Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2.00 DD Staff Report 04.24.2019
Cottonwood Pass Pipeline Replacement Project - Exhibits Administrative Review (File PDPA-02-19-8713) Applicant is Rocky Mountain Natural Gas April 24, 2019 Exhibit Number Exhibit Description 1 Public Hearing Notice Information Form 2 Receipts from Mailing Notice & Evidence of Posting 3 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended 4 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 5 Application 6 Staff Report 7 Referral Comment — Carbondale Fire District 8 Referral Comment — Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 9 Referral Comment — Colorado Parks and Wildlife 10 Referral Comment — Garfield County Sheriff 11 Referral Comment — Mountain Cross Engineering 12 Referral Comment — Garfield County Road and Bridge 13 Referral Comment — Garfield County Vegetation Management 14 Public Comment — Rick and Mary James 15 Public Comment — Elizabeth Penfield 16 Notice Clarification — Cindy Earthman 17 Referral Comment — Garfield County Public Health 18 Public Comment — lan Carney 19 Conditions to all Pipeline Grading and Installation Permits for Garfield County Cottonwood Pipeline Replacement Project Director Determination - April 24, 2019 PW PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Land Use Change Permit for a Pipeline De PROPERTY OWNER Multiple REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION EXHIBIT ( Anna Smith — HRL Compliance, Representing Rocky Mountain Natural Gas d/b/a Black Hills Energy North of Highway 82 along County Road 100 and other private properties PIPELINE INFORMATION 6 -inch Pipeline ACCESS Highway 82, County Road 100, County Road 102, and County Road 170 ZONING Rural I. Project Overview Rocky Mountain Natural Gas (RMNG), d/b/a Black Hills Energy currently uses a 4 -inch natural gas pipeline to provide natural gas to users in the Eagle Valley area, including the Town of Eagle, the Town of Gypsum and the American Gyp -board plant. RMNG has indicated that a new 6 -inch pipeline is needed because of increased demand in the Eagle Valley region. The applicant intends to abandon the 4 -inch line in place and to maintain a 3 -foot separation between the existing and future line. The application indicates that for the vast majority of the project, the pipeline will be located in the existing easement. The installation of a pig -launcher is also anticipated in association with the project. The pipeline will be completed in phases, with this initial 4.375 mile phase being reviewed as part of this application and a subsequent 2.004 mile section to be completed in 2021 or 2022 and reviewed as part of a separate permit. The applicant has indicated that the project is proposed to be completed by November 1, 2019. Approximately 3,600 feet will be located in the CDOT ROW, 3,870 feet in CR 100 ROW, and the pipeline will cross both County Road 102 and County Road 170. The remainder of the pipeline will be located along private property, the majority of which is in a pre-existing easement. For those areas outside of the pre-existing easements the applicant has provided Surface Use Agreements that are compliant with Land Use and Development Code requirements. Construction of the pipeline varies, with the applicant proposing both trenching and boring in certain locations. The applicant has indicated that permits are also required from CDOT, Garfield County Road and Bridge, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. In association with the project, the applicant is proposing a 100 feet by 200 feet storage area on Ziska Child's property. This area will be temporarily fenced and will include a temporary construction trailer, a dumpster, port -a -johns, and a 500 gallon fueling cell. The location is not anticipated to be operational beyond November 2019. 1 Cottonwood Pipeline Replacement Project Director Determination - April 24, 2019 PW The lines will be pressure tested prior to use and the applicant has provided staff with an emergency operations plan. Map Excerpt : ower.. Ammo t 0 2,5505.100 10,200 15.300 20,400 Feet raVT craw 11/2/111 IPIPROMS r MK. MGR 11. Site Description The approximately 4.375 mile pipeline will be located partially within County Road and CDOT right-of-way. Where not located in these ROW's the pipeline follows a previously disturbed ROW area that includes an old wagon trail, and agricultural fields. One portion of the pipeline will be re- routed, in an area that has largely been used for agriculture. 111. Zoning and Adjacent Uses The pipeline will be located in areas of the County zoned Rural, and a very small piece of Planned Unit Development. The Planned Unit Development Zoning is the Open Space District of Stirling Ranch PUD. The Plat for the Subdivision includes a reference to the existing pipeline and the pipeline has historically been located in this location in the existing right-of-way. Additionally the PUD Guide has the following Provision: 2. Conflict The provisions of the Zone Regulations shall prevail and govern the development of Stirling Ranch PUD; provided, however, where the provisions of the 2 Cottonwood Pipeline Replacement Project Director Determination - April 24, 2019 PW Stirling Ranch Mesa PUD Zone Regulations do not clearly address a specific subject, the provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, or regulations of Garfield County shall prevail. It is Staff's opinion that because a pipeline is not specifically addressed in the PUD and because the Right -of -Way will not be changing on the parcel, an approval may be issued for a Pipeline in this PUD zone district. IV. Referral and Public Comments Public Notice was provided for the Administrative Application in accordance with the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013, as amended. Notice included mailing to property owners within 200 feet of the pipeline alignment. Comments from referral agencies and County Department are summarized below and attached as exhibits. Three Public Comments were received. One was supportive of the application and the other two identified a number of issues. One member of the public's questions were largely targeted towards Road and Bridge concerns. The other had issues with reclamation and disturbance on their property. Both public comments have been attached in their entirety as exhibits to this Staff Report. Carbondale Fire District (Exhibit 7) - No issues identified Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (Exhibit 8) - Identified issues regarding oil and gas facilities that need to comply with Federal and State rules and regulations - Recommended that the applicant account for any source water protection planning areas Colorado Parks and Wildlife (Exhibit 9) - Did not identify any issues with the initial phase of the project Garfield County Sheriff (Exhibit 10) - Indicated no issues as long as adequate traffic controls are in place Mountain Cross Engineering (Exhibit 11) - The applicant should provide complete permits to the County - The applicant needs to address issues with the pipeline cross section - A separate permit should be required for the second phase of the project - The applicant should identify if there are any wetlands within the project and provide mapping of wetlands delineation The applicant should identify any wetland and stream crossing that are to be bored in the plan sheets The results of the noxious weed inventory should be provided to Garfield County Garfield County Road and Bridge (Exhibit 12) - No issues were identified with the application Garfield County Vegetation Management (Exhibit 13) - The noxious weed plan and revegetation plan is acceptable 3 Cottonwood Pipeline Replacement Project Director Determination - April 24, 2019 PW - The applicant should provide a revegetation security - Vegetation Management was comfortable with Ziska Childs request that the applicant not revegetate her property - Identified Harrington beardtongue issues that should be addressed V. Review and Approval Criteria An application for a pipeline shall be approved, conditionally approved, or denied in accordance with the following standards and criteria as required by Section 9-104 of the Land Use and Development Code. Located Along Perimeters. As a general guide, rights-of-way and any associated facilities shall be located along the perimeters of surface property ownerships and not within areas of agricultural crop production. Non -perimeter locations will be acceptable if the surface owner agrees and there is no adverse impact on adjacent properties. Staff Analysis: The proposed alignment is located along the County Road right-of-way, CDOT right-of-way, and a variety of private properties. The easements were originally obtained, over 50 years ago, prior to a number of subdivisions and development in the area. As such, while some pipeline facilities are not located on the perimeter of certain properties, it is located in historic easements where a pipeline is already installed. These easement locations and agreements were encumbrances on the property when purchased by the current owners. The Land Use and Development Code requires that rights-of-way are located along the perimeters of properties as a general guide, however RMNG already has the ability to install and maintain a pipeline in the existing easement locations. In the areas where the pipeline is re-routed, the applicant has provided Memorandums of Surface Use Agreements that demonstrate the location is acceptable to the surface owner's. Additionally, the new pipeline routes, outside of the original ROW, were chosen to avoid impacts to agricultural activities and to be located in already disturbed areas. Noise Abatement. 1. Any equipment used in construction or operation of a pipeline must comply with either the COGCC Rules and Regulations in regards to noise abatement or C.R.S. Article 12 of Title 25, as appropriate for the type of pipeline. 2. All power sources used in pipeline operations shall have electric motors or muffled internal combustion engines. Staff Analysis: No significant noise generating equipment is anticipated in the operation of the pipeline. The compressor that creates the pressure for the pipeline is located south of Carbondale. The operation of the pipeline will be required to comply with state noise requirements. 4 Cottonwood Pipeline Replacement Project Director Determination - April 24, 2019 PW Visual Impact. Pipeline operations shall be located in a manner to minimize their visual impact and disturbance of the land surface. Staff Analysis: The vast majority of the pipeline will be located in an already disturbed easement or along a CDOT or Garfield County Road and Bridge right-of-way. The pipeline will be located underground, with the addition of a pig launcher being the main above ground infrastructure being added. This piece of equipment will be located near Highway 82. Other than the pig launcher, above ground appurtenances will only be installed to replace existing infrastructure. The applicant has provided a plan for revegetation and will be required to submit a bond to secure required reclamation. Additionally the applicant has proposed numerous bores along the pipeline alignment. This will limit surface disturbance in those areas. Access Points to Public Roads. Access points to public roads shall be reviewed by the County Road and Bridge Department. All access and oversize or overweight vehicle permits must be obtained from the County Road and Bridge Department prior to beginning operation. All proposed transportation rights-of-way to the site shall also be reviewed and approved by the County Road and Bridge Department to minimize traffic hazards and adverse impacts on public roadways. Existing roads shall be used to minimize land disturbance unless traffic safety, visual or noise concerns, or other adverse surface impacts clearly dictate otherwise. Any new roads created as a result of the pipeline construction, intended to be permanent for maintenance and repair operations, shall be placed behind a locked gate or other barriers, preventing use by Recreational Vehicles. Any gates or barriers need to be consistent with the surface owner's preferences. Staff Analysis: The applicant has already obtained permits to work in the County Road Right of Way. Further, Road and Bridge provided a referral comment indicating that they had no issues with the project. No new access roadways are proposed and the applicant will be providing limited fencing around the storage area. Compliance with Road and Bridge requirements including construction access, utility permits (for use of existing culverts for roadway crossings) and any Oversize/Overweight or traffic control permits shall be required. No new access roadways are proposed. Air Contaminant Emissions. Air contaminant emissions shall be in compliance with the applicable permit and control provisions of the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act, C.R.S., Title 25, Article 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant provided the following in the application regarding Air Quality: 5 Cottonwood Pipeline Replacement Project Director Determination - April 24, 2019 PW Per Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) Regulation 3, Part A, Subpart ll. D.1. j., an exemption is made for certain land development applications. The exemption from permitting and air pollutant emission notices (APEN) is stated as follows: "Disturbance of surface areas for purposes of land development, that do not exceed twenty-five contiguous acres and that do not exceed six months in duration. (This does not include mining operations or disturbance of contaminated soil)." Therefore, since the pipeline replacement work activities will not exceed 25 contiguous acres of disturbance and no area of disturbance will remain open for greater than 6 months in duration, this project meets the exemption listed in Regulation 3. The application was referred to the CDPHE contact for Air Pollution and no indication was given that further permitting would be required. The application was also reviewed by Garfield County Public Health who stated, "While it appears installation of the pipeline will not require a construction permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division, precautions should be taken to reduce fugitive dust emissions." Water Quality Control Standards. All operations shall comply with all applicable CDPHE Water Quality Control Standards. Staff Analysis: A referral request was sent to the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division and no response was received. The LUDC allows for the lack of a timely response to be interpreted as no comment. The applicant has applied for and received a CDPHE Permit under CDPS General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities. This addresses requirements for CDPHE Water Quality Control Standards. No live streams or floodplain areas were identified as part of the submittal. Additionally, the applicant indicated that no wetlands were located within the proposed disturbance area. No drinking water protection areas were identified in the application. Reclamation Plan. The proposed Reclamation Plan shall provide for a reasonable reclamation schedule in light of the specific surface use and surrounding land uses, and may require recontouring and revegetation of the surface to pre -disturbance conditions. The Director may also approve a plan for an alternative post -disturbance reclamation, provided the surface owner and the Applicant agree. Staff Analysis: A detailed revegetation plan was submitted by the applicant. The plan was reviewed by Garfield County Vegetation Management who did not identify any issues. The applicant did provide an alternative plan for the reclamation of the storage area on Ziska Childs property. Mrs. Childs provided a letter requesting that the applicant not be required to reclaim the storage area as she had different plans for that portion of the property. This request was reviewed by Garfield County Vegetation Management, who responded that he did not have any issues with this request. A bond is being requested by Vegetation Management. 6 Cottonwood Pipeline Replacement Project Director Determination - April 24, 2019 PW Removal of Abandoned Pipeline. Should an abandoned pipeline be removed, it will be subject to the original revegetation and weed management requirements in the original application. Staff Analysis: The applicant is not proposing to remove the existing pipeline, rather they will abandon it in place pursuant to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas requirements. No permits were found for the original pipeline. If the proposed pipeline is removed in the future, it will be subject to the original revegetation and weed management requirements in the original application. VI. Additional Staff Analysis Sensitive Area Survey The Land Use and Development Code requires that the applicant supply a Sensitive Area Survey except in previously -disturbed corridors or rights-of-way. The applicant provided a desktop analysis that looked at listed species, critical habitat, wetlands, and wildlife distributions along the entire pipeline route. The review found that there are some wildlife populations in the proposed pipeline area, including a portion being severe winter range for elk and mule deer. The applicant indicated that there should be no effect as the pipeline will be constructed before these areas are important for wildlife use. The applicant indicated that RMNG and Contractor's will plate over or fence the perimeter of any trench not filled in at the end of the work day. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that they will be conducting Migratory Bird Treaty Act surveys and monitoring within and adjacent to the pipeline ROW during construction. The application was reviewed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) who indicated that the proposal was located in an already disturbed areas where increased human activity will have limited affect to wildlife. CPW did indicate that they would like to review future phases as wildlife impacts may vary. Emergency Response Plan The requirement for an Emergency Response Plan in Section 9-102(M) requires that, "The plan shall include a provision for the operator to reimburse the appropriate emergency service provider for costs incurred in connection with emergency response for the Operator's activities on the site." This item was not found in the Emergency Response Plan and should be included as a Condition of Approval. Conditions to all Pipeline Permits The application was reviewed by the Garfield County designated engineer who indicated that the applicant should ensure that the installation of the pipeline should comply with the County document, "Conditions to all Pipeline Grading and Installation Permits for Garfield County". Because this is a County policy, Staff has included a suggested Condition of Approval that the applicant comply with these requirements, or discuss deviations with the Garfield County designated engineer. Authorizations 7 Cottonwood Pipeline Replacement Project Director Determination - April 24, 2019 PW The applicant has submitted a letter from RMNG's Attorney indicating that the previously recorded easements give the applicant the ability to access, install, and maintain the pipeline within the existing ROW. The applicant also submitted required easements and surface use agreements. This was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and no issues were identified. The Land Use and Development Code does require that the applicant provide a statement that it will comply with the terms and conditions of any applicable authorization instrument. Staff has included that requirement as a suggested Condition of Approval. Staff has received a public comment indicating concerns with RMNG's use of an existing easement on the citizen's property. The Land Use and Development Code allows for an easement to be used as an authorization for the Pipeline Application and does not limit how or when the work can take place, unless it is spelled out in a particular easement or Surface Use Agreement. As stated previously, the Code does require a statement from the applicant indicating that they will comply with any terms of an easement. This requirement has been included as a suggested Condition of Approval. VII. SUMMARY OF REVIEW AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION The proposed natural gas pipeline has been reviewed pursuant to the criteria in Article 9 of the 2013 Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Staff recommends that the Director issue a determination of Approval for the Cottonwood Pass Pipeline Replacement Project with the following findings and conditions of approval: Proposed Findings 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the Pipeline Land Use Change Permit. 2. That with the adoption of conditions, the application is in general conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as amended. 3. That with the adoption of conditions the application has adequately met the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. Proposed Conditions of Approval 1. All representations made in the submittal materials and other documentation provided shall be considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by this decision. 2. The operation and installation of the pipeline shall be operated in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility. Prior to the Issuance of the Pipeline Development Permit 3. Prior to the issuance of the Pipeline Development Permit, the Applicant shall provide the County with a revegetation bond as required by Garfield County Vegetation Management. The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan, as amended. 8 Cottonwood Pipeline Replacement Project Director Determination - April 24, 2019 PW 4. Prior to the issuance of the Pipeline Development Permit, the Applicant shall provide a statement as required by Section 9-102(E)(2)(c)(3) of the Land Use and Development Code regarding compliance with the terms and conditions of applicable deeds, easements, or surface use agreements. 5. Prior to the issuance of the Pipeline Development Permit, the applicant shall update the Emergency Response Plan to meet the requirements in Section 9-102 (N) of the Land Use and Development Code regarding the reimbursement of emergency service providers. Other Conditions 6. The applicant shall address potential Harrington beardtongue issues as identified in Vegetation Management's Referral Comment, provided as Exhibit 13. 7. The applicant shall forward the weed management inventory and the post -construction treatment records of county listed noxious weeds to Vegetation Management as required by that department. 8. Installation of the pipeline shall comply with the "Conditions to all Pipeline Grading and Installation Permits for Garfield County" (Exhibit 19). Deviations from these requirements shall be permitted provided that they are approved by the Garfield County designated engineer and Garfield County Community Development. 9. The applicant shall comply with all State and County noise requirements. 10. The applicant shall comply with all Garfield County Road and Bridge requirements. 11. Once the construction of the pipeline is complete the applicant shall submit a statement from a qualified professional engineer certifying the completion of the project in compliance with the Land Use Change Permit. A digital copy of the surveyed pipeline as -built will be provided to the Community Development Department. 12. Should the pipeline be abandoned and removed, it shall be subject to the original revegetation and weed management requirements in the application. 13. This Pipeline Development Permit only permits the first phase of the pipeline as indicated in the application. 9 Garfield County PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION 1 EXHIBIT Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. N-7 Mailed notice was completed on the day of , 20\cj �a- All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. 0 My application required Published notice. Notice was published on the day of , 20_. ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. My application required Posting of Notice. Notice was posted on the —?day of 4'`�� ��. , 201; Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public. I testify that the above information is true and accurate. Name: `� iaK »tel Signature: Date: ASPEN a `CO E1611 iT Certified Mall Fee .51:i ra Services & ees (check box, add feetaep mafIate) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ $11.1111 ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ ❑ Adult Signature Required $--$41.1-a-1)0 ❑ Mutt Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage SO .55 Total Postage and Fess c $ S To Street pt. Ci , State, ZIP+ 50 VAR 2f t2Tk9 Here ... LCI JUNc-rloa 03/25/201 9 U.S. Postai °Service" CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail aril CARBOit>C•ALE« CO 8162 ' Certified Mail Fee ExtraServices & Fees (check box, add fee .app•<� --') ST ppf 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ fl Return Receipt (electronic) $ n Postmark ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ _ _ _ - f Hefe 0 Adult Signature Required $ + I t 1 1! Wal 2 5 7 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ lMW 0501 Postage $0.55 Total Postage and Fees $ $.6 .8 .mac.:` , -,y Sent To ‘')`(6'_ Use ,Strest dApt. o., orPbsox 'S ("�w Ci• Stat:, ZIP+4® PSF.orrf 3800A•ril2015 7530-D2-00 l9047 r•"`" everrsef0 5° tNYSC U.S. Postal Service° CERTIFIED MAIL°'RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only ;;- For delivery information, visit our website at %ww usps.corrfw. HI NS&ALE I L 60521 Certified Mail Fee .+� cr, Extra Services & Fees (check bo ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Adult Signature Required ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery dd fee r'pmfviate) $ !:ir $;�.la $ $— SO.1iE;- $ Postage Total Postage and Fees $ Se , c. Striae n(dApt No.,1 ' 'b� N MAR 2 Lail Hare i't(f70k4 3i'25/2019 %ty StVP 0 rR m 1830 0001 rR O r - Domestic Mail Only �elive1, CARDONDALEe CO 623 EXHIBIT 2 Certified Mail Fee $ o J " 50 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee a �pp l ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ $ I) . y.1. ;:-. ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ if I I . [Ili, (� ,-, ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ $ r 1,_y , —Q 2 Here 0 Adult Signature Required $ ` ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ $ 0 . - 0 {.0 7E OFp 05111 Postage $ $0.55 Total Postage and Fees $6.8'5 06/25/2019 L r�e ;�eA�a LC icy fate. fP c^6 Rod arse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL°RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only r- rR m 7018 1830 0001 or delivery inform. tt• n, t<•' hi it- .t rr :artified Mail Fee $7.50 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add feet app El Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ L ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ _ -r-- 1 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ Adult Signature Required $ $0.00 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ 0 5i OFF' 50 11 ',stage $0.55 Total Postage and ees , Sant To 3tzet n Ap a_ rE+'ty tate, Zi +a'° 002-000-9047 No., r e�ox- hfo. l \ -'� i� " .S. Postal Service" CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mad Only . f .„ . C*RE:t'tis f}iL EP CO 81673 Certified Mail Fee Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ _ 41 ' ❑ Adult Signature Required $ _ ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ S ' rir� FA., !1 11 Postage Total Postage and Fees $_.8 $ R 25 29stmatk Here Ld m c-fo -. 03/25/201 9 To C S to ZIP $ orm 3..'• 0 ' • fl 20 5 PSN 7530-02-000-904'7 81623 See Reverse fOr instructions;` 3758 1524 rR D D m E0 D N co .fl r-9 U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only yif.ri ation, vis. . r e s 1 1 • C ARBONDALE CO 8162,3 Certified Mail Fee 3.50 $ 81:1 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee rip te) 0 Return Receipt (harcicopy) O Return Receipt (electronic) $ 110 0 Certified Mali Restricted Delivery $ 0 Adult Signature Required $ 0 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0.55 Total Postage and Fein $6.85 OST 0:401 "50 • vo .2019 ,/,tINg-y10 'tett nvg0.0V°.meat LLQ -.sst and pt. No., or I? )- - --- - 'CS -1 'Ida] Ci L'2 CERTIFIED MAJL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only . For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.6 CARBONDALE CO 81623 Certified Mali Fee rti Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee s'211 ate) 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) M$ 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ 0 0 Adult Signature Required $ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0 . 55 $ Total Postage and Fees Po strna MAR 2 5119 Sent Ttfl Street and pt.. -10., or P Cit2 yikkote, (144. LLC 6, C s.-023 0 -"- C ARBON:DALE t CO 81623 Certified Mail Fee $3.50 m $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee phate) 1-1 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) 1=1 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ D Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ D 0 Adult Signature Required $ 0 Aduit Signature Restricted Delivery $ $ 1-11-1 C3 Postage m ED $ $ rR Total Postage and Fees $6.85 E CD N $ 0 't‘C' {_.) • - 0 _ ,..+_11 9 Sen To Street an 1,4 cWic, t0 ,csAlc, t Nor Box N tate .211:446 Lislc_ctle ITLfl" rR ED m rR D D D m rR rR r- rz) r- r - 1 -9 Lir) r-9 0001 3758 U.S. Postal Service" CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery infortnation, visit our website at www.usps.com CAR8ONDALE CO 8162 Certified Mail Fee $ 3 .50 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add feerpplamiere) 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ . nn 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ 1:11) Adult Signature Required $ — % Aduit Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $0 .55 Total Postage and Fe$, $6.85 "istia 101/4- 2 Here Sent Street bify 171c?, OBox o. Q_d LOA) fT:441c. s L0)3 -4-4.1CTO 03/25/2019 U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com C AR8ONDALE CO 81623 Certified Mail Fee 1,7 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee O Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ O Adult Signature Required 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery C:1 Postage m VD. 55 c0 Total Postage and Fees co Sent 1-9 D Sire r - h. filo ail 67,15(Teilactic, co Fstu23 rR m •"" • •‘• • • •• E KI49 72727 Certified Mail Fee- $:11 F7 C151)1 r— $ c m Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee p, Aiate) 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) r-1 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ $fl.Pgi Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ 00 0 Aduit Signature Required. C:1$ TIJEF"" 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage 7018 1830 Total Postage and Fees $ $6.85 Se o )130, 'Street and Apt. tic r P0 No lea - ru .J3 r1 N m rR 1=1 C:3 m 113 rR N m rg -0 N Trl 7018 1830 0001 U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com0° C:ARBOND. LE, CO 81623 Certified Mail Fee $3.50 %?(.)5 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee alipiveAgate),...'\'' 50 o Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ f11) D Return Receipt (electronic) $ t 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ itlf D Adult Signature Required 0 Adult Signature nestricied Delivery $ $ • LI 0 Postage $0.55 Total Postage and Fees $6.E5 VANI 2 5D0144 Here 03/ 25/2019 o,Qr 15671(5- V.-CY • For delivery information. visit our website at www,usps.com''", CARBONDALE? CO 81623 -OS Certified Mat Fee . Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee tatoplUtliate) 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ - 0 I) o Return Receipt (electronic) $ Ci 0 Certified Mat Restricted Delivery $ 0 Adutt Signature Required rri Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ -- • - Postage $0.55 Total Postage and Fees 36.85 To 1 SForni30Q0, April 3015 pSti.53o-e2-000-„4047,,. 0501 „ 50 AR 2 5 2°19 Postmark Here (-)Aff.—TlOV 07'1/25/ 2019 See Reverse &Sr &fistula/ fls CARBONDALE? CO 81623 Certified Mail Fee $3$ .50 Extra Services & Fees (check/sox, add fax tapprlit ere) 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ $i:i_tli) 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ - -, 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ 0 Adult Signature Required $ w $11.0n ['Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ - • Postage $ $0.55 0501 L2 Postmark Total Postage and Fees $ $6.85 funic:c ti19 SebQ\ Sire qt P) ilTiPC3j1)1A 111(ja 02j att. 0. State. ZIP+4 PS Form 3800, Aprli 2015psn ..44. e 000 foryustructi S 102_3 m g:0 rR 1:13 N 1_11 m -D v-9 m rR 1=3 I71 rR 1-9 123 IJ-' 'Ji For delivery information, visit aur website at www usps.corn . U.S. Postai ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information. visit our website at www.usps.com. CARBONDALE? CO 81623 Certified Mail Fee $3.50 " • Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee seterip _' 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ El Return Receipt (electronic) $ Q lat 0 Certified Mall Restricted °silver), $ 01.4 Adult Signature Required sn,nn 0 Adrift Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage $ $0.55 Total Postage and Fees $ $6.85 ?0Sr6 0501 50 Postmark 25 20/fiere • (CrP1 • ...',..125/2019 Sent 7" atreet igc.)1..ocsa.9.17-txs.\-. _°126, J(.44 Ire Z!P+4IJCSik 2_3 PS Form 3800, April 2015 FON 7530-0.000-K147 , ee Reverse for Instructions Postai ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com . CARBONDALE? CO 31623 Certified Mail Fee Extra Services & eas (check box, add fee apprikbebte 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ D CerOf ied Mail Restricted Delivery $ r O Adult Signature Required 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Ci Postage $3.50 Total Postage and Fees $6.85 °PArl.',01 50 Sent To cnft Street ancAp o., or 15.3 Po „tu'i bty tate, ZIP+4' t _ . 1 $ Forr8.3800, APril 2015 FAN 7530-02,-000-90t7 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. Postal Service' 1 CERTIFIED MAIL® RE Domestic Mall OnI 0001 3761 C3 m El] rR c13 rq 1L1 N CARBONDALE? CO 81623 Certified Mall Fee $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee O Return Receipt (hardcopy) O Return Receipt (electronic) $ SO ;CO O Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ $1-.1 O Adult Signature Required El Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ I$ Postage $3.50 $0.55 Total Postage and Fees $6.85 Sent To Y s -V VA c%Thile.-1(5cAl -.Street ariApt No or "0- ox U011S fN) 'CO L(.4)110.)(, C 1- 0 Fp 0501 50 rtOostrnark Here 1.17 / / 2019 everse for Instructions U) 11:3 r9 c0 rR I=1 For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com C ARe,ONDALE CO814,23 Potts -ie. U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) rie Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee CZI (Endorsement Required) r1 U1 D $ Total Postage & Fees 0501 50 2:C; eark Here 07/25/2019 .. . „... i‘‘1\C Q...(VQ4N State, ZIP+4 L3 -nlAommr,Ftir/Ifts:vt . s er -D M rR CARBONDALE, CO 1623 .J3 r- ,-9 D D D 1-9 1=0 SenoD (.\ p- Street and 3kli91:111)-kBat;-4-P iujjd J.00 IP ittl) Certified Mail Fee $3.50 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee apprtydritate) 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $$i)ijj- 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ $ 1 .4)0 D Certified Mari Restricted Delivery $ $:j !lir o Adutt Signature Required $ f.; 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ • Postage $ $0 . Total Postage and Fees $6.85 rR rm- rR mr- 1-9 D D D D r-9 1-9 D N • oF4501 r -yr 261) )2..411 --iirtffied Mail Fee , -T Or,c. 0501 $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee rbepp- D Retum Receipt (hardcopy) $ 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ $ 0 ,.., mad5 1.7] Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ $ ij . fije_____ to n ,,,S Here - -] Adult Signature Required . 0 0 ] Aduft Signature Restricted Delivery $ 'netage .mtal Postage and Fees , 25 $0.55 To • As t:Y;!.-:0AS a _ _dliwit,_._ Sir'eet and ' • o. n _\ Ibt 11,. ki\o. Say, ate, t‘a.+4l.Q. • C Q1' ) ,,,,4,1,11••••::;••J-...',.:,, ...,..,:-..:, - • . • '":"'•,'•':',..A.F,;'?....q'-'..":,,,....:,"1.tlillig••6•'••M":;•ir' 03/ 2 .2)1 ... 0001 3761 3652 D m r-9 rEl D -U -a r-9 N m D r-1 D m r-9 I:0 rR N E3 D IT' -13 1-9 D D D rn 1=0 rR 1-9 U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For ilelivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com'. CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Certified Mall Fee Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee a) 7 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ 0 Certified Mali Restricted Delivery $ Adult Signature Required $ 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery 0 Postage Total Postage and Fees $6.85 $0.55 0 F 0501 50 ^SVostmark \ - 4,3 Here m -R105/ 2019 e treat ancrAjit No oi:156 'CV lath, CAR '.:(iNf):4LE 81 /323 Certified Mail Fee $3.5C Extra Services & Fees (check box, add feu fiakopfeWate) 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ 0 Return Receipt (electronic) $ C! D Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ D Adult Signature Required n nn 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ $ - • - - Postage $ $0.55 Total Postage and Fees $6.85 $ Sen Street a d Apt P4a,, or ox IrceN .ieo fate, IP, • • ertified Mali Fee $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee 0 Return Receipt (hardcopy) HcFloet,iiimmedRemcaellip81.8(eloni) te:tctreciocdvery $ $1.:+750 0 Adult Signature Required D Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ u• tit't • evv. 0501 Postmark Here Cr; Postage Total Postage and Fees $ $6.85 t -LLP or Box o. Eci: p02 - City 6+6(40,, postage PI P- 1-9 rR _.0 N m rR O II D m 1:0 rR E0 r-1 D 1'- rR �n N m rR ..n N r -a D m rR D N U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our Website at www,uSps,com CARBONDALE! CQ 81623 Certified Mail Fee $3.50 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee tea=tel e, ❑Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ $t!I . i(0 MAR 24419 ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ $ { # ) t ff ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ y. ❑ Adult Signature Required $ a� El Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ $1 1.1 11 1 iS,llft Here Total Postage and Fees L wvcriolA 03/25/2019 Sent T,o� SJ__ikY L Street enc{ f No ,or1' $tate 9rp÷ -t Sa['‹ CAW- DALE? CO 81623 Certified Mail Fee $3.`0 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee aeprMhate) © Return Receipt thardcoPY) $ $0.-c ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ f ] t [.Adult Signature Required $ e nr r El Adult Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Y Postage L' r Total Postage and Fees $6.85 �S°5�<_C'h_�1(ci Streej and ppt. No., or PO B No. » 'A (x) 7402-; ,Ai>k 2 't`sl11 FF.ET Postmark S�igA19 rI •-n Certified Mail Fee m r- CARE0NDALE Cti 81623 rR D D D D 1:0 m ICQ rI r-1 N Extra Services & Fees (check box, add teeepp .gsMpnate) El Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ 0 _ l (. t .' O F F ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ $ 0 , 0.-..i . , ,'-"— Postmark ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ I I -ft • f' Here ❑ Adult Signature Required$ I ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ ' ( 0(�®` Postage $0.55 Total Postage and Fees $ r Set�oAYt \ ^ Street and No., or i'D t#ox No. Sate,ZIP+4® C L L ►t fitQo PS Form 3800. API 2015!'Sly `. o -Y Cil rlu N m 1-1 m r -i D iraD D m rR r1 D N U.S. Postal Service"' CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com . SAVANNAH! GA 31411 Certified Mail Fee $ $,50 k«7 G7�t� Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee ri58peypnate) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ $1 1 00 ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ $ I t + ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ ❑Adult Signature Required ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Del ivory $ 0 + ri O Postage $ 80.55 Total Postage and Fees $6.85 $ Sent 0501 se c',. stmark a�� Here V O� 03/25/2019 Street 1� c Q f 4j i_� __ Rc.�Ac a±h_ i- clApt Ara., o Pb,ox Afo. /nand Rift ft r t3� C State Z(P+4 RS Fortis'saps, Apra 2015 Pse 7%0.02-000-9097 ( l See Reverse for Instructions postal Service' t WIED MAIL® RECEIPT.. e$, ac ki.011QnlY :. . elivery'information, visit our website at www.tiisps. . r-1 :ARBUNQALE: CO1623 "n Jertified Mail Fee Extra Services & Fees (check box, add foe ,-9 ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ _ D L] Return Receipt (electronic) $ --$E1—.4".:i4:4--3-7 $+ }_--7 1I ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ D D m rl ❑ Adult Signature Required $ 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ T—• Postage $ $.0. 55 Total Postage and Fees 143 r -R D r N Si ee $ 7 .8'f V\_ o., or PO $ox rty, State iP+4o 11.)1( OLU, 05► Opi,=01 � k 2,°1r4, Domestic Mail Only livery information, visit our website at www.0 BASALT! CO 81621 Certified Mail Fee $ $3.0 Extra Services & Fees (check box, add feeapse) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ ___ ll . 00 ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ $11,01i ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ - ❑Adult Signature Required $ __ $ - (-; l ['Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ $(l • f''-` Postage $(i.55 otal Postage and Fees $ $6.85 r- S tTo N tre an t. No , or box'IUo. rate. i4� 51' Q1Pfli 50' OtR ,443fep19 • .raC\.-"\ 01r/25/2n19 0510 0001 1786 1833 r -i D N .a tJ rR N r -i 0510 0001 rR D D- r -q cCI N r q 7014 0510 0001 U.S. Postal ServiceTr:, CERTIFIED MAILTr:, RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com,,, CAR D ?DALE,. CO; 16'Z Poostgb`'� Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) $0.� Total Postage & Fees tTo gid.?.Y�S���.?�. or PO ` L\(1 or PO Box No-. ' �-tJ � tat: ZIP+4 �Il�Z3 0501 OE,Cit Postmark Nem 0252p19 0/3/25/.. ,IJ jci PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for instructions U.S. Postal ServiceTr., CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com,, CA Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees $6..35 Street, Apt. No.; / or PO Box No. ,3,o�0( C Sant 0501 05,T OFF Postmark Here ���25�419 PS Form 3800, August 2 CARREONDALEf Por�tsge Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) $Q. Total Postage & Fees 0501 =n Sent T 46.';5. J C�,� Street, Apt. No.; �'1ln or PO Box No. ICU] TW 4�Si.� ). ._.,_�X City, , e't i I fid, 25.2019 ..n ru ca ra -D a0 N T-1 D 0 tri D ra C7 N 7014 0510 0001 1786 U.S. Postal ServiceTr., CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com. TX 7 Poitige• 1s Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) $1i. Total Postage & Fees 0501 •vosi Op Postmark MAR25 109 Sent Street Apt. No.� �� �, O& or PO Box No. Q r State, ZJP+4 See Reverse for Instructions U.S. . Posta Service,. CERTIFIED CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.com;; CAR$ONDALE.f Ca 8162 Pates 14 $'2.80' Certified Fee $ I , Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) 50. Total Postage & Fes Sent To �n S Street, t. No.; t or PO Box No.34)":„;-,)��, p PNL L( G1hr State Z1P+4 O f=/tOZ,� 1 OU PS Forel 3800, August 2006 . �flfii�i�F a-1,7; mA14fr'2019 . 03/ 2._,Sgt i1'-! See Reverse for Instructions' . .Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAILTr,, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information Visit our website at www:usps.comE, CAR: !IvDALEf . Cb $1628 Porte Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) $il, Total Postage & Fees 0501, R 25 27o9stmark Here , L 03/25.2019 Se To ' ®or PO`l. /A r .,..._--..___. Box No. , �' or PO l,l. i p6 w6. Gi., State ZIP+4 ugust,:0006 51LO-3 See Reverse for instructions U.S. Postal ServiceTM CERTIFIED MAILTM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our webalte at www.uspe.coma CA0014041E,, LE, co 8143 Pc Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) $0. Total Postage & Foes 36 R5 $0.00 05,01 /Postmark f 0312ilQ19' Sgnt 7o Sliest, Ap. ` No.;. si 10- or PO ras No. .0.6 -.__.\ City, St , ZIP+4 v 'ti2.Al_, i.�" �1 Y K e f PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse for Instructions Patrick Waller From: Cindy Earthman <cindyearthman@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:47 PM To: Anna Smith Cc: Patrick Waller Subject: Re: Public Notice for RMNG Pipeline Replacement Project Anna, we do not receive any mail at 180 Buck Point Road in Carbondale, CO 81623. There is no physical mailbox at this location. All mail should be sent to 6808 Driftwood Lane, Galveston, TX 77551. Thanks for your assistance with this matter. Cynthia Wolma Earthman 409 771-3505 cell On Mar 29, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Anna Smith <asmith@hrlcomp.com> wrote: Hello Mrs. Earthman, As a follow-up to the Public Notice I had mailed to your address in Galveston TX, could you reply back to this email confirming you received the mailed public notice and that you get no mail due to the fact that there is no physical mailbox at your property located at 180 Buck Point Road in Carbondale CO 81623? Copied on this email is Patrick Waller with the Garfield County Community Development Department. They need to see your email in order to confirm the information I provided above is correct. Please feel free to contact me on my cell at (970) 623-1242 with any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Anna Anna Smith 1 Environmental Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road 1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 main 970.243.3271 Ex.417 1 mobile 970.623.1242 Web 1 vCard 1 Map 1 g l q <image001.jpg> Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments are confidential and only for the use as authorized by HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information. Permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments or copies. 1 0 1,000 2,000 v Feet .11 I i , I.Tt 1,- D 1 2 O Miles 1 Public Notice Sign Locations Map Cottonwood Pass Black lila Energy Garfield County Legend SIE Public Notice Sign " ,' 6" Transmission Pipeline x: Tni..�or..�m.uo�.�a in�ce�ar.vnm e e�W nor mirndM io Rv�'r mnaibiliO renvri:EV T' oir li, asiruroerMr nMir.�mit P,bm3.,� .r, 4 ��� a . of unk:y;nu aaA' HAL „COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS Author: A. Asay Revision: 0 Date: 3/29/2019 Posted notice location #1. CDOT SH 82 ROW in front of Jean M. Blue Revocable Trust property Posted notice location #2. CDOT SH 82 ROW in front of Peak View Partners LLC property Posted notice location #3. Intersection of CDOT SH 82 and CR 100 ROWs Posted notice location #4. CR 100 ROW right before Lion's Ridge Road Posted notice location #5. CR 100 ROW in front of Lael & Eddie Hughes property Posted notice location #6. CR 100 and Samuelson property Posted notice location #7. CR 102 and Childs property Posted notice location #8. CR 102 and Laughing Stock LLLP property Posted notice location #9. CR 170 and Zamansky property Posted notice location #10. CR 170 and Earthman/Thiel properties Patrick Waller From: Bill Gavette <gavette@carbondalefire.org> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 8:08 PM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Cottonwood Pass Pipeline Replacement Project, PDPA-02-19-8713 Patrick, I have reviewed the application for the Cottonwood Pass project. I have no issues with the proposal. Thanks, Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District www.carbondalefire.org 970-963-2491 FIRE-EMS•RESCU'E 1 II EXHIBIT 0 Patrick Waller 1 From: Hackett -CDPHE, Sean <sean.hackett@state.co.us> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 8:08 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Re: FW: Garfield County Referral Request - Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline Replacement - File No. PDPA-02-19-8713 The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please note that the following requirements are not intended to be an exhaustive list and it is ultimately the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all applicable rules and regulations. Oil and gas facilities must comply with all relevant Federal and State rules and regulations. Information on oil and gas permits and Air Pollutant Emissions Notices (APEN) can be found at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/air/oil-and-gas-index. If you have any questions regarding Colorado's APEN or air permitting requirements or are unsure whether your business operations emit air pollutants, please call the Small Business Assistance Program (SBAP) at 303- 692-3175 or 303- 692-3148. CDPHE recommends that the applicant adequately account for any source water protection planning areas (aka: drinking water protection areas) within the application lands and ensure coordination with local public water providers, local government designees, municipalities and counties to evaluate the protection of public drinking water supplies in the application lands. The Water Quality Control Divisions Source Water Protection Program may also be used as a resource to provide information regarding locally developed source water protection plans. Sincerely, Sean Hackett Energy Liaison P 303.692.3662 1 F 303.691.7702 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246 sean.hackett@state.co.us I www.colorado.gov/cdphe On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 8:04 AM Hackett - CDPHE, Sean <sean.hackett@state.co.us> wrote: The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please note that the 1 April 1, 2019 COLORADO Parks and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources Glenwood Springs Area Office mmxWildlife Way Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Patrick Waller Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Cottonwood Pass PipeUne Replacement Project Dear Mr. Waller, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) staff has reviewed the application for the proposed pipeline replacement project extendingfrornGarfie\d County Road 100 to Cottonwood Pass. The project is slated to occur in phases with Phase | beginning in 2019. The portions of (and affected during Phase | are primarily within county road right of ways or on private lands currently developed as agricultural fields. These are already disturbed areas which increased human activity will have limited affect to wildlife. CPW appreciates the opportunity to comment on this pjectandvvou<d tike to be contacted for comment on future phases as witdtife impacts witt vary. If there are any questions don't hesitate to contact District Wildlife Manager, Matt Yamashita at (970) 989'8017. Matt Yamashita, Acting Area Wildlife Manager Cc: Matt Yamashita, District Wildtife Manager File Jeffrey M. Ver Steeg, Acting Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission:naishya Adarns"Robert W. Bray ^Charles Garcia , Marie xas}tett Canie Besnette Hauser • John Howard, Chair • Marvin McDaniel • Luke Schafer • Eden Vanly • Janan Vigil, Sectetaty • Michelle Zimmerman, Vice -Chair Patrick Waller From: Levy Burris <Iburris@garcosheriff.com> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 6:29 PM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Re: Garfield County Referral Request - Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline Replacement - File No. PDPA-02-19-8713 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Rick, sorry I didn't see this sooner, but it is also the one I couldn't get into the system to read. The SO had no concerns as previously stated Sent from my iPhone On Apr 18, 2019, at 4:48 PM, Patrick Waller <pwaller(Wgarfield-county.com> wrote: Hi Levy, I have attached the Emergency Response Plan to this email. I know it is short -notice, but the decision on the application is tomorrow. Let me know if you have any concerns. Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ From: Levy Burris[mailto:Iburris@garcosheriff.com] Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 10:52 AM To: Patrick Waller Cc: Chris Bornholdt Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request - Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline Replacement - File No. PDPA-02-19-8713 Patrick, I have attempted to review this plan numerous times, but am unable to open the link. The page continually comes up as "page not available". Based upon the basic idea of replacing a 4" line with a 6" line, the Sheriff's Office has no concerns or issues as long as adequate traffic controls measures are in place and proper notifications provided. Levy Burris From: Patrick Waller [mailto:pwaller@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 4:35 PM 1 April 11, 2019 Mr. Patrick Waller Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MOUNTIAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design EXHIBIT RE: Review of the Application for Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, Cottonwood Pass Pipeline Replacement Project: PDPA-02-19-8713 Dear Patrick: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the application of the Cottonwood Pass Pipeline Replacement Project for Rocky Mountain Natural Gas. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. The Applicant provides only the applications for a CDOT Utility Permit, Garfield County Utility Permit, and CDPHE NPDES permits. Once the permitting processes are complete and the permits area obtained, copies should be provided to Garfield County. 2. The Applicant should verify that the typical gas main trench cross section on the detail sheet is congruent with the "CONDITIONS TO ALL PIPELINE GRADING AND INSTALLATION PERMITS FOR GARFIELD COUNTY". It appears that at a minimum the bury depth and bedding will need to be revised. 3. The Applicant provides information for pipe construction routing that is proposed for construction in the year 2022. This section of pipe will need a separate permit and was not reviewed as part of this application. 4. The Applicant should identify if there are any wetlands within the project and provide mapping of wetland delineations. 5. The Applicant states that wetland and stream crossing will be bored. The Applicant should identify wetland and stream crossings that are to be bored in the plan sheets. 6. The Applicant provides a plan for a noxious weed inventory on the project. The results of this inventory should be provided to Garfield County. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mounta. Cross Eng'nering, Inc. ris Hale, PE 8261/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com Patrick Waller From: Harry Shiles Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 12:44 PM To: Patrick Waller Subject: RE: Garfield County Referral Request - Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline Replacement - File No. PDPA-02-19-8713 EXHIBIT FZ Road and Bridge has no concerns or comments in regards to the land use change Thanks Garfield County H4!?J?YSHILES Faremaa Rod 68ridge 5288C' 3334 Me, CO 515511 Phalle: (875) 625-8601 fax (975) 675-8827 felt (5711) 319-030/ From: Patrick Waller Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 4:35 PM To: Kelly Cave; Morgan Hill; Anna Cochran; Kirby Wynn; Michael Prehm; Dan Goin; Harry Shiles; Iburris@garcosheriff.com; Chris Bornholdt; Steve Anthony; rick.coffin@state.co.us; lcenogle - CDPHE, Bret; jbuck@carbondaleco.net; Chris Hale; Rob Goodwin; Bill Gavette; rwinder@holycross.com; stewart.v.clark@xcelenergy.com; kelli.flenniken@xcelenergy.com; samantah.l.wakefield@xcelenergy.com Subject: Garfield County Referral Request - Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline Replacement - File No. PDPA-02-19- 8713 Good Afternoon, Garfield County Community Development is requesting referral comments for an application for a Pipeline Replacement Project to be located along Highway 82, CR 100, and various private parcels. The Request is for a Land Use Change Permit to allow for the replacement of a 4" Pipeline with a 6" Pipeline. The Applicant has indicated that the project will be completed in phases within Garfield County. This application is for the first 4.375 miles in Garfield County. The 1 applicant has indicated that the remainder of the project (2.004 miles) will be completed in the future and will require additional County permitting. The application is available for review here. Please respond with any comments by Friday, April 12. Thanks for your review and please contact me with any questions, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ 2 March 28, 2019 Garfield County Patrick Waller Garfield County Community Development Department Vegetation Mana'enient RE: PDPA — 02 — 19 — 8713 Cottonwood Pass Pipeline Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Dear Patrick, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the permit. Noxious Weeds: • The Noxious Weed Management Plan is acceptable. The applicant has committed the inventory of current county listed noxious weeds to be done in the spring of 2019. Staff requests that the applicant forward the inventory to the Vegetation Management office by June 28, 2019. • Treatment records — please provide 2020 post -construction treatment records of weed management work on county listed noxious weeds to this office by the end of October 2020. Noxious weed species of particular concern in this area are plumeless thistle and absinth wormwood. Revegetation Plan: • The Revegetation Plan is acceptable. Staff did ask HRL Compliance for details on the native flower mix mentioned in the plan. That plant list was provided and the mix is acceptable. For the record, the mix is listed below: • Cottonwood Pass Native Flower Mix SPECIES Blanket flower (Gaillardia aristata) Western yarrow (Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis) Blackeyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta) Mexican hat (Ratibida columnifera forma pulcherrima) 195 W. 14th Street, Bldg. D, Suite 310 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Mobile Phone: 970-379-4456 Revegetation Security: • HRL has quantified the surface area of disturbance that will require reseeding as 10.60 acres (461,914 square feet). The disturbance overview map illustrating this is attached. Staff recommends a revegetation security of $26,510.24 ($2500 per acre x 10.604 acres of disturbance). • The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished according to the Reclamation Standards section in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan. The Reclamation Standards at the date of permit issuance are cited in Sections 4.06, 4.07 and 4.08 of the Garfield County Weed Management Plan (Resolution #16-12). Other issues: • Ziska Childs letter to Garfield County Community Development dated March 8, 2019 Ms. Childs is a landowner of 0284 CR 102, Carbondale, CO. She has authorized Rocky Mountain Natural Gas (RMNG) to locate a 100 -ft by 200 -ft staging area on her property adjacent to their 50 -ft pipeline that extend through her property. Ms. Childs has requested that RMNG leave the area fenced and to not reclaim it. The area of disturbance is about 20,000 square feet or slightly less than a half an acre. Vegetation Management has no issues with this request. • Harrington beardtongue Penstemon harringtonii o This forb is a rare plant and is endemic to Colorado. Information from the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) indicates that the plant is ranked as a G3 globally, and S3 on the state level. This means that there are between 21 — 100 occurrences found globally and they are all located in Colorado, specifically in Grand, Eagle, Routt, Garfield, Pitkin, and Summit counties. o The plant has no federal or state protection status. Listed below are suggestions for working in potential Harrington's habitat that may occur in the project area: Voluntary reporting — A noxious weed survey will be conducted in the spring of 2019. While inventorying for noxious weeds, report any occurrences of Harrington's with GPS locations to the Vegetation Management department. • Weed treatments- avoid general broadcast treatments in areas of the ROW where beardtongue is located; instead perform selective spot spraying directly to the targeted noxious weeds to avoid damage to the Harrington beardtongue if located in the area. • Reclamation Plan — please add the attached Colorado Natural Heritage Program fact sheet on Harrington beardtongue to the next version of the Plan for educational purposes when it is updated. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager 195 W. 14t Street, Bldg. D, Suite 310 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-945-1377 x 4305 Mobile Phone: 970-379-4456 Penstemon harringtonii Author: Penl. Harrington beardtongue Scrophulariaceae (figwort family) Ranks and Status Close up of Penstemon harringtonii by Peggy Lyon. Close uo of Penstemon harrinotonli by Pam Smith. Global rank: G3 State rank: S3 Federal protection status: USFS Sensitive, BLM Sensitive State protection status: None Description and Phenology General description: Plants perennial, 30-70 cm tall. Stems glabrous and glaucus. Flowers in loose spike with 2 exserted stamens. Corolla deep blue to pinkish lavender (Spackman et al. 1997, Ackerfield 2015). Look Alikes: Penstemon osterhoutii anther sacs are widely divaricate and stamens are not or scarcely exserted. Penstemon cyathophorus has 4 stamens exserted. Penstemon watsonii staminode is not or just exserted. Penstemon harringtonii has 2 exserted stamens, and anther sacs are sagitate with parallel sacs (Spackman et al. 1997). Close uo of Penstemon harrinotonil by Pam Smith. Please see 1997 profile. Phenology: Begins flowering in early June of most years and continues until late June at higher elevation sites. The development of fruit proceeds through late August; capsules dehise beginning at that time, and much seed seems to have been dispersed by September, but the capsules remain on the plant indefinitely (Buckner and Bunin 1992). Habitat Open sagebrush or, less commonly, pinyon -juniper habitats, on gentle slopes. Soils are typically rocky loams and rocky clay loams kaamg, 41,t, derived from coarse calcareous parent materials (Spackman et al. 1997). Associated species include: Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana, A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis, Juniperus osteosperma, Cercocarpus montanus, Amelanchier utahensis, Quercus gambelii (Gambel's oak), Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus (yellow rabbitbrush), C. nauseosus (rubber rabbitbrush), Ph/ox hoodii (spiny phlox), Castilleja flava (yellow Indian paintbrush), Eriogonum umbellatum (sulphur flower buckwheat), Heterotheca villosa (hairy goldenaster), Mahonia repens (Oregon grape), Oreocarya flava (yellow cats -eye), Penstemon caespitosus (mat penstemon), P. strictus (Rocky Mountain penstemon), Poa fendleriana (muttongrass), Achnatherum hymenoides (Indian ricegrass), Pascopyrum smithii (western wheatgrass), Pseudoroegneria spicata (bluebunch wheatgrass), Koeleria macrantha (junegrass), Hesperostipa comata (needle and thread grass), and Elymus elymoides (Spackman and Anderson 2006). r. Habitat of Penstemon harringtonii courtesy of the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Elevation Range: 6,243 - 9,416 feet (1,903 - 2,870 meters) Distribution Colorado endemic: Yes Global range: Colorado endemic. Known from Grand, Eagle, Routt, Garfield, Pitkin, and Summit counties. Estimated range is 5,397 square kilometers (2,084 square miles), calculated by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program in 2008 in GIS by drawing a minimum convex polygon around the known occurrences. Distribution of Penstemon harringtonii in Colorado. 2]% l% Penstemon horringtonii � el BOA • cvw CITY Nro PRIVATE 5 B • SL • STPARKS o USES - W/RTE RIVER Distribution of Penstemon harringtonii in Colorado according to mapped land ownership/management boundaries (CNHP 2015, COMaP v9). City, State Land Board, and State Parks are each less than 1%. Threats and Management Issues The threats to the persistence of Penstemon harringtonii include residential and agricultural development, off-road vehicle use, exotic plant species invasion, over -grazing by domestic and wild ungulates, oil and gas development, and climate change (Panjabi and Anderson 2006). Residential development is considered to be the primary threat to the species at this time (Rondeau et al. 2011). 31' Pmstemonhorringtond ecLLan Summary results of an analysis of the status of Penstemon harringtonii based on several ranking factors. This species was concluded to be "Moderately Conserved". From Rondeau et al. 2011. References Ackerfield, J. 2015. Flora of Colorado. Brit Press, Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, TX. 818 pp. Beardsley, M. and D. A. Steingraeber. 2013. Population dynamics, rarity and risk of extirpation for populations of Mimulus gemmiparus (budding monkeyflower) on National Forests of Colorado. A research report submitted to the USFS Forest Service. Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forets and Pawnee National Grassland. pp 17. Accessed online on May 11 at: http: //www. r5.fs.fed. us/wildflowers/Rare_Plants/profiles/Critical ly_Imperiled/mimu lus_gem miparus/ documents/USFS_MimulusStatusReport2013. pdf Buckner, D. L. and J. E. Bunin. 1992. Final report: 1990/91 Status Report for Penstemon harringtonii. Unpublished Report Prepared for Colorado Natural Areas Program, Denver, CO by Esco Associates, Inc., Boulder, CO. Buckner, D. L. and J. E. Bunin. 1992. Final report: 1990/91 Status Report for Penstemon harringtonii. Unpublished Report Prepared for Colorado Natural Areas Program, Denver, CO by Esco Associates, Inc., Boulder, CO. Dawson, C. 2009. Personal communication with Colorado Natural Heritage Program staff regarding BLM rare plant monitoring in Colorado. Kartesz, J.T. 1994. A synonymized checklist of the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Timber Press, Portland, OR. O'Kane, S. L. 1988. Colorado's Rare Flora. Great Basin Naturalist. 48(4):434-484. Panjabi, S.S. and D.G. Anderson. (2006, lune 30). Penstemon harringtonii Penland (Harrington's beardtongue): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www. fs.fed. us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ penstemon ha rrington ii. pdf. Panjabi, S,S. and D.G. Anderson. 2006. Penstemon harringtonii Penland (Harrington's beardtongue): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. [http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/penstemonharrington ii. pdf. ] Penland, C.W.T. 1958. Two New Species of Penstemon in Colorado. Madrono. 14:153-160. Rondeau, R., K. Decker, J. Handwerk, J. Siemers, L. Grunau, and C. Pague. 2011. The state of Colorado's biodiversity 2011. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Spackman, S., B. Jennings, J. Coles, C. Dawson, M. Minton, A. Kratz, and C. Spurrier. 1997. Colorado rare plant field guide. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by Colorado Natural Heritage Program. USDA, NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. Weber, W. A. and R. C. Wittmann. 2012. Colorado Flora, Western Slope, A Field Guide to the Vascular Plants, Fourth Edition. Boulder, Colorado. 532 pp. Last Updated 2015-06-23 Patrick Waller From: ramjam267@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 5:32 PM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Land Use Change Permit by Black Hills Energy EXHIBIT I� Mr Waller, am writing in strong opposition of this proposed permit change. My husband and I own several acres that would be impacted by this new pipeline. My concerns are several. 1) Future development of homesites. My family homsteaded this property in1892 and there are currently 4 generations living here with hopes of additional family members making this their home. It appears the pipeline and their buffer zone would put several building sites unuseable. 2) The effect on our water. Quality as well as effecting the springs and water diversions. 3) Environmental impacts. A new pipeline would consist of the removal of a tremendous amount of trees and vegitation. Leaving a barren strip of land right through our property. This would drive down property values and adversely effect the quality of enjoyment of our property. 4) We currently have 3 older mobile homes we want to replace and with the 200 foot buffer that would be an encroachment on those sites making it impossible to replace them in the future. Rendering those sites potentially unusable!! 5) There should be a County Commissioners meeting concerning this, I feel our concerns are limited and could be falling on deaf ears and this allowed simply because of " future needs" with no concern of current property owners. This should be an open forum so we can address these concerns. It gives the impression of a back door deal and it's already done. We should be given more than a poor map with yellow lines. It is all but impossible to discern exactly what property it will be covering / effecting. Sincerely, Rick and Mary James 970-987-4752 / 970-987-4668 Patrick Waller From: Elizabeth Penfield <ttsafari@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 10:26 AM To: Patrick Waller Subject: Pipeline Dear Mr. Waller, EXHIBIT 1 15 I am writing in regard to the larger pipeline that is planned to cross my property at 1204 CR 170, Carbondale. My husband and I bought this property back in the 1970's, and the real estate agent made no mention of a pipeline. Since then, I've been vaguely aware it was there and indeed have benefited from it in that now I have a gas stove and fireplace. I support the replacement of the existing pipeline and have been particularly impressed with the planning that has gone into it. As you may have expected, I had a number of concerns and questions about its impact on my land and the noise and number of machines involved. All of that was very thoroughly handled by Anna Smith. She was knowledgeable, thorough, and easy to work with. In short, she did a splendid job with what could have been an unpleasant and contentious negotiation. While I do not look forward to the noise and initial impact of the new pipeline, I do know that it has been carefully planned and that the benefit to Gypsum will be more than welcome. Sincerely, Elizabeth F. Penfield ttsafari@rof.net Sent from my iPad 1 Patrick Waller From: Cindy Earthman <cindyearthman@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2019 12:47 PM To: Anna Smith Cc: Patrick Waller Subject: Re: Public Notice for RMNG Pipeline Replacement Project EXHIBIT Anna, we do not receive any mail at 180 Buck Point Road in Carbondale, CO 81623. There is no physical mailbox at this location. All mail should be sent to 6808 Driftwood Lane, Galveston, TX 77551. Thanks for your assistance with this matter. Cynthia Wolma Earthman 409 771-3505 cell On Mar 29, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Anna Smith <asmith@hrlcomp.com> wrote: Hello Mrs. Earthman, As a follow-up to the Public Notice I had mailed to your address in Galveston TX, could you reply back to this email confirming you received the mailed public notice and that you get no mail due to the fact that there is no physical mailbox at your property located at 180 Buck Point Road in Carbondale CO 81623? Copied on this email is Patrick Waller with the Garfield County Community Development Department. They need to see your email in order to confirm the information I provided above is correct. Please feel free to contact me on my cell at (970) 623-1242 with any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Anna Anna Smith I Environmental Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road I Grand Junction, CO 81505 main 970.243.3271 Ex.417 I mobile 970.623.1242 Web I vCard I Map I qq <image001.jpg> Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments are confidential and only for the use as authorized by HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information. Permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments or copies. 1 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-5200 Garfield County Public Health Public Health Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Patrick Waller Re: Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline Replacement April 15th, 2019 Hello Patrick, EXHIBIT 1 I t4 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-6614 I've reviewed the application for the Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Pipeline Replacement and have the following comments: - Stormwater Management: Proper stormwater management protocols should be followed both during construction of and operation of the pipeline. - Leak control: Black Hills Energy must adhere to best management practices that reduce or eliminate the potential for above or below -ground leaks along the pipeline and its supporting infrastructure. Dust emissions: While it appears installation of the pipeline will not require a construction permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Air Pollution Control Division, precautions should be taken to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Thank you, Morgan Hill, M.S. Environmental Health Specialist III Garfield County Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 665-6383 Garfield County Public Health Department — working to promote health and prevent disease Patrick Waller From: Ian Carney <ianc@lawhold.com> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2019 4:11 PM To: Patrick Waller Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Patrick Waller Contact Information Attachments: RMNG Corresondence.pdf Hi Patrick, EXHIBIT le Thanks again for your time on the phone yesterday. Attached are copies of some of the correspondence between us and HRL. Initially both RMNG and us were interested in moving the gas line away from our indoor barn and also not traversing our outdoor arena. Both neighbors, Tornare and Bright, were willing to agree to allow the line to be moved on their property to accommodate this move. HRL generated a map 1/15 showing alternate routes on 1/30 they emailed and said they no longer wanted to move the line. Part of 1/31 response is also attached saying what option was workable on our property. At a meeting on 2/4 at the Bright home Anna said that RMNG would no longer want to move the line but would bore the entire length of our property. We requested this be done at a depth that was below our existing infrastructure (ie water lines, electric lines etc.) We wanted confirmation that the 4" line would indeed be abandoned and capped and not in service and to confirm as she stated that work would not commence until after the 2nd cutting of hay. At this meeting their only goal was to get approval from Garfield County and they were abandoning working with any property owners on TCE, or SUA as she called them. After our memo of 2/11/19 Anna Smith back tracked on most points stating that they thought they would bore but they are reserving the right to trench. She sent correspondence saying that they may go through the property at any time with 1 day notice and she verbally stated that they wouldn't be restoring our riding arena surface and fences to their existing condition. The arena where we work horses and cattle and is a major part of our livestock livelihood was constructed and RMNG (or whoever owned them at the time we were installing fencing near the gas line) were always notified and on site. Instead of paying for any trees that die at current market price they want to provide baby trees to make up the caliper of the dead tree which is unacceptable. In talking with adjoining neighbors and also the Strangs no one wants any work by RMNG until after the second cutting of hay. If RMNG disrupts the first cutting, ie irrigation lines and the ground dries out they also destroy the second cutting of hay and likely incur damages in excess of the hay crop as fields may need to be replanted. Additionally Strangs don't want work done until after their National Sheep dog trials. Our property is agriculturally zoned and we depend on our hay crop to feed our animals. Our property is in really great shape as far as fields, crops, irrigation, and soil is concerned. We have spent a lot of years getting it into the shape it is. It would be a shame for RMNG to be able to come through with 1 days notice, not bore as she initially promised and then reneged on, and then the landowner is left trying to pick up the pieces and to get RMNG to 100% restore the surface of the properties to existing conditions. Additionally our livestock facilities are 100% serviceable and the footing in the arena is very high quality. We have and will be documenting the condition of our property in an effort to protect our rights. We hope that Garfield County can add protections to the landowners whose property the gas line transects. We do not have any TCE or SUA in place with RMNG and to our knowledge none of our adjoining neighbors do either. Please don't hesitate to call if you have further questions or need more information Thanks, Ian Carney From: Patrick Waller <pwaller@garfield-county.com> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 9:15 AM To: Ian Carney <ianc@lawhold.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Patrick Waller Contact Information Hi lan, Here is my contact information. Please let me know if you have any questions, Patrick Waller Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 ext. 1580 pwaller@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ 2 Ian Carney <ianc@lawhold.com>(� To: Andrea Traul <andreat@sopris.neb Fw: [EXTERNAL] Realignment of RMNG Pipeline Options Map February 1, 2019 2:44 PM 2 Attachments, 915 KB From: lan Carney Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:26:55 PM To: Craig Corona Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Realignment of RMNG Pipeline Options Map From: Anna Smith <asmith@hrlcomp.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:08:46 PM To: Felix Tornare; lan Carney; zzmbright@aol.com Cc: Green, Donald; Dale Sostrom Subject: [EXTERNAL] Realignment of RMNG Pipeline Options Map All, In consideration of the request to relocate the new transmission pipeline further away from the structure on the Carney property, please find attached a pdf map depicting the pipeline reroute options RMNG is willing to consider, pending further discussion with each landowner relating to the reroute on their property. Option 1 (solid orange line): new route angled in Tornare's bottom field to miss pens and barn on Carney property, extending through the gate in pasture and running 2-3 feet west of Carney/Bright fence line up to the tie-in point north of Bright's trees on north side of driveway. A new line extension would have to be installed to tie into the line that feeds the farm tap. This is RMNG's preferred reroute alignment. Option 2 (solid orange line/black dashed line): This reroute would run along inside of Carney's southern fence/property line before turning and running due north, the last stretch of it being the same alignment as the orange line. A longer line extension would have to be installed for tie-in to the line to the farm tap. Option 3 (solid orange line/red dashed line): The change in this route from Option 1 described above would be to run the pipe on the Bright property 2-3 feet east of the fence line up to the tie-in point. Based on these options, I would like the opportunity to sit down with each landowner in the next few days to discuss the reroute options through their specific property. Since the Carneys noted availability on January 21st, I would be happy to schedule meeting times on that day, if no one has availability to meet sooner. Please feel free to call my cell to discuss or to set up a meeting time. Thanks! Anna Anna Smith 1 Environmental Program Manager HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. 2385 F 1/2 Road 1 Grand Junction, CO 81505 main 970.243.3271 Ex.417 1 mobile 970.623.1242 vCard I Map I i I m Web HRL COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS Confidentiality Note: This email and any attachments are confidential and only for the use as authorized by HRL Compliance Solutions, Inc. If you receive this message in error or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose or use any of this information. Permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments or copies. Mapped Features 0 Regulator Station Re-route Option 1 • Re-route Option 2 Re-route Option 3 .:' 2" Distribution Pipeline T Service Pipeline 4"Transmission Pipeline DISCLAIMER Ma Ramat man is lot rabrmm Dray ano no e,l7 s assumon b any tnaocuracra, nap:wtcr nava of vanalona Mn an anal wnry HAL .,COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS Black MillEnergy- Pipeline Enc, Y Pipeline Re-route Options Map Smiling A LLLP 5372 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Date: January 31, 2019 To: Anna Smith HRL From: Ian Carney & Andrea Traul Ref: email dated January 30, 2019 Dear Anna, We are in receipt of your email dated 1/30/19 outlining the status of RMNG proposed project to increase the size of the gas line that travels across our property. In initial reading of the existing easement it's our understanding the easement specifies one 4" gas line. We are glad to hear that RMNG is willing to wait to work on the project until after the growing season. This will also allow us the appropriate time to review potential agreements, routes, proposed work and to make sure that everything is confirmed in writing and agreed to by both sides before work commences. Unfortunately you have requested meetings at times that have not been convenient for us. This does not mean that we are unwilling to meet. Mary Bright has confirmed a meeting for next Monday 2/4/19 at 9:30 am the Bright house. We are sorry our schedule is busy, we both have full time jobs which doesn't allow us to be immediately available on your schedule. Hopefully you understand we aren't available on short notice and some days just don't work for us. It took several weeks for map to be generated by HRL, and 2 weeks to look at the map does not seem unreasonable to us. Before we start negotiations we wanted to confirm that HRL is in fact authorized to negotiate on behalf of RMNG. Can you please confirm how approvals work and what in fact you are authorized to agree to. Per our previous conversation and as generally depicted on the map you provided dated 1/15/19 a combination of Option 2 andpotentially option 3 are what we discussed and we believe is also beneficial forRMNG. Option 1 parallels our 6" irrigation pipe and multiple risers. The irrigation maintenance involved for us will be very cumbersome with option 1 and therefore is not a viable option. For our Monday meeting we will have a list of bullet points and requirements/specifications (to include fencing, restoration of ground, etc.) to both move the existing non exclusive gas easement and potentially allow a temporary construction easement to RMNG to construct the line. We want to be clear that the terms of our agreement regarding this project must be in a written agreement signed by the parties. We previously requested a draft of the new easement Smiling A LLLP 5372 County Road 100 Carbondale, CO 81623 Date: 2/11/19 To: Anna Smith From: Ian Carney & Andrea Traul Re: Brief Meeting recap and confirmation of time and location for Wednesday 2/13/19 Hi Anna, Thanks for your time last Monday 2/4/19 and the follow up email you sent 2/5/19. We appreciate the additional information you were able to share with us. It was helpful to know the change in plans from a new alignment to boring. The main takeaways pertinent to our property that you stated to us were: 1. RMNG/BHE will be staying in its existing easement and boring the length of our property at a depth below all of our existing infrastructure: irrigation lines, water lines, buried electric etc, Boring stations would be set up on Tornare's property and on the side of Bright's property through which RMNG is also boring. The work on our property would be completed in 1 week. 2. RMNG is no longer considering an alternate alignment through our property. 3. RMNG does not need a Temporary Construction Easement adjacent to the existing non exclusive easement since it will be boring a new 6" line through us to replace the 4" line. The 4 line will be abandoned in place and we would like confirmation in writing that it has been abandoned. — `.." 5. RMNG/BHE is interested in obtaining access and a small square of TCE in which it proposes to connect the 6" line to the line that runs to the west. 6. RMNG/BHE will be submitting their application to Garfield County on Thursday 2/14/19 at which time the application is available to the public. 7. RMNG/BHE won't be doing work on our property until after the second cutting of hay, which can be as late as the end of August depending on the irrigation water available. 8. Currently we haven't confirmed a TCE or SUA for our property. Regarding the line locate on 2/14/19 after Brights is complete could we please meet at our driveway near the green container. We need a time that is more established that you won't start before on our property so we can insure that we are here. We aren't sure how long you will be locating on Blights. As we discussed in our meeting the main gate should remain closed. Thanks again and see you on Wednesday, Ian Carney & Andrea Traul CONDITIONS TO ALL PIPELINE GRADING AND INSTALLATION PERMITS FOR GARFIELD COUNTY 1. All work to comply with ASME B31.8-2007 and manufacturers recommendations for steel pipelines. 2. All work to comply with ASTM D2774 for pressure poly pipe installations and ASTM D2321 for gravity flow poly pipe installations. Follow all manufacture's recommendations. 3. Minimum cover over all installations is 48 inches. 4. Properly compacted backfill is required between parallel pipes in a common trench. Provide adequate space between the pipes to achieve adequate compaction. 5. The trench bottom should have stable (firm) soils and free of protruding rocks. A minimum of 4 inches of Class I bedding is required under poly pipe. 6. Compaction requirements are 85% standard Proctor for Class I and Class II backfill (including padding), 90% standard Proctor for Class III backfill, and 95% standard Proctor for Class IVA soils and for all backfill under and within 6 feet of roads. Maximum lifts of 12 -inches for Class I, 8 - inches for Class II, and 6 -inches for all other classes. Compaction test are required every 200 feet until compaction practices meet these requirement. Compaction once established must be spot checked every 400 ft. or when fill materials or processes changes. 7. Padding (shading) of all pipes is required a minimum of 24 -inches around the pipe with 12 - inches of padding over the pipe. Padding particle size of no greater than 1 1/2 -inch for a 10 - inch to 15 -inch diameter pipe. If the pipe is 16 -inches or larger, the 2 inch maximum particle is allowed. Inspection Reports shall be completed to verify the above specifications. In addition the reports shall show: • Name of the inspector, date, time on site, and weather; • A description of the work in progress; • Summary of conversations with contractors/others; • Summary of sampling and testing activities; • Verification of pipe material, grade and alignment; • Observation of pipe installation, placement of padding and backfill materials, and trench excavation methods; • Verification of proper pipe storage, handling, and installation procedures are followed; • Copies of all pressure integrity, non destructive X -Ray and compaction test; and • Pictures to document the construction. Stormwater management plans require routine inspections during all phases of work every 14 days and after a precipitation -related event.