the equipment to be rented is identified. Also, the timing of the operation at that point can be identified as well (and would be part of the permit). Thanks, Jefferey S. Simonson, PE, CFM Principal 6SGM 118 w Sixth St, Sprite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9005 / 970 379.4691 c�! `7i1' w Sgrn-ifc, c orri 1 STATE OF COLORADO &ha W. ttidrenioopor. Governor (Orieropewr E. Urbino. MD. MPH lNecrelive f)ireelot and One Mean al °Ulcer Uasficaled to ptOWc1!ng and impraving rho toanli and onvtronmeol of too people ol Colorado 4300 Curry Croak W. S. t.adoratory Servlcas Civ6AV1 Oerr+ar, Colps2+da B413-1530 MOO Lowy DIAL Phone t3D3) 692.2000 Denver Coorada 80230.892 Located m Glendr ie, Colorado (303) a92.309O tutaikemacclahastato.co.us January 2f), 2012 Charles Ellsworth Frontier Paving inc. 1014 County Road 311 New Castle. CO a1 647 Re: Permit #12GA1003 °ear Applicant: Colorado Darp�yyrtment of Public ticattll oral' Envirommaa The Colorado Air pollution Control Ditision has received and logged in yourconatruclion permttapication fora hot mix asphalt plant to he operated ata location apprpxunately iI3 of a mite oast of the Garfield Court/Airport on County Road 315. This hot mix asphalt plant is currentlypexmtled at a deferent location under permit number 070A045 T. The permit number assigned to this equipment at the new location is 12GA1063. Your appicalion is naw ready fur initial review. 1f you should have any questions concerning the stairs of your permit application, please contact me at 303.692,2285. When calling, please reference the permit number Holed above. You can also research the status of your appfrcatios online at httJrJAmvw.Cdphe,state.co.us1at ss{sspept.htm . The next step in processing your construction permit application is to determine if all of the information we need is contained within your application. If sowe will begirt our preliminary engineering analysis. If any information is missing, however, we vat contact you in the near future to obtain the needed material. State law requires that the Division determine the completeness of en application within 60 days of receipt_ if you do not hear from the Division by 02/2712012, you can assume that your application is complete. Sincerely, Pau/ hustler Construction Permit Unit Page 1 of 1 Jeff Simonson From: Charles Ellsworth (Charles©FroniferPavinglnc,camj Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:65 AM To: Jeff Simonson; Damian Ellsworth Subject: Fw: GP43 ----- Original Message — From: Hancock. Chip To: Charles Ellsworth Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:55 AM Subject RE: GP03 Charles, Per our discussion, if the land disturbance is 25 acres or more, or the project will take 6 months or more then a land development permit Is needed (see Reg. 3, Part A, ll.D.1.j. at: http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/airreesiSCCR1001-5.pdfj- R K "Chip" Hancock Ili, P.E. Construction Permits Unit Supervisor Stationary Sources Program Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80245-1530 303-692-31681 r.hancock@state.co.us { ..rnFa#kfhvi:a� dtr,Mi r•iTw�n.nwn-+ From: Charles Ellsworth (mailto:Charles@F ontierPavinginc.com] sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:39 AM To: Hancock, Clip Subject: RE: GPO3 Chip, Do we need a permit for a land improvement project that would disturb 20 acres on a site of 36 acres besides the SWMP permit? Thanks, Charles Ellsworth 1/26/2012 STATE OF COLORADO Tearcatea topratettng and 471proloing the heft andamdrorrnen[ et rhe pope of Wow* .oreOlem Creex Dr. & Omer. CoIorada 60246.1 Prone {365e•Peoo TDD Lino 1963}591-rrff9 Colotadaleepennent Waled [n Glrnddle. Ceara& of Pubricfleakli http2Irnmadphe.e#9tezo.vs asaFraviranmeat COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS) STORMWATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVES APPLICATION PHOTO COPIES, FAXED CONES, PDF COPIES OR EMAILS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. For Agency Use Only Permit Number Assigned COR03, Date Received Month Day Year Please print or type. Original signatures are required. All items must be completed accurately and In their entirety far the application to be deemed complete. Incomplete applicationsvwili not be processed testi all information is received which WI ultimately delay the issuance of a permit. If more space is required to answer any question, please attach additional sheets to the application form. Applications must be submitted by mak or hand delivered to: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South WIXOM B8 Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Any additional information that you would like the Division to consider in developing the permit should be provided with the application. Examples include effluent data and/or modeling and planned pollutant removal strategies. PERMIT INFORMATION Reason for Application: 111 NEW CERT 0 RENEW CERT ExISTING CERT At Applicant is: MT Property Owner 0 Conlrectorlgperator A. CONTACT INFORMATION - NOT ALL. CONTACT TYPES MAY APPLY * indicates required *PERMITTEE Of more than one please add additional pages) *ORGANIZATION FORMAI. NAME: 8i2d.rock eaS.O 4F cvk LC' • 1) sPERMf TEE the person authorized to sign and certify the permit application. This person receives all permit correspondences and Is legally responsible far compliance with the permit. Responsible Position (Titlet` Currently N1141311 (Person): C 4) el_ I / /s w r t Telephone No: 7)0 & t)A. 0 cli A email address C hG;,s'Csl`o o'er po. rV s tV C� (.41 Organization: 130 rOCA1 S cikre 5 Li -C1 . Mailing Address: /'H aCt+•1 ie 00.4 31 City: 11.4%+, ).e State: Co la r itaOp Zip: lS /644 This form meetfig slimed by the Permittee (ilstettin item 1) to be considered complete. Per Regulation 61 In all cases, it snail be signed as follows: a) In the cased corporations, by a responsible corporate officer. For the purposes of this section, the responsible corporate officer is respornsihie For the overall, operation of the facility from which the discharge described in the application originates. b) In the case of a partnership, by a general partner. c) In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the proprietor. d) in the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official page 1 of 5 revised April 2021 2 OMR COGNIZANT -OFFICIAL (I.e. authorized agent) the persons or position authorized to sign and certify reports required by the Division including Discharge Monitoring Reports'DMR's, Annual Reports, Compliance Schedule submittals, and other information requested by the Divis€on. The Division will transmit pre-printed reports (le. NOW sl to this person, if more than one, please add additional pages. Same As 1) Permittee Responsible Position (Title): V ► e Pe -,2 $ :rgo n ' Currently Held By (Person): 1 o. j7) ; Etta f / s a r HN Telephone No: 9 1)C' - =1 S1 . G i'1 sl 7 email address C C m ! ct n../ C s A-4 Nit +` r p0.1,) njc Organization: Pc El.r0 7l' +'s r I' V L'..v5 rlf t - Mailing Address: 1 M, (DIA n -FIt Getrso 311 CitY: State: Giotertl zip: ? 1&/ f) CC 17.1 Per Regulation 61 Ali reports required by permits, and other information requested by the Division shall be signed by the perm€ttee or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: (i) The authorization Is made in writing by the permittee (11) The authorization spedfses either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility. or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position); and (iii) The written authorization is submitted to the Division 3) *SITE CONTACT focal contact for questions relating to the facility & discharge authorized by this permit for the facility. lg Same As 1) Permittee Responsible Position (Title): Currently Held 3y (Person]: Telephone No: email address Organization: Mailing Address City: State: Zip: 4) * BIWNG CONTACT If different than the permittee Responsible Position (T€tie): Currently Held By (Person): Telephone No: email address Organization: Ma ging Address: City: State: Zip: Page 2 of 5 revised April 2011 5) OTHER CONTACT TYPES (check below) Add pages if necessary: ResponsiblePosition (Title): Pr rI c �a Currently Held By (Person): Ze .5.‘a r O eJ S: n h: . f'E C Pen Telephone lio:'r - y % email address agiES 2 5 i CO Organisation: .I. m .t . — G A ai] ett ,e f` Mailing Address: 11 int r'6 $fc f, 5 ;o 4 0 ally: G i e n, w � � r4 ';5 � , State: Colo rculaea Zip: S" 160 [ ❑ Pretreatment Coordinator a Environmental Contact a Bkrsorids Responsible Party a Property Owner Cl inspection Fadlity Contact X Consultant 0 Coral:Mance Contact 8. Permitted Pro;ect1Facility Information Project/Facility Name ❑ StormwaterMS4 Responsible Person O 5tormwaterAuthorised Representative O Other Street Address or cross streets East ; A.e of :, /. Son Fest- S1,..141_ of C! . 3 (e.g., "S. of Park St. between 5`k Ave. and 16a` Ave.", or "W. side of CR. 21, 3.25 miles N. of Witt 1.D" ; A street name without an address, intersection, mile marker, or other Identifying information describing the lactation of the project is not adequate. For d'mear projects, the route of the project should be described as best as possible with the location more accurately Indicated by a map.} City, ; / 1" _Zip Code _ O 1652- county 6a. r {i.+ &Q Facility Latitude/Longitude— (approximate center of site to nearest 16 seconds using one of following formats 001A Latitude ; a 3i .O . of 3Err Longitude Mails i 3 . 2C? (e.g., 39.703'.104.933') degrees its 3 decimal places) degrees (to 3 decimal places) or 001A Latitude ° " Longitude ' "(e.g., 39'46 1114. 1°4'53'1 MY) degrees minutes seconds degrees minutes seconds For the approximate center point of the property, to the nearest 15 seconds. The latitude and longitude must be provided as either degrees„ minutes, and seconds, or in decimal degrees with three decimal places. This information may be obtained from a variety of Sources, Including: o Surveyors or engineers for the project should have, or be able to calculate, this information. o ERA maintains a web -based siting mol as part of their Toxic Release Ittventory program that uses interactive ratans and aerial photography to help users get latitude and longitude. The siting tool can be accessed at www,epa.goviuijreport/siti ng_toal }index htm o 13 5. Geological Survey topographical manic), imitable at area map stores. o Using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit to obtain a direct reading. Wig the latitude/longitude required above Is not the directional degrees, minutes, and seconds pravhled on a site falai description to dune property boundaries. C. MAP (Attachment) If no_Riap is submitted. The Permit will not be IssSied. Map: Attach a map that indicates the site location and that CLEARLY shows the boundaries of the area that will be disturbed. Maps must be no larger than 1147 7 inches. D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Legal descnpdon:If subdivided, provide the legal description below, or indicate that It isnot applicable (do not supply Township/Range/Section or metes and bounds description of site) Subdivision(s): Lot(s}: Black(s): _ OR ' Not applicable (site has not been subdivided) page 3 of 5 revised April 2011 E. AREA OF CONSTRUCTIQIM SITE _ - Total area of project site (acres): 35 . 7? Area of project site to undergo disturbance (acres): 4170 a Note: aside from clearing, grading and excavation activities, disturbed areas also include areas receiving overburden fes., stockpiles), demolition areas, and areas with heavy equippment/vehlcie traffic and storage that disturb existing vegetative cover Total disturbed area of Larger Common Plan of Development or Sale, if appilcable: �V�iEI (Le., total, including all phases, filings, lots, and infrastructure not covered by this application) Provide both tie total area of the construction site, and the area that tell undergo disturbance, in acres. Note: aside from Bearing, grading and excavation activttles, disturbed areas also Include areas receiving overburden (e.g., stockpiles), demolition areas, and areaswlth heavy equiipnhent/vehidie traffic and storage that disturb existing vegetative cover (see construction activity description wider the APPLUCABILI1Y section on page 11. ti the project is part of a larger airnman plan of development or sale (see the definition under the APPLICABILITY section en page 1), the disturbed area of theoft 1 plan must also he included. F. TUR CONSTR I IV IV Check the appropriate box(s) or provide a brief description that indicates the general nature of the construction activities. (The full description of activities must bo Included in the Stormwater Management Plan.) Single Family Residential Development Multi -Family Residential Development Cornrnercla! Development on and Gas Production and/or Exploration (inducting pad sites and associated infrastructure) Highway/Road Development Olt inducting roadways associated with commerdal or residential development} Other —Description: to m v.ts.LA.1- & N 6 - 5 . /R. £ -C cieSS Rags ^f' o :~ c... M jp5eAct if- 6, 00, Pie f ai:n44 ritict.44 1'&c .1 r,'r' e s , Cis a.�f�c�'o �s c� raC / 5.4brt 4441 Oft*'. {c G. ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCI4eouLE Construction Start Date: Fehr i,„x C.j 2 P1 .. Final Stabilization pate: IUc,ua. j- 3 0, 2,0r ■Construction Starr Dote - This is the day you expect to begin ground disturbing activities, inducting grubbing, stockpiling, excavating, demolition. and grading activities. .Finial Stabilization Date- In terms of permit coverage, this is when the site is finallystabilzed. This means that an ground surface disturbing activities at the site have been completed, and all disturbed areas have been either built on, paved, or a uniform vegetative cover has been established with an individual plant densityof at least 70 percent of pre -disturbance levels. Permit coverage must be maintained until the site is finally stabilized. Even If you are only doing one part of the project, the estimated final stabilization date must he for then .vera)! project. If permit coverage is still required once your part is completed, the permit ceruBoat on may be transferred or reassigned to a new responsible entity(s). H. RECEIVING WATERS flf distharaeis to a ditch 01 Storm sewer. Include the name of the_vitimatereceivirng waters) Immediate Receiving Water(s): m a. nn ,tn C-reQ. K Ultimate Receiving Water(s): CO/0; rF n RC 1 -- identify the receiving water of the stormwater from your site. Receiving waters are any waters of the State of Colorado. This includes A water courses, even if they ere usually dry, tf storrnweter from the construction site enters a ditch or storm sewer system. identify that system and indicate the ultimate receiving water for the ditch or storm sewer. Note: a stormwater discharge permit does i s allow a discharge into a ditch or storm sewer system without the approval of the owner/operator of that system. page 4 of 5 revised April 2011 L REQUIRED SIGNATURES (Both parts 1. and ii. must be signed) signature of Apafpus1 The applicant must be either the owner and/or operator of the construction Site. Parer Partly of the lnstruct]onsfor additional Information. The appltakion must be slued by the applicant to be considered complete. btafl easel, it shall be signed as follows: (Regulation 61-4 flail o) in the case of corporations, by the resoonsibleaarpnrete offceris responsible for the overall operation of the fac#iry from which the discharge described in the form originates b) in the cased a partnershlp,try a general Partner. c) In the case of a sole proprietorship, DV theprppr1ebor. d) In the case of a municipal, state. or other public facility. by either* prhidpai ereautiveofficer. ranfdng elected official. fa pr1nc1pal arecuttve officer has responsibUhy for the overall operation of the facility from which the dlsdtarge origireateS). STOP!: r i -. (-. _[[:.-.1 S! 1 *L ! �s '(r.. s. - ! i *Ix .J. -.alt ! r i 1. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION 1 certify under penalty of law that a complete Siornnwater Management Plan, has been prepared for my activity. Rased on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those personsdh'ectiy nasponsibfe fur gathering the. Information, the Stormwater Management Plan is, to the best of my knowledge and belief. true. accurate, and complete.1 am aware that there are significant penalties for fa€SelY certifying the completion of said SWMP. laciudloss1biRty of fine and Im ' for knowing violations." XX air,„ h1 , 1 Gi 2or:2- Slgneture of Legally Responsible Person or Authorized Agent (subntisslon must lnchide original signature) Dateiigned C�,tsrle$ too r? 4 Ma Ala/. r Name (printed) Title ii. SIGNATURE OF PERMIT LEGAL CONTACT mr certify under penalty of law that thLs decurrent and all attachments were prepared under my direction Or Supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted, Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system. or those persons directly responsible forgathering the Information. the information submitted Is to the best of my knowledge end belief, true. accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false Information, including the possibility of fine and Imprisonmentfor kttowingv+olations." 1 understand that submittal of this application is for coverage under die State of Colorado General Perrntt for Starmwater Drsdharges Associated with Construction Activity for the entirety of the construction s1te/prooect described and applied for, until such time as the application is amended or the cest?ticatttransferred, inactivated, or expired" al etavIcks 1�� C« Signature of vagally Responsible Person (submission( must include original signature)) "Date Signed Name (printed title DO NOT INCLUDE co PV OFTI1 sTORMWATER MANAGEMENTPLAN DO NOT INCLUDE PAYMENT —AN INVOICE WILL BE SEii TAFTERTHE CERTIFICATION IS ISSUED. page 5 of 5 re iced April 2011 STATE OF COLORADO Sohn W. Hickentooper, Governor Christopr er E. Mina, MD, MPH Executisa Director and Civet medical Officer Dedicated to protect no and Improving the health and ° Mrrenmart at the people of Colorado 3300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver. Colorado 80248-1530 Phone (3y 692.2000 Located in Glendale. Colorado hhol w m.cdphe.state.00.os January 25, 2012 Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Bedrock Resources LLC 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Laboratory Services Division 3100 Lowry Blvd. Denver, Colorado 80230-692a (303)E92.3690 RE: Certification, Colorado Discharge Permit System Permit No., COR030000, Certification Number: COR033595 Dear Mr./Ms. Ellsworth: Colorado Deparuncnt of Public Hdth and Etna rnment The Water quality Control Division (the Division) has reviewed the application submitted for the Bedrock Resources LLC Mamm Creek Site facility and determined that it qualifies for coverage under the CDPS General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (the permit). Enclosed please find a copy of the permit certification, which was issued under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act. facility; Bedrock Resources LLC Marnm Creek Site Garfield County Construction Activities: construction site and access roads for asphalt batch plant; facilities, contractors, yard, shop and office, Legal Contact (receives all legal documentation pertaining to the permit cent:kaf tan): Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Bedrock Resources tLC 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Facility Contact (contacted far genera( inquiries regarding the facility): Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Phone number: 970-876-0016 Email: charles@frontierpavinginc.com Phone number:970.876-0916 Email: charles@frontierpavinginc.com Billing Contact (receives the invoice pertaining to the permit certification). Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Phone number: 970-87G-0916 1014 County Road 311 Email: char€es@frontierpav€riginc.com New Castle, CO 81547 Any changes to the contacts listed above must be provided to the Oivision on a Change of Contact form. This form is available on the Division's website at coloradowateroermits.com. The Annual fee for this certification Is $245.00, and is invoiced every July. Do Not Pay This Now. The initial prorated invoice will be sent to the legal contact shortly. Please read the enclosed permit and certification. if you have any questions please contact Matt Cxahor, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (303) 692-3575. Sincerely, rfr;y;ri.�.l�. Debbie lessop, Program Assistant WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION Enclosures: Certification page; General Permit; Highlight Sheet; Termination form xc: Regional Council of Government Garfield County, Local County Health Department D.E., Technical Services Unit, WQCD Permit File id WI cert STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALf1'Y CONTROL DIVISION TELEPHONE: (303) 692-3500 CERTIFICATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER CDPS GENERAL PERMIT COR -0300000 STORIVIWATER ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Certification Number: COR031595 This Certification to Discharge specifically authorizes: Bedrock Resources LLC to discharge stormwater from the facility identified as Bedrock Resources LLC Mamm meek Site to: Mamm Creek - Colorado River Construction Activities : construction site and access roads for asphalt batch plant; facilities, contractors, yard, shop and office, Facility Located at: CR 315 & CR 352, Sift, Garfield County, CO 81652 Latitude' 39/31/30, Longitude: -107/42/13 Certification is effective: 1/24/2012 Certification Expires; 6/30/2012 This certification under the permit requires that specific actions be perforated at designated times. The certification holder is legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of the permit. Signed, Nathan Moore Construction/MS4/Pretreatment Unit Manager Water Quality Control Division Page 1 of 22 BEDROCK RESOURCES !LC. Construction and Operational Dust Management Plan 0496 County Road 315 Silt, Colorado 81652 January 23, 2012 The construction for this project is scheduled to start in early February and be completed by late April 2012, Frontier Paving Inc. will be performing all of the site improvement work. Frontier has arranged for construction water from the Cast Chance Ditch Company. The site earthwork construction is primarily a cut to excess. There is a small amount of engineered fill where the shop and equipment storage building is located. The excess excavation will primarity he used for berm construction to reduce noise and visibility for the adjacent property owners. Dust control for the site construction work will be done with a 4400 gallon water truck as needed. Because the site is a cut to excess site, the water truck will be used primarily for dust control. The topsoil wilt be stripped and stockpiled prior to any earthwork construction. Once the earthwork is completed, the topsoil will be placed and tracked in en all berms and disturbed areas that do not receive a gravel surface. The topsoil will be adequately wet prior to tracking to achieve a crust. We anticipate the revegetation to take place early spring 2012, if the completion of construction is too fate for a spring planting, then it we be completed in the fail of 2012. The first300 feet of the road coming in from County Road 315 will be paved. The remaining road up to and around the asphalt plant and the shop and parking areas will be graveled and meg-chloride applied. We anticipate applying mag -chloride twice the first year and then as needed after that< The asphalt plant pad will be approximately 20 feet lower than existing ground level. The excess excavation from this and the other site earthwork will be used to build earth berms. There will be a berm constructed on the West side of the aggregate stockpiles. This berm will be approximately 5 feet taller than the proposed stockpiles. There will be another berm on the North and East side of the plant This berm will be approximately 30 feet tall. The height and location of these berms will help block the prevailing winds from the West and aid in dust control for the aggregate stockpiles and the plant site. We will water the roadways between the stockpiles as well as the stockpiles when needed. We believe that the design of the plant site and the stockpile area will help alleviate the ongoing problem with fugitive dust caused by the prevailing west to east winds. Sincerely, Charles Ellsworth Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT From: Lisa Dancing -Light Ihigheroctave(sopris.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:53 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: We are counting on you for the health and well being of our valley population and food sources. Dear Planning Commission, t ant writing on the behalf of the Dawne Vrabel of the Roaring Fork Food Policy Council, Garfield County Public Health recently who was asked to join the newly forming Garfield County HEAL, Coalition (llealthy Eating and Active living) to help move our county from 17th to 1st healthiest county in Colorado. The burning question is: What will it take to make Garfield County the #1 healthiest county in Colorado? So my question to you is: Dues a contractor's yard of crushing, processing and recycling asphalt promise no health threat? So many organizations and citizens are hard at work and dedicated to the health of our county and were thrilled when our Garfield Hoard of County Commissioners voted unanimously in favor of protecting our largest organic food producer, Eagle Springs Organic Farm from the potential dangers of a neighboring asphalt plant. Our questions now are: Can we promise our county residents that asphalt processing/recycling will not pose health risks and dangers? What are the most important risk factors and are our county commissioners willing to address these risk factors? Who will take on this responsibility to investigate, monitor and mitigate these risk factors if they are in fact able to be mitigated? And given the rapid state of change we are seeing in our world today, is it all worth it and can we afford this? If Garfield County is to be the healthiest county in Colorado, it is crucial to protect our largest organic food producer and to secure the precedent set by our county commissioners in February when Commissioners Martin, Jankovsky and Samson expressed concerns about the potential adverse effects an asphalt plant could have on an existing agricultural operation and affirmed existing land use code. Our local agriculture is a big part of our county's history and will be critical to the future of our public health and local food economy. (Jur local food ,producers and agricultural land can and will feed us and generations to come if we support and protect them. Please do not allow Uodrnck to establish any operations adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic or any other organic farming business. The RFFPC looks forward to seeing you at the July 11th Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully, Lisa Dancing -Light Director. Higher Octave Music Mentor Programs Producer, Earthtree Records 970-963-3330 www.lisadancinglight.com www.itunes.com/lisadancing-light www. linked in. comlpubllisa-dancing-1 ight "Creating a Joyful New World Through Song." 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [JeffS@a sgrn-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:34 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Charles Ellsworth, Damian Ellsworth Subject: Bedrock Noise Update Attachments: 03918-7-10-12.pdf EXHIBIT Glenn, Please see the attached update letter from Howard. It appears that we can implement his suggestions with no problems. Thanks Jeff July 10, 2012 Mr. Jeffrey Simonson Schmuesen, Gordon, Meyer, Inc. 118 West 69' Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Inclusion of Rock Crusher in Bedrock Resources Frontier Paving Contractors Yard Dear Mr. Simonson: d. - engineering j!_,,,dynamks incorporated Page 1 of 1 (V) 970.379.4691 (Cell) 970.379.4691 JeffSui sgm-inc.com EDI Job No. C3918 References: 1. Engineering Dynamics Inc. Report: dated February 2012 titled "Noise Assessment Bedrock Resources Inc. Asphalt Batch Plant, Garfield County, Colorado, Job No. C3918. 2. Pre -Application Conference Summary, dated 3120112 Project: Frontier Paving Contractor's Yard 3. Engineering Dynamics Inc. Letter report dated April 20, 2012 titled "Bedrock Resources Frontier Paving Contractor's Yard. Table 2 in the April 30, 2012 letter addresses the noise sources that would be in Frontier Paving Contractor's Yard. Not included in that table was the noise emission of the crusher, which most recently has been included as an additional piece of equipment in the Contractor's Yard. The crusher will be used occasionally to process road material (asphalt black top). As presented in Table 2, the crusher produces 73 dB(A) at 100 ft. and 65 dB(A) at the closest property line; 250 ft. to the northeast when there is no noise mitigation whatsoever between the crusher and the property line. There is a berrn located beyond the ditch which will initially reduce the crusher noise level at the property by 5 dB(A) making the noise level at the property line 60 dB(A), which means that an additional 5 dB(A) noise reduction is required in order to keep the noise level below the 55 dB(A) limit. Before crushing takes place salvaged roadway asphalt will be dumped from the service road onto an area between the service road and the crusher. Some of the material will be left in place to form a second 12 ft. high noise barrier berm. This berm will provide a 6 dB(A) reduction and the noise level at the property line will be less than 55 dB(A). Additional noise reduction of 5 dB(A) can also be achieved by locating the crusher at the south corner of the storage area. Sincerely, ENGINEERING DYNAMICS, INC. Howard N. McGregor, P.E. President 3925 south kalamath street • englewood, Colorado 80110 • 303.761.4367 • Fax 303.761.4379 Glenn Hartmann From: Katie Leonaitis [katie@leonaitis.coml Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:10 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: asphalt plant EXHIBIT L Dear Mr. Hartmann, Please do not let any further action happen to allow the asphalt plant to expand their facilities. The Garfield County Planning Commission should put a stop to this right now. This is not something that improves the lives of this community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Catherine Leonaitis 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Caitlin Bourassa [caitbourassa@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 9:33 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: NO land use change for Bedrock Asphalt Dear Garfield County Planning Commission, EXHIBIT fel I am a Garfield resident. I work at Rock Bottom Ranch in Basalt and I am a strong believer in local food and local economy as means to a vibrant community. While I myself produce food for the community, I also buy food from Eagle Springs Organic Farm thanks to their abundant and diverse array of produce. I am strongly against Bedrock Asphalt's request for a land use change. I do not want that kind of industrial activity happening anywhere near the place my (our) food is grown. Allowing such a land change will never coincide with a healthy community that supports its small, local farms. With the rapid climate change, forest fires devouring precious resources and the economy lagging, this is a pivotal time to protect our ability to feed ourselves locally and to protect our agricultural assets. Thank you for your consideration. I deeply hope you agree that preserving our ability to grow healthy, fresh food locally is of the utmost importance! Sincerely, Caitlin Bourassa Glenn Hartmann From: Jason White [coldmountalnstream yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 12:39 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Please preserve GarCo agricultural production and public health Hi Glenn, Sorry this is in the lith hour. Can you please snake sure this letter is passed to the Planning & Zoning Commission before tonight's meeting (7/11/12), as well as the Board of County Commissioners? Since the P&Z contacts are personal emails and not distributed, I have copied the BOCC here. Thank you. Esteemed P&Z Commissioners, Please deny Bedrock Resource's second land use change permit to allow a contractors' yard and other accessory asphalt uses. Although the applicant is couching this updated Major Impact Review as less intensive than the original request, these industrial land uses and their negative externalities will still hinder Eagle Springs Organic (ESO) from growing healthy organic food for our community members. ESO speaks directly to the County's economic development goals by using truly local labor and singlehandedly providing the largest source of local organic food; they do not need more challenges. Echoing overwhelming public support, the BOCC was unified in overturning the first request for the batch plant in March 2012 and 1 applaud that decision. ULUR Section 7-103 speaks to compatible land uses that do not negatively affect adjacent properties. Asphalt production and organic food production are not compatible by any tweak of the definition in any zoning category. The application makes an argument that since oil/gas is in the vicinity then industrial uses such as asphalt production/distribution can be justified_ I realize oil and gas production receives royal treatment, but the dispersed facilities have been approved in a checkerboard fashion over time making it difficult to preserve agricultural zones for food production in a predictable manner. Air patterns know no boundaries and there is no way to guarantee that dust and toxic emissions will not drift onto the Eagle Springs property. Garfield County is huge and there are numerous industrial zones more appropriate for Bedrock's asphalt operations to be grouped with similar land uses. If Garfield County is going to preserve its rich agricultural history by adapting to growing healthy food for the booming population, then quality local fan -ns such as Eagle Springs need to be supported wholeheartedly. Please make the right decision once again by denying Bedrock's land use change permit and show your constituents that you are serious about positioning Garfield County as a leader in public health and continuing the agricultural heritage that sets Garfield County apart. Thank you for your service. Sincerely, Jason White Carbondale, CO Glenn Hartmann From: Matthew Shmigelsky [mattshmigelsky@gmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 12:40 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Planning Commission Commissioners: EXHIBIT Please consider the Eagle Springs Organic Faun and our Iocal food economy to vote no on the change of use application for Bedrock Asphalt. Road paving is a necessary part of our economy and allows the safe transport of goods to market but there are very few organic farms supplying the needed healthy food in our region meanwhile asphalt can be produced anywhere and we should be looking toward reuse in situ anyways. Thanks, Matthew Shmigelsky i Glenn Hartmann From: Jennifer Vanian Ivanian@a rof.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:33 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: John Martin, Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky Subject Please reject bedrocks plan EXHIBIT I AP The commissioners should have already reviewed the right to farm law. They should already understand that Eagle Springs employees 50 people and will be expanding when Whole Foods opens in a couple of months. The commissioners should also already understand that no new jobs are being offered to the county by Bedrock asphalt. Bedrock wants to get its foot in the door and that is what this is all about. The commissioners are paid to represent the people who live and work here. I did not see 70 people stand up for Bedrock and join in the cry for what is just. I did see 70 people from the community ask to address the decay the Asphalt business would bring to the only organic farm of this size in our county. This is such an important issue to so many people! Please do not for a second think that this will, in any way, go away if you decide to make a compromise for Bedrock. I promise you I will not let this rest if Bedrock gets so much as a toenail in the door. Thank -You, Jennifer Vanian 1016 Minter Avenue 970-309-7982 Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gwen Garcelon [gwen cchighilfeunllmited.cam] Monday, June 25, 2012 1:30 PM Tamra Allen Glenn Hartmann Re: Planning Commission Thanks so much for the info Tamra - will do! EXHIBIT On 6/25/12 12:28 PM, "Tamra Allen" <tallen@garfield-county.com> wrote: Gwen - the planning commission's contact information is not publicly available, but you can both attend the meeting on the lith of July AND send in letters BEFORE the meeting in regards to the application. The planner on the Bedrock application is Glenn Hartmann, who I have copied on this email. You can send letters in directly to him. I believe if they are received prior to July 3rd the letters will be included in the packet of information that goes out to the planning commission prior to the their meeting. Thanks, Tamra Allen Garfield County Long Range Planner tailenCr garfield-county.com 970-945-8212 (office) 970-945-1377 x1630 (direct) From: Gwen Garcelon [mailto:gwenCa highlifeunlimited.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:17 AM To: Tarnra Allen Subject: Re: Planning Commission The contractor's yard is for Bedrock Asphalt, and their application lists much more than office and truck parking usage (see the letter to the editor I submitted below for more of the story.) Eagle Springs, and the RFFPC, would like to see no "processing" or "crushing" or "recycling" going on on the property as it opens up a big can of worms for everyone in terms of monitoring and code enforcement once that activity is going on. We were going to recommend that citizens send messages to the Planning Commission, but it looks like the only recourse for citizen comment is to show up at 6:30pm on July 11 - unfortunately the same night/time as Glenwood Summer of Jazz at Two Rivers :( Would love your thoughts on all of this of course. Thanks, G Dear Editor, You may remember that in February the Garfield Board of County Commissioners unanimously voted against allowing Bedrock Asphalt to operate on land immediately adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic Farm in Silt. Commissioner Martin shared that the BOCC had received more letters and emails from citizens about this issue than any other he could recall -- all in support of protecting the valuable asset that Eagle Springs is to our local food supply. And over 50 citizens rallied outside the County offices before the vote representing a regional groundswell of support to prioritize local agriculture, Commissioners Martin, Jankovsky and Samson all expressed concern that the asphalt plant would adversely affect the ability of the farm to successfully operate its business. Then they stood together in affirming the existing code that disallows any land use that impedes existing business or agricultural operation. Now Bedrock is back at the table, asking again for a Land Use Change Permit to allow a "Contractors Yard" that would include some "processing," a "recycling processing facility," and "some crushing activity of the stored asphalt and concrete." This is again the kind of harmful industrial activity from which the code is set up to protect existing agricultural operations. Eagle Springs management has already reported adverse effects from the substantial dust deposited on their crops (even inside their greenhouses) from Bedrock's moving of dirt to build roads on the site. If this dust were to include toxic chemicals from asphalt processing and storage their recently audited, and exemplary, USDA organic status would be at risk. The Roaring Fork Food Policy Council encourages citizens to weigh in with the Garfield County Planning Commission, and suggest that they not recommend this application to the BOCC for approval. Let's not go through this again. With the climate stakes as high as they are, this occurs as a time to draw a line in the sand to protect our ability to feed ourselves locally and protect our agricultural assets. Respectfully, Gwen Garcelon Roaring Fork Food Policy Council On 6/25/12 8:50 AM, "Tamra Allen" Mallen©garfield-county.com> wrote: Gwen -- you are going to have to jolt my memory. I do not know what you are talking about here. The planning commission have a contractor's yard and an archery range on their July llth meeting... Tamra Allen Garfield County Long Range Planner Callen©garfield-county.com 970-945-8212 (office) 970-945-1377 x1630 (direct) From: Gwen Garcelon[mailto:gwenOhighlifeunlimited.com] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:51 PM 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Diane Argenzio [ddolph n@sopris.netj Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:47 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Eagle Springs ORGANIC FARM EXHIBIT I RR To the Planning Commission,. I am appalled that I am having to write yet another letter about this subject. Nothing has changed. The existing land use code should still be honored for the safety of the homeowners, neighbors and businesses who started their homes to raise their families and created their livelihoods in the neighborhood of Eagle Springs Organic Farm. They did so in the safety and trust they had in the land use code that was in place. Where is your honor, integrity and decency to consider changing that? It is specifically clear that it does NOT include companies that are toxic, hazardous chemical producing companies that are harmful to human life and nature, farming, etc... This new devising of Bedrock to downscale their pollution making to asphalt processing and recycling is pathetic. That they are trying and that you are even considering it is a tragedy in trust and being a good steward and citizen of your positions and being community members. Do not spoil the great gift and treasure Eagle Springs Organic Farm is to our entire valley for supplying healthy vibrant beautiful clean health giving organic food. Some of you may not value this but so very many of us, your constituents, do. Respectfully Diane Argenzio El Jebel, Co. 81623 27 -Jul -12 Dear Tom Jankovsky, EXHIBIT I would like to express my thoughts about Frontier Paving moving their office and shop to the Mamm Creek area. I don't see how this could possibly hurt any of the property owners. I would rather have a business next to me than some of the farmers that have their farms looking like a salvage operation, old cars and trucks, & pieces of equipment that needed to go to Spanglers' junk yard. Those farms seems to always line their property line with the junk. I am 76 years old and I have lived in this valley for 66 years and the Ellsworth family is a hard working family that deserves your consideration. I saw this article in The Cow Pie, it made me smile. Hopefully it makes you smile too. Thank you for your time. Shirley Mobley Rifle, 7111112 Organic Fanner Objects to Land Use Application. Again. I The Cow Pie . h v Organic Farmer Objects to Land Use Application. Again. by ?Ni _ i, Rel' e I i on JULY 5, 2 012 in ll nim JN E NEWS. By M. J. Reynolds The Cow Pie RIFLE, Colo. — A new proposal to put a contractor's yard on property that the Garfield County commissioners previously denied for an asphalt plant has raised protests from a neighboring organic farmer. "Why can't they find a use that doesn't hurt my organic farm business? Whyyy?" cried Bob BaIsac, owner of Balsac Organic Farms. "I could accept so many other uses. A tree farm, a nursery, or perhaps a lovely English garden?" Balsac, along with numerous organic food supporters, tambourine shakers and people who still own Iava lamps, protested outside the commissioner's meeting in February to stop Rubble Construction's planned asphalt plant. Although the asphalt plant has been removed from the contractor's newplans, Balsac continues to object. "1 he wind blows dirt from Rubble's property to mine. Even a meat -eating Neanderthal or county commissioner could see that dirt is a clear threat to my organic plant operation," Rubble Construction's attorney responded, "My client is in construction and he needs to be able to derive some usable benefit from his own property. I Ie eats corn on the cob grown with pesticides, dates women, and picks his teeth with a ten penny nail. lie has no use for a 35 -acre tulip patch." The new proposal is set for review before the Garfield County Planning Commission on July 11.1 f Rubble Construction's land use application is denied, the attorney reports that his client is in negotiations with the owner of Cacaloco Compost. under stand that the previous neighbor's didn't appreciate the aroma tram Cacaloco's sweltering fly buffet," the attorney snickered. "But 1 am confident Balsac will," This is a fake news story. Any similarities to actual events is merely the reader's projection onto real news stories that look similar to this one. 00BwAr eat fresh. 3az ewsc allow ixem cer. wi=xx;s.wr VirinorIulrAlz BAIA & Otextin BEST WINGS IN THE STATE! 2178 Railroad Aivelllzl; NorllEl RiIlo Colorado Ix. H.anelton.. Prop. Est, 2005 ..avin acw icnxx+1vac c w,a rocvwa1... s EW, tnu h Of #/ kohl HIRES poptGner Keep. Cvuly-Drinl HIRES oatbeer • t -..r-. i(eep We -Drink t1 MIPES re t RQDYJrer.yverthirat AIRES uMbete w�. coloradocowpfe.com/2012/organic-€armer-objects-to-land-use-appllca#ion-agalnl 1/3 Glenn Hartmann From: Paul Huttenhower [pablohutt@gmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:55 PM To: Tom Jankovsky, John Martin, Mike Samson Cc: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Bedrock Resources and Eagle Springs Organic EXHIBIT Hello my County Commissioners, I'm sure that by this point, at the minimum, you have all heard from Ken Sack of Eagle Springs Organic regarding the asphalt processing facility proposed to go in as his farm's neighbor. First, I would like to say that I am appalled, after being denied once and making minimal changes (especially with regard to the pollution problem) to their proposal, that Bedrock Resources has made it through the approval process to the point where i have to be writing to you about them at all. I think that it shows complete lack of respect and responsibility to the citizens of Garfield County. I greatly oppose anything that threatens our local agriculture and find it shameful that my home county is one that would consider allowing activity that threatens not only one of our areas larger food producers, but also our local ecosystem health. Our ability to locally produce food is, in the long term, hands down the most important economic activity we have, and any threat to that ability is unacceptable. These feelings I have also apply to the activity of the oil and gas industry, particularly in Western GarCo, but I will save that for another letter. The point is that as a governing body it is the duty of County officials to protect our communities by making decisions that help maintain the health of the people and the land, and that demonstrate vigilance in understanding ALL of the consequences of proposed actions. The fact that Bedrock Resources has come as far as they have in this process in their second proposal gives me no confidence that our County officials are upholding that duty. However, the previous denial of the asphalt plant does give me hope, and l would ask that you remain strong in fulfilling your duties by denying the request again. Thank you for your time. I have also included below a segment of a letter from Ken Sack that demonstrates how his farm would be affected by the current proposal by Bedrock. I agree with the sentiments therein. Respectfully, Paul Huttenhower, Garfield County Resident excerpt from a letter by Ken Sack: Bedrock Resources, has applied for a land use change ONCE AGAIN, to put an ASPHALT Processing Plant next to Eagle Springs Organic. The application should have been denied at the staff level (Glenn Hartman), as substantially the same as the last denied application. However, It was recommended for approval and sent to P and Z. As you recall the Garfield County Land Use Code states clearly that land use changes SHALL NOT be granted if it adversely affects agriculture and is NOT A COMPATIBLE use with neighboring properties. In their "new" application, Bedrock claims that since they have removed the Hot Asphalt Batch Plant, that they are able to apply again for something that has already been turned down once. Now they are applying for a "contractor yard" with "accessory uses". The accessory uses are PROCESSING RECYCLED ASPHALT AND CEMENT, Rock Crushing, Storage of Asphalt and Cement (25 foot high Uncovered Piles). Their was a hearing on July 11th before P and Z in which the commission heard a presentation by Bedrock so they could determine whether to approve or deny the application to go on to the BOCC. Bedrock had 2 hours of presentation, Eagle Springs had THREE MINUTES to present opposing views. Eagle Springs strongly opposes this application for all of the same reasons as before as well as additional reasons 1. The processing of asphalt, whether be by batch plant or cold processing, emits toxic dust and emissions that will blow downwind to ESO property and cause for a loss of organic certification. 2. The processing of recycled asphalt contains even MORE toxic dust and particulate matter than virgin Asphalt. Since the product Is recovered from roadways, the asphalt now contains LEAD, Rubber and other pollutants that were left from years of vehicle traffic. 3. The processing and recycling of Cement contains high amounts of lead from lead based paints. Also, silica dust wiII leach back into the water 1 supplies and will kill fish by clogging their gills and affect plant growth as well as. Not to mention the toxic effects on humans, breathing, eating and drinking LEAD. dust. and other toxic materials. 4. Bedrock claims they will control the dust, by watering the storage areas. Unfortunately, the land they bought has NO water rights. They do have a well in witch they claim to have a big TWO gallon per minute flow. Thats right, two gallons a minute to cover 35 acres of property. For the past 2 months they have been excoriating the land, moving dirt, and "preparing the site" for their asphalt plant. Even though they have a mandated "dust mitigation plan" , the dust clouds flow freely over Eagle Springs Organic. When I called Dale Carmony, GarCO code enforcement regarding the major dust, he told me that dust is a big problem this year with the drought. Dust continues to blow. 5. Bedrock claims that the berms they built will control the dust and toxic emissions. On many parts of ESO property, the herrn is no more than 2 feet high. When asked by Michael Su€Yvan, how would Bedrock control the dust and toxic emissions from the site, owner Charles Ellsworth could not give an answer and said "ask Glenn Hartman" 6. The continual dust dramatically affects our solar field production, by coating panels... we are not moving forward on the remaining 18mw with this "dust cloud" over our heads and on our panels. Loss off at least 30 jobs. 7. The noise. vibrations and dust from the crushing plant will cause problems with animals and livestock that are adjacent to the proposed site. Also, we own the residential property at 482 CR 315 which is adjacent to the Bedrock site. Noise and Vibrations from Gam to 9pm, try to sleep under those conditions. Perceptible vibrations and loud noise are NOT allowed under code. 8. Ellsworth admitted that they would only process the asphalt during cool and rainy days, since the asphalt when heated up would release more dust and particulate matter. How many cool and rainy days have we had this year??? 2 Terry Kirk 1500 CR 259 Rifle, CO 81650 970-989-5176 To whom it may concern, EXHIBIT August 2, 2012 Bedrock Resources, is just that a valuable resource. Recycling of broken asphalt as well as manufacturing of new asphalt is an important asset to Garfield County. All it amounts to is crushing and repurposing asphalt that would go to waste in the landfill thus taking up valuable space as anon -recyclable material, The county commissioners and nearby businesses have to objectively look at every possibility and location that could save our county from waste. As of today there is not an area zoned for recycling centers, an asphalt batch plant or Redi-mix batch plant. AIG of these uses are by special use permit only. Garfield County's current special use permits allows for monopolies of asphalt, Redi-mix batch plants by not having these zoned districts and only use by special permit. Obviously the best place for these uses is in an area surrounded by gas wells and other commercial uses. It seems to me that if there was a good place for any of these uses there would be zoning to suit. The Ellsworth's have done an excellent job at paving numerous roads in the county professionally. A service done by locals, not out of county, let alone out of country companies that bleed OUR county of tax money and go elsewhere with the cash. Every consideration should be made to keep JOBS and money in the county. I, for one, am all for Bedrock Resources to have approval of the special use permit required keeping jobs and tax money here. Please it as ubmitted, let's get on with life. erry Kir Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:42 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Eagle Springs Original Message From: Sean McWilliams [mailto:ironventure@q.com) Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 10:36 PM To: John Martin Cc: Tom 3ankovsky; Mike Samson; gwen(highlifeunlimited.com Subject: Eagle Springs EXHIBIT vel • I John, Tom, and Mike, You all know me as an outspoken Republican, Activist, Artist, sworn and staunch defender of our Constitution. 1 am writing to urge you to deny the application coming before the BOCC wherein Bedrock Resources seeks to commence operations at a site adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic Farm. The integrity of our food production must be defended as our rights to clean air and water uncontaminated for the short sighted aggrandizement of corporate interests. Respectfully, Sean McWilliams 4 Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:05 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Please deny land use change for Bedrock From: Michael Gorman [mailto:gormancoloCmsn.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 1:52 PM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Please deny land use change for Bedrock Please protect our food source. Dear County Commissioners, EXHIBIT I'm writing to urge you to deny the land use change being proposed by Bedrock for an asphalt contractor yard near Eagle Springs Organics, one of the largest food producers in the local area. The proposed contractor yard with accessory units would harm the quality of food, and the business of Eagle Springs Organics. The operations cause dust, with known toxins from the material, to be blown downwind and the surrounding area including the organic farm. As a customer of Eagle Springs Organics, 1 care deeply about the products they provide, and also about my health. Ensuring that my food conies from a safe source and is free of chemicals is the most important thing I can do for my own health. As the local food movement grows, it is important to make the health of our citizens a priority, and to take the proper steps to ensure that our local sources are protected. Please deny the proposed land use change, as it would have negative impacts on not only the neighbors, but on their customers' health. Thanks, Michael Gorman, Glenwood Springs 1 EXHIBIT Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 4:15 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: another letter in opposition From: Katie Leonaitis [mailto:katie(a leonaitis,com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 9;53 AM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: another letter in opposition To all our Garfield County Commissioners, Please note that this is one more household that asks you to repeal the application from the Asphalt Company, Bedrock, to expand their facilities in Silt. You were so wonderful to deny their first application and now we are asking you to do the same again. No matter what they are asking the same result of poisoning the surrounding area will result. Hold fast. They cannot expand without damaging and destroying a viable organic food operation that feeds thousands of people. Thank you for your determined effort to keep all of us healthy. Sincerely, Catherine Leonaitis Garfield County Resident 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Jean Perry [perrywilfley a©yahoo.com]. Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 9:09 AM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Cc: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Eagle Springs Organic Farm AlF EXHIBIT \i/Y As a resident of Garfield County I strongly urge you to again vote to deny any land use change to Bedrock. Thank you, Jeannie Perry "With more summers Tike this one we may have trouble feeding ourselves domestically. When we start to feel these pains more acutely I wonder if we will be concerned with how we can produce more concrete for decorative landscape features, or even sidewalks, I expect we will all be grateful we looked ahead and protected an existing, productive, energy efficient (due to that on-site solar array) organic local farm." -Gwen Garcelon EXHIBIT Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:19 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW Eagle Springs Organic Farm From: Kenny Kuhns [mailto:pvcsawco@rof.net} Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 5:24 PM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: Eagle Springs Organic Farm Dear Editor, I'm writing to offer a perspective on the value of Eagle Springs Organic Farm as they face another threat from asphalt contamination due to Bedrock Asphalt's second proposed operation. As an Advisory Circle member of the Roaring Fork Food Policy Council, and as a farmer in Silt for several decades, I speak to the increasing necessity of local farmers to collaborate in order to keep our businesses viable. We work with ESO on organic grain crops for our laying flocks, among other things, As I write this our apprentice David is heading there now for another bi monthly pickup. We appreciate having an organic farm, large enough to grow and store grains, close by and willing to work with us. With 150 birds we go through a lot of feed, and this collaboration has been great for us over the past several years. Farmers of any size do best when not faced with additional issues (air, water quality) from industrial outside sources that are detrimental to their operations, We here at Peach Valley CSA feel strongly that any industrial operation that adds to these environmental concerns or reduces crop quality and viability, should not be allowed. For Eagle Springs, as an organic grower, soil contamination would shut them down. Please make our local farming industry, a priority and join us in voicing this concern to the Garfield County Commissioners as they weigh this upcoming decision to allow asphalt crushing adjacent to Eagle Springs. Ken and Gail Kuhns Peach Valley CSA Silt, Colorado Phone: (970) 876-2850 Ken and Gail Kuhns Peach Valley CSA 3465 Peach Valley Road (214) Silt, Colorado 81652 Phone: (970) 876-2850 Fax: (970) 876-2857 Website: www.peachvalleycsa.com Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:1 8 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Save Eagle Springs From: CircleM - Meredith Oakley [mailto:circlempc@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 8:29 PM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: Save Eagle Springs Tom, EXHIBIT A kik 1 was personally disappointed to learn that Bedrock Asphalt's request to change the land use code concerning the lot they own adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic Farm is being seriously considered. Nothing so damaging to the environment should be allowed near any agricultural production regardless of whether or not the farm is organic. This debate concerns me a great deal given that I am a consumer of organic produce and I am passionate about supporting local business. It is my personal opinion that to allow Bedrock Asphalt to change the land use code would be irresponsible on many levels. This issue reaches beyond Eagle Springs Organic Farrn and the Bedrock Asphalt Company. It speaks to a far greater concern which is protecting our food sources. We simply cannot allow our agricultural lands to be threatened or ruined. We cannot allow them to be shrunk, polluted, or compromised. It is my sincere hope that the board of commissioners will vote against allowing Bedrock Asphalt to change the land use code for the property that they currently own next to Eagle Springs Organic Farm. Please hear that this community does not want any agricultural operation to be compromised by such invasive operations. Please hold a broader vision, please value our environment, our non-renewable resources, and our food production above everything else. Preserve the beauty, protect that which is sustainable and very literally feeds us. Let us send a message that this community will no longer tolerate systems that cause more harm than good. Impress and inspire us with your vote against this land use change and any other like it. I believe that government officials have the ability to break ugly stereotypes by standing strongly in favor of progressive, sustainable, and environmental choices. I sincerely appreciate your consideration of my letter. Regards, Meredith Oakley Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:18 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Eagle Springs Organic Farm and Bedrock Asphalt From: Sue Schmidt[mailto:sueschmidt@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 2:03 AM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Eagle Springs Organic Farm and Bedrock Asphalt EXHIBIT t)M Although it seemed that the application to change the land use code had been resolved with the Commissioners' decision to deny that request, it appears Bedrock Asphalt is back at the table yet again to ask for a change to allow a contractor's yard. When we purchase property, it is our responsibility to understand the rules that direct its use and not assume that we can change them. With that in mind, we should, with due diligence, determine whether purchase of such property is suitable based on our business intent. In this case, a decision to change the land use code would be detrimental to an existing business, Eagle Springs Organic Farm, that has contributed and will contribute to the well being of our community. Farmers of any size do best when not faced with additional issues (air, water quality) from industrial outside sources that are detrimental to their operations. Please make our local farming industry a priority and deny this request. Sue Schmidt Silt, CO 1 Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT From: Fred Jarman Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 2:34 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Bedrock Resources Attachments: DUST AT GARFIELD AIRPORT 6-22-2012 002.jpg, DUST AT GARFIELD AIRPORT 6-22-2012 003.jpg, DUST AT GARFIELD AIRPORT 6-22-2012 004.jpg; DUST AT GARFIELD AIRPORT 6-22-2012 005 -;pg; dust.JPG FYI From: Mike Samson Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 2:13 PM To: Andrew Gorgey; Carey Gagnon Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Bedrock Resources From: Frontier Paving [mailto:deb5454@sopris,net] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 5:03 PM To: Mike Samson Subject: Bedrock Resources Dear Mr. Jankovsky, I am deeply concerned when I read some of the E -Mails that the Commissioners are receiving from Eagle Springs supporters against Bedrock, Over and over these fetters state that the Garfield County Commissiners unanimously voted against Bedrock. It makes me think these people were not at the February meeting I remember you approving Bedrock's application. Ken Sack's letter to Glenn dated July 1, 2012 states that he (Ken) does not feel our new application for our office and contractor's yard is substantially different than the first request for an office, contractors yard and an asphalt plant. We are asking to utilize our property for our company headquarters. At the July 11, 2012 P & Z meeting, Mrs Sack ranted for 6 minutes, calling Bedrock, "Bedrock Asphalt", I do not refer to Eagle Springs as "Eagle Springs Marijuana LLC". I am amazed at how they can testifiy to so coiled facts that they cannot support. Mrs. Sack also stated that Eagle Springs has spent tens of thousands of dollars on experts. I say to her, PLEASE show us your facts and bring an expert witness. We would appreciate the facts not myths. Mrs. Sack also talked about the dirt berms are not high enough to hide Bedrock from Eagle Springs, the berms were built for noise control She should stand on our property looking at Eagle Springs solar farm, now that is not a pretty site. Many accusations have been made against us with no supporting testimony How can anyone state that the dust in the greenhouse is coming from Bedrock's property, or that our asphalt operation is causing cancer. I am sending pictures that were taken on 6/22/2012. These pictures were taken from Silt Mesa Road looking at the airport. This dust storm is coming off of the property around the airport. Thank you, Debby Ellsworth I Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:42 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: IS SOLAR FARM A JOKE? Attachments: DUST 4 016-jpg, DUST 4 017.jpg; DUST 4 018-jpg Original Message From: Debbie (mailto:deb54540sopris.net] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 8:32 AM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: IS SOLAR FARM A JOKE? Dear Mr. Jankovsky, I don't think I need to tell you how divided the community is over Eagle Springs and Bedrock. My family has received many phone calls offering ideas and support. We have even received calls from Eagle Springs employees and former employees giving us advice. We have been told that the solar panels are not tied into the local power grid. After further investigation, we found that the solar field is in fact not hooked up. At the P & Z meeting on July 11, 2012, Eagle Springs was very concerned about Bedrock having a fuel storage for equipment. After doing a little research, 1 am told that Eagle Springs has their own diesel storage tank of 500 gallons. If Bedrock were to store fuel on our property, we would have to build an approved containment field around the tank. Does Eagle Springs have a written safety program for fuel spills? (SPCC) Our company does. Does Eagle Springs have a Rifle Watershed Permit? We do! Is this an example of DO AS 1 SAY, NOT AS I DO? I took these pictures from Bedrock's East property line, as you can see the oil field traffic is causing dust on Eagle Springs' property. They say it takes 260 support vehicle to drill 1 well and after drilling comes all the traffic to maintain that well. 1 am not positive how many well sites are on Eagle Springs or how many well heads are on each well pad. I think Mr. Sack should have a dust mitigation plan in place just like Bedrock's plan. Thank You, Debby Ellsworth Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: DUST 4 016 DUST 4 017 DUST 4 018 Glenn Hartmann From: Toni Jankovsky Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:39 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Emailing: DUST 4 001, DUST 4 013, DUST 4 042, DUST 4 045 Attachments: DUST 4 001.jpg;; DUST 4 013.jpg; DUST 4 042.jpg; DUST 4 045.jpg Original Message ----- From: Debbie [mailto:deb5454@sopris net] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:51 AM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: Emailing: DUST 4 001, DUST 4 013, DUST 4 042, DUST 4 045 EXHIBIT LLL Dear Mr. Jankovsky, After reading Mr. Sack's letter to the Commissioners dated June 14, 2012, I am amazed again at his ignorance pertaining to the County Land use regulations. Bedrock is following the proper steps to get a land use change permit. Didn't Eagle Springs have to follow the same rules? 0 that's right, they started their solar farm without following the county's regulations, and got shut down until they were approved for a land use change. In that letter he states "This is just another attempt by Bedrock Resources and Charles Ellsworth to circumvent the County Land Use regulations." This statement makes no sense. Bedrock is not sneaking around behind the County's back, we are asking for the land use change permit in the proper way. At the July 11, 2012 P & Z meeting, Mrs. Sack talked about the possibility of Bedrock crushing asphalt on a rainy summer day. This silly statement made us smile. Again this shows their lack of knowledge of our industry. We stated that we rent the crushing equipment, it is a minimum of a 2 day delivery and set up and 2 day disassembly of the crusher. The cost to rent a crusher is approx. $40,080.00 a month. We explained that it is best to crush in the winter when the temperatures are 30 degrees and lower, so that the asphalt oil in the debris stays brittle. We explained if the crushing was done in the summer months, the asphalt oil would become soft again and would gum up the crushing equipment. Eagle Springs did not listen, they insinuated the reason we crush in cold months was because of the toxic chemicals. I wish they would produce evidence of these toxic chemicals. My 3 children, my husband and myself work at the asphalt plant, my grandchildren fish at the ponds during the summer month at the asphalt plant. At the February BOCC meeting, Eagle Springs flooded the Commissioners with more documents to enter into evidence, at the last minute, knowing that the Commissioners would need time to evaluate the new evidence. They are playing a game, they did the same to the P & Z on July 11, 2012. The Planning & Zoning Commission took a 15 minute recess and looked over the mountain of paperwork. Eagle Springs asked more than once for a continuation so they could have more time. We need to resolve this issue in a timely manner. I am sending you a view from our property showing the solar farm and more oil field traffic. The 2 pictures of the farmer working his fields are from the Silt mesa ara. Even farmers cause dust. Thank you for your commitment, Debby Ellsworth August 15, 2012 Dear BOCC, EXHIBIT FiFF I'm writing to voice my concern about Bedrock Resources LLC proposed rock crushing operation off of County Road 315, which will directly impact the quality of crops and organic certification of the nearby Eagle Springs Organic Farm, Eagle Springs Organic has invested much time and money to obtain USDA Organic Certification, making it the largest certified operation in our area. Certification takes a minimum of three years, a plethora of special equipment, cultivation practices and product handling standards, numerous inspections and consistent recor dkeeping and reporting. Certified "organic farms must have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones to prevent the unintended contact with a prohibited substance applied to adjoining land that is not under organic management" (National Organic Program, 7 CFR 205.202(c)). Even on a non -windy day (is there such a thing on the Western Slope?) dust from rock, asphalt, and concrete crushing would not have to drift far to impair ESO's ability to meet the above standard. Their certification could be wiped out in literally one day. I would like to emphasize that I do not oppose Bedrock Resources as a company or rock crushing operations in general in our county; but in this particular situation, the proposed location is just not in the right place. I believe in proper siting and zoning of industrial activities to avoid unnecessary impacts. And I know the county believes in this too: "The nature, scale, and intensity of a proposed use must be compatible with adjacent land uses mrd will not result in an adverse impact to adjacent land" (Unified Land Use Resolution Standard 7-103). Garfield County is blessed to have the land, climate and soils that support growing a rich diversity of crops and livestock. In turn, our local farms and ranches provide nutrient rich foods that sustain our residents and diversify the county's economic portfolio. This is an important and profitable niche for the county. I urge you take this information into careful consideration as you make a decision about whether or not to approve the land use change permit from Bedrock Resources in this particular location. Sky Sieber v Rifle cc: Glenwood Springs Post Independent Editor, Rifle Citizen Telegram Editor Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:12 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Exclusion from organic sale? From: Mischa Popoff [rnailto:mischap@telus.netj Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:38 PM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Cc: Charles Ellsworth; Deb; Damian Subject: Exclusion from organic sale? Attn: Tom Jankovsky-Commissioner John Martin — Commissioner Mike Samson -Commissioner Dear County Commissioners: understand the Ellsworth family is still facing a challenge from those supporting Eagle Springs Organic Farm. As I stated in my testimony before you in February, it is highly unlikely that the operation of an asphalt plant will pose a threat to Eagle Springs' certified -organic status. l have worked under the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP), as well as European Union, Japanese and Canadian standards, and can attest that the United States has the best organic standard in the world. And with that in mind, I'm surprised that those representing Eagle Springs don't ever quote from these standards. My greatest concern is the fact that the owner of Eagle Springs has not produced copies of his USDA NOP Annual Inspection Reports. i understand that legal counsel for the Ellsworths has requested copies of these reports, but that these requests have been ignored. This is unconscionable, and is in fact tantamount to a person suing someone for personal injury but refusing to divulge medical records pertaining to his alleged injury. Any issues that affect the organic status of a certified -organic farm MUST be outlined in the Annual Inspection Report which is written by a qualified organic inspector after his inspection of that farm. This Report is then submitted to the USDA -accredited certifying body that certifies the farm; that body then determines whether or not the threat is serious and, in a dated and signed letter, informs the owner of the farm what steps he should take in order to maintain his certified -organic status. If the most recent Annual Inspection Reports for Eagle Springs Organic Farm do not mention the Ellsworths' operation, then you really have to ask yourself what all the fuss is about. Everything begins and ends with the Annual Inspection Report. There is no other instrument for reporting on the status of an organic farm. None. And, without this report, an organic farmer could theoretically claim anything he wants. Many farmers have issues with their neighbors. Farmers are really no different than people who live in the city, and, let's face it, sometimes neighbors don't get along. And whether a farmer is certified organic or not, it's normal to hear about arguments going back -and -forth across fence lines, arguments which sometimes end up in court or before local authorities like yourselves. However, if an organic farmer has a beef with a neighbor, and this beef is not even mentioned in his Annual Inspection Report, and his certifier has not written him a dated and signed letter confirming that he does indeed have a problem, then I'm afraid there's a good chance his entire case implodes. Perhaps if you, the three County Commissioners, were to write a formal request to the body that certifies Eagle Springs Organic Farm, you will finally get to see copies of all relevant Annual Inspection Reports along with the letters that may, or may not, have resulted therefrom. This will aid the three of you, on behalf of your County, to make an informed and objective decision. However, please note that even if these reports do finally materialize here at the eleventh hour, when the Ellsworth's have already agreed to paring down their plans with the intention of only using their property as a yard instead of a processing facility (thereby diminishing the risk of contamination effectively to zero), I submit that you must ask why these reports were not provided earlier. Indeed, these reports should have provided the very basis of the entire case against the EII5worth5' plans to rezone their land. As I said above, there is no other instrument for reporting on the status of an organic farm. None. Furthermore, IF these Annual inspection Reports are finally produced, and if the letters resulting from these reports indicate that the certifier did indeed agree that there is the potential for risk to Eagle Springs posed by the Ellsworth's operation, a test on crop or soil samples taken from Eagle Springs would still be required to prove that actual contamination has occurred. You'll recall that a test was done on a crop adjacent to the Ellsworth's current location, and that this test showed the presence of some forms of potential or possible contamination. But, since these tests did not demonstrate that the contamination was above the crucial threshold set in the USDA NOP for certified -organic food, there is at present no evidence whatsoever on the record that the Ellsworth's asphalt plant threatens any neighboring organic farms. The area of federal law that acts as the guide fora test in this case is USDA NOP § 205.671 Exclusion from organic sale, which stipulates that When residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's tolerance for the specific residue detected or unavoidable residual environmental contamination, the agricultural product must not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced. [Please note that the USDA relies on the EPA to set threshold levels for agriculture in the U.S.A.] Any agricultural lab can perform this test. It is a very basic test, and is very inexpensive (in the neighborhood of $100 to $200). And the Environmental Protection Agency's tolerances for any and all residues are available through the EPA so that a proper comparison can be made. But rather than establish an iron -clad case, it appears that the supporters of Eagle Springs Farm decided instead to merely demonstrate the presence of various residues, making no mention in any of their testimony at to whether these residues were in excess of 5 percent of the EPA's tolerances. In other words, the supporters of Eagle Springs overlooked, or for whatever reason appear to have omitted, the single most important aspect of their test results from their testimony to you. Please let it be known that if detection equipment is sensitive enough, you could literally go 100 miles downwind from any industrial operation in America and find residue. This is why the people at the USDA wisely decided to set a strict tolerance level for organic farms at 5 percent of EPA tolerances for regular farms. In other words, unlike any other standard in the world, the USDA guarantees that organic crops are always at least 95 percent more pure than regular crops! Without the crucial threshold described in § 205.671, organic farmers would quite literally be launching lawsuits all the time! As I said above, the United States has the best organic standards in the world. In fact, the USDA NOP is the only standard to my knowledge that even stipulates such a hard-and-fast threshold level for prohibited residues in organic crops. Exceed that level and your crop cannot be certified as organic... case closed! 2 And so, considering that the supporters of Eagle Springs Organic Farm have this standard, the best in the world, at their disposal, my question for you is, Why aren't they using § 205.671 to make their case? Could it be, as I asserted during my testimony, that they simply don't have a case? My credentials are attached below. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Mischa Popoff Author of Is it Organic? Osoyoos BC Canada 250-495-2902 www.isitorganic.ca Credentials: Bachelor's Degree w/Honours (4 -year) major in history from the University of Saskatchewan, 1991; Thesis: The Development of Nitrogen for Fertilizer and Warfare. Agricultural Training • Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA) Auditor Training, Moose Jaw 5K, 2003 • Independent Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA) Advanced Process Auditor Training, Moose Jaw SK, 2003 • IOIA/Enviro-Test Labs Field Sampling for Pesticide Residue, Moose Jaw SK, 2003 • OCIA /National Organic Program (USDA), Farm/Process Auditor Training, Regina SK, 2002 • American Institute of Baking/IOIA Advanced Auditor/HACCP Training, Brooklyn MI, 1999 • IOIA (European Union) Livestock and Process Auditor Training, Brooklyn MI, 1999 • IOIA (EU) Farm and Process Auditor Training, Hiawatha IA, 1998 USDA NOP (U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Organic Program -accredited) certifiers I worked for from 199E to 2003: • Quality Assurance International MAI) • International Certification Services (ICS) dba Farm Verified Organic (FVO) • Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA) • Greenlife Organic Association (GOA) • Ecocert Canada (GuaranteeBio) the SK Organic Certification Association (SOCA) • Global Organic Alliance (GOA) • Organic Producers Association of Manitoba (OPAM) • Canadian Certified Organic Cooperative (COCC) 3 Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:28 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Eagle Springs Organic Farms Original Message --- From: Jim Jim Finch [mailto:j finch{comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 1:08 PM To: Tom ]ankovsky Subject: Eagle Springs Organic Farms Dear Mr. Jankowski, EXHIBIT 1 i+N Fr I am writing to ask you to deny Bedrock Resources" application for an Asphalt Processing plant to be located next to Eagle Springs Organic Farms. Organic farming is becoming big business and crucial to a growing number of citizens like me in the valley who value their own and their family's well-being. 1 appreciate the Commissioner's support the Farm in your earlier ruling and hope you will do so again. Allowing a toxic asphalt plant to operate next to the Farm is the same as putting them out of business. They have a long history of serving this area and I hope you will give them the protection and support they need to keep their operations going. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jinn Finch Basalt, CO 1 EXHIBIT Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 12:55 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Bedrock Asphalt and Eagle Springs Organic Farm Issue Attachments: BOCC for ESOFarms.docx From: Shiloh McCollum[mailto:vaeiovis©rams.celosstate.edul Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 10:51 AM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Bedrock Asphalt and Eagle Springs Organic Farm Issue Greetings County Commissioners and Whom it May Concern, Thank you for taking time out of your day to read my e-mail today. I am a new citizen to Garfield County, who frequently enjoys produce from Eagle Springs Organic Farms. I am writing to you today to convey my thoughts about the vote on September 4, 2012 concerning these two companies. 1 have attached a more formal and detailed letter below. I hope that my thoughts may give you pause and cause you to carefully consider your decision in the future. Thank you very much for your time and consideration on this matter. 1 hope you have an enjoyable weekend. Sincerely, Shiloh McCollum Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 231-9080 shiloh.mccollum@rams.colostate.edu 1 Dear BOCC and Whom "phis May Concern, Hello, my name is Shiloh McCollum and I am a new citizen of Garfield County. I am writing to voice nay concern about Bedrock Resources LLC proposed rock -crushing operation off of County Road 315, which will directly impact the quality of crops and organic certification of the nearby Eagle Springs Organic Farm (ESO). The dust from this operation may also reduce the fitness and sustained viability of the bee hives nearby, which is necessary for many plant's cultivation. Eagle Springs Organic Farm has invested extensive time and resources to obtain a USDA Organic Certification, making it the largest, organic -certified operation in our area. Certification takes a minimum of three years, a plethora of special equipment, specific cultivation practices and product handling standards, numerous inspections, consistent recordkeeping and reporting, as well as infinite patience. Certified "Organic farms must have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones to prevent the unintended contact with a prohibited substance applied to adjoining land that is not under organic management" (National Organic Program, 7 CFR 205.202c). Even on a non - windy day, dust from rock, asphalt, and concrete crushing would not have far to drift to impair ESO's ability to meet the above standard. Their certification could be revoked in, literally, one day if these substances are found on products in their farm. Besides, would you want your children eating food that may be contaminated with industrial oils, lead, and other toxins? 1 don't. I would like to emphasize that I do not oppose Bedrock Resources as a company or rock crushing operations in general, but in this particular instance, the proposed location is just not in an agreeable location. I believe in proper siting and zoning of industrial activities to avoid unnecessary and inadvertent impacts; and I know the county believes this too, "The nature, scale, and intensity of a proposed use must be compatible with adjacent land uses and will not result in an adverse impact to adjacent land" (Unified Land Use Resolution Standard 7-103). At this point in time, this venture by Bedrock Resources, and at this location is not a sustainable venture for many nearby resources, such as ESO's farm and the nearby beehives. On a more personal note, 1 think the loss of ESO's organic produce would be a travesty and would personally affect me every week, as I spend a considerable amount of my money at their on their produce. I believe that the loss of this organic farm would be devitalizing. Additionally, I work in this industry (farming, nurseries, agriculture, and greenhouses) as a recent graduate of CSU in entomology. Their closure would represent a potential job loss for me and would demonstrate that the county does not respect the potential revenues that arise from these opportunities. This could potentially cause me to move to a different county that would be able to use my expertise, which would be unfortunate as I love Garfield County. Garfield County is blessed to have the land, climate, and soils that support growing a rich diversity of crops and livestock. In turn, our local fauns and ranches provide nutrient rich foods that sustain our residents and diversity the county's economic portfolio. It is one of the reasons I recently moved to this county. This is an important and profitable niche for the county. I urge you to take this information into careful consideration as you make a decision about whether or not to approve the land use change permit from Bedrock Resources in this particular location. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter; I greatly appreciate it. Have a pleasant day. Sincerely, Shiloh McCollum Rifle, CO 81650 Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 12:58 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Bedrock Asphalt Application From: Michael Thompson [rnailto:MThompson@sopris,net] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 12:17 PM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Cc: news@ citizentelegram.com; letters©gjsentineicom Subject: Bedrock Asphalt Application August 24, 2012 Garfield County Commissioners Tom Jankovsky - tjankovsky@garfield-county.com John Martin - jmartin@garfield-county,com Mike Samson - msamson@garfieid-county.com Re: Bedrock Asphalt Plant adjacent to Eagle Springs Organic Farm Dear Commissioners, EXHIBIT 1 -Ili I understand that Bedrock Asphalt has submitted a revised application to locate their asphalt, rock and concrete crushing operation on the same site, adjacent to Eagle Springs Organics Farm (ESO), where the Board of County Commissioners has already denied their application for the same operation, previously with the hot asphalt batch plant. Once again, the P&Z recommends approval of the application, and the approval or denial of the operation is now in your hands. Approval of this application will indicate a belief that it will cause no adverse effect on the organic agriculture operation at ESO, which is immediately downwind of the proposed operation. Approval this time will indicate a belief that the asphalt, rock and concrete crushing operation will have no negative effect on the raising of food for human consumption. Approval will likely cause ESO to lose its organic certification, and will certainly cause a significant reduction in the market share they have already developed. Approval will certainly reduce the number of jobs at ESO, and may cause the Farm to close and leave Garfield County entirely. Denial of this application will indicate that the many jobs brought to Garfield County by Eagle Springs Organics are more important to its citizens than the proposed location of this plant. The asphalt plant will not replace these jobs if they are lost with ESO's organic certification. Denial would demonstrate that Garfield County considers its Public Health and Air Quality to be more important than allowing this asphalt operation to be located on this site. Denial will help Bedrock Asphalt to understand that searching for a different site might be their next best option. l hope that each of the Garfield County Commissioners is aware of the growing market share held by fresh organic produce, and that this market represents a growing number of jobs in a burgeoning industry. The Organic Trade Association's 2011 survey indicates that 2010 sales of organic fruits and vegetables were up 11,8% over 2009, and this trend shows no sign of slowing. Organic food is not a passing fad, it is an indication that people are concerned with the health qualities of the food they serve their families. The Summer of 2012 is heading for the record books, as the hottest and driest on record for the USA. I have read several reports indicating that we should expect to see sharply higher prices for food of all kinds, due to our current climate conditions, http://i,vv w.ncdc.noaa.goofoalclimatelresearchfprelimldrought/pdiirnage.html I truly hope that when these higher food prices become painfully evident this Winter, we will all be grateful that your decision an this application was the right one. Please deny the Bedrock Asphalt application, and show your support for organic farming in Garfield County. Thank you, Michael Thompson President, Fat City Farmers, Inc. www.fatcityfarmers.org michael@fatcityfarmers.org "Growing Farmers" 970-274-0634 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3 37 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Bedrock. Resources From: drpowell@aspennd,com [mailto:drpowell@aspennd.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:21 PM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: Bedrock Resources August 24, 2012 Dear Mr Jankovsky, EXHIBIT KKK As a Naturopathic Doctor, and chapter leader of the roaring fork valley Weston A Price Foundation Chapter I am passionate about the availability of healthy organic food, locally produced in our valley. This is why I am concerned about the proposed bedrock crushing operation of Bedrock Resources LLC. Eagle Springs Organic Farm has recently achieved Certified Organic status after much work and expense, and this status, as well as the profitability of the entire enterprise would be threatened by this new use of the adjacent property. As Eagle Springs Organic Farm is already established and this new land use would directly threaten their viability, I do not see how you can support it. According to the Unified Land Use Resolution Standard 7-103, "The nature, scale, and intensity of a proposed use must be compatible with adjacent land uses and will not result in an adverse impact to adjacent land". I see no reason to believe that this proposed land use change would not threaten this established business. As a resident of this valley, I value locally produced healthy food, I support local businesses, and I support the security of local food for our health and national security. Please do not approve this land use change permit for Bedrock Resources, and encourage them to find a more suitable location for this operation. Jody Powell Naturopathic Doctor Classical Homeopath 189 Basalt Center Circle PO Box 1094 Basalt CO 81621-1094 970 236 6178 Glenn Hartmann From: Mike Samson Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 11:32 AM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Andrew Gorgey; Carey Gagnon Subject: FW: Protect our food source!!! From: Laurie Loeb [mailto:Iloeb@rof.net] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 1:58 PM To: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Cc: Ietters@soDrissumorq; news(acitizentelegram.com; Ietters@gjsentinel.com Subject: Protect our food source!!! Dear Garfield County Commissioners, EXHIBIT LLL - I am a fifty-one year resident of the Roaring Fork Valley, with 42 of those years in Carbondale. I moved to this area for the healthy environment and resulting quality of life. Outside of the season when my 42 -year-old organic vegetable garden doesn't provide my fresh produce, I depend on organic produce from Eagle Springs Farm. It is imperative to protect this source of local, clean food, water and air, and the associated existing agricultural jobs from contamination by the proposed asphalt plant adjacent to Eagle Springs. You heard the people the last time around and apparently understood the importance of preserving a healthy and organic food production environment. The more recent application by Bedrock Resources shows little difference in the nature of use and its impact on Eagle Springs Farm. I implore you to adhere firmly to your earlier stance and once again deny the Bedrock's application. Appreciatively, Laurie Loeb Carbondale, Colorado Ilaeb@rof.net "Peace is not won by those who fiercely guard their differences, but by those who with open minds and hearts seek out connections," - Katherine Paterson 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [Jeffs@sgm-inc.com] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 2:47 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: charles@frontierpavinginc com; Damian Ellsworth, Dave Smith Subject: Bedrock Resources Attachments: img-827130342-0001.pdf, Bedrock Resources Crusher Location.pdf; exhibits.pdf EXHIBIT M rvi Hi Glenn, Please find attached the following in support of the Major Impact Review for Bedrock Resources: 1. A letter report from Paul Banks and Associates, LLC discussing the Air and Water Impacts of Storing and Crushing Recycled Asphalt and Concrete. The variety of concerns brought to light regarding the asphalt and concrete crushing operations are addressed in Mr. Banks report based upon his extensive experience in the industry with applicable industry and regulatory references cited 2 A PDF of modeling anticipated visual impacts. 3. A PDF of the slide presented at P&Z of the location of the crushing operations subsequent to and based upon the updated Engineering Dynamics report. Call with questions! Thanks, Jefferey S. Simonson, PE, CFNI Principal /cc' SGM 1 18 W sixth St, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9005 / 970.079.4691 cell Www,s9m inc coni u Air and Water Impacts of Storing and Crushing Recycled Asphalt and Concrete Prepared by: Paul Banks Paul Banks and Associates, LLC Prepared for: Frontier Paving, Inc. Submitted to: Garfield County Board of County Commissioners bate: August 20, 2012 Introduction Frontier Paving, inc. wishes to import waste concrete and asphalt into its Mamm Creek Property. The concrete and asphalt comes from Frontier's job sites where they tear out a road, a driveway, curbstones, etc. as part of the contracted work. Frontier does work for the private sector and for Federal, State and local governments. The volume of this material imported to the property varies with economic conditions however it is estimated that approximately 30,000 — 50,000 tons would be on the property when Frontier would crush it into saleable construction aggregates (e.g., road base). This amount of material could take up to two years to stockpile on site. Frontier wants to crush the concrete and asphalt material once per year, in the winter (e.g., January) for a period of approximately 2-3 weeks. A contract portabre crushing company may be retained to do the work if Frontier does not perform the crushing. The contracted company will be required by Frontier to do the following: Obtain all necessary air emissions permits and comply with the standards and conditions Comply with all other applicable Federal, State and local regulations - Use water at the crushing and stockpiling location to control fugitive dust Locate and operate the crusher in a manner that reduces noise emissions Recycling asphalt and concrete is a positive and beneficial thing and is, in fact, supported and encouraged by many government agencies. The Federal Highway Administration supports and promotes the use of recycled highway materials in pavement construction in an effort to preserve the natural environment, reduce waste and provide a cost effective material for constructing highways. Many state and local governments also support the use of recycled asphalt and concrete in road construction projects. Approximately 140 million tons of concrete and 105 million tons of asphalt are recycled annually in the United States, This prevents the material from being disposed of in landfills, saves sand and gravel reserves and provides a cost effective construction aggregate material. By weight, these materials are the most recycled commodity in the country. Constituents of Asphalt and Concrete Concrete is primarily Portland cement, sand and rock and water. Small percentages of additives can be used to change the color, affect the curing rate and affect the strength. Asphalt is primarily asphalt oil and rock. Small percentages of additives can also be used. Once asphalt and concrete have cured (hardened) they have a very low leachability rate. In other words when these cured materials are exposed to water very little of the constituents that make up the asphalt and concrete are leached out. There are millions of acres of concrete and asphalt exposed to the elements and little to no environmental damage is caused by runoff from these materials. Surface Water Frontier's Mamm Creek property is subject to a storm water discharge permit and a storm water management plan, as required by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The plan controls the discharge of storm water runoff from the property such that runoff that leaves the property meets applicable standards for water quality. The property has two detention ponds in sequence to allow suspended particles in the runoff to settle out before the water is discharged from the property. Recycled, but not yet crushed, asphalt and concrete will be stored on the property. When crushed the materials will be stockpiled in separate stockpiles (concrete vs. asphalt). The storage and stockpile areas will be located in areas where runoff will be controlled by the detention ponds. This, combined with the very low leachability of asphalt and concrete, will minimize or prevent any surface water contamination resulting from runoff from the property. Ground Water Frontier's property is approximately 35 acres and sits on a mesa 200 feet above the Colorado River. Ground water is approximately 245 feet deep. The recycled asphalt and concrete storage areas are not lined, however the areas are disturbed and somewhat compacted by traffic. The very low leachability of asphalt and concrete will minimize or prevent contaminants from entering the ground water. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) allows concrete waste to be disposed of in gravel pit ponds, and this has been done at numerous locations across the State. CDPHE does not allow asphalt to be disposed of in gravel pit ponds but does allow it to be stored on site, above the water table, without restriction. The storage and crushing of recycled asphalt and concrete will not cause any adverse effects on ground water quality or ground water levels, Air Emissions Crushing recycled concrete will produce fugitive dust. Crushing recycled asphalt will produce less fugitive dust due to the nature of the material. Hydrocarbon gases are not released during crushing. The dust would be comprised mostly of the crushed rock that is in the asphalt and concrete and of concrete dust. The portable crushing company that is retained by Frontier, or Frontier, must have an Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN) and air emissions permit from CDPHE. The mobile air permit goes with the specific crusher and each relocation must be reported to CDPHE. The permit contains emission standards and mitigation measures that must be complied with. A water truck wilt be present during crushing to apply water as needed to control dust. As an additional mitigation no crushing will take place if sustained winds exceed 30 miles per hour. Crushing will only take place for two to three weeks a year. Noise The crushing operation will produce noise. The portable crushing contractor will be responsible for meeting State and local noise standards which limit the decibels at the property line, The location of the crusher will be selected to be as far from the property line as possible and will attempt to use storage piles of concrete and asphalt to buffer the noise. Also, since the crushing will only occur in the winter any buildings in the area will have their windows closed. Colorado Solid Waste Act Section 8.5,3 specifically exempts concrete and asphalt recycling from the Act's requirements provided that certain conditions are met. Those conditions are: 1) Material is managed and separated into commodity specific piles processed for reuse, 2) Material is managed in active piles separated by material type or use within the past year, and 3) Incoming loads shall have all non -concrete, non -asphalt and non-rebar material removed from the concrete and asphalt materials within thirty (30) calendar days and non -concrete, non -asphalt and non-rebar material shall not exceed 10% of the total material onsite by weight or volume. Frontier paving will comply with these conditions. About the Author Paul Banks is a professional geologist with over 30 years experience providing consulting services to the construction industry in the areas of permitting, zoning and regulatory compliance. He has specialized in sand and gravel mines, asphalt and concrete plants and related land uses. Mr. Banks has worked in most Counties in Colorado and has hundreds of projects on his resume. Mr. Banks worked for 7 years in the Jefferson County, Colorado Planning Department, References Asphalt institute Leachability of Asphalt and Concrete Pavements, undated CalRecycie, Construction and Demolition Recycling, Recycled Aggregate, June 13, 2012 Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association Colorado Ready Mixed Concrete Association Colorado Solid Waste Act, March 30, 2012 National Asphalt Pavement Association U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal highway Administration, Asphalt Pavement Recycling with Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP), September 16, 2011 Current Application 24' wide road constructeck• which reduced grading/ impact// ; , • Proposed Crusher Locatipl ith berming ZEPAVAQ Atarii ZtAr ..).' - SAO. SitAt4CE -" ....._ aftgr 1ar Ara, RJ^r, a- maia: - 0 o - .--.... merVspfRfAu ,_ •.'-*.„..e,.... -------.-- / • Ir • / •t" " I • 1 , l. - - ,/,0:;•-..,^' fis• .ran .x.rmaa, grao anno..4, r FAI^Ar=g1I 111, ria.01 II=SVEG • • 4' V. sow crats. 0100.6 a.C. Tv..71.A., All associated activip‘s with .01.0•V thesphaIt ,plant are sls OOP as11•10 ai • • inne siW• sr.. - 6 20.4,1CSCP COM* MVO. ..... SCHMLICSER GORDON METER I leW Clog Onsc,. Sum ICC ,WTEWITe.ra-LIC:=• Sawn. Wawde feMe OCC. O'res Comma., CO 00.0 O. 14306 BEDROCK RESOURCES, LLC e= cruompo MOW •011.10 • At • .00 nag py•ssopec ma. toss. In7W tfttsor Ow eta. .5 • set rmtstostiK•11, •••••s, KM" MAME NTY 1..401Msf OVERALL sm. PLAN awe lent -WSW Js ro/wrr an 1",e 3 6SG M 118 Welt Sexth Seed, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 sysorw nrinc,corn Frontier Mamrn Silt, Colorado Drown IN BG Do* OS/13112 13c, filrt 1PE 15 r. Site Plan 012\2071-402007 Frontier Momm j H_Dwgs\ Ve 6SGM 11a West 51a1h 5lreal, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, 0081601 970.945,1004 www, •nrinc.corn Frontier Mamm Silt, Colorado kL Na. 2011-4C2 Drown BG Doh: 06/13/92 3c xM PE: Image One at Residence P 6SGM 118 West Sixth Slree�, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 416 920.945.1004 www.sgrcrinc.com Frontier Mamm silt, Colorado 1.6 N.. 2011.402 Gawp 6,: BO !kale: 08/13/12 UC RM IPE 15 Fda, Sea en Image Two at Property Line 1 1 6SGM Ile Weal Sixth Sheet, Su de 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81801 970.945.1004 www. sgmoinc.ccm Frontier Mamm Sill, Colorado kb we 261 f 402 ec. 0 .. 08/13/12 OC 0.1 1 rt 15 8h Image Three at Green House J 6SGM 118 Wes! Sixih Street So. 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945. 1004 www. • rrtinc.com Frontier Mamm. Silt, Colorado lob No 2011.442 Chow. b, 1G D®19. OS/13/12 QC: ism 15 F u .M Image Four at Ridge Line 6SGM 118 West Sixth Sheet, Swire 200 G1enwaad Springs, CO81601 970.945.1004 wwwsgrwinc.cam Frontier Mamm Silt, Colorado lob FW. 2011 102 Ordwx ado. 06/13/12 OC: RNA 1 PE: 10 File Image Five r v 144 Perimeter Berm 1 o 1 Q} o Z m E Graphic Scale in10 3030 600 1200 In Feet: 1" = 600' 6SGM 118 West Sixth 5tree, Suit& 200, Glenvwd Springs, CO 81601 47(7.445.1004 www.s5ra-inr..crgn Frontier Mamm Silt, Caloroda Job fah 7c]E1.4 77 DVI 3/ ar: RIPE 15 F. lc; Section i