HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.11 Ph I Environmental site assessment & limited Ph II Envi site assessment.pdf1 Attachment "K"
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment The Koziel Property
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... ·1 • 1.1 Purpose .........................................
................................................................................ -2 -1.2 Qualifications of Professional ...............................................................................
............ -2 -2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................... • 3 • 2.1 Location and Legal Description ....................
.................................................................... -3-2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics ...........................................................................
-3-2.3 Current Use ................................................................................................................... -4-2.4 Previous Site Development ...............................
............................................................... -4-3.0 RECORDS REVIEW ....................................................................................................
• 4 • 3.1 Historical Use Information ................................................................................................ -4-3.1.1 Ownership Information ..................................
................................................. -4-3 .1.2 Environmental Liens ....................................................................................... -4 -3.1.3 Review
of Aerial Photographs .......................................................................... -5-3.1.5 Review of Historical Maps.......... .. ......................................................
... -8-3.1.6 Historical Interviews................... . .......................................................... -8 -3.1. 7 Historical Summary ......................................................
................................ -9 -3.2.1 Topography............................... .. ......................................................... -9-3.2.2 Soil Conditions ............................
................................................................. -10-3.2.3 Regional Groundwater Conditions ................................................................. -10-3.3
Previous Environmental Reports ...................................................................................... -10-3.4 Limited Phase II Evaluation .............................................
............................................... -10-3.5 Regulatory Review ......................................................................................................... -11
-4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................. ·13 • 4.1 Observations ..........................................................
........................................................ -13 -4.1.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ............................................................ -13 -4.1.2 Description
of Specific Features ..................................................................... -13 -4.2 Adjoining Property Observations ...................................................................
................... -15-4.2.1 Current Use of the Adjoining Properties ......................................................... -15-4.2.2 Past Use of the Adjoining Properties ........................
....................................... -15-5.0 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... -15 • 6.0 TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF ASSESSMENT ....................................................... -15 • 7.0 CONTINUED VIABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ................ -16 • 8.0 SIGNIFICANT
ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................ -17 • [i]
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment The Koziel Property Carbondale Colorado 81623 1.0 INTRODUCTION Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI)
has prepared this report to generally comply with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Standard El527-05. This Environmental Site
Assessment includes the following sections: • Site description • Review of historic use of the Site and adjacent properties • Interviews with relevant parties • Review of regulatmy agency
records, environmental databases, and environmental liens • Limited Phase II findings • Conclusions • Continued-Viability of Environmental Site Assessment • Significant Assumptions •
Terms and Conditions ESI observed the Koziel Property (Site), located at 640 County Road 106 near Carbondale, Colorado, on August 25 and September 9, 2010. The Site has been previously
operated as the Sopris Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park. This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) has been prepared in general accordance with the Phase I ESA Work Plan and Project
Agreements prepared for Mr. Mark E. Hamilton, ESQ with Holland & Hart, LLP and authorized on August 17, and September 3, 2010. This Phase I ESA -1 -
has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Town of Carbondale, Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW), Garfield County, and Holland & Hart, LLP. This Phase I ESA was expanded to include
a Limited Phase II Evaluation that was performed at the Site on September 9, 2010. The Limited Phase II Evaluation included excavation and observation of three test pits to evaluate
a specific section of the Site that included a leach field associated with an onsite sewage disposal system. Additional discussion regarding the occurrence of this Site Facility is included
in Sections 3 .1.6 and 3.4. The conclusions of this ESA, including our findings of the Limited Phase II Evaluation, are presented in Section 5.0. 1.1 Purpose The Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) is intended to permit the User to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) landowner liability
protection as an innocent landowner, bona fide prospective purchaser, or contiguous property owner. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the Site for recognized environmental
conditions (REC's) in connection with the Site. The term "recognized environmental conditions" means the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products on
a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the
property or into the ground, groundwater or surface water of the property. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that do not present a material risk of hann to public
health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate government agencies. 1.2 Qualifications of Professional
This ESA was performed by Environmental Services. Inc. (ESI) of Carbondale, Colorado. ESI declares that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, that our staff meets the
definition of environmental professional as defined in §312.1 0 of 40 CFR 312 and has the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess the nature, history,
and setting of the Site. We have developed and performed appropriate inquiries in general conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR, pati 312. -2-
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location and Legal Description The Site is located outside of, but adjacent to, the Town Limits of Carbondale, CO. The Site is located west of the intersection
of Colorado State Highways 82 and 133 and is also in Garfield County. Access to the Site is provided by Garfield County Road I 06 off Highway 82. The Site has an address of 0640 County
Road 106 Carbondale, Colorado, 81623. A Site Vicinity Map is provided as Figure 1. The Site's legal description has been provided by Land Title Guarantee Company of Glenwood Springs,
Colorado and is included as Appendix A. 2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics The Site is developed and has operated as an RV Park from approximately 1980 to 2009 and includes
approximately 7.5 acres. The original office structure was added on in approximately 1995. An additional structure, used as a bathroom and shower facility, is constructed of masonry
blocks and includes a metal roof. This structure was constructed in approximatelyl991. The RV Park includes approximately thirty two spaces that include either partial or full hookups.
Utilities at the site include well water for domestic purposes, electricity, propane, and telephone. The Site includes two septic systems. A RV dump station is located adjacent to the
office/residence and includes a two-stage vault and a leach field. This facility is used by RV owners to dispose of both gray and black water and also serves the office/residence. The
system was reportedly redesigned, pennitted, and constructed in 2006. A second septic system and leach field, also constructed in 1991, adjoins the east side of the bath/shower facility.
The developed portion of the Site, including the structures, and RV Park, are positioned on a manmade terrace that appears to have been excavated and graded. The northeast corner of
the Site has also been excavated. The material appears to have been transported off Site. The Site is also developed with an access road that leads to a cul-de-sac and a recreational
boat launch located at the Site's southeast corner and adjacent to the south side of the Roaring Fork River. This portion of the Site is leased by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW).
The Site is bordered to the south by the Roaring Fork River and to the north by Colorado State Highway 82. The site is adjoined to the cast by Colorado State Highway 133. The Site is
adjoined to the west by undeveloped property and residences. A Site Map is provided as Figure 2. -3 -
2.3 Current Use At the time of the issuance of this ESA the Site was used as a residence and a recreational boat ramp. The RV Park has not been in operation since approximately 2008.
2.4 Previous Site Development Based on the review of aerial photographs and historical maps presented in sections 3.1.3 and 3 .1.4 development at the Site has been limited to an irrigation
ditch, a parking lot, and cattle corral prior to at least 1964. The Site has been developed as an RV Park since at least 1980. 3.0 RECORDS REVIEW 3.1 Historical Use Information Historical
use information for the Site and adjoining properties was obtained by reviewing reasonably ascertainable sources such as ownership information, aerial photographs, and by conducting
interviews. 3.1.1 Ownership Information ESI has obtained a Chain of Title for the Site prepared by Mr. Tom Schuneman with Land Title Guarantee Company, of Glenwood Springs, CO. Mr. Schuneman
provided a one-page summary of the Chain of Title for the Site back to 1927. The Chain of Title also includes the Deeds of Conveyance. The !-page summary and the Deeds are included as
Appendix B. At the time of the issuance of this ESA the Site was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Koziel. Stanley and Valerie Koziel have owned the Site since 1991. The ownership information
obtained did not reveal past owners whose titles suggest activities associated with the use, generation, storage or disposal of petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials.
3.1.2 Environmental Liens Land Title Guarantee Company also issued an ALTA Certificate (Commitment for Title Insurance) under their Order Number GW63005580-2 and dated July 29, 2010.
Title Commitments issued for propc1ty transactions indicate that environmental liens arc not present. A copy of the Title Commitment is provided as Appendix C. -4-
An ASTM 1527-05 User Questionnaire was prepared by Mr. Jeff Jackel, Recreation Director for the Town of Carbondale and who represents the Client (User). Mr. Jackel indicated to the best
of his knowledge that he was not aware of Environmental Liens or Activity Use Limitations (other than zoning limitations and requirements) in connection with the Site. He indicated that
he had no specialized knowledge or experience related to the Site or adjoining properties. He believed that the Site's purchase price reflected a fair market price. He reported that
to the best of his knowledge, he did not know of present or past chemical storage, spill/release events, or remedial action that had occurred at the Site. Mr. Jackel concluded that he
did not know of obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the Site. A copy of the User Questionnaire is included as Appendix D. 3.1.3 Review
of Aerial Photographs Aerial photographs were reviewed to obtain information regarding Site development. The photographs were obtained from Town of Carbondale Town Hall and from Environmental
Data Resources (EDR) of Milford, Connecticut (Inquiry Number 2853943). The photographs were dated 1964, 1979, 1983, 1989, 1993, 1999, and 2005. The aerial photographs were reviewed to
aid in establishing prior land use and to provide visual evidence of past activities that may have involved storage or spill/release events of petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous
materials. These aerial photographs observed at the Town of Carbondale Town Hall were not removed from the facility, and as a result, were not reproduced and arc not included as an appendix.
The aerial Photographs obtained from EDR arc included as Appendix E. A summary ofESJ's aerial photograph review is outlined in Table I. Table 1 Review of Aerial Photographs -5-
Year Aerial Photograph Description 1664 The Site is indicated and appears to be undeveloped with the exception of an inigation ditch that bisects the Site from the east to west. The
Site also appears to include a cattle corral oriented east to west and parallels Colorado State Highway 82. A parking lot is also located at the nm1heast comer of the Site adjacent to
the intersection of Highways 82 and 133. Property adjoining the Site to the east consists of a bridge that represents the (alternate) original entrance to Carbondale. This former bridge
was located east of the present day bridge. The Roaring Fork River adjoins the Site to the south. A trailer park is located to the nm1h and on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River.
Offsite property adjoining the Site to the west and south is undeveloped with the exception of Highway 82. A railway trestle is located fm1her west of the Site. The residential development
of Sutank, is located on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River and southwest of the Site, is indicated and includes approximately twenty homes. Two suspect waste water lagoons
are indicated and located further west of the Site and Sutank. 1979 The resolution of the photograph is vety poor quality. As a result, the photograph can't be evaluated for changes
in the Site's development or development to adjoining propet1ies located nm1h, south, east, and west of the Site. 1983 The resolution of the photograph is also very poor quality. As
a result, the photograph can't be evaluated for changes in the Site's development or development to adjoining propet1ies located nm1h, south, east, and west of the Site. 1989 The Site
appears to be developed as a RV Park. The cattle corral and parking lot are not indicated. Offsite propct1y adjoining the Site to the south and west appears to be undeveloped with the
exception of Highway 82. Additional development has taken place at both the trailer park and the residential development of Sutank that arc located north of the Site and on the opposite
side of the Roaring Fork River. The Carbondale Waste Water Treatment Plant, also located on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River, is indicated. Property adjoining the Site to
the cast consists of the Highway 133 and the Carbondale bridge which is positioned in its existing location. 1995 Changes in both the Site development and offsite properties adjoining
the Site to the north, south, cast and west are not indicated. The Site includes a star-shaped structure that has a diameter of approximately fot1y feet. This structure was identified
by Mrs. Koziel as a former tent frame during our Site reconnaissance. Additional residential development has taken place further west and south of the Site. Commercial development has
taken place fm1her southeast of the Site. 1999 With the exception of a road along the Roaring Fork River that provides access to the Site's boat ramp, changes in both the Site and development
of offsitc properties adjoining the Site to the nm1h, south, east and west arc not indicated. 2005 The Site's RV Park has been expanded to include approximately thit1y six RV lots. The
lower access road appears to be larger. Changes in development of offsitc properties adjoining the Site to the not1h, south, cast and west arc not indicated. -6 -
Based on our review of the available aerial photographs, development at the Site has been limited to an irrigation ditch, a parking lot and cattle cmnl prior to at least 1964. The Site
has been developed as an RV Park since at least 1980. Due to the time gaps which exist in the standard historical sources, we were not able to evaluate the historical uses of the Site
in five-year intervals back to 1940. The data gaps in the standard historical sources are significant but in our opinion did not inhibit our ability to evaluate REC's in connection with
the Site. 3.1.4 Review of Historical Topographic Maps The 1961, I :24,000 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map of Carbondale, Colorado indicates that, with
the exception of the irrigation ditch and a possible single structure, the Site is undeveloped. This structure was not apparent during our review of aerial photographs. The location
of this structure is generally consistent with the location of the Site's office/residential structure. Offsitc properties adjoining the Site to the south, on the opposite side of the
Roaring Fork River, and west are undeveloped. The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad and trestle arc located further southwest of the Site. Sutank includes approximately twenty structures.
Both Highways 82 and 133 are indicated and adjoin the Site to the north and cast, respectively. An additional structure is located on the north side of Highway 82. Both the former and
the existing bridge entrances to Carbondale arc indicated on the map and adjoin the Site to the east. The 1982, I :24,000 7.5-minute (photo revised 1961) United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Topographic Map of Carbondale, Colorado also indicates that, with the exception of the irrigation ditch and single structure, the Site is undeveloped. The structure located on
the north side of Highway 82 is not indicated. The former bridge entrance to Carbondale is also not indicated. Other changes in offsite development to properties adjoining the Site to
the north, south, east, and west are not indicated. Additional residential development in Sutank, and possibly municipal waste water plant development, is indicated and positioned on
the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River. The 1987, 7.5-minute (Photo Revised 1961) United States Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map of Carbondale, Colorado also indicates that,
with the exception of the inigation ditch and single structure, the Site is undeveloped. The topography at the Site has changed as compared to that indicated on the 1982 historic topographic
map. The topography indicated on the 1987 topographical map is generally consistent with topography and the location/orientation of the Site's existing RV Park and observations made
by ESI -7-
during the Site reconnaissance. With the exception of additional residential development in Sutank and a trailer park, both located on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River, changes
in development of offsite property adjoining the Site to the north, south, east, and west are not indicated. Copies of the historic topographic maps obtained from EDR are included as
Appendix F. 3.1.5 Review of Historical Maps ESI requested Sanborn Fire Insurance Map coverage from EDR. According to EDR's map database, there is no Sanborn map coverage for the Site.
The EDR Certified Map Report states: This report certifies that the complete holdings of the Sanborn Library, LLC collection have been searched based on client supplied target property
information, and fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found. A copy of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Map statement provided by EDRis included as Appendix G. 3.1.6 Historical
Interviews Interviews with persons familiar with the Site were conducted to obtain information pertinent to this environmental evaluation. On August 25, 20 I 0, ESI received a copy of
an Owner Questionnaire completed by Mrs. Koziel. Mrs. Koziel received assistance in completing the form from her attorney Mr. Walt Brown. Mr. and Mrs. Koziel have owned the Site since
1991. Mrs. Koziel reported that the Site has been used for as an RV Park and Residence since approximately 1985. Mrs. Koziel docs not have knowledge of buried material, or stained soil
on the Site. She has no knowledge of potentially hazardous material being stored on the Site. Mrs. Koziel indicated that the Site does not, and has not, contained registered or unregistered
underground storage tanks (USTs), and aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) or drywells. The Town of Carbondale Waste Water Plant, located on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River,
was identified as offsite property used as waste treatment/storage facility. Mr. Koziel indicated that the Site does not include discarded automotive pmts. Mrs. Koziel is not aware of
any spills or releases involving environmental remediation at the Site. She indicated that, to the best of her knowledge, the Site has not been used for commercial printing, dry cleaning,
photography development, a laboratory, a junkyard, or a landfill. The -8-
Site does include two individual sewage disposal systems associated with the RV Parks' bath/shower facility and Recreational Vehicle dump station. The bath/shower facility has been in
operation since 1991. The RV dump station, which also services the office/residence building, was removed in 2006. Approximately four tandem dump truck loads of soil were excavated and
hauled offsite. The RV dump station and its associated tanks and leach field were reportedly redesigned, permitted, and constructed also in 2006. Mrs. Koziel indicated that septic tanks
for both systems were pumped twice a year. Mrs. Koziel indicated that she was not aware of incidents involving the release of petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials
at the Site including the Site's two leach fields. The domestic water system has also been tested once a month by a licensed fitm and exceedances have not been reported. Mrs. Koziel
concluded that she is not aware of environmental liens, pending, threatened, current or past litigations involving petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials in, on, or
from the Site. A copy of the Owner Questiorutaire, completed by Mrs. Koziel, has been retained by ESI in the project file. On September I 0, 2010 ESI interviewed Mr. Bill Gavette, the
Deputy Fire Chief, with The Town of Carbondale Fire Department. Mr. Gavette indicated that the Department had responded to several fires regarding recreational vehicles at the Site.
These emergency response incidents have not involved petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials at or in the vicinity of the Site. Mr. Gavette indicated that he had been
associated with The Town of Carbondale Fire Department since 1980. 3.1.7 Historical Summary Based on our review of the available aerial photographs, development at the Site has been
limited to an irrigation ditch, a parking lot and cattle corral prior to at least 1964. The Site has been developed as a RV Park since at least 1980. 3.2 Physical Setting Information
3.2.1 Topography The elevation of the Site is between approximately 6,160 and 6,100 feet above mean sea level. The Site's surface slopes down towards the south towards the Roaring Fork
River. The greatest amount of relief is located from the RV Park down to the Roaring Fork River. Surface water resulting from stonn events or -9-
snowmelt in the region is expected to flow to the south towards the Roaring Fork River which also adjoins the Site to the south. 3.2.2 Soil Conditions Based on our observations of test
pits excavated at the Site, as patt of a Limited Phase II ESA (Section 3 .4), the Site's soil can he visually described as colluvium consisting of relatively dense clayey sand and gravel
containing angular cobbles overlying dense river deposited sand, gravel and rounded cobbles. 3.2.3 Regional Groundwater Conditions Depth to groundwater was not measured during ESI' s
reconnaissance. 3.3 Previous Environmental Reports Based on the information provide by Mr. Koziel previous environmental evaluations have not been performed at the Site. 3.4 Limited
Phase II Evaluation On September 9, 2010 ESI performed a limited Phase II ESA at the Site which was recommended to evaluate soils in the vicinity of the leach field associated bathroom/shower
facility. The general location of the leach field was identified by Pat Groom's son Steve Groom also on September 9, 2010. Underground utility locates were performed by SiteWise of Grand
Junction, Colorado. A rubber-tire backhoe and operator were supplied by the Town of Carbondale. Three test pits were excavated in the leach field to between four and five feet below
the adjacent ground surface. The soils can be visually described as a thin layer of topsoil overlying dense river deposited sand, gravel and rounded cobbles. Evidence of groundwater
was not observed in the test pits at the relative maximum excavation depths. Evidence of%inch crushed rock was observed at approximately 4 feet below the ground surface which suggests
that infiltration gallery had been revealed. The excavation activity was halted to not damage pipes. Periodic soil samples were evaluated in the field for the presence of volatile organic
compounds (VOC's). The equipment used to perform the analysis was a Mini-Ray 2000 pmtable VOC monitor, model number PGM7600 photoionization detector (PID). Concentrations of VOC's above
6.0 ppm were not detected in soil samples collected from test pits using the PID. Based upon our observations and the results of the PID -I 0-
evaluation, we did not observe evideuce of petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous material at the six test pits indicated on Figure 2. Based on the results of this Limited Phase
II ESA, the occurrence of petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous material was not indicated and therefore is not considered a recognized environmental condition (REC) in regards
to the Site. The vertical and horizontal limits of leach material at the Site were not evaluated during the Limited Phase II ESA. The possibility does exist that the leach field contains
petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials at alternate locations that have not been evaluated by this Limited Phase II evaluation. 3.5 Regulatory Review The purpose of
the regulatory review is to obtain and review reasonably ascertainable records that will help identify recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Site. For this review,
records were obtained from Environmental Data Resources (EDR), Inquiry Number 2853943.2s dated August 25,2010. The Site was located using coordinates obtained with a global positioning
system (GPS). A copy of the EDR report is provided as Appendix H. The regulatory review included, but was not limited to, the following lists prepared and maintained by environmental
regulatmy agencies for the area. The most recent list update completed by the respective agency is identified in the following section. These lists were searched for locations within
the radius specified by ASTM Phase I Site Assessment Standard E1527-05. • UST list, June 21, 2010 Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Oil Public Safety (OPS). •
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Sites (CO TRUST) list, June 14, 20 I 0 Colorado State Dcpa1tment of Labor and Employment, OPS. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Information System (CERCUS) list, January 29, 2010 from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). • Resource Conservation and Recove1y Information System (RCRA) generators
list, March 25,2010 from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). • National Priorities List (NPL) sites for Colorado, March 31, 2010 from the EPA. -11 -
• Mines Master Index File (MINES), Febmary 12, 2010 from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Division of Mine Safety and Health Administration. • Historical Landfill list,
January 31, 1993 from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). • Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS), January 9, 2010 from National Response Center,
United States Coast Guard. • Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System (HMIRS), April6, 2010 from the U.S. Department of Transportation. • US Engineering Controls, Engineering
Controls Registries, December 20, 2009 from the EPA. • US Institutional Controls, Sites with Institutional Controls, December 20, 2009 from the EPA. The Site is not included on the US
Engineering Controls and US Institutional Controls data bases. The fact that the Site is not included on these two data bases indicate that recorded Activity Use Limitations (AULs) are
not in place at the Site. The Site is also not indicated on Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list. The Site is not included on other lists ofEDR's search of available government
records. The EDR Report included twenty offsite facilities indicated on one or more of the LUST, UST, AST, CERCLIS-NRAFP, FINDS, NPDES, RCRA, AIRS data bases. These offsite facilities
are included on pages seven through twentynine of the EDR Report. An Explanation of the CERCLIS-NRAFP Data Base Provided in the EDR Report is as Follows: CERCUS No Further Remedial Action
Planned Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventmy of CERCUS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at
a site has been completed and that EPA has detennined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless infonnation indicates this decision
was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given
site; it only means that based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. -12 -
The twenty offsite facilities, included in the data bases listed above, are located on the south side of the Roaring Fork River and are not considered a REC's in regards to the Site.
The EDR report also includes a list of 22 orphan or un-mappable entries (EDR page 30). The list includes Colorado Rocky Mountain School located at 1593 County Road 106 and is included
on the FTTS data base. An explanation of the FTTS Data Base Provided in the EDR Repmi is as Follows: FIFRAI TSCA Tracking System -FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning
and Community Rightto-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Colorado Rocky Mountain School has an address on County Road I 06 but is positioned
on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River. ESI has reviewed this list of off-site orphan or nn-mapable locations and evaluated the entries. These off-site facilities appear to be
beyond the respective minimum search distances of the Site established by ASTM or located on the opposite side of the Roaring Fork River. 4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION 4.1 Observations ESI
observed the Site and adjoining properties on August 25 and September 9, 2010. A digital photograph log is included as Appendix I. 4.1.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions For the purpose
of performing our reconnaissance, the Site was observed by walking and driving the access roads. Our visual evaluation of the Site concentrated on the developed portions of the Site
as well as area serviced by roads and trails. As a result, the entire Site was not observed during the reconnaissance. In addition, the interior of the office/residence building was
not evaluated for petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials. 4.1.2 Description of Specific Features At the time of our reconnaissance, development at the site was limited
to a RV park and office/residence building. A portion of the Site is also leased by the DOW and used as a boat ramp for recreational fishing -13 -
and rafting. The RV Park also includes a bathroom/shower facility and mechanical room with interior floor drains that lead to the septic tanks and leach field. The south side of the
structure was used to store materials, including but not limited to, fencing and PVC sections. Evidence of petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials was not observed
inside or outside the mechanical room or bathroom/shower facility at the time of our Site reconnaissance. We observed two commercial dumpsters located east of the bathroom/shower facility
and near the boat ramp. Evidence of petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials was not observed inside or outside the commercial dumpsters at the time of our Site reconnaissance.
The Site includes a large suspect man-made cut at the northeast corner. It appears that several thousand cubic-yards of soil have been removed from the Site. The remaining slope has
been graded to approximately 3 feet horizontal to !-foot vertical and is vegetated with natural grass, weeds, and sage. During our Site visit we observed evidence of mud flow and deposition
along the south side of the RV Park presumably from the recent mud flow event that occurred in August 2010 near the intersection of Highways 133 and 82. Evidence of occasional suspect
petroleum hydrocarbon soil stains was observed at the Site but were limited to three-feet in diameter and did not penetrate the surface by more than a few inches. These soil stains would
be considered de minimis. At the time of our reconnaissance the Site included a locked semi-trailer. Mrs. Koziel reported that the trailer did not include petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially
hazardous materials. The trailer was intended to be used for moving by the Koziel family. We observed an approximate 200-gallon reinforced poly tank typically used to store chemicals.
Mrs. Koziel indicated that the vessel was used on occasion to store gray water from RV's. Evidence of discarded asphalt was observed just west of the parking area for the boat ramp.
The volume of the asphalt is estimate at approximately two cubic yards. We also observed evidence of a boulder stockpile adjacent to the lower access road. Evidence of trash material
was not observed at the Site or on property adjoining the Site. ESI did not observe evidence of pits, ponds, drywclls or lagoons on the Site. Evidence of UST's, AST' s, stressed vegetation,
and septic systems, was not observed by ESI during the Site reconnaissance. -14-
4.2 Adjoining Property Observations 4.2.1 Current Use of the Adjoining Properties The current use of the adjoining propetiies is generally consistent with information provided in Section
2.2 4.2.2 Past Use of the Adjoining Properties The past use of the adjoining properties is generally consistent with infmmation provided in Section 2.2 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the
foregoing assessment and data obtained, this Phase I ESA has not provided evidence of recognized environmental conditions existing at the Site. A recognized environmental condition is
a release of petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous material to the environment in sufficient quantity to cause risk to human health or an enforcement action by a regulatory
agency. Based on the results of this Limited Phase II ESA, the occurTence of petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous material was not indicated and therefore the leach field
associated with public bathroom and shower facility is not considered a recognized environmental condition (REC) in regards to the Site. The vertical and horizontal limits of this leach
material at the Site were not evaluated during the Limited Phase II ESA. The possibility does exist that the leach field contains petroleum hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials
at alternate locations that have not been evaluated by this Limited Phase II evaluation. 6.0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ASSESSMENT This assessment is based on infmmation available to ESI
at the time of the investigation and provides an indication of the status of the Site at that time. The portion of the Site included in the Limited Phase II ESA was limited to the specific
location identified in the field by Mr. Pat Groom's son Mr. Steve Groom. The opinions expressed concerning the environmental risks or migration of contaminants is based on the data in
this report. Additional data could change the opinions expressed. The goal of the processes established by ASTM is to identify recognized environmental conditions. A recognized environmental
condition is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or -15 -
petroleum hydrocarbon products on a propmty under conditions that indicate an existing release, past release, or a material threat of a release into structures on the property or into
the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health
or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of governmental agencies. This process is designed such that completion
of the process, as described in this report, should constitute all appropriate inquiry into the Site and uses of the Site to quality for the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability.
A complete definition of the Site conditions would require substantial testing and a more detailed investigation. Future conditions may change, and fi.niher investigation should be completed
if contamination is suspected or if conditions substantially change. Because of uncertainties related to subsurface conditions and the changing nature of Site conditions, it is not possible
for ESI to provide guarantees with this assessment. ESI's knowledge of Activity Use Limitations (AULs) is based primarily on information provided in the User Questionnaire. This ESA
did not include any inqui1y with respect to radon, methane, asbestos-containing materials, leadbased paint, lead in drinking water, molds, formaldehyde, endangered species, cultural
and historic resources, industrial hygiene, health and safety, ecological resources, indoor air quality, high-voltage power lines, controlled substances, wetlands, hazardous substances
not included in the CERCLA definition ( 42 U.S.C. 89601 [14]), compliance with any activity and use limitations if applicable, subsurface investigation activities, or other services
or potential conditions or features not specifically identified and discussed herein. In those instances where additional services or service enhancements arc included in the report
as requested or authorized by the client, specific limitations attendant to those services arc presented in the text of the report. Additional terms and conditions were previously provided
with our amended Work Plan dated August 12, 2010. 7.0 CONTINUED VIABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT In accordance with Section 4.6 of Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments (ASTM 1527-05) this report is subject to the continued viability requirements of the practice. This environmental Site -16 -
assessment is considered valid if the assessment was completed less than 180 days prior to the date of acquisition of the property or the date the intended transaction is presumed to
be valid. If during this period the environmental site assessment will be relied upon by a different user than the original user for whom the assessment was prepared, the new user must
satisfy the User Responsibility in Section 6 of ASTM 1527-05. For a period of up to one year prior to the date of acquisition of the property or for the date the intended transaction
is presumed to be valid, this environmental site assessment is considered valid provided that the following components were completed within 180 days of the date of purchase or the date
of intended transaction: (i) Interviews with owners, operators and occupants (ii) Searches for recorded environmental cleanup liens (iii) Reviews of federal, tribal, state and local
govemment records (iv) Visual inspection of the property and of adjoining properties; and (v) The declaration by the environmental professional responsible for the assessment or update
8.0 SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS The significant assumptions arc as follows: • We assume the information provided by Mrs. Koziel is true and accurate. • The test pits, observed by ESI during
the Limited Phase II ESA, were positioned in the leach field based solely on information provided by Mr. Steve Groom. The possibility docs exist that the leach field contains petroleum
hydrocarbons or potentially hazardous materials at altemate locations that have not been evaluated by this Limited Phase II evaluation. • We assume that no petroleum hydrocarbons or
potentially hazardous materials have been discharged in the dump station and its leach field located adjacent to the office/residence building. This facility was not included in the
Limited Phase II ESA. If any of these assumptions arc false or inaccurate the possibility exists that our conclusions in Section 5.0 could be significantly altered or omitted. -17 -