Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 07.11.2012Planning Commission — Public Hearing Exhibits Bedrock Resources LLC — Contractors Yard and Accessory Uses Major Impact Review — Land Use Change Permit July 11, 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 Posting D Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended E Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 F Application G Staff Report H Staff Presentation I 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 Referral Comments from Colorado Division of Water Resources O Referral Comments from Colorado Parks and Wildlife P Public Comments from Illene 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 (6/14/12) U Public Comments from Fred Pulver V Public Comments from Kenneth Sack (6/27/12) W Public Comments from Amy Hutton 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 -7/qi?i 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 II 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 TT UU VV WW XX YY ZZ • Receipt of Payment ' 06/01/12 Account 4885930 Name Bedrock Resources LL Phone (970)989-5394 Address 1014 County Road 311 City New Castle State CO Zip 81647 Swift Communications Credit Card Type V Num ********************* Auth 001080 Expir &&/vN Country Code US Start 06/07/12 Paytype CC Issues 1 Stop 06/07/12 Rate Code VCT Class 0990 Copy ct 7111/12 BOCC Hrg Amount Tax 89.42 0.00 Amount Paid Payment Due 8PI75 Rep Ad # 7975142 89.42 Paytype Credit Card 0.00 Balance 0 Receipt No Received by Original Receipt of Payment EXHIBIT Ad shown is not actual print size 844 Words 1 cols x 10.27 inches Ad Size 06/01/12 Account 4885930 Name Bedrock Resources LL Phone (970)989-5394 Address 1014 County Road 311 City New Castle State CO Zip 81647 Swift Communications Credit Card Type V Num ********************* Auth 001080 Expir &&/vN Country Code US Start 06/07/12 Paytype CC Issues 1 Stop 06/07/12 Rate Code VCT Class 0990 Copy ct 7/11/12 BOCC Hrg Amount Tax 89.42 Rep 0.00 Ad # 7975142 Date 2:25 PM Ad shown is not actual print size Amount Paid 89.42 Paytype Credit Card 844 Words Payment Due 0.00 Balance 0 Ad Size 1 cols x 10.27 inches Receipt No Received by Date Customer Copy Page 1 of 2 Charles Ellsworth From: "Mary Borkenhagen" <mborkenhagen@postindependent.com> To: "Charles Ellsworth" <Charles@FrontierPavinglnc.com> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:27 PM Attach: Bedrock CC Receipt.pdf Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources --Thank You Charlie. Have a great weekend. Mary E. Borkenhagen Legals Clerk Post Independent • Citizen Telegram • Aspen Times Weekly • Snowmass Sun (970)945-8515 ext. 16705 Fax: (970)945-8518 Mailing Address: Legals @ Post Independent 824 Grand Ave. • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Iegals@postindependent.com GPI - 11 Business Days Prior to Publication RCT - Friday @ Noon for Thursday Publication DEADLINES ATW - Monday @ Noon for Thursday Publication SVS- Friday @ Noon for Wednesday Publication Please consider the environment before printing this e ail From: Charles Ellsworth [mailto:Charles@FrontierPavingInc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:43 PM To: Mary Borkenhagen Subject: Re: Bedrock Resources Mary, Please use the card that you have. Thanks, Charlie Original Message From: Mary Borkenhagen To: Charles Ellsworth Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources Hello Charles— I have set your notice to run in the Citizen Telegram on June 7th and have attached the copies for you to review. Since your account was not set up as billable please let me know if you would like me to run the card on file, a Visa ending in 6786 or if you would like to run another card instead. Thank you. Mary E. Borkenhagen Legals Clerk Post Independent • Citizen Telegram • Aspen Times Weekly • Snowmass Sun (970)945-8515 ext. 16705 Fax: (970)945-8518 Mailing Address: Legals @ Post Independent 824 Grand Ave. • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 legals@postindependent.com 7/11/2012 GPI - 1' Business Days Prior to Publication RCT - Friday @ Noon for Thursday Publication DEADLINES ATW - Monday @ Noon for Thursday Publication SVS- Friday @ Noon for Wednesday Publication Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Charles Ellsworth [mailto:Charles@FrontierPavingInc.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 1:04 PM To: Mary Borkenhagen Subject: Bedrock Resources Mary, Please run this as required. Office # 876-0916. Thanks, Charles Ellsworth Frontier Paving Inc. Page 2 of 2 7/11/2012 rr Er r- 4:1 c0 D D D D C7 N D rR rR D N • CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.comr r=o rd Is) Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 Sent To Street, or PO Box No. r�an 344,, City, State, ZIP+ 1 PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come SILT; CO 81652 Ur) m nJ u-) D N ca Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $0.45 $2.95 $2.35 $0.00 $ $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 Sent To treet, ^4f. No.; or PO Box No. City, State, ZIPQ+4_ U PS Form 3800, August 2006 nil AA. JAI See Reverse for Instructions 7011 0470 0000 U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come m ri D Lr) 0470 0000 8760 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 r -R rR D N rt To 44 lelson 3rYh f orrP, Apt. No.; I 4-1-6/ { or POOBox No.. City, St. -, 1P+ _ I PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for Instructions CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.coma S CO 81652 N m D D ..n N cC Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $0.45 $2 355 $2.35 $0.00 $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 D D D N rd r -R D N Sent To I ,gyp/5 /} < St t2 t. 1NoSr rt 'll l��ja /., c or PO Box No. 6y5.4.// Rt City, State, ZIP+ PS Form 3800, August 2006 I 5D - See Reverse for Instruction U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come ru k� cC 0470 0000 rd rd D N A5c'EN CO 81611 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 Sent To i rJ L—e Po...---6.e--r3 r +AGI Street, Apt. No.; or PO Box No. 3.„). Ciry, stare, 7iP+4 GO ' ` . u :Ir 11. U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAILTre RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees V-35 $0.00 $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 Ant To _6Qa o Street, Apt. No.; or PO Box No. i City, St te, ZIP+4 ►�( edintr(iJJi`ita r 4 0 T ✓ 1 2 6 See Reverse for Instruction 0 EXHIBIT N ru u-) 7011 0470 0000 8760 CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 0 N ru r1 Q.. m O ci O O O U, rR r -R rR O N Sept To r trefr�O et, A t. No.; or PO Box No. City, State, IP+4 inId PS Form , 03 t4uqust 2006: d Pa, r,5 31_.01 ... e__ 8.1W $ee.Revdrse for irtatruetiorl' DENVER CO 80209, Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees Se SfreApt. No.; or PO Box No. City, State, ZIP+ $0.45 $2.95 $2.35 $0.00 $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 rikiCoo; 4 5 '4-56 OVAr C‘00 Bb a a ru li 0470 0000 8760 rR rR G1 N CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided). For delivery information visit our website at www•usps•comm RIFLE 0 81650'. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $0.45 $2.95 $2.35 $0.00 $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 Sent To Street, Apt. No.; )000 or PO Box No. City, State, Z1P+4 cod L35 a 0 N See Reverse for Instruction U S Postal Service, CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.coms SILT CO 81652 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 Senj� L dpi-; or PO Box No. 45q co,„, City, State, Z1P+4 PS,Form 3800, August 200&, See Reverse for instruction m RJ t) N nJ H D D D D D U-) ra rg rg D N DENVER CO 80233 , .11 n -I Lfl Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $0.45 $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Kara 06/06/2012 D -13 N LEt D D D N C3 C3 1-1 N C3 44414.Alti ‘14oicx- o,,e..t, or PO Box No. F5I BOX f..n tate. ZIP 1 A 3 U.S. PostaiSarviceT. CE.RTIFIED MAILRECEIPT (Domestic Mail Onfy;N� inSurance Coverage Provided) „Tar delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.come DENVER CO 80202 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $0.45 $2.95 $2.35 $0.00 $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 Toarreif Street, Apt. No.; or PO Box No. 111:\ ,State, ZIP+4 tS.F 9 :731 *9 ettRTIFittl, (Domestic Mail CintYiN6ln;64nCi 641,4 PrOVided For delivery Information visit onr Webstte at vasmi.usns.comit, _•egetl_ _ U- L) ru 0 rLEt- 0470 0000 ru rti D N 143 C3 0 0 -9 co ru Ln D -U N rEt C=1 C:1 r - D H H Dr - Postage 1=0 Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted DeliveryFee (Endorsement Required) N Total Postage & Fees $2.35 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 .-1 ..... 0.5+Itc... ,-.1 Sent To 0 Street, A.. No.; N or PO Box No. <9 5.D 5_60, v,§6te, -ZIP+4 f,i, , a a _ _ ps Form 3800. August 2006 ecoon Loor+k MA f:›t See Reverse for Instructions CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.comm a DENVER CO 80209 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $0.45 $2.95 $2.35 $0.00 $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 Sent To — CC JrttIalrOjc.MJ, —1-_-rusJec treet, Apt No.; or PO Box No. 4:9 Sc5 , ,14,0a1.4 6-4 • City, Se, ZiP+4 111 PS Form 30,0; Auquit 20116,ZN#4.4,: See Reverse for InstructtO U.S. Postal Servicer. CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73102 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $0.45 $2.95 $2.35 $0.00 $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 Sent To StreW, Apt No.; c/ or PO Box No. 10jfl rhx,r 4,1 4 ID! Ncr 441 City, Stat , ZIP PS Forrn .3406, August 200e 100C U.S. 'Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; N6 Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come pARAcmE CO 81635, Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ $0.45 $2.95 $2.35 $0.00 $5.75 0591 05 Postmark Here 06/06/2012 ...aaIt To 0 SQ1)11 .W 0/i nVti reet, Ap No.; s or PO Box No. It.n04 City, St IP+4 Vtimis_Wein_rcis ta co 1 ,23 See Reverse for Instruction ra nO N ru no O t] O O O ul rR rg rl rR N U.S. Postal Service,. CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.comrs DALLAS TX `t52 Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $0.45 $2.95 $2.35 $0.00 $5.75 0591 05 Postmarlt Here 06/06/2012 Se To tree , Apt. Rio.; _ r PO Box No. _e 0 X 1� 5((( X '7 5 a1 o6 3 City, Atate, Z R Fornn 380 Alugust.20U6 EXHIBIT 1 G Planning Commission July 11,2012 MI PA-7250/GH PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW Major Impact Review — Land Use Change Permit for a Contractor's Yard for Operation of an Asphalt Paving Business and Related Accessory Uses APPLICANT (OWNER) Bedrock Resources LLC, Charles Ellsworth, Manager PLANNER/CONSULTANT Schmueser, Gordon, Meyer, Inc (SGM), Jefferey Simonson, Engineer LOCATION 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. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A tract of land being situated in Section 18, T6S, R92W and also known by Assessor's Parcel No. 2179-184-00-720. ACRES The site consists of 35.72 acres. ZONING 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 in 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 recycle 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, 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. I. 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 addressed 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's 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. 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 . TO RIFLE tltl Cc4ely BEDROCK RES II. 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 4-106 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 be 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 be conducted on private property and shall not be conducted on a public right-of:way. C. Outdoor Storage Facilities. All outdoor storage facilities for fuel, 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. All 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 material and design that will not detract from adjacent residences. D. Industrial Wastes. All industrial wastes shall be 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 be 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 fumes 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 exempted from 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, public health, and compatibility. Referral packets were 5 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 as Asphalt Batch Plant facility. The Application utilizes updated information/plans and in some cases still includes original reports (i.e. wildlife impacts, cultural resources etc.) that are not affected by the change. This format has resulted in some gaps of information or inconsistencies that warrant clarification. 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). • A fueling component is discussed in the submittals but not shown on the site plan. Proposed Site Plan aqui ._._. -z+ BEDROC'I RL.SON?Ceg. LW AVIS... £Rape. Q O1KERALL STMT P&4N 01.7-----"r• e • The noise analysis has an update but does not demonstrate compliance with ULUR and State Standards. The analysis does not include the crusher. • The updated traffic analysis should include a conclusion identifying the reduced impacts. • 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. • 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. • Information on the new well is lacking the production or pump test details as required by the ULUR Section 4-104. • The Army Corp Wetlands verification was valid until March of 2012 due to anticipated changes in the Nationwide Permit program. An update is needed. 7 • 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. 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. 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. 3. The Application includes grading plans, road engineering and road profiles addressing slope issues associated with the topography of the site. 8 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 but the Applicant needs to provide details. 8. No significant impacts on the environment were found in the ERO 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 but does not provide the same level of detail regarding State and ULUR compliance. 11. Dust mitigation plans are provided but need to be updated based on 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. 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 7-105. Water quality testing remains to be fully 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. 9 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 does not clearly demonstrate compliance with State standards. 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. VI. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS The following options are provided to the Planning Commission for consideration at the public hearing. Option 1: While the Application materials are extensive and detailed, additional information, clarifications and demonstration of ULUR compliance are needed on key elements. A continuation of the Public Hearing can be considered by the Commission to allow the Applicant to update and address these issues. Option 2: The Commission may wish to consider a recommendation with conditions addressing the key areas. Sample language is provided below. Recommendation for approval subject to a finding that the Application is in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended and generally consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, subject to satisfactory compliance with the following conditions of approval. 10 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. 6. 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 any construction or grading activity on the site the Applicant shall provide documentation of issuance by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) all construction permits, fugitive dust, and stormwater permits. 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 quality - Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) permits and spill prevention permits/plans. Said permits shall include the proposed stockpiling and crushing activities. 8. The Applicant shall update the water supply plan with treatment recommendations to address water quality and demonstrate compliance with ULUR Section 4-104 requirements and provide 24 hours pump test results and engineer's opinion demonstrating adequate physical water supply. If supplemental hauling of potable water is necessary, the Applicant shall use properly licensed and equipped contractors meeting CDPHE requirements. 9. The Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be required to meet Garfield County Permitting and design requirements and engineered systems may be required 11 based on additional site specific soils evaluations. The Applicant shall properly abandon the existing septic system location on the site per Garfield County Regulations. 10. 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. 11. Prior to construction of buildings on the site the Applicant shall file a water supply construction permit with the Rifle Fire Protection District. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Prior to issuance of the Land Use Change Permit, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the City of Rifle does not require an amendment or reissuance of the watershed protection permit for the amended use. A signed copy of the permit shall be provided to the County. 15. The Applicant shall obtain sign permits in accordance with the ULUR for all signs proposed for the use. 16. 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". 17. 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 18. 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 12 compliance with the State noise limits. Said analysis shall include the closest adjacent residential property north of the site and the proposed crusher activity. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 13 View of the Site from Adjacent Organic Farm View of Access Road Under Construction 14 View of Upper Bench Looking North View of Stockpile Area Looking South 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. 16 Bedrock Resources LLC Contractor's Yard & Accessory Uses .>- N U co Q E O co 2 O E O U OA C co CL C 0 -oU co EXHIBIT I ft Bedrock Resources LLC C co U Q Q °E. c). c co 0 6 C 4E' t, La: E c 2 rts 0.1 0 Adjacent Land Owners ite A, Aspen, CO 0 Cl o u d CC vi I- CC a CC 0 gg UUN k -r o g; rer rr '"5Q .2 a :I -1 E.- Jo 4 CR 20, Rifle. CC 4.• 1... 0 6, t. - y ED C1 U 5 t: V 14 0 0 0 VI (1, 1:1°F.E.)E210*R c—oz—L-07 .` t. ":t) th c o .,.., ci. ez 1- m 0 a -, Lu 0 w la to a 3. ea Cl „- " N. ,4 N r- 4 1-• , .1. r) Qell 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 cc, S99. S"? 99 r N Cl ". ; '. .,- 4- ..- .4-4-4- .... r, r••••• 1, r... h. N N- ,- , r. le- r Ni- NNN N NN N NN Background - History o a z� 0 ' co t �°;�o O ("Ni _ t�A co >- fB }, CL ti) O N' v 0 Q -� cl_� � co an co < >--7-- _a_a .-� 03 U o'er z.c > +-' a) c6 CD bp(13 o� a>, U U a),• � .O co C 2 U 0 Q-0 a) -0 0Vi -0 J -CDa) -0�� +� w '' v >,C co ' —O : cam ca.- 2 = bi3" ��� +�=C� OCma) _CA - U = U= i +U-+ LA OCt)� �•� N Qv) N co c O6 -. U = > co O— C cop- LI +-, �' O i cm U �- i v)ro CSA +_, cn 4- O • c6 a) ' O L co a) by +, }, •�z s_ -lp E o y=— CDO — 0- CO aj }, cc toc C C C Qt c O nQO O .c O N. OOOS- CID v 2, �.0 icn .0 = f F a) U C 0_c U v'.F-+ 4-, 'CCl.0 oCIU) •-��Qpo t110 by Q +� Q Q N N +-i a--, C6 L_ N C O L N CD a) Qp+, -_' = +-) a--+ 1-1 > O U i - i a--' p - O O = }' 4- CO N Q C +� az co .- U E Q co 0 0_ 0 cL Summary of the N 0 v ;+J b= I-' N ° C la O v O� - bp O UCC ~ O 7) 1-1— a1 Q,2 N L c aJ O O•v L� V) aJ 4-) O� °'5 > QN _C76 _0 •U I. i C O Li v ca aJ ' C -C = M O U 0- 4- N a--+ U _-o co a) L eta CD>- . 'L a1 N a ° 4-' O C i CD N• O v, O E aJ E CI) ° -- o �' `) +� CII ,C 0 E cm — .S 73 c O U U._ O N N aQ.)a Q O NO t-0 co 0 U CB f0 °73 — CU (C3 -0 N a) CO -0 O CO n o C6 CD > O • c v U iQ CD U >- co ' C 4TU L (n CD >. N'La.) - a-+ Q )_miVI p CO V O � • — Ca E a O a cu N al � co UCO a) •X UQ c N C O b o C6 C Q O Ca fa .-0 s- . .N N O v N Ni N CO ai Q N }' 0 = N °- N CU U aA C v .-, C O N cu • N •t Lf)> _ 1 U -0 — it cu N U> Q Q2aA 5 ONL_= N o— c.) N CUao • vv a= h E U >- Ca C o•— v 0_ (j_3 4-1 a) o u Q) CO CO • aA `~ LO CIO aA U `+`�', • ` O a) C6 N N 0 0 8 a) c C 0- _c � -0 c6 + •J = O U O N a) O O N •CI U'0 u O O~ p U N aJ +v--+ v v aA O a, i— . Temporary and seasonal operation of a portable crusher at the stock pile area. -o C O 0 C O IP U 4 -I 0N i 0_ a) i 4- - oC Co C 0 :N Co bp L - o v .E a) +-I co a) -o co +� 0 4 - CU ao C tM aD 'x C N - C4- a� A septic system serving the office and shop areas. • Water distribution and sewer line infrastructure. • A fire protection system including hydrants and water storage pond. • A stormwater drainage system including detention areas. • Berms along property boundaries utilizing earthen materials from the site. • Landscaping Plantings and Reclamation Plans • C 0 CD wo :,-J 2 -oC co To 0 E a) -o a) Adjacent Land Uses V) fp V) -o N O o_ CO v �t)..0i 73 -0 CO 4-+ Q ' E C CO— L o (B O C C GO -0 co Co c -0 c c6 C co >. O = C Co 0 O 0 Q) —(B U u +-+ 0 co - C � Q co c Co cn tap N C C Q Q) O C Q) 4 O co 0_ N o co ^ o C cu '� +-, wo 0 L, Q) m , -O O L'0 D CD •`� C > ✓ o a-' Cl) U ? 3 '0 0 • 0 -0 -0 CCO 4-1 C C;� *4-2)ON U O CO S a) s_ C C C Cl) v CO Q a) CCT N _- . N ca 0 U CD v •E c e1.0 E 47- •� s_ _0 CO CO CD CZA 0 i7)O 2 L7 Q N cc cc cc •_E r N • Cl) 0 00 Z w > c° Z w > V) uJJ C 10 CO (L V 0 0 CU cu O to a) v) a) s 0 c 0 +-: 0 a_ a) a a D CO L... 0 z CD 0 4J au V) 03 LU U) 0 a) co a) 0 V) C 0 0 I \W Mi. omm •••• EA= Atf se wrimr awmartnin =mar mom.- amor,wak, C 0 U +-) a) a) -J CD CL (i) U Cll U (r) co a) 0 bD C a) a) CD 0 4- 0 (/O V • a) Q 0 cn co ^T^ CIO a) CUtan) C C W i • • 5 9 :• IL: • . • E. E. iiiii.EEEEE q .p. h • EEEE :•;1! a f WAR a C 0 a) E (r) CD +el0 bO CU a) C C LU tr) 0 U 4-0 a) (i) (I) 0 U CO 0 CC (1) CO (I) et.0 C • a) a) C C • tin U_I co Eu_. i 0 CD tto Q 0 co -o a) cuQ a- co C co 0 co taA .c— (f) G 0 M --- O co E E C/i on water truck) Watering (4,000 ga • N O N co bD Q. Ca P1 co -o J C 0 co CSA CU (first 300 ft. of the access road) Cap co c o • • 4) O V • — L CL 4) Q o_ < 0 0 C6 L_ O Q • ® co d) (1) 4) Ca ton 5 4- O - 0 O co aA V C CU > C6 co ro 4) C.9 m • • c/, (13 a) z co C a) E 0_ 0 CD• 4-co4-1 co ro co 0 • • • • O 00 N 0 •U cuLin C 0 4--J Z a) w Q a-0 Q I O ° ca Q - c -0 ° •E ro I ^.. 'aa)) V) T 4J U co Q co E — u- o co I OD 5 La U 0- c Q N +J ca I > E zvd -1'3-0) - U (!) N LU C i U - Q 1 (I30 .V) Q E om S-- C6 U z Q I- U • • • • • • • co a. W a) S_ a E 0 U Medium High (MH) — Mustard color a) C.) - C C C a a) U -o -a a-' O C) C) 0 Q) E LL V) >. CO - CO O aJ a -3 CL Q oc a) al •- w 0.0 ao v ( Li)O 0 � EP▪ c▪ o O - N 7)0 I -0 N U N D 0 O U °,_ I U - Y+�+ CO = v CO d Q 0 - CO C co W` C W a) 0 E 0 U C4J L L O 0 - Q) .0 N co C _0 C6 U_ 0 c E o 0 a) (/) E a) E WO > -0 CB cN C6 O tip a O 0 a) W cn co O C •c co -0 • C C :7 •SCD Cu 2 c M � o L i c Q Q ( a) co U G • a) co Ca E Oc (i) E Q) 0 c Q ',Po 0 5 _o _o •c a) _ • a) N � -0• cn CO Q) t 0 CO Q1 L � 0 C -0 C .c C a) CLO ca CU i C - CU 0 o C.) ca o c 0 a � .0 N C13 0 •> Ca 0_ - U vi (6 V) 0 4-0 U Ca 0 E 4-1 0 0 4--0 0 -F' a) E 0 .CD N 4--) U > U) U H - - v) Ca d) C6 - o a) -E-+ -o C6 -' .0 0 a - C6 a) 4J 0 0 ori C Ca s_ U 0 a) CL U a) L CQ N Q) E 0 .CZ N L 4) 4-0 4-0 E E 0 c6 L._ N w 0 >- c6 0 Ca L) 4- -1 a) a) a) - oC co N Q) co N U co co 4-, au 4-' +- c Ca 0 U E a) 0- Comprehensive Plan i -a N To c6 N - OD a--+ L co • - C CU Q.) ca E - }' O N U O O > > •� v `- Q N v tie hA 4-- -0 4— 'i _0 L • O a) co C •_ +� T c�� �v) o �3 .- U a--, ai • C O2 L(c) U a) co C vi C n co `~ - tAcn N co N OO N Q - 4-1 N O -� N - U > a) U cn • -C i = C c6 O >. v) c6 O • OD -0 U N CO Q N Q n3– U) C O — L U fD O C6 N = O C�6 ▪ a--1 a) (f) CU C to �C - CD � —co U N • L — c6 • - ' (^ OCU O Q _ co Cl.) � L o +-0 U = V) L N C ▪ - i- CD o 03 UI c.1 U a:. S co v) c6 i tiA E N O M .± .0 1 O rI 1 ca v an , n v cu CU 0 U • _ U N-0 U N 0 O C -I-) cnN N• aA O V) O NLr) 4-i C C6 _c I I I I U • Comments 0 V 0 Q) co 75 C o v = co co N LU N .0 (./) 0_ L. p N O QJ N O > U O v — cx ta0 > OV () a) O c O bpa E _ ▪ LUr c_ O c +.; VO C/') . C7) ago . LU a3 C 2 -a > ▪ up co I— i O U N O N u co +- J bD a) ,+ J N = 2 O -o (/) a) . v c' on tau v) U O a1 .0 >E j rut 2 C 0 a) = v D CU El? � 0 a) +, +, +-, CD 0 0 4 a) hA E °; a) N -0 0 c •L 8 •r° a) O O p 0 w CU CL -I-) . y >, >, >, 0 O c .25 a) 4 J a-- . +-' a) Ln • v) C6 N C — C O O o a. °) EO a) o w (D0000 O - O p E U oS +, 0 cn 73 -0 -0 s_ °C E z� un • oU Cu v a) U 03`~0 O0 L.- O Q i i i °) c.--: >, gil2 O U m_c-o E co CD ca `. p O O OM a< Q.— L7 V 0 0= U U U U ZO • • • • • • • • • • • V) a) N C6 E >- _ +-0 4-0 U tap E cu _c N O N LI- C a) — +_, U co co E +-0 O a) C }, CB co O 0 03 Q) n N O cn •— U N N 4 CO C 0 LO CD N O_ N .> cn -0 CU CL V CU C U _c' N s_ Q N t).0CC a) C bp CO ca (13 r-1 CO a) C l0 C T O N -o O }, Q O }' O u_ OC U a. N • • • Q Q a) co • .N N_ 0 C 0 a) 4J 0 a a) a) a) Q a) U U CD N C Ca CL 0 U a) 4 -+ O O_ a) -o a) 4-0 a) 0- a) c E a) 0 C 0 U 5- 0 U C -o O a) +-+ L t1A a) -o aJ C _o co >- C Ct3 o E N -C Q L C i O 0 a--' 4- 4-0 -0 bp E > a t�0 O_ - N U 'C C a- • — a) C L o 0 CD C N •o E C a) tap a' C C Q Cls U : -o L C LI) J C -0 -0 U CU CU w 03 • -0 > D_ D Q U CD N O Q O Q C a) E Cts a) +� +-+ a) v) a) 4-) CD 4-0 a- a) CD CO a) 4-0U) a) Q E Q v L a) 4-0 CB • • • • -o C E L v 4- 0 N (7 C CO bi v C -o -o a) 0 Q C CD U- CD 0 C a) +� CD Q -C U 0 a) 4) a) a) CO4-0 0 Q O U C U E co C C 0 on C co C N Q) Ca' E C *E7:0 O W U a) _0 -0 O N -0 '4_7; tan 0 E C -0 O C co C6 — E c° N O O ''•`- C C O (1) O- O C z°' L U C tan = CD QJ C a)C f. O Q .{_+ D V)CD Cz tan C CD tap a) O C Cu L Q C 0 C6 .a x a) 0 0 • Q C a) 4) U CO 4) E a1 CL N C CD 4J CU • • • a) Q Status of Key Topics N O O Ca N Q O Q o Q- ✓ v O N 4--' fa U = E0 U L o_ .i o tiA4— caC O O a3�Q) O C N >- O N 4J Q) --, -o O co Q Q to c i ▪ a) E N c O U 0 TO -o 'L cQ) a v +� N Q N O .0_ Q co U CV) Ca O- • o in v O - o_ 4-0 .Q) : (U0 E o cm ° U co Q) •— - Q a) c Q • 73 • Q) 0 U 0 N 4-1 4- 0 N C 0 U V) CZ O 4-1n 0 ca C 0 CO U 0 S- W N V) D L U 4-+ C 0 C 0 co U • 0 0 C N v) ra rovru U UCL L -o CO C CU E C co 4-J C O U 4- -o a) C ODO CO C E Q) cu O 0 0 0 on (7 D 4— 4-) .N c 0 z vi C ca CL 4a C (13U OA Z • - Q U 1' 4- N Ca C It c QJ E CO Q) -0 N o E o N o Q) C 4-1 ca L N V) ca 0 O E E N -0 N N v) > D ▪ O ( w U 0 - E ( O 4--a S-. 4— COc C 0 O Q • • .2 c (1) p E E cO E •�O Eu c a) ca cc CU > (1) C Fp --1) .-C CU 4,.a V) C6 x C O U O ,O -0 tan co -0 •71 co U a) co v);-- a) a) c6 L_ c 2 ca •a) U L U ca c O 3 O U c C co ca aJ •• U 0E O O Q • ca cc < C D ( Q) O —I = .;; D C -N • — 4—.4-1-j O C O O ‘ii• •_ • Co +-) u') O -0 O a) +� -0 E E CU O (0-0 CU co O C O E O U 0 W a) O vi a) N, a) tn a) co C co a) co0 a) co - L a) O •cn aJ O -0 c/) C 0 (6 .� -0 a) C6 O .O +7 - .O •— U au txo E co O c U O ca C C ow -0 • • a) co N E O Evi 7..7. O ra O • • U — C co _a a) o._ QN n3 CO D N tan t10 J c E Q a) — O C > O t1A — 0 O N L 4J (DQ NQ a) �- O ,_,O =•+_-1� Oca°0 QJ U N - O C c� E a,Q.o� Nom}'•°o�� C CU Q ® Q �o'�n E E Q��ao L +-, U •v) -0 J — I. ° CL c_ a) 4-J -ora) OC a) a) O a'U +-' u< a,L.)a)� .E ,(7), sto v crs a) — B i▪ 46 Q a-' CC +�/C t1A O U Ln (/) Q - 0 0O -0 vi C C O '-' .rte �� U O 0_-0-8•E- E :� 0 >- U_ 0 . C 4- a) E• a) U co U 0 -o 0 — — '+•� C C C cn COCbm N co C OC ca • U 0 a) U —U4 .�C•�,> 0 E •C 92 `� -a �--' toU Com}' coQOC ▪ �QON O CO Q p Q 4 - vi 4- +� S— >--- e ,— —N N C� o_.cn O cu C N O }, 0 CO aJ p .O O — i O c6 O ct3 CO +-+ - +-� Q >, +-+ U C ct3 2_o— i C couC C ° U cin aA U cu co QJ Q v C C co C y= +� a coOU a) con a) a) v E _C ) Q U 0- (T3 F -DD F— N H co 0 w C O }' CI) C .Q ▪ a) E U a) +' X Q. a) ca C = O v C O Ln Q t3AC -C '47° QC V) (73 O U U CU 4 N N O Q - v Q v Co > U E� (n L N U •- -'4- C # O O O_0 p W >-• U — U •E CD C�>> U O C c a) N p O C a) u OD ° U c6 U tlcD CCDJOOE Ln 0 ton C D •X Q O 92 C c aJ U `_ (0 ▪ a) . Q - tui +� N - (70 • C a) O C Em E0 CD O (D 03 C N cn + cu C O(13 _o O •I C a) C (1)(1:5v) c6 cB tip N v �n t�o� Q. eoO C Q.> -a) > CD Q C ~S L_ a) >Ova) ,.,>0(1)(1) v aA a) 0 U 0 0 U a) 0 W E E O U a.) C .c c6 s n O ' a)•F-, c6ONQ.•1=Ca) UC U }, > Q J W Q I C : •— — �, C co O •QE•—Q � N U .r., -r, i E Q -_c_ 4- V) L/) 0 a) -� 4 , ca 3 aD U C6 N >'`i— — N •> OD CO CO Q 4-1 }' O O a= > ca a.� fB •— O Q s- • (U6 = •— co E -ate O e) 0_ Q a)0Qa) •-c a) Ua) � �(oC U>;F— a) U O CO a) n N 0 0 +�' a ) 0 _0 � 0-0 Q to O U +-' 0 U •� C6 49 5 _ _ 0 (0 > 0_ �-0 OD u O N O 2= a) C _ 0 Li) +-' Q 0- C CO N (U -O C W +--) • — • — - +-, • — cu (1) C6 i O = U Q C6 O 0 C C• J = v, O v,EE mro "Ea°EO° C��aH o c U z }' w Q) c a) a) o Q �Qm o� o �- -•- �• a) � a) a 0 0(0o-5 a� I-0 F c 0_0=�v)0Z r Recommended Conditions - Conti ca a--' C4 --,N C CB C j• �EN v�v c°E •moo a) 4-' Q U v 0-L--�c v° a)v11 O CD LI -- L C� a) n3 U O v N • - 1- N -0_FA >O E w () +•) }' E a) Q O v •,- a on O' ao 73 C OQ--0- EE ._cod-,�O N cu v) E Q L U p U +� v tea;_-oa�a°J °)���� v) v) CD co v>• a) co LL1 E ® v lOO v; 0-��--N c�a>CU CU CD C �U>"C �.(7,1;N�� Lvvis �E �.� v v c +- o Q Cam --E ��p� �+-+� OD a) N >'(73 70 a1 CL ' ca 0 v O Q co Q cr v V CL) L co co co = N = li- :E0 ::: . . "0-5 -:>. CO .5 co +-, }, vn 0 cn • N • v O C O �.� vU U O CO Q sN E)' U ,n C O (6 a) -7,7, 03 0 L a) a) -6_--c_ (U 2 si Fp N CD E a)co c'va E Q N U N O C Cl..) }, v +, CU . - Q c6 ca `)r -I O— U a)-0 o •- }' Q " CO N d' �_ ft) • 0 a_' v N � O a) 4-4 CO 7:5O o Q O' co cn Ca co I- C —a)U-L._O-0 >CCC.o —CN 73 0_Evv�a) �'+�op+o Qv�CL) a)0D*ED 3.5 a) —vCDbA a)CL0 0 -vDa=0 I-a_0CDC F --CD 0CD 0 0 7:3 i 0 U C 0 - o i 0 U - o a) - oC a) E E 0 U a) cc 0 N CU 4-) co Co cu z47 - Co s N C U Co • 4-0 Qty Q O 4) Q s U 4-0 N • O v C- s OIL 0 con`c 0 d) s s O '� O •E U s- Q - c 0 0 U O L O c CL o ri �--' tD.A c .>' O — U Q) i - O OHO O W v • .0 mCY -0 O i O N Cotrin 1 0 Co CU 0 � s • U Co >' N > � c—I ro X•�� a) E O N 0 • CL %1) *+7.,U Co 7.) • O U � C9 CU O N 'o • }, C C a- 0 O Q 4— — ta.p C O i� • — O O O •• � E aA Co Q) o Q -0 0 CU Ems'•- O 0 C N NACU U..1 �ci U (NI v a) v > O Q � O s C N Co Co C O N U 'U CSA > LCU (1) UJ Q N Q U s 'L o 4-, U s_ CU O 0 v2 CL Ns` s ^n U Utajo O i-0 vi - O O w— -0 v) co co 0 Co C O 0 = U CUL) L. Q � O Q ro O F- E �;C s 4 -I Co 0 0 a) V.; co 0 = 0 O L- m O v 0.) > Co 4- O D O cn 0-0 4-) a--+ a) O O Q Q. -o Q Q O QuN co �--' O-0 aJ O •- o- e(1.) cu � v C O - 4) _C c L O r ° � 0 C]) o ' U (I) +� C 2 Q- O —�`— 0� (v 0 .4_7 a) s >` U-0 U > O O V)13.) s 0_ Q I- n U •~'a) O -0-s cocoas a) mss= o N "_c 0_ •-a,a,(f) v0 -O CU S- s i'>s N CLv�0- • rl Recommended Conditions - Continued 4-J 4-- 1 a) U C cD 1- 0 0 U co C •_ E a) 0 tioC N •CD 4-1 0 Co O U — -0 Q a) 0_ N < 0 N 0 O o_ N C L v U (13 a) CLQ Q LL ✓ v L O (1) CD 0- CU L- C Q CD CB U a) CU 4-P N CD Q C J co C CU 0 O C CD `I- O CLO QJ(� CO°E• z cam._ C Q N O O c -0 L ate-+ co o s_ � 2 0 a)0 c ▪ -J C co .� N b.°• U •N CB (1)N) LL) )ErN U a) N O N CD U +�-, cca •t• ) '+- J O .O C a= 0 N r O Q.) a -0_cO E 0 O-5 L4-) U co C U a)ca N _ 0 E 4-1 -0 N _C N O > — .j W O U Li) 0 0 U CU a) E E O U a) CUD_0 U (1 4— L/1 N O O —CD O Q U O O }' Q) U 4-0 2 C O .0 C0 CO Q) CD C 0 -0 — co v v> '417, �U -0 U ca 4-1 �L > U -C -0 N co U -Cr 0 - vi U C C6 L C6 N — N Q C U —U N 24-) -0 U U O Q 1-00- C O U CU O Q O co O : 4-, -c (� C CO c6 U }, +-) O L Q) Q • - E tic)U U -c L O O vi c as-+ O bA U L CC5 L •— U (3 c O O Q 0c•4 }' U N (t3> E O L Q i Q • a-' E — bA (� U L -6 L Q) 4± : O -O co 'O � � • E -o C = co C a) N c6 E U U N L U 4-'•U tea.) 73 5 -0-0 C Q O 1- L- (D C6 0 LQ.-) N bA Q N C-0 Q C bA E O U E v U LE U �— O O N O O co N • — N - U U Quo a U tic — n O O C •— N ca = U N +-7 Q C6 C6 +� v Q s- 0 U _C E -o) (s= vi U (1) s- -0 - a) - U C0 CD-E°co N U co Q_c L N(11 t:In Q }, O V +J = CCD -1-° 0 U N Ca C Q) (-6 N bA Q +CD -_Q_C E N �+-+'—w C O •03 U U s-, 0- S- C6 'a (o Q CD E.U vi -c QC bA 49,) O E C v L _ }, •5bUE 0- 0 v-- L O (15-0 ( N� CD _ N CO N v C a) '+_, O CO L U -0CD U U bA E N O O i U O N U Ca U O 0 -o U O Ca C O i O O tip Q O O-0 �U•p cu L bA c O U '0 CC U '20•� O cc C p w O c co U Ca bA s 4-1 - - E --o• O °) L uEC O O+ ((13 O O 'C >� +-) O �0 U -n C • —+-, U•L o -CEO QbA U Q u 'i N May 25, 2012 Mr. Glenn Hartman, Planner Garfield County Building and Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Bedrock Resources Major Impact Review Submission Clarification on Application SSGM Dear Glenn, 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 and perhaps the most contentious use, an asphalt batch plant. As we had 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 limited suchasonocch as k, asphalt and concrete will be performed (portable e 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 opnhalt aving" in. pn and out are neededrt the he occasional traffic needed to move the other materials GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 West Sixth St, Suite 200 I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1970.945.1004 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 easily 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 modified even though the uses are to be less intense from a land use standpoint. For the landscape plan, the grading ,SGM 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. I 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. Simonson, PE, CFM Cc: Charlie Ellsworth David Smith Garfield County Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Building & Planning Department RE: Bedrock Resources — Contractors Yard MIPA-7250 Vegetation Manawenilent July 2, 2012 Dear Glenn, Thanks for the opportunity to comment the permit. reclamation securThe ity nrns lthe atmoundtlof $14 n my memo 725 fo�the 5.89 acres toyou dated rbe12 have been addressed in the new application. Are reseeded has been posted for the County Grading permit. Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 0298 County Road 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-625-8601 Fax: 970-625.8627 June 29, 2012 Mr. Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN EXHIBIT 1( 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, Mouna.in Cross Engiie Chris Hale, PE g, Inc. 826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com EXHIBIT Glenn Hartmann From: Ray Sword Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 1:06 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: MIPA-7250 Mr. Hartman: 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# MIPA- 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# MIPA 7030. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you, Ray C.. y Gat field County 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 i Glenn Hartmann From: Kevin Whelan [kewhelan@riflefiredept.org] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 1:42 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Bedrock Resources- Major impact review EXHIBIT 1 1 Glen, I have reviewed the Major Impact Review(MIPA-7250) for Bedrock Resources LLC —contractors Yard&A s 1 ry 3 m les located approximately 1/3 mile south of the 1-70 Mamm Creek interchange, adjacent to C.R. 315, approximately 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 top 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 Cell -970-618-7388 " We are dedicated to protecting life, home, and property through leadership, education and partnerships. Safety is our highest priority." t Glenn Hartmann From: Adams, Karlyn [Karlyn.Adams@state.co.us] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 10:09 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Rubin, Edward; Martellaro, Alan Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Impact Review application comments EXHIBIT Glenn, 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 Well 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, Karlyn Cc: West, William Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources LLC Asphalt Batch Plan Major Karlyn, attached for your review is a copy of the permit file for permit no. 287244. Hope it helps. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards Dwight Impact Review application comments Bedrock Resources LLC, Monitoring/Observation Well, 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@garfield-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 S, Rng 92 W oarb � aedrock Resources. Te applicant breakdown of the phoposed usesmt sth s office this beforeapplication, any permit with a signed copy of their contract with WDWCD 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 thewell for hese purpose nor would water be legally available if a permit was issued as currently proposed. If the applicantrequires 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 0.033 cfs. Though the other water rights in this decree were decreed as conditional rights and were later abandoned, I 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 Planning 108 8th 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 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 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. 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 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 Pribyl • John Singletary Mark Smith, Secretary • Robert Streeter • Lenna Watson • Dean Wingfield Ex Officio Members: Mike King and John Salazar Glenn Hartmann From: Illene Pevec[achildsgardenofpeace@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 8:36 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: no asphalt production facility near food growing please 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 ccmfoodproduced i. OrEagle e Springs Farm from could decide that t thiishboring moment on the industrial pl net, we needrto start to priorention the itize ze andss nhebad d feelings that climate trends accompany that activity. 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? administration Lester ne-fi Brown of the whehat crop o Institute successfully ly staving off faminehen the Indian . We can't do thatoon failed in 5, President Lyndon anymore; the safetyocushionsis gone."With more yed one-fifth of the U.S. wheat crop India, summers like this one we may have trouble feeding ourselves domestically. rative When ap start to feel orthese even sidewalks. ains Iacutely expect we willllall be gratefif we will ul we looked ahead and protected anproduce existing, productive, energy efficient landscape features, (due to that onsite solar array) organic local farm. Thank you. Illene Pevec, Ph.D, Design and Planning, Univ. of CO 7949 Hwy 133 Carbondale, CO 81623 Illene Pevec ir lies. A Child's Garden of Peace creates food and mebegin it. Boldness l plant gahrdens genius and powerth children dandemagiclin it. Begin it "Whatever you can do or dream you can do, now! " Goethe 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Gwen Garcelon [gwen@highlifeunlimited corn] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 4:04 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: For the Planning Commission EXHIBIT � Q Dear Glenn, 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 — all 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 1 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 11th, 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: Kenneth Sack [paneraiworthave@me.com] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:51 PM To: Glenn Hartmann; Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky; John Martin Subject: Asphalt Plant EXHIBIT 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. (4) 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. (14,15) 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. (15) 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 Material handling mach g eryr, suchng and as front- 1 operation and reprocessing stockpiles from different sources. 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. Cold mix asphalt is usually placed on low-volume roadways with traffic volumes less than 3,000 vehicles per day 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. (17) 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 in 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.g., 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 and 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 suitability of CIR for use with surface treatments and/or rubberized paving materials; • 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 II 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, EPA/600/R-93/095, 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 D1073-94.„ 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 D1559-89. "Standard Test Method for Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus." American Society for Testing and Materials,Annual 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 , 1996. 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. Terrel. 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 for Asphalt 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 i�in8Cold-Recycled Asphalt Paving Mixtures." Transportation Research Record No. 898 , Washington , D 3. 26. Wayne Lee, K., Brayton, T.E., Huston, M. Development of Performance vBa ed 0 Mix-Design ign for Federr Cold In-Place (CIR) of Bituminous Pavements Based on Fundamental Properties, F way 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. 1178 , Washington , DC , 1988. 28. Brantley, A.S. and Townsend, T., Leaching of pollutants from reclaimed asphalt pavement, Environmental Engineering Science, Vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 105-116. Apr. 1999. 29. Legret, M., Odie, L., Demare, D., Jullien, A., Leaching of heavy metals and plycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from reclaimed asphalt pavement, Water Research, Vol. 39, 3675-3685, 2005. t ure Regarding 30. Grosenheider, K., Bloom, P., Halbach T., Johnson, M., A Review 811655tOctobere2005. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Asphalt Pavement, Mn/DOT contract No. Ken Sack Eagle Springs Organic and Owner 482 County Rd 315 Residential Property 5 Glenn Hartmann From: Kenneth Sack [paneraiworthave@me.com] Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 1:43 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: John Martin; Tom Jankovsky; Mike Samson Subject: Bedrock Resources Glenn I reviewed 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(and County asphalt) accordance we, ash appPCCPcationwill State prepared and submitted to the criteria. They should be required to submit SPCC with application so it can be reviewed EXHIBIT 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, their such, opthe owwners of Bedrock Resources and Frontier Paving, Inc. are committed toconducting 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. 1 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 29`h. 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 LLCfodevelopm(both ent. Water will and non -potable) to the Bedrock Resources, property 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 irrigation is proposed other than for the establishment of the vegetation identified in the landscape plan. Seeding for revegetation 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 170/Mamm Creek interchange, east of and along side of Mamm Creek Road (CR 315) 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 ULUR. 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 CgRppiles, processing and mensheds and shop 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 asphaltcement, 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 HAP'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 past 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 From: Kenneth Sack [kensack@me.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:51 PM To: John Martin; Mike Samson; Tom Jankovsky Subject: Asphalt Plant Dear Commissioners I understand that you all have visited Eagle Springs Organic and have seen what h t we ShoppingreofCgnthein R with, which our organic farm and.Solar Project. I have also renovated Eagle SpringsCrossing for community members to sell will have a year round organic farmers market, USDA Butcher Shop, spaces 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 landuse t month orge r uestedk y by Bedrock s ben moving a Resources to build an asphalt processing facility next to my farm. For the pat from the County. tremendous amount of dirt on their property, which I understand tas still a trem ndohey received a usiamount of dirt and dust Although they had water trucks spraying as they workedto that was blow all over our crops. With winds up to 50 plus MPH, it is nearly which continues control send cloulo blown of particulate downwind. They have left an open space, devoid of veg dust towards our crops t cessin Yesterday, I received notice that once again they are applying for land se change to storaged an sphalof materiausing plant on the property. The processing, recycling facility, storage of Asphalt p in Asphalt/contracting business, crushing activity of the stored dematerials All such of these aoas cvitisphaalt still Concrete,contrr to and storage of rock for use by the business has already been 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 ber MIPA-gener7250), for a Contractors Yard, including accessory 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: Application requests Major Request: The App � 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 andtruck of material used coveredin the parking/storage area, storage 1 activity of the asphalt/contracting business, somend 9 concrete, and storage stored materials such as Rock, asphalt a of landscaping materials such as topsoil and mately 35 72 acres. k for use by the business. The overall property size is app The property Is Zoned Rural. The Applicant% designated representatives are Damien Ellsworth, Vice ^resident, Jefferey Simonson, Schmueser Gordon mi he GGarfielyer, d& Hecht, PC. David H. McConaughy and David D. This new application is just another attempt by Bedrock Resources and Charles Ellsworowh to oicit doescircumvent I would the Counties Land Use regulations. I would hope that this does not get past y 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 Glenn Hartmann From: Fred Pulver [fredpulver@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:43 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom 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 EXHIBIT } 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 i Glenn Hartmann From: Kenneth Sack [kensack@me.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:06 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Toby Subject: review Glenn thank you for visiting today EXHIBIT I 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 be denied,it will severely negatively impact my farm and residential property, which under the Garco land use code, is NOT allowed and must be 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! -- y Amy Hutton Livestock and Wildlands Manager Rock Bottom Ranch 303-250-6027 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 3:52 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Deny Bedrock, LLC's application to change land use From: Mary Russell [mailto:marvinline@agmail.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 Farm. Thank you for your time. Mary Russell 2917 Sopris Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)618-1450 https://sites.google.com/site/cmssciencerussell 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. 1 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 [mailto:coldmountainstream@ 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 Commissioners, EXHIBIT y 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 Hartmann From: Kenneth Sack [kensack@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 I plan on using for residence and employee housing. Since we thought that this was a dead issue, I 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. I am sure we are coming up with more information from our loyal food co op people Let me know if you need anything from me. Ken Sack Glenn Hartmann From: Rick Barth [rbarth@rifleco.org] 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 Hi Jeff and thank you. EXHIBIT 1 AA- 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 make 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:JeffS@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 time. If 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 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Steph Syson [stephgardens@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 6:09 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: The Planning Commission Mr. Hartman, EXHIBIT $ g 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.com] 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 C 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 6SGM 118 W Sixth St, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9005 / 970.379.4691 cell www,sgm-inc.cOm t 1 SGM wv,v sgm-inc.co�r� 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, 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 on a cool day when during that time period (such as a rainy day). 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 1 18 West Sixth St, Suite 200 I Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1970.945.1004 5SGM www.sgm-inc.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 55GM v w sgm-inc.corn 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 ACOE 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. I 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 Cc: Charlie Ellsworth Damian Ellsworth David Smith Page 1 of 1 Jeff Simonson From: Charles Ellsworth [Charles@FrontierPavinglnc.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 log.PDF Original Message From: Nicole D. Garrimone To: charlesfrontierpavinqinc.com ; 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. Finally, 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.m. 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 ngarrimoneAgarfieldhecht.com 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. 1/30/2012 GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE The Denver Center 420 Seventh Street, Suite 100 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Telephone (970) 947-1936 Facsimile (970) 947-1937 GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Since 1975 www.garfieldhecht.com Nicole D. Garrimone, Esq. ngarrimon e@garfiel dh ech t. com Hand Delivered 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 — Application for Water Well Permit Dear Dwight: 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. Nicole D. Garrimone Aspen • Avon • Basalt • Glenwood Springs • Rifle Printed on recycled paper COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST, RM 818, DENVER, CO 80203 phone — info: (303) 866-3587 main: (303) 866-3581 fax: (303) 866-3589 http://wowd.water.state.co.us GENERAL PURPOSE Water Well Permit Application Review instructions on reverse side prior to completing form. The form must be completed In black or blue ink or typed. 1. Applicant Information Name of applicant Office Use Only Bedrock Resources, LLC Mailing address 1014 CR 311 City New Castle State CO Zip code 81647 Form GWS -45 (07/2009) 6. Use Of Well (check applicable boxes) Attach a detailed description of uses applied for. Industrial ❑ Municipal ® Irrigation ® Commercial ❑ Dewatering System 0 Geothermal (0 production or ❑ reinjection) ® Other (describe): Fire Protection, Pond Filling Telephone It (970)876-0916 E-mail (Optional charles@frontierpavinginc.com 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) 7. Well Data (proposed) Maximum pumping rate Annual amount to be withdrawn 5 gpm i 1.5 acre-feet ❑ Construct new well ❑ Replace existing well I Use existing well 0 Change or increase use ❑ Change source (aquifer) ❑ Reapplication (expired permit) ❑ COGCC well ❑ Other: Total depth Aquifer 250 feet I tributary 8. Land On Which Ground Water Will Be Used 3. Refer To (if applicable) Well permit # I Water Court case It 287244 n/a Designated Basin Determination It WeN name or it Bedrock Resources Well No. 1 4. Location Of Proposed Well (Important! See Instructions) County 1 Garfield NW 114 of the SE 1/4 Section Township N or SRange E or W 18 6 ID g] I 92 ❑l Prinapal Meridian 6th P.M. Legal Description (may be provided as an attachment): See Attachment A (If used for crop irrigation, attach a scaled map that shows irrigated area.) A. *Acres B. Owner 35.72 acres I Bedrock Resources, LLC Distance of wer from section lines (section lines are typically not property lines) 2,325 Ft. from ❑ N ®S 1,890 Ft. from$) E ❑ W For replacement wells only — distance and direction from old well to new well feet direction C. List any other wells or water rights used on this land: n/a Well location address (Include City. State. Zip) ❑ Check if well address is same as in Item 1. tbd County Road 315, Garfield County, CO Optional: GPS well location information in UTM format You must check GPS unit for required settings as follows: 9. Proposed Well Driller License #(optional): 10. Signature Of Applicant(s) Or Authorized Agent The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second degree, which is punishable as a dass 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 original signature) Date ►� � cok a.( ,W, -- ,//`//� Format must be UTM 0 Zone 12 or 0 Zone 13 Units must be Meters Datum must be NADa3 Unit must be set to he north Was GPS unit checked for above? 0 YES Easting Northing Remember to set Datum to NADB3 Print name & title Nicole D. Garrimone, attorney, Garfield & Hecht, P.C. Office Use Only USGS map name DWR map no. Surface elev. 5. Parcel On Which Well Will Be Located (YOU MUST ATTACH A CURRENT DEED FOR THE SUBJECT PARCELL A. Legal Description (may be provided as an attachment): See Attachment A — property deed with legal description . # of acres in parcel 35.72 acres C. Owner Bedrock Resources, LLC D. Will his be the only well on this parcel? ®YES ONO (d no — Est other wells) E. State Parcel IDIt (optional): Receipt area only AOUAMAP WE WR CWCB TOPO MYLAR SBS DIV_ WD_ BA_ MD !�I WIP:hiiilfh 411 f ? 11111 Reeept lona : 602504 05!1312011 02.39:42 P11 Jean Alberica 7 of 2 Rec Fee -Ste 00 Doc Fee:25.50 GARFIELD COUNTY CD Recorded at o'clock M. Reception No. Recorder WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made on May 11, 2011 Between Specialty Taverns, Ides, a Nevada Corporation a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of NV of the first pert and ATTACHMENT A Bedrock Resources, LLC whose kgal address is : 1014 County Road 311, CO B1647 of the County of Garfield and State of CO of the second part WITNESSETH. That the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the nun of 5255.000.00 DOLLARS, to the said party of the first pmt in hand paid by the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby confessed and admowledged, has granted, bargained sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, oodvey and confirm unto the said parties of the second past its successes end assigns forever, all of the following described lot or parcel of land, situate, lying mod being in the County of Garfield and State of Colorado, to wit: See Attached Exhibit "A" TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder end remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in law or equity. of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the haecOWnents and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD die said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances. Ludo the said parties of the second pert. its successors and assigns forever. And the said Specialty Taverns, Inc. a Nevada Corporation. party of the first part for itself, and its successors, does covenant, pent, bargain, and agree to and with the said parties of the second part, its successors and assigns, that a the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents. it is well seized of the promises above conveyed, as of good. sue, perfect, absolute and indefeasibk estate of inheritance, in law, in Be simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid cad that the same are free and dent from all former and other grants, bargains, sates, liens, taxes, assesslrenuts, enc mbrances end restrictions of whatever kind or nature aoever: except general tares and assessments for the yea 2011 and subsequent years and all those specific exceptions described by reference to recorded documents as reflected in Commonwealth wealth Title Compasys Canmitmmtt No. 1105005 TRGC, and the above -bargained eternises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said parties of the second part its successors and assigns. against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof, the said party of the first part shall and will WARRANTY AND FOREVER DEFEND. The singular number shall include the plural and the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. The said party of the first part has caused its corporate name to be hereunto subscribed by its Vice President, and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, the day and year first above written. STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before mc on May 2011, by Dennis .I. Stahl, Vice President of Specialty Taverns. inc.. a Nevada Corporation. My commission expires: 3 -21- /T ComenomosIth Fk No. 1105005 TROC sew w bedrock rs rlarC I 1014 C=5. 5014511 Nes CSN CO 11147 WITNESS my hand and official seal 1 Notary Public III! i 11:11WIALN Pig PigIi1:I#r;IIae l',1ii+iIII 'Reception8: 802564 05/13/2011 02:3942 PM Jean Rlberico 2 of 2 Rec Fee.$16.00 Doc Fee:25. 50 GARFIELD COUNTY CO File No. 1105005 TRGC EXHIBIT "A" A tract 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 Section 18 bears 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 Right of Way of Garfield County Road No. 315; thence along said Right of Way the following five courses: t) 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 46°35' 18" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.40°56'34"W. 441.64 feet; 2) thence 271.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 919.50 feet, a central angle of 16°53'12" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.26°05 3 1 "W. 270.02 feet; 3) thence N.34°32'06"W. 151.77 feet; 4) thence 4.65.64 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 799.92 feet, a central angle of 33°21'08" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.SI°12'40"W. 459.09 feet; 5) thence 59.71 feet along the arc 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 feet; thence N.75°59'58"E. 43.68 feet; thence N.54°42'50"E. 125.13 feet; thence N.41 °58'31 "E. 98.48 feet; thence N.46°15'00"E. 56.32 feet; thence N.58°03'49"E. 148.75 feet; thence N.72°51'07"E. 70.62 feet; thence N.89°30'19"E. 79.15 feet; thence S.68°53'03"E. 71.82 feet; thence S.68°38'29"E. 108.08 feet; thence S.80°55'21 "E. 78.00 feet; thence N.74°39'03"E. 73.66 feet; thence N.58°04'05"£. [35.69 feet; thence N.82°36'32"E. 46.72 feet; thence S.73°57'56"E. 84.78 feet; thence S.84°32'15"E. 133.17 feet; thence S.60°58'16"E. 75.18 feet; thence S.02°37'57"E. 120.69 feet; thence S.23°17'10"E. 121.36 feet; thence S.30°14'52"E. 141.82 feet; thence S.35°47'40"E. 151.00 feet; thence 5.30°56'09"E. 126.67 feet; thence S.42°08'11"E. 92.15 feet; thence S.73°51'26"E. 99.23 feet; thence N.64°09'45"E. 112.73 feet; thence N.55°12'50"E. 55.15 feet; thence S.00°43'33"E. 638.39 feet to the Point of Beginning. APPLICATION TO LEASE WATER FROM WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 818 Taughenbaugh Blvd. #101, P. O. Box 1478, Rifle, Colorado 81650 t. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Bedrock Resources, LLC Mailing address: 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Telephone: (970) 989-5394 Email: charles©frormerpavinainc.com Authorized agent: Nicole Garrlmone. Garfield & Hecht P.C. 2. COURT CASE #s: Decree Case No. N/A Augmentation Plan Case No. N/A 3. USE OF WATER RESIDENTIAL Number of main residences: No. ADU's Subdivision: No. constructed units: No. vacant lots Home garden/lawn irrigation of 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: total sq_ ft. Well Sharing Agreement for multiple owner wells must be submitted. If greater than two owners, application must be made under a homeowners association. COMMERCIAL Number of units: 2 Total sq. ft. of commercial units: 6.440 sf Description of use: Sanitary use Inside 2 commercial buildings to serve a combined total of 12 employees and drip Irrigation to establish brush and tree vegetation. INDUSTRIAL Description of use: Filling and refilling of fire protection pond and replacement of evaporation from the fire protection pond. dust suppression. and fire protection uses. Evaporation: Maximum water surface to be exposed: 1,325 at 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: pumping from the well or pond. per amounts on the attached engineering chart, I, • •I -- I, :1I Ir. I: 1I •- • y DIRECT PUMPING Tributary: Location: 4. SOURCE OF WATER Structure: Well Structure Name: Bedrock Resources Well No. 1 Source: surface storage ground water X Current Permit # 287244 (monitoring well) (attach copy) Contract #120119BR(a) Map #643 Date Approved: 1/19/12 5. LOCATION OF STRUCTURE Garfield NW1/4 SE1/4 County Quarter/quarter 18 6 South Section Township Distance of well from section lines: 2.325 feet from the South Section line 1.890 feet from the East Section line 92 West Range Quarter 6th P. M. Elevation: 5 436 feet Well location address: tbd County Road 315 Garfield County (Attach additional pages for multiple structures) 6. LAND ON WHICH WATER WILL BE USED (Legal description may be provided as an attachment.) See attached Exhibit "A". Number of acres in tract: approx. 35 72 acres Inclusion into the District, at Applicant's expense, may be required 7. TYPE OF SEWAGE SYSTEM Septic tank/absorption leach field X Central System Other_ District name: 8. VOLUME OF LEASED WATER NEEDED IN ACRE FEET: 1.5 acre-feet (minimum of 1 acre foot except augmentation from Alsbury Reservoir where a lesser amount is allowed) Provide engineering data to support volume of water requested. Commercial, municipal, and industrial users must provide diversion and consumptive data on a monthly basis. A totalizing flow meter with remote readout is required to be installed and usage reported to West Divide. Applicant expressly acknowledges it has had the opportunity to review the District's form Water Allotment Contract and agrees this application is made pursuant and subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. Y �^ Applicant Signet, re Applicant Signature Application Date: January 11.2012 ISSUED AS AREA B CONTRACT YES r�NO 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 tract 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 Section 18 bears 5,04°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 Right of Way of Garfield County Road No. 315; thence along said Right of Way the following five courses: 1) 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 46°35'18" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.40°5634"W. 441.64 feet; 2) thence 271.00 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 919.50 feet, a central angle of 16°53'12" and suis -tending a chord which bears N.26°05'31 "W. 270.02 feet; 3) thence N.34°32'06"W. 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°21'08" and sub -tending a chord which bears N.51°12'40"W. 459.09 feet; 5) thence 59.71 feet along the arc 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 feet; thence N.75°59'58"E. 43.68 feet; thence N.54°42'50"E. 125.13 feet; thence N.41°58'31"E. 98.48 feet; thence N.46°15'00"E. 56.32 feet; thence N38°03'49" . 148.75 feet; thence N.72°51'07"E. 70.62 feet; thence N.89°30' 19"E. 79.15 feet; thence S.68°53'03 "E. 71.82 feet; thence S.68°38'29"E. 108.08 feet; thence S_80°5521 "E. 78.00 feet; thence N.74°39'03"E. 73.66 feet; thence N.58°04'05"E. 135.69 feet; thence N.82°36'32"E. 46.72 feet; thence S.73°57'56"E. 84.78 feet; thence S.84°32'15"E. 133.17 feet thence S.60°58'16"E. 75.18 feet; thence S.02°37'57"E. 120.69 feet thence S23°17'10"E. 121.36 feet; thence S.30°14'52"E. 141.82 feet; thence S35°47'40"E. 151.00 feet; thence S.30°56'09"E. 126.67 feet; thence S.42°08'11"E. 92.15 feet; thence S.73°5126"E. 99.23 feet; thence N.64°09'45"E. 112.73 feet; thence N.55° 12'50"E. 55.15 feet; thence S.00°43'33"E. 638.39 feet to the Point of Beginning. Form No. OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER GWS -25 COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg , 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 APPLICANT BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC 1014 COUNTY ROAD 311 NEW CASTLE, CO 81647- (970) 876-0916 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL 1095 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 287244 DIV. 5 WD45 DES. BASIN MD APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY 114 SE 1/4 Section 18 Township 6 S Range 92 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FRAM SECTION LINES Ft. from Ft. from Section Line Section Line UTM COORDINATES (Meters,Zone:13,NADB3) Easting: Northing: } 1) 2) 3) 4) ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPRQVAL This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not ensure that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the Slate Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. Approved pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)p) for uses as described In CRS 37-92.802(1)(f). Use of this well is limited to monitoring water levels and/or water quality sampling. This well is known as Bedrock Resources Monitoring/Observation Well no. 1. This well must be equipped with a locking cap or seal to prevent well contamination or possible hazards as an open well. The well must be kept capped and locked al all times except during sampling or measuring. 5) Records of water level measurements and water quality analyses shall be maintained by the well owner and submitted to the Division of Water Resources upon request. 6) Upon conclusion of the monitoring program the well owner shall plug this well in accordance with Rule 16 of the Water Well Construction Rules. A Well Abandonment Report must be completed and submitted to the Division of Water Resources within 60 days of plugging. The owner shall mark the well in a conspicuous place with the well permit number and name of aquifer as appropriate, and shall take necessary means and precautions to preserve these markings. This well must be constructed by or under the supervision of a licensed well driller or other authorized individual according to the Water Well Construction Rules. If non-standard construction Is anticipated, a variance request must be submitted in accordance with Rule 18 and approved prior to well construction. 9) A Well Construction arid Test Report (Form GWS -31), Including lithologic log must be submitted by the individual authorized to construct the well. For non-standard construction, the report must include an as -built drawing showing details such as depth, casing, perforated zones, and a description of the grouting type and interval. 10) Pursuant to Rule 6.2.3 of the Water Well Construction Rules, the well construction contractor shall submit the as•buitt well location on work reports required 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 location (UTM coordinates) pursuant to the Division of Water Resources' guidelines. NOTE Issuance of this permit 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 402-2),.monitoring holes constructed pursuant to a monitoring hole notice shall not be converted to a production well. (Upon obtaining a permit from the State Engineer, a monitoring hole may be converted to a monitoring well, recovery well for remediation of the aquifer, or a dewatering system for dewatering the aquifer.) NOTE: Section 18 is an irregular "Narrow" section.. - NOTE: Parcel Identification Number (PIN); 23-2179-184-00-720 ( 7) 8) NOTE: Assessor Tax Schedule Number: R043559 (totaling 35.72 acres) APPROVED DMW Recti t No. 9503513 Slate Engin DATE ISSUED 12-14-2011 { q4 By EXPIRATION DATE 12-14-2013 Monthly Diversion Table 888888 8 m P o n O n - N N V 5c5� 8 o t• hg N E tC N 0 2 88888 8 a 8 'Ch m o , O 1� 1� O� O Q N e . G I M O 8 8 O (Q ] q Y S�. V gg � � 5 88888 8 ^�+ a W � a co mtg E o. 88888 8� O f�11 a I. N of . M O es O V . y h • p88.8O8.8 88p `2 ° 2 O N m O. O f O Ki ii tF� p d vi 8 .� m x 1 v x rc 88888 8 s' z$ a " 1 ! 1 E .t 2- 88 888 8p R•8 E S3 ; O i. 8888 v g n 1 { r� N O B p r rvi d C: O „ i ii it CE fE▪ � 5 0 O O i 88 .. 8 N d Cay x 5 days - - Consumptive Use Table it Op c P a 8 pw pO pB pw p 8 8 8 8 8 N 8 4 n O PI F«O- O N tp O OI November December August September October 88 m N OO 88 88888 8 88888 8 88888 88888 :3o`§§§ 1.1 � 88888 858 88888 a8§s$ 88888 a 0- w000 m 0 -5 2 LL 8 65,298.00 33.47t.00 0 8 0 8 E, 0 8 35,298.00 65,424.00 65,298.00 8888 8 N Ogg 88 o S 88' • ryo Defined Water Use O a c a§'• a Wift00 u. 0� N O 0 0 O 8 O 8 O 8 IMMO MD 13 19 30 Bedrock Resources Weil #1 111W-51Lt Pt. 17 /" 16 21 Contract #120119BR(a) Map #643 Date Approved: 1/19/12 WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT WATER ALLOTMENT CONTRACT Name of Applicant: Bedrock Resources, LLC Quantity of Water in Acre Feet: 1.5 acre-feet Applicant, hereby applies to the West Divide Water Conservancy District, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, organized pursuant to and existing by virtue of C.R.S. 1973, Section 3745-101, et seq„ (hereinafter referred to as the "District") for an allotment contract to beneficially and perpetually use water or water rights owned, leased, or hereafter acquired by the District. By execution of this Contract and the attached Application, Applicant hereby agrees to the following terms and conditions: 1. Water Rights: 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 leased herein. If Applicant intends to divert through a well, it must be understood by Applicant that no right to divert exists until a valid well permit is obtained from the Colorado Division of Water Resources. 2. Quantity: Water applied for by the Applicant in the amount set forth above shall be diverted at Applicant's point of diversion from the District's direct flow water rights, and when water is unavailable for diversion pursuant to administration by the Colorado State Engineer during periods when said direct flow water right is not in priority, the District shall release for the use of Applicant up to said quantity in acre feet 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 Applicant by the District will be limited by the priority of the District's decrees and by the physical and legal 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 all of the terms and conditions of this Contract. The District and the Applicant recognize that some of the District's decrees may be in the name of the Colorado River Water Conservation District, and the ability of the District to allot direct flow 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 notice. Rates shall be adjusted accordingly in following water years only. 3. Beneficial Use and Location of Beneficial Use: Any and all water allotted Applicant 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 Ruedi 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. Decrees and Delivery: 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 at the decreed point of diversion for said other sources, and release or delivery of water at such outlet or points shall constitute performance of the District's total obligation. Delivery of water by the District from Ruedi Reservoir or Green 1 Mountain Reservoir shall be subject to the District's lease 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 between the District and the Bluestone Water Conservancy District, dated April 26, 2001, is recorded as Reception No. 584840, Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 5. Alternate Point of Diversion and Plan of Augmentation: Decrees for alternate 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 exclusive responsibility of Applicant. The District reserves the right to review and approve any conditions 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 obtain/divert 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. In the event the Applicant intends to apply for an 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 the 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 of the District. The initial annual payment shall be made in full, within thirty (30) days after the date of notice to the Applicant that the initial payment is due. Said notice will advise the Applicant, 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. If an 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 for 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. If payment is not made within fifteen (15) days after the date of said 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 Division of Water Resources may then order cessation of all water use. 7. Additional Fees 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 benefit 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 assumption of Contract obligations by assignees and successors. Nothing herein shall prevent successors to a portion of Applicant's property 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 to be 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: I) No more than three separate owners all of whom shall be party to a well sharing agreement satisfactory to the District; or 2) A homeowners association, water district, water and sanitation district or other special 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 well 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 Agreement: 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 Use: The District reserves the exclusive right to review, re -approve or disapprove any proposed change in use of the water allotted hereunder. Any 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. Use and Place of Use: 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 for 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. Measuring Device or Meter: Applicant agrees to provide, at its own expense, a measuring device deemed acceptable by the District's Engineer after consultation, or a totalizing flow meter with remote readout to continuously and accurately measure at all times all 4 water diverted pursuant to the terms of A'pplicant's water right and the terms 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 legal or engineering advice that Applicant may believe has been received from the District. Applicant further acknowledges that it has obtained all necessary legal and engineering advice from Applicant's own sources other than the District. Applicant 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 of Water Court Filing and Augmentation Plan: 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. Binding 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 Conservancy 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 terms and conditions of this agreement. 21. Warning; IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A VALID WELL PERMIT OR OTHER WATER RIGHT IN ORDER TO DIVERT WATER, INCLUDING THE WATER ACQUIRED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. IT 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. AREA B. CONTRACTS: IF APPLICANT'S 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 RI VER 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 NOTICE DELIVERED TO THE DISTRICT BY THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS FOLLOWING THE AFFIXING OF SIGNATURES ON THIS CONTRACT IN WHICH EVENT ALL SUMS PAID BY APPLICANT FOR THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REFUNDED TO APPLICANT. Applicant Applicant STATE OF[ 6114010 COUNTY OF vi t iregaingJ in. anent was acknowledged The ) ss. I4,1A to pY . h STATE OF COUNTY OF )as. bef�l�tyi �ijphrrron this I Z' day of ,4'' !+ 011 has;otli °oeLIC \°I: 9��0 fi co+ 14/PThe foregoing instrument wits acknowledged betiarei�t me on this y •011,4 .as 20 12- . by n1expires: %1 /422 ',5 Notary Public day of Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: , 20 , by Notary Public ORDER After a hearing by the Board of Directors of the West 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. ATI`}ES I 1 ri WEST DIVIDE WATER_iSERVAN By President Date Y DISTRICT This Contract includes and is subject to the terms and conditions of the following documents which must accompany this Contract: 1. Map showing location of point of diversion (use map provided) 2. Application and Data Form fully completed and signed The printed portions of this form, except differentiated additions or deletions, have been approved and adopted by the West Divide Water Conservancy District. Form: WDWCD 01-01-08 CONTRACT. 6 1 SCHMUESER I GORDON MEYER 6 ENGINEERS ISURVEYORS 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, GLENWOOD SPRINGS 118 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 1601 970.945.1 004 970.945.5948 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 call Respectfully, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Jefferey S. Simonson, PE CFM Principal 101 FOUNDERS PLACE, UNIT IO2 PO Box 2155 ASPEN, CO 8 1 61 I 970.925.6727 970.925.41 57 FAX 103 WEST TOMICHI AVE. SUITE A GUNNISON, CO 970.64 1 .5355 970.641 .5358 FAX GRAND JUNCTION 573 WEST CRETE CIRCLE BUILDING I , SUITE 205 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 970.245.2571 970.245.2871 FAx MEEI<EP 320 THIRD STREET MEEKER, CO 81641 970.878.5180 970.878.4181 FAX Shelton Drilling Corp. (970) 927-3801 p.1 WELL CONSTRUCTION AND TEST REPORT STATE OF COLORADO. OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER WELL PERMIT NUMBER 287244 Owner Name(s): Bedrock Resources LLC Mailing Address: 1014 County Road 311 City, State, Zip : New Castle, Co 81647 Phone 4 . FOR OFFICE USE ONLY REGIAVD 2 6 '12 JAN WATER RESOURCES STATE ENGINEERPPROVAL x GWS31-91-03 GLE VWQnp WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED DISTANCES FROM SEC. LINES ft. from Sec. line and SUBDIVISION: NW 114 SE 1/4 Sec: 18 Twp: 6 S Range: 92 W 6th PM ft. from Sec. Line OR Easting: 2 67 388 Northing: 43 78 610 LOT: BLOCK: FILING (UNIT): STREET ADDRESS AT LOCATION GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION ft DRILLING METHOD Air Rotary 4. DATE COMPLETED: 12/21.2011 TOTAL DEPTH: 250 DEPTH COMPLETION: 250 5. GEOLOGIC LOG Depth Type of Material (Size, Color, and Type 000-006 Cobbles, Dirt 006-108 Dirt, Clays, Cobbles 018-250 'Wasatch Formation 6. HOLE DIAIv1ETER (in) 9.0 FROM (ft) 6.5 TO (ft) 0 40 40 250 7. PLAIN CASING OD (in) Kind 7.0 Steel Wall Size From (fl) To (ft) 0.240 -1 40 80 5.5 PVC 0.250 5,5 PVC 0.250 5.5 PVC i 0.250 PERF. CASING : Screen Slot Size 0.250 Water Located: 75, 115, 210 Remarks : 5.5 5.5 8. Filter Pack Material : Size : Interval : -- PVC PVC 10. GROUTING RECORD Material Cement Amount 30 200 ® 250 80 0.250 200 9. Packer Placement Type : Depth : Density Interval 6 sks 6 gal/sk 10-40 140 225 Placement poured 11. DISINFECTION : Type : 11TH Amt. Used : 8 oz. 12. WELL TEST DATA : () Check Box If Test Data Is Submitted On Supplemental TESTING METHOD : Air Compressor Static Level : 34 ft. Date/Time Measured 12/21/2011 Pumping Level : Total ft. DatelTime Measured 12/21/2011 Test Remarks : h d kr tl eats thercor .rind .hint they are true to my knowledge. (Pursuant to Section 24-4-1-4 (13)0) CRS, the making of false statements 13. Production Rate 2 gpm Test Length : 2 hours I have read the starc:n:nts madeherein s row .e coag. • Phone : 927-4182 constinues perjury in the secerd degree nitd is funishat.te as a class 1 rrnsdem,�tnor.) CONTRACTOR : Shelton Drilling Corp. 1ho No. 3 (970) Mailing Address : P.O. Box 1059 Basa C — 1 095 Name / Title (Please Type or Print) Sigrlatur / Date Wayne Shelton / President 1/5:2012 SCHMUESER 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 Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. (970)945-1004 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970)945-5948 FAX Well Drawdown and Recovery from Wayne Shelton M M U) M h- P- tD M M U) M M M N- M IC) co co P- P. U) P- is P- P- M P- Cl) Cl) P- N O Cl) Cl) ih Cl) CO WOMO{~MW - NCO CO CV CO Cel O c0 t• to tto CODS Is - OD ttDD COOW CO COD on Cel M'1 CO tto OO C..) CMO Mt0OCO O O O U) t r O O T O M t0 6? M O O r co r CO t0 r M r O M �" r- CO M cD CO t� P- N CD co cD U) tri N Cl) N r 0) co co tO v' �- • N of P• P- 0 Cl) 0) t0 O N- CD r M r NN NNN NN NNN 0OOO Ot-CD U7 MN *4)0-00W) N N N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0r 04M'?0 CD W ON u) 00 O 00000000000000000000000 r rrNM� Nt!) oO N N M COl) N CCl)vt COO ti COO C))O N CN) V't003 C)(0 3 to t- O Cl) OO N- N 0 CO ON tt) 0 MNN W N 00000p0 OO OO N W ONO Pr r- ml el 1.0 V.' SC -t0 to 0 CA NO 02 sr Kt OOOO 000000) O O 0)O O r r rr.-C) N N U) vt NON CD MN O 000000 U) V' i` <t O CDO -p s- r r- N +- N M r - E d 0 w N -N W WN0 N -W CO P-P•CO MM t` W OW 0000000W P -CO P -nm W r 0) 0 U) 0) U) COO U) r r O M M r *C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r O r r 0 0 4U) NODO) y h 0)cnONN� rNCD00C)0)Q)0)0)0)6RICOOOh-h co co co Cl) Cl) ' V V'v. U) to co N- O N M 07 M M M M 01 Cl) CO 'U) WN NN J r h Q F- O. Wt -Q = Zi OA a to..)..- - n. 0 to co100100001100 000000000 O O 0 O N tY CD CO 00 Qtj O U) > r r NN co co V no CD is O U) N 0 U) O U) CD � 00 O N CD OD 0) 0'" N st W 0.4 �.-(),iW r-rNM d'CO P -OE r�ON0 vr N- st 00010 W u..3 E r LLq= U ocooa co to U) u) co 10 Loco co co to h CD co co c0 10 N U) ti h ti P- N. h U) CD co co co W N (4)WW 0)M N N N N N W= O O !V a 1-200 Lt CO Q as UJ CC Nr r Ps r CD W r -P- N Nr Yr Tr N N- 0 r 0000000 r N r N N r r ill 0 T..• , O z N O W UEN0) 0) Com) 11.12.11. Ti c a DON '0 h t~ W O)r 7 NCAc0 CA eh r N CO W 0)O CD0)00 O)Nl W co OON N- Jn. f'"N O MMMMM V ve yr d'U)1n tDw WONMMMMMMMMM V y'U)ONNN W°00$i ? C a) lir)= wEw'r' Q is o =DILL. I --0i-0 Or N Cl) d" U) O P• CO O N U) 0O C00 00000s}0000000000 T- r r N co 'Q W 0) N O Wr N N M cD M d' CCO 0U N W CO O vT CD OD N M 0 e^ r r r- a-- O O E H O 0 0 r THE WELL, THEREFORE RECOVERED AT 3.51 GALLONS PER MINUTE Client Name: Well Location: Weil Depth: Pump Type: Pump Set Depth: / 49 U//' L, HP/e/A:. (7/5/ . /70-M /77/9177//7 Tele: M:1CREdatafileslworksheets1pumptestdatash eet2010.xls am Depth to Water Pumping Date Time /pm Min Ft Inches Rate Notes /,z/73/)? /l''C>" /9/T' 0 54/ r 2 ` //„ ...5- '11 1 ?»' 2 37' /" 3 Kik ° 9 -, 4 .7 ' //' 5 ii/ ' ' 6 L Jij' " 8 '7 f'' 10 G/' ' 7f' 12 , g r, 15_ 'V 7" 20 �po2 ' / ., 30 ?.4 ' 4/'i 45 ,,,,/". '. // 't'0 60 //J / 2 90 /27' 7„ 42 120 /,g, ' ,; ,. .'ir 150 /3' /" / •00 180 r,, -,V' ci r 7 210 / Feel' t' . 240 0(i' ,2 or, 300 j3 q r e" 3,' 360 Ise/ , 4; „ 11/00 /.=' �' +' " . � /:4' tr'- �(', .., /4/2/` AZ'fl"`�. /%�k' ;? .71, ./., 1.21.71.4.1/1 ,r , / . r'-' f` ,-2/l M:1CREdatafileslworksheets1pumptestdatash eet2010.xls Client Name: Well Location: Well Depth: Pump Type: Pump Set Depth: /-7;y2;')h//=r )1706// / tIRP'f.A'� 7.-71.t; • tr• ,•5tr/ Tele: M:1CR£datatiies\worksheets1pumptestdatasheet2010.xls am Depth to Water Pumping Date Time /pm Min Ft Inches Rate Notes /.04,./..9 /e/ erg /9'./P 0 77' 1 " 1 7.77' 2 224' 3 ?'?4' /' 4 7,-4. 5 : ,r,�yr" _, , 6 7,241 :. 8 ?7..' 10 72 c.' j '' 12 47r/` 3 " 15 ?7.3 / a 20 22.7 L/ "' 30 4021 7 45 Li'l II'' //: fr 60 ,'1S s./ '' 90 '2/7' (,?.;hs 120 2/i / ' 150 ;1 /c„ PA& 180 „v./ 4 w " 210 p•" ,,^:4".0 240 G2// ,..,10"/ -J ci " 300 ,)7',,04'.:4, /a :.?:(x7 360 ,-711?' b'" i0.'47 /7/I' ti j// /2'T Mk' //„ 42_'4,e1' /' i/ ' 2" /'t,, 3b.' / M:1CR£datatiies\worksheets1pumptestdatasheet2010.xls MESA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Customer 1 and M Pump, Inc 8611-117 Rd Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Mesa County Health Department Regional Laboratory 510 29.5 Rd, Grand Junction, CO 81504 US Mail: PO Box 20,000, Grand Junction, CO 81502-5033 (970) 248-6999 fox (970) 683-6608 http://health.mesacounty.us/lab Sample Invoice # 4791-11 Date Time Collected By Collected 12/27/2011 1:00 PM Rich System Ellsworth Received 12/28/2011 10:43 AM MAMM Corte Matrix Raw Water Silt CO 81652 Purpose Special Purpose Chlorine Location Well Comments Test Name Result Total coliforms PA ABSENT Coliform(ABSENT E. coli or less than one (<1), indicates a microbiologically safe sample 12/29/2011 9:20:26 AM Glenn Hartmann From: Eden Vardy and Aspen TREE [permacussion@gmail.com) 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 EXHIBIT -D 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 farming 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.aspen-tree.org "Together Regenerating the Environment through Education" 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Fielder, Adrian [afielder@coloradomtn.edu] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 3:37 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson; Fielder, Adrian Subject: appeal for our local food economy To the Planning Commission: EXHIBIT I 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 1 Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT f>" From: Dawne Vrabel [dawnevrabel©gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 3:00 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: To the Planning Commission - Please support and protect Eagle 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 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: 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. 1 Respectfully, Dawne Vrabel Roaring Fork Food Policy Council Carbondale 732.284.8477 Dawne Vrabel, HHP, AADP Food Choices, LLC 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Dylan Johns [djohns@zone4architects.com] 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 I 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, I do 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 loss 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 local 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. I 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 be! Dylan DYLAN M. JOHNS ZONE 4 ARCHITECTS 970.948.6787 www.zone4architects.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [JeffS@sgm-inc.com] Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 11:38 AM To: shirley@engdynamics.com Cc: Glenn Hartmann Subject: RE: Bedrock Resources Noise Study Attachments: Sheet 3 Redline to Howard.pdf Hi Howard, EXHIBIT 1k - 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. I 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 Principal 4 SGM 118 W Sixth St, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9005 / 970.379.4691 cell www.sgm-inc, . r t - From: Shirley McGregor[mailto:shirlev@engdynamics.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:44 PM To: Jeff Simonson Subject: Bedrock Resources Noise Study 7.3 a Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [JeffS©sgm-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 2:18 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Bedrock Resources Attachments: Air Quality information from CDPHE.pdf EXHIBIT Hi Glenn, I 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 65GM 118 W Sixth St, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9005 / 970.379.4691 cell www,5grn-inc,com t 1 STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlcopor, Governor Christopher E. Urbino, MD, MPH Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer Docketed to protecting and improving tha health and environment of mho people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Or. S. Denver, Colorado 80248-1530 Phone (303) 692.2000 Located in Glendale, Colorado M p ijehwr.cdphe.sfato.Co,uS January 20, 2012 Charles Ellsworth Frontier Paving Inc. 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Re: Permit #120A1083 Dear Applicant: Laboratory Services Division 8100 Lowry Eilvd. Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 (303) 892-3000 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment The Colorado Air Pollution Control Division has received and logged in your construction permitapplication for a hot mix asphalt plant to be operated ata location approximately 1/3 of a mile east of the Garfield County Airport on County Road 315. This hot mix asphalt plant is currently permitted at a different location under permit number 07GA0457. The permit number assigned to this equipment at the new location is 12GA1083. Your application is now ready for initial review. If you should have any questions concerning the status of your permit application, please contact me at 303.692.2285. When calling, please reference the permit number listed above. You can also research the status of your application online at http://www,cdphe,state.co.us/ap/ss/sspcpt,htmf. 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 so, we will begin our preliminary engineering analysis. If any information is missing, however, we will contact you in the near future to obtain the needed material. State law requires that the Division determine the completeness of an application within 60 days of receipt If you do not hear from the Division by 02/27/2012, you can assume that your application is complete. Sincerely, Paul Rusher Construction Permit Unit Page 1 of 1 Jeff Simonson From: Charles Ellsworth [Charles@FrontierPavinglnc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:55 AM To: Jeff Simonson; Damian Ellsworth Subject: Fw: GP03 --- 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, Il.D.1.j. at: http://www.cdphe.sta te.co. us/regulations/a i rregs/SCCR1001-5.pdf). R K "Chip" Hancock III, 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 80246-1530 303-692-31681 r.hancock@state.co.us to From: Charles Ellsworth[mailto:Charles@FrontierPavingInc.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:39 AM To: Hancock, Chip Subject: RE: GP03 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 COLOFAD )d=ated to prolechng and improving the heaftn and environment of tha people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Or. S. Denver, Colorado 60246.1530 Phone (303) 692.2060 TOO Line (393) 631-7700 Located in Glendale. Colorado httplhvwer.cdphe.state.co. us Colorado Department of Public Health andEnvirouaseat For Agency Use Only Permit Number Assigned COR03- Date Received 1 l Month Day Year COLORADO DISCHARGE PERMIT SYSTEM (CDPS) STORMWATER DISCHARGE ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES APPLICATION PHOTO COPIES, FAXED COPIES, PDF COPIES OR EMAILS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Please print or type. Original signatures are required. All items must be completed accurately and in their entirety for the application to be deemed complete. Incomplete applications will riot be processed until all information is received which will 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 mail or hand delivered to: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South WQCD-P-B2 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:flig NEW CERT 0 RENEW CERT EXISTING CERT # Applicant is: Ni Property Owner 0 Contractor/Operator A. CONTACT INFORMATION - NOT ALL CONTACT TYPES MAY APPLY * indicates required *PERMITTEE (If more than one please add additional pages) *ORGANIZATION FORMAL NAME: earkrO e Jen aO; rre0S 1) *PERMITTEE the person authorized to sign and certify the permit application. This person receives all permit correspondences and is legally responsible for compliance with the permit. Responsible Position (Title): /1) ck. Currently Held 6y (Person): C)cs t .a 1 /J rt Telephone No: vt51)i-)*- d - © ' I. L' email address ,C titl ar i e - -(5' _t,00 -i- i 2 r-a9cx.. t.1 = iv a N C, c<5.‘"71 Organization; ;Jx't°v ('c7CJ ' S t`t{,r oe S LIS . Mailing Address: /0/I) (O.c.n't:5 iV4c93i City: r`1 sta Cr..;t)-Q State: CO)0'rde0£ Zip: ' /6 'r) This form must be signed by the Permittee (listed in item 1) to be considered complete. Per Regulation 61 In all cases, it shalt be signed as follows: a) in the case of corporations, by a responsible corporate officer. For the purposes of this section, the responsible corporate officer is responsible 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 2011 2) DMR COGNIZANT OFFICIAL (i.e. authorized agent) the person 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 Division. The Division wilt transmit pre-printed reports (ie. DMR's) to this person. If more than one, please add additional pages. Same As 1) Permittee ❑ Responsible Position (Title): k11 C +;? A-42 5 (i e M �' Currently Held By (Person): C7 t ?) ; a,) E.1 J k? 1 \ Telephone No: 9 DC ~ 9 8.9 • co 7 ? email address f7'4- 11.s7 i f r1/43-k./:•11.5 ; tiC, Organization: F{.0.113 7' . ? r I�•l% . Vol L Aa C , Mailing Address: C h9 Coit 0 `h get/j.7 3 J i aty: gw •¢lam state: GOWO Zip: Per Regulation 61: All reports required by permits, and other information requested by the Division shall be signed by the permittee 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 (ii) The authorization specifies 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 local contact for questions relating to the facility & discharge authorized by this permit for the facility. ait Same As 1) Permittee Responsible Position (Title): Currently Held By (Person): Telephone No: email address Organization: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: Cc rn 4) * BILLING CONTACT if different than the permittee Responsible Position (Title): Currently Held By (Person): Telephone No: email address Organization: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: Page 2 of S revised April 2011 5) OTHER CONTACT TYPES (check below) Add pages If necessary: ResponsiblePosition (Title): i : r'%c Currently Held By (Person): t?f-' .5; :r e ra } n , f'E C Telephone No:"l7Q 3 R 9 00 email address , `�f 'S @ 5. ca p - I t11 Organization: 5t mjr e Mailing Address: 119' in% 6� r'A S*rer + r 5 City: Cr 1 e iv w c,, , " > : State: (O/O f',4d Q Zip: S"' / 60 o Pretreatment U inspection Facility Contact D Stormwater MS4 Responsible Coordinator >1K Consultant Person o Environmental Contact Q Compliance Contact 0 Stormwater Authorized o Biosolids Responsible Representative Party 0 Other o Property Owner B. Permitted Project/Facility Information Project/Facility Name 452 cd roctK. 'r . S hill e'Cu s. La -C-‘ /?'3 A,.. m *` re e.1< 5 Street Address or cross streets E� i' S :tee of -C.4. 3/S / 5o,o fret S<:Yh cif C 3 !.5 (e.g., "S. of Park St. between 5th Ave. and 10`r' Ave.", or "W. side of C.R. 21, 3.25 miles N. of Hwy 10"; A street name without an address, intersection, mile marker, or other identifying information describing the location of the project is not adequate. For linear projects, the route of the project should be described as best as ssypossible with the location more accurately indicated by a map.) 0 City, i >f 1- Zip Code 16,5 2, County C.Toc., Facility LatitudelLongltude-- (approximate center of site to nearest 15 seconds using one of following formats 001A Latitude 139'13j "30 . l3�crr Longitude)D)8'42 /33 . 21. (e.g., 39.703°. 104.933") degrees (to 3 decimal places) degrees (to 3 decimal places) or 001A Latitude " Longitude ° ' (e.g., 39'4611"N, 104'53'11"W) 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 EPA maintains a web -based siting tool as part of their Toxic Release Inventory program that uses interactive maps and aerial photography to help users get latitude and longitude. The siting tool can be accessed at www,epa.gov/tri/report/siting_tooi/index.htrn o US. Geological Survey topographical map(s), available at area map stores. o Using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit to obtain a direct reading. Note: the latitude/longitude required above is not the directional degrees, minutes, and seconds provided on a site legal description to define property boundaries. C. MAP Attachment} If no map is submitted, the permit will not be issued. 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 11x17 inches. D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Legal description: If subdivided, provide the legal description below, or indicate that it is not applicable (do not supply Township/Range/Section or metes and bounds description of site) Subdivision(s): Lot(s): Block(s): OR X Not applicable (site has not been subdivided) page 3 of 5 revised April 2011 E. AREA OF CONSTRUCTION SITE Total area of project site (acres): 3 5, ? �C Area of project site to undergo disturbance (acres): Note: aside from clearing, grading and excavation activities, disturbed areas also include areas receiving overburden (e.g., stockpiles), demolition areas, and areas with heavy equipment/vehicle traffic and storage that disturb existing vegetative cover 0 Total disturbed area of Larger Common Plan of Development or Sale, if applicable: /Vj (i.e., total, including all phases, filings, lots, and Infrastructure not covered by this application) Provide both the total area of the construction site, and the area that will undergo disturbance, in acres. Note aside from clearing, grading and excavation activities, disturbed areas also include areas receiving overburden (e.g., stockpiles), demolition areas, and areas with heavy equipment/vehicle traffic and storage that disturb existing vegetative cover (see construction activity description under the APPLICABILITY section on page 1). If the project is part of a larger common plan of development or sate (see the definition under the APPLICABILITY section on page 1), the disturbed area of the total plan must also be included. F. NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 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 be included in the Stormwater Management Plan.) Single Family Residential Development Multi -Family Residential Development Commercial Development Oil and Gas Production and/or Exploration (including pad sites and associated infrastructure) Highway/Road Development (net including roadways associated with commercial or residential development) Other — Description: A � � /^ �} Co F ^� �J' � �� �'�• (�6t �--CC S � �C)r,� S 'i!`� c .4560.1,a,/f- +u:_'4 P/4 .,* ecnd) ('alrz•�'q �A4i �: �i Es? cc / t coC Q A. �� c G () r S 4 rC7�' r,�lt 4 cs-/f4E/ oft" . � s G. ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction Start Date: e b; �� r C, 2o/ Z. Final Stabilization Date: / c v e. y i r- 3 0 2.0 r •Construction Start Date - This is the day you expect to begin ground disturbing activities, including grubbing, stockpiling, excavating, demolition, and grading activities. *Final Stabilization Dote - in terms of permit coverage, this is when the site is finally stabilized. This means that all 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 density of 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 be for the overall project. If permit coverage is still required once your part is completed, the permit certification may be transferred or reassigned to a new responsible entity(s). H. RECEIVING WATERS (If discharge is to a ditch or storm sewer, include the name of the ultimate receiving waters) Immediate Receiving Water(s): 4rnfn, Clea, (< Ultimate Receiving Water(s): C : ee/ ,, R Identify the receiving water of the stormwater from your site. Receiving waters are any waters of the State of Colorado. This includes all water courses, even if they are usually dry. If stormwater 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 not 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 a I. REQUIRED SIGNATURES (Both parts i. and ii, must be signed) Signature of Applicant: The applicant must be either the owner and/or operator of the construction site. Refer to Part B of the instructions for additional information. The application must be signed by the applicant to be considered complete. in ail caste it shall be signed as follows: (Regulation 61.4 (lei) a) In the case of corporations, by the responsible corporate officer is responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge described In the form 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, ranking elected official, (a principal executive officer has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge originates). STOP!: Strmwat a fit ` 11 .tbe !I t ret f I i • l .Ui t '_ 1- .11! W n i. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION "I certify under penalty of law that a complete Stormwater Management Plan, has been prepared for my activity. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the Stormwater Management Plan is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for falsely certifying the completion of said SWAP, inciudin ,Possibility of fine and imprisonmen for knowing violations." awl Signature of Legally Responsible Person or Authorized Agent (submission must include original signature) C A ct.rle,$ .5-)/ 51,0n ,--74,4 1i'1nJrsv° r Name (printed) i etie XX j. 16 :2c/.7- Dateligned ii. SIGNATURE OF PERMIT LEGAL CONTACT "i certify under penalty of taw that this document 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 for gathering the Information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. i am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." "I understand that submittal of this application is for coverage under the State of Colorado General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity for the entirety of the construction site/project described and applied for, until such time as the application is amended or the certi€icati n i transferred, inactivated, or expired." %� lc2n v,c,r� l6)C/ X)( { I t '- Date Signed Signature of Legally Responsible Person (submission must include original signature)) fil Name (printed Title DO NOT INCLUDE A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DO NOT INCLUDE PAYMENT — AN INVOICE WILL BE SENT AFTER THE CERTIFICATION IS ISSUED. page 5 of 5 revised April 2011 STATE OF COLORADO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor Christopher E. Urbina, MD, MPH Executive Director and Chiel Medical Officer Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303) 692-2000 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www. cdphe.state.co.us Laboratory Services Division 8100 Lowry Blvd. Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 (303) 692-3090 January 25, 2012 Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Bedrock Resources LLC 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 RE: Certification, Colorado Discharge Permit System Permit No., COR030000, Certification Number: COR031595 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Dear Mr./Ms. Ellsworth; 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 COPS 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 Mamm 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 certification); Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Phone number: 970-876-0916 Bedrock Resources ILC Email: charles@frontierpavinginc.com 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Facility Contact (contacted for general inquiries regarding the facility): Charles Ellsworth, Mgr Billing Contact (receives the invoice pertaining to the permit certification): Charles Ellsworth, Mgr 1014 County Road 311 New Castle, CO 81647 Any changes to the contacts listed above must be provided to the Division on a Change of Contact form. This form is available on the Division's website at coloradowaterpermits.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 Czahor, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (303) 692-3575. Phone number: 970-876-0916 Email: charles@frontierpavinginc.com Phone number: 970-876-0916 Email: charles@frontierpavinginc.com Sincerely, Debbie Jessop, 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 /dkj cert STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION TELEPHONE: (303) 692-3500 CERTIFICATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER COPS GENERAL PERMIT COR -0300000 STORMWATER 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 Creek 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, Silt, 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 performed at designated times. The certification holder is legally obligated to comply with all terms and conditions of the permit. Signed, Nathan Moore Construction/M54/Pretreatment Unit Manager Water Quality Control Division Page 1 of 22 BEDROCK RESOURCES LLC. 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 Last 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 primarily be 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 4000 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 will be stripped and stockpiled prior to any earthwork construction. Once the earthwork is completed, the topsoil will be placed and tracked in on 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 late for a spring planting, then it we be completed in the fall of 2012. The first 300 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 mag -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, 14-4 - Charles Ellsworth Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT i From: Lisa Dancing -Light [higheroctave@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, I am 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 (Healthy 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: 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. 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. 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, Lisa Dancing -Light Director, Higher Octave Music Mentor Programs Producer, Earthtree Records 970-963-3330 www.lisadancincilight.com www.itunes.com/lisadancing-light www.linkedin. com/pub/lisa-dancing-light "Creating a Joyful New World Through Song." 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Simonson [JeffS@sgm-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 3:34 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Charles Ellsworth; Damian Ellsworth Subject: Bedrock Noise Update Attachments: C3918-7-10-12.pdf EXHIBIT Kim Glenn, Please see the attached update letter from Howard. It appears that we can implement his suggestions with no problems. Thanks Jeff 1 July 10, 2012 Mr. Jeffrey Simonson Schmuesen, Gordon, Meyer, Inc. 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Inclusion of Rock Crusher in Bedrock Resources Frontier Paving Contractor's Yard Dear Mr. Simonson: r engineering ldynamics incorporated Page 1 of 1 (V) 970.379.4691 (Cell) 970.379.4691 JeffS(c�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 3/20/12 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 berm 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.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:10 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: asphalt plant EXHIBIT 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 i 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 rim 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 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Jason White [coldmountainstream©yahoo.com] 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 EXHIBIT Hi Glenn, Sorry this is in the 11th hour. Can you please make 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 I 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 farms 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 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Matthew Shmigelsky [mattshmigelsky@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 12:40 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tom Jankovsky; John Martin; Mike Samson Subject: Planning Commission Commissioners: EXHIBIT 1 00 Please consider the Eagle Springs Organic Farm and our local 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 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Jennifer Vanian [vanian@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 1FFEXHIB 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 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Gwen Garcelon [gwen@highlifeunlimited.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 1:30 PM To: Tamra Allen Cc: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Re: Planning Commission Thanks so much for the info Tamra - will do! EXHIBIT 1 as 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 11th 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 tallenPgarfield-county.com 970-945-8212 (office) 970-945-1377 x1630 (direct) From: Gwen Garcelon[mailto:gwen(hhighlifeunlimited.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:17 AM To: Tamra 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 i 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" <tallen©agarfield-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 11th meeting... Tamra Allen Garfield County Long Range Planner tallen@garfield-county.com 970-945-8212 (office) 970-945-1377 x1630 (direct) From: Gwen Garcelon[mailto:gwen©highlifeunlimited.com] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:51 PM 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Diane Argenzio [ddolphin@sopris.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 8:47 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Eagle Springs ORGANIC FARM EXHIBIT 1 KR 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 1