Pump Selection for a Pressurized System - Single Family Residence
Project
Eagle Springs Organics
Transport Length After Valve
Lateral Length
% Flow Differential 1st/Last Orifice
Transport Velocity Before Valve
Transport Velocity After Valve
Loss through Valve
Loss in Manifold
Loss in Laterals
Loss through Flowmeter
'Add-on' Friction Losses
Vol of Manifold
Total Vol Before Valve
Total Vol After Valve
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
30 GPM, 1/2HP
11 5/230 V 1Ø 60Hz, 2 00V 3Ø 6 0Hz
PF3007 High Head Effluent Pump
30 GPM, 3/4HP
PF3010 High Head Effluent Pump
30 GPM, 1HP
PF3015 High Head Effluent Pump
30 GPM, 1-1/2HP
Legend
PO Box 351 Rifle, CO 81650
PREPARED BY: High Country Engineering, Inc. 1517 Blake Avenue,
Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-8676
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE
I. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE 3
II. EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 4
III. CONCLUSIONS 6
IV. REFERENCES 6
EXHIBITS: 1. Vicinity Map (8.5” x 11”) 2. Garfield County 2002
Traffic Map 3. Garfield County 2014 Traffic County Sheets
Page 3 j:/sdskproj/215/1004/word/482 CR 315 Traffic Impact
Report
I. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE A. Location The property in
question is located at 482 County Road 315, Town of Silt, Colorado.
The property is a 35.207 acre tract of land. The site utilizes two
accesses, both of them within the property ownership of Ken Sack or
his Company entities. The first access is located 1,000 feet south
of the intersection of Mamm Creek Road (CR 315) and Airport Road
(CR 352). The second access is an additional 4,100 feet south on
Mamm Creek Road past the first access (Eagle Springs Ranch Road).
The speed limit along County Road 315 for this stretch of road is
posted at 35mph and the road averages a 1.5% grade to the north
within 800 feet either side of the accesses. A Vicinity Map has
been included as Exhibit #1. B. Description of Property The
proposed site is approximately 35.207 acres. The west side of the
property abuts Mamm Creek Road and parcel number 2177-131-00-303.
The south property line abuts parcel number 2179-184-00-720, east
property line abuts parcel number 2179-181-00-691 (Eagle Springs
Organic, LLC) and the north property line abuts parcel number
2179-181-00-124. The main access to the facility if off of Eagle
Springs Ranch Road which will is utilized by the 6 employees during
the winter months and cattle delivery trucks, water delivery truck,
secondary deliveries such as UPS or FedEx during all times of the
year. The main access is not a viable access for large truck
delivers due to its grade and width. The secondary access to the
site is a 12 foot wide dirt driveway that averages 11.5% in grade.
This access is only used by the 6 onsite employees during the
summer months and is a gated access with a coded padlock. C. Hours
of Operation and Delivery Schedules The site is currently running
as a “Custom Exempt” processing facility. The current owner is
planning to upgrade his certification to a USDA Certified facility
to be able to supply demands from local restaurants and ranchers.
The maximum employee count is 6 employees with hours of operations
of Monday through Friday from 7am to 3pm. The existing or maximum
employee count will not change with this certification change nor
will their hours of operation. The main operational change that
will cause additional traffic will be the intake of a larger
quantity of animals from the local community for butchering.
Currently the Exempt facility processes a small amount of outside
livestock from the local community. The solid waste removal
trucking servicing the site is anticipated to haul waste daily
prior to the landfill closure time of 4:30pm. Additional existing
trips to the site included the onsite ranch manager who lives at
the home on the property, refrigerated meat hauling truck for
removal of product, solid waste removal service truck and a water
hauling service that delivers potable water to fill the 6,000
gallons of storage on the adjacent property for the processing
facility potable water use every two weeks. The water hauling
service is anticipated to make one trip every week to deliver 3,000
to 4,000 gallons of potable water. None of these additional trip
generators are being included as
Page 4 j:/sdskproj/215/1004/word/482 CR 315 Traffic Impact
Report
loading in this report. All trip generation times will be outside
the peak hours of the facility and outside the peak hours of
traffic on the roadway, thus they are not pertinent to the
calculations. The hours of operation and amount of processing at
this location are not variable during the different seasons of the
year, thus all operation traffic loads are being considered on a
yearly average basis instead of seasonally. II. EXISTING AND
PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Existing Traffic Counts and
Distances (2002 and 2014 ADT Counts) The Garfield County Road and
Bridge Department has completed ADT (Average Daily Traffic) counts
on Mamm Creek Road just south of the Airport Road intersection in
2014. These counts were completed over a week long traffic counting
process. The counts put the ADT at 803 vehicles over that time
period. For a comparison count, the “2002 Average Daily Traffic,
County Road System, Garfield County, Colorado” map that the county
was utilizing for traffic counts at this location ranged from 546
to 770 ADT. The average County growth rate between the 2000 and
2010 population census is shown to be 2.903% growth per year.
Extrapolating that rate of growth out to 2015 the 2002 counts would
have grown from 792 to 1117 ADT. The 2014 count of 803 falls within
this range and is being considered acceptable for use as an updated
number due to the downturn of oil and gas operations over the last
several years. This report utilized the “A policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets, 2011, 6th addition” AASHTO
Greenbook criteria to determine the stopping site distances on
grade for the two access location. Both locations average a 1.5%
grade at the entrance connection and within 500 feet of the access.
The Greenbook table 3-2: Stopping Site Distance states at a 3%
grade. To be conservative we have utilized that steeper grade
distance instead of the 1.5% actual grade. Stopping distances on
the down grade are set at 257 feet at 35mph and 237 feet upgrade.
The minimum site distance on the northern access is 375’ and the
southern access has 1000’ of minimum site distance. Both accesses
exceed the stopping distance required for a safe access. The ITE
9th addition manual does not have a section that includes USDA
Certified Processing Facility traffic counts. The closest use would
be a Warehouse, which I would anticipate to have a slightly higher
trip count (1.1 trips per employee) on a daily basis due to the
nature of the work at a Warehouse versus a Processing Facility
house. It is anticipated that each employee at the facility will
account for 1 daily trip per day. This daily trip is already
accounted for within the County ADT counts. B. Proposed Traffic
Conditions (2015 to 2025) The operations at the site are limited to
the size of the facility being run. The operations are limited to 6
employees at the current hours of operation; the delivery of
animals is also limited to the amount of square footage available
for slaughter and number of employees completing
Page 5 j:/sdskproj/215/1004/word/482 CR 315 Traffic Impact
Report
those operations. There is no anticipated change in the existing
site traffic created by the operations over the next 10 year period
due to no current expansion plans for the site being anticipated.
Additional buildings would need to be constructed to accommodate
more of a traffic load to the site. Additional outside sources of
animal deliveries will also be relegated to a small number of
deliveries on a weekly basis due to the same operation space and
employee restriction. Current driveway operations at both the main
and secondary access are not anticipated to change over the 10 year
period. This report utilized the “A policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, 2011, 6th addition” Greenbook criteria to
determine the Peak Hour Traffic loading based on the Garfield
County 2014 ADT traffic count of 803. The Greenbook suggest, in
section 2-49, that on a typical rural arterial that 25% of the ADT
is a conservative number of vehicles to be assumed for the Peak
Hour traffic volume that will pass by the access in question. This
calculates out to a Peak Hour traffic volume of 201 vehicles, with
the current operations traffic counts included within that count.
With no additional traffic anticipated to be created by the
operations over the next 10 years, the only additional traffic to
be added to the roadway ADT would be general county/traffic growth,
calculated at 2.903%. Currently 201 vehicles pass by the accesses
on the Peak Hour. With the hours of operation falling between 7am
and 3pm, this places the traffic entering and exiting the
operations outside the standard 8am and 5pm Peak hours. Assuming
the worst case scenario that the hours of operation were changed to
the Peak Hours, the employees would be entering and exiting the
access during the time that 201 vehicles per hour would be passing
by. This Peak Hour traffic volume of 201 vehicles per hour would be
broken out to 75% of the traffic directed north on Mamm Creek Road
and 25% heading south. This calculates out to 151 vehicles
utilizing a single lane of traffic over the hour duration, or a
single vehicle passing the accesses every 23.8 seconds. This time
gap between vehicles is more than adequate for a standard passenger
vehicle or semi-truck to complete a turn into or out of the site
during the Peak Hours of operation. This amount of average time
between oncoming vehicles is not anticipated to cause any traffic
backups or disruption of flow on Mamm Creek Road. With the addition
of 2.903% traffic over the 10 year time period this average vehicle
time gap will decrease to 17.9 seconds with the 75%/25% being
factored into the directional split of traffic. (1070 ADT/268PH).
This is still more than adequate time between vehicles to make any
of the necessary traffic movements into and out of the site with
either a passenger or semi- truck without impeding the traffic flow
on Mamm Creek Road to a point of causing a traffic backup on the
road. The Level of Service is always a major factor in how the flow
of traffic is assessed along a stretch of roadway. The AASHTO
Greenbook suggests that a level of service D on a Local Rural
Rolling roadway type is acceptable for traffic flow (Table 2-5). A
level of service D is considered “Approaching Unstable Flow” within
Table 2-4. With the amount of traffic that this section of roadway
currently sees and is projected to see, the spacing gap time
between vehicles will allow for a Level of Service in the Range of
A-B, “Free Flow to Reasonably Free Flow”.
Page 6 j:/sdskproj/215/1004/word/482 CR 315 Traffic Impact
Report
III. CONCLUSIONS The overall traffic load coming to and leaving the
existing and proposed facilities will have very little impact on
the larger traffic loading along Mamm Creek Road. The average time
gap between vehicles on Mamm Creek Road will make for easy and safe
access onto the site at either entrance location for either
passenger or semi-truck vehicles. This traffic analysis will need
to be reviewed if the site operations are expanding in the future.
IV. References Garfield County, “2002 Average Daily Traffic, County
Road System, Garfield County, Colorado” 2014 Garfield County Road
Traffic Counts Spread Sheet, Available on-line at Garfield County
Road and Bridge Department link. AASHTO “A policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets, 2011, 6th addition” Greenbook
Institute of Transpiration Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th
Edition,
Page 7 j:/sdskproj/215/1004/word/482 CR 315 Traffic Impact
Report
EXHIBITS
2014 County Traffic Spreadsheet
Traffic, Bicycling, Terrain, Directions
EF140
EF243
EF202
EF215
EF201
EF249
EF252
EF313
EF242
EF224
EF256
EF206
EF155
EF200
189 600
Garfield County, Colorado
Miles
1 inch equals 2.3 miles
CR158 at Ram's Horn Lake
DISCLAIMER: This map was produced by Garfield County Geographic
Information Services utilizing the ArcInfo Geographic Information
System (GIS). The GIS and its components are designed as a source
of reference for answering queries, modeling, and planning. The GIS
is not a substitute for official government records maintained by
the Planning Department, the County Clerk and Recorders Office, the
Assessor's Office, or for any legal description information in the
chain of title. In addition, the representation of geographic
locations by the GIS may not be substituted for actual legal
surveys. Always refer to the sources cited for the most current
legal documentation utilized in the composition of this map.
The information contained herein is believed to be accurate and
suitable for the limited uses set forth above. Garfield County
makes no warranty as to the accuracy or suitablity of any
information contained herein for any other purposes. The user shall
assume all risk and responsibility for any and all damages,
including consequential damages, which may propagate from the
user's application of this information.
All road centerlines were collected by Garfield County IT
Department's GPS Tech in 2002 using the Sokkia GIR1000 GPS System,
achieving sub-meter accuracy using data corrected to the Sokkia
Base Station with antenna located on the Garfield County Courthouse
rooftop. Projection: UTM, Zone 13, Meters, NAD27.
COUNTY ROADS CENTERLINE SOURCE:
Parachute
§¦70
£¤133
£¤82
P I T K I N C O U N T YP I T K I N C O U N T Y
E A
G L
E C
O U
N T
Y E
A G
L E
C O
U N
T Y
M E S A C O U N T YM E S A C O U N T Y
R I O B L A N C O C O U N T Y R I O B L A N C O C O U N T Y
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC STATISTICS SOURCE: ADT data gathered by
Garfield County Road & Bridge Dept in cooperation with the
Planning Dept. Seven day averaged counts collected between April
and October, 2002.
Legend Average Daily Traffic
1 - 72 73 - 154 155 - 242 243 - 371 372 - 545 546 - 770 771 - 1139
1140 - 1852 1853 - 2705 2706 - 4813
R I O B L A N C O C O U N T Y R I O B L A N C O C O U N T Y
R O
U T
T C
O U
N T
Y R
O U
T T
C O
U N
T Y
309A CEMETERY RD No Data Collected
310 310 Beginning of Road 62
311 DIVIDE CREEK RD Beginning of Road 1352
312 GARFIELD CREEK RD Bridge 335
313 E DIVIDE CREEK RD Beginning of Road 144
314 ALKALI CREEK RD Lower Portion 166
314 ALKALI CREEK RD Upper Portion 34
315 MAMM CREEK RD South of Airport Hill 803
316 KNUCKELS CREEK RD Beginning of Road 67
317 BEAVER CREEK RD Beginning of Road 768
317A SCRIBNER LN Beginning of Road 119
319 WEST MAMM CREEK RD Beginning of Road 802
320 RIFLE-RULISON RD West End 236
321 TAUGHENBAUGH MESA RD Beginning of Road 80
322 SHAEFFER RD Beginning of Road 163
323 RULISON RD beginning of Road 1017
324 MAXFIELD RD Beginning of Road 388
325 PORCUPINE CREEK Beginning of Road 64
326 CHIPPERFIELD LN beginning of Road 107
326E E CHIPPERFIELD LN No Data Collected
327 HALLS GULCH Beginning of Road 230
328 BALDY CREEK No Data Collected
329 SPRUCE CREEK RD Beginning of Road 107
33 33 No Data Collected
1517 Blake avenue, suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
From: Matthew Langhorst
Revised: May 29th, 2015
Project: 482 County Road 315, Silt. Eagle Springs Meat Processing
Center
Subject: Submittal Comment Reponses Letter
The purpose of this letter to is to review the comments received
from Chris Hale, Colorado River Fire Rescue, Melvin Gore (USDA),
Dan Goin Garfield County Road and Bridge and Steve Anthony Garfield
County Vegetation Manager. I. Chris Hale Comments from May 15th
2015 Letter: MIPA 8246
1. If the facilities were not able to obtain potable water from a
municipal water source, due to water conservation or other
conditions, the facility would either have to terminate operations
or find an acceptable water source to replace the current truck
delivery system of water supply. The facility owner is in
discussions with the City of Rifle to bring City water from the
Jail location on Airport Road down to Mamm Creek Road where he
could then bring the water up to this facility and home.
2. The USDA certification for the potable water system is a twice a
year test for coliforms. This test is currently being completed at
the facility for its USDA Custom Exempt status. The current
facility is also set up to provide sterilization through a 185
degree water bath/spraying process.
3. Currently the building is not set up with a fire sprinkler
system. The fire department has asked for the road from this
facility to the owners other greenhouse facility on the adjacent
property to be improved to a 20’ all weather road so that they can
shuttle water from that facilities fire suppression pond to this
location. A secondary fire protection water tank may be necessary
to add to this facility once the fire department has finished their
full review and we receive formal comments.
4. Per the zoning on the property animals can be raised on the
property, but they are not currently being raised there. If pasture
land is required in the future a fence will be installed around the
three septic system fields on the site to protect the infiltration
galleries from possible damage from hooves.
5. The current building permit that is into the county accounts for
the Onsite Water Treatment System (OWTS) design for the proposed
facility. Currently the facility is functioning under USDA Custom
Exempt; this designation requires nearly the same facility
guidelines as the USDA Graded facility. The site is already set up
for production and is providing USDA Exempt meat.
6. The existing house OWTS system and water supply line are shown
on the provided site plan set and discussed within the Utility
Report provided to the County. The OWTS system providing service to
the home was recently design by Garfield County and installed as
the site. The
Civil engineering Land surveying
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
www.hceng.com
waterline is a shared line with the main facility that tee’s off
the mainline and run to the house location.
7. The current planned operation hours for the facility in question
do no correlate with standard ITE peak hours along collector roads,
7:00am to 9:00am and 4:00pm to 6:00pm. It reasons that if the
facilities staff is not arriving during the peak hours on the
roadway that they will not add to the peak hour counts. If the
County would like, the staff traffic can be added to the Peak Hour
traffic as a conservative look at the local traffic conditions.
Traffic Counts on Mamm Creek Road were taken from County ADT
counts; no physical peak hour traffic counts were available. The
ADT per ITE guidelines was then calculated out to an average Peak
Hour based on 10% of the overall ADT.
II. Colorado River Fire Rescue from May 18th and May 21st, 2015
Letters:
1. The pending building permit packet will need to be supplied to
the CRFR for review. 2. The main access road from Eagle Springs
Ranch Road will be upgraded to a fire truck rated 20’
wide all weather driving surface. The road needs to be improved
from the solar panel farm location on the adjacent property to the
processing facility, the remaining existing roads from Eagle
Springs Ranch Road are oil pad roads and meet the fire department
requirements and are maintained year round. A geotechnical road
section design will be completed for the new road surface and
subgrade requirements. A map showing the road location has been
provided in this packet.
3. A Knox Box per the CRFR requirements will not need to be added
to the Mamm Creek Road driveway entrance with the existing electric
gate. The addresses for both the house and the processing facility
will be changed to Eagle Spring Ranch Road addresses for emergency
services purposes. The existing driveway off of Mamm Creek Road
will be only used by staff members when the weather conditions
allow. All other access will be from the Eagle Springs Ranch Road
access point which has a farm gate with a sling chain, no
lock.
4. Addresses for both house and facility will be changed to Eagle
Springs Ranch Road for emergency service purposes.
5. The CRFR fire marshal as of May 30th, 2015 was still considering
a tank and hydrant design requirement for the facility. We are
expecting a formal request on Monday the 1st of June, after this
submittal packet deadline.
III. Melvin Gore Response Email to Kathy Eastley Email:
1. No response comments on items 1-10 within the email, the
facility will meet all of the guidelines and requirements that are
mentioned with the email.
IV. Garfield County Road and Bridge, Dan Goin Email May 26th,
2015:
1. The concrete driveway apron meets the R&B Department’s
requirements. V. Garfield County Vegetation Manager, Steve Anthony
Letter May 26th, 2015:
1. A professional landscaper will be hired and a weed inventory of
the 35 acres will be completed along with a weed map created for
County review. This work will be completed as soon as possible, but
was not possible to have done by the 29th of May due to the request
date.
2. It is estimated that 18,000 SF of area will be disturbed with
the installation of the two new OWTS systems for the facility. This
will include the construction access across the site to complete
the installation.
1517 Blake avenue, suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
VI. Garfield County Community Development, Planner Kathy Eastley
Email, May 28th, 2015:
1. Answers to subsections per comment email: a. The facility will
have the ability to butcher the meat onsite and package the product
as a
final product to send out. This was a new consideration for the
site but does not affect the traffic from the site, water usage or
facility set up of the site. All USDA guidelines for the butchering
process will be met.
b. Once the water tank manufacture was verified, the tank sizing
could be 100% confirmed. The tanks are Darco 2,000 gallon potable
water tanks that are set up in a module system. The tanks are 2,000
gallons; the Utility report will be adjusted to correct this
mistake prior to final acceptance of the facility. The plan sheets
call out the 2,000 gallon tanks correctly. A detail of this tank
system has been attached in the exhibit section.
c. The facility will have the ability to process under USDA
guidelines Sheep, Goats, Pigs and Cows. If the facility is
processing any of these animals under the USDA Exempt status no
other work can occur until that product is cleared from the
facility and the facility has been sanitized. Only one type of
animal can be process at any one time, there will not and cannot be
per USDA any processing of different animals at any one time. There
are minimum holding times for each type of animal and processing
procedures. Please see attached detailed descriptions of each
animals processing and flow diagrams within the exhibit
section.
d. Please see attached processing and flow diagrams for facility
project narrative within the exhibit section.
2. Answers to subsections per comment email:
a. The following water draws from the facilities 6,000 gallons of
potable water storage are conservative numbers for the site. These
numbers are per the state water usage guidelines for the OWTS
system designs and the Poultry production numbers provided by the
owner. House, facility and facility bathroom water consumption will
depend greatly on production rates and days of operation per week.
These numbers are based on maximum capacity with daily operations,
which per the owner’s representative will never occur.
i. The single family home on the facilities property per the State
of Colorado OWTS system design requirements will utilize 300
gallons per day (2 bedrooms, 2 people per bedroom at 75 gallons per
day per person) per State guidelines.
ii. The bathrooms within the facility have been designed to 100
gallons per day OWTS system maximum capacity per State
guidelines.
iii. The butchering room facility drains have been designed to a
500 gallon per day OWTS system maximum capacity per State
guidelines.
iv. The chicken processing facility on the adjacent property that
utilizes water from the storage tanks can process up to 100
chickens a day at a rate of 100 gallons of potable water per day
per the owners supplied information.
v. Total water consumption per day maximum capacity is 1000 gallons
per day. This will allow for 6 days of full capacity operation and
house water usage prior to the next water delivery. A float alarm
system will be installed within the first main tank that will let
the operator know that he has reach the 2,000 gallon limit on the
tanks. This will provide for enough operating time after the alarm
has gone off to allow for another water delivery. This water system
is being considered temporary; the owner is in conversation with
the City of Rifle on providing public water to this location along
Airport Road.
b. A noxious weed inventory map will be provided to the County as
soon as possible. The client is aware that there are several type
of weeds on the property currently and a detailed plan will need to
be laid out to identify the weed types and appropriate spray
1517 Blake avenue, suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
www.hceng.com
methods. These methods will need to consider that an organic farm
is within proximity of this location, thus this mapping information
will take a bit of time to provide.
c. Please see attached overall site map from Mamm Creek Road, Eagle
Springs Ranch Road and onsite facility roads for access to the
property.
d. A plan and profile map to accompany the Overall Access map is
being worked on at this time. The map will be provided so that the
County and CRFR can approve the road grades from Mamm Creek Road to
the facility. These roads will all be 20’ wide all weather roads
appropriate for semi-truck and fire truck access. Due to the date
of the request this information was not available at this comment
review submittal date, but is being worked on.
e. Easement information for access across Eagle Springs Ranch
property from Eagle Springs Ranch Road has been attached within the
exhibit section.
VII. City of Rifle Comment Letter, Nathan Lindquist May 29th,
2015:
1. The City of Rifle looks to be in support for this facility at
this location. We feel that the owner of the facility is providing
a greatly needed service to the Garfield County farms that they are
missing due to the loss of the old processing plant in Rifle. This
facility will save those farmers’ hours of driving time to other
locations and substantial financial hardships due to those remote
locations.
Please let me know if you have questions pertaining to this Land
Use comment response letter. All materials stated as being added to
the original submittal packet will be completed as quickly as
possible and submitted to the County. Thanks,
Matthew Langhorst, P.E. High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake avenue, suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
Comment Letter:
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
www.hceng.com
Colorado River Fire Rescue (Orrin Moon, Fire Marshal) May 18th and
21st Comment Letters:
Colorado River Fire Rescue
Page | 1
Kathy Eastley May 18,2015 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood
Springs, CO 81601 RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Kathy: This letter
is to advise you that I have reviewed File Number: MIPA-8246, Ken
Sack Animal Processing, located at 482 CR 315. After reviewing the
application and doing a site visit, I have the following comments
to the proposed animal processing facility:
1. The application makes reference to Fire Protection in the
application PDF, page 32, item d. 7-109-Fire Protection for
building is addressed in the pending building permit application. I
do not have access to pending building permit and nothing is shown
in this referral packet. Information is needed on proposed fire
suppression and or suppression water for the facility.
2. In the application the reference is made of two access roads for
the facility.
The reference is a main access road that is too steep and narrow
for trucks and trailers, and the secondary road which appears to
access from Eagle Springs Ranch Road. Nothing in the packet shows
the entire secondary road or addresses the width or grade of the
road. I attended a site visit last summer with the Ranch Manager
and I drove through the ranch this morning to refresh my memory.
The access road from Eagle Springs Ranch Road starts out as a 20’ +
gravel road that accesses some area well pads. At the solar panels
a two track road travels to the west and ties into another road
that accesses the existing house and proposed animal Processing
Building. The access road from the solar panels to the intersection
of the Main road to the buildings is not adequate for a fire
department access road. The fire department access road shall be
able to support the weight of a fire truck and be all weather
driving surface. More information is needed on the proposed
secondary access road.
Colorado River Fire Rescue
Page | 2
3. The Main access road has an electric gate at the bottom of the
driveway. We (CRFR) do not have access to that gate at this time in
case of an emergency. If this access is to be used for emergency
access, then we will require the owner to purchase a Knox Box or
Knox padlock for the gate. If the secondary access is gated and
locked we will also need Knox box or padlock installed on
gate.
4. The existing home has an address of 482 CR 315. Depending on
access roads as noted above we will need to establish an address
for the Animal Processing Building and possibly the existing house
as to the best access road, (Eagle Springs, Mamm Creek Rd).
Emergency response could be delayed if we are responding to a Mamm
Creek address but actually end up accessing the address from Eagle
Springs Ranch Road. This issue needs to resolved.
Thank you for allowing me to review this referral and please feel
free to contact me with any questions or concerns. . Thank You,
Orrin D. Moon, Fire Marshal CRFR.
From: Orrin Moon To: Kathy A. Eastley Cc: Mike Morgan; Orrin Moon
Subject: File # MIPA8246, Sack Animal Processing Facility Date:
Thursday, May 21, 2015 11:03:39 AM Attachments: image001.png
Kathy, I just wanted to let you know that I have reviewed the
buildings plans for the existing building and addition of the
processing facility. I have determined that based on my referral
comments about emergency access and unknown fire suppression
outlined in the PDF packet, that fire suppression water up to
18,000 gallons of stored and accessible water may be required. This
suppression water is calculated according to NFPA 1142, Water
Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting. This NFPA
calculation is determined by the construction type, building cubic
feet, and exposure hazards. Please consider this an addition to my
referral comments. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions or concerns.
thank you,
colorado river fire rescue
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
From: Gore, Melvin - FSIS [mailto:
[email protected]] Sent:
Thursday, May 14, 2015 2:04 PM To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE:
Ken Sack Slaughterhouse
Yes, I can try to shed some light on our activities. I will answer
your questions by in-putting my response after the question. Melvin
Gore, DVM, SPHV
c/o Colorado Homestead Ranches
741 West 5th St.
OFO -- Verifying Food Safety and Animal Welfare every day
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:
[email protected]] Sent:
Thursday, May 14, 2015 12:17 PM To: Gore, Melvin - FSIS Cc: Garner,
Roger - FSIS Subject: Ken Sack Slaughterhouse Dr. Gore, As you are
aware I am reviewing the land use permit for the ‘animal processing
facility’ on Ken Sack’s property. I am interested in understanding
the USDA inspection process associated with this use, as well as
the general activities that take place during this process. Any
response you could provide to the following questions would be
great.
1. My understanding is that part of the USDA process is to
‘certify’ that the facility meets certain requirements – can you
briefly let me know what those physical requirements are? Our
standards were re-issued in 1997/1998. The Agency had regulations
that were very stringent if not micro-managing. I will send you a
copy of what we currently go by. Our guidelines now are “Each
official establishment must be operated and maintained in a manner
sufficient to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and to
ensure that product is not adulterated.” There is broad discretion
as to what constitutes an “insanitary” condition.
2. Is a USDA inspector required to be on-site for the
slaughter/processing in order to be USDA compliant? The USDA
inspection appears to be twofold – the facility and the process are
part of the inspection, is that correct? Actually, in the interest
of sanitation, our duties are one fold: to assure that product(s)
are prepared in a manner that prevents adulteration and the product
is wholesome. Now to the first part of your question. For the
slaughter process to be an inspected product, the Inspector must be
on-site for each animal to be harvested so that we can look for
diseases in the animal that would be unwholesome and to assure a
safe and humane slaughter. Fabrication or the cutting up and
preparation of the meat and poultry products, the Inspector does
not have to be there the whole time but needs to stop in and assess
the sanitation and handling of the meat and poultry. After the
slaughter process is completed, the
USDA mark of Inspection can be applied. If the carcass of whatever
species is not wholesome, it is condemned and disposed of, in this
case I saw ESO would be using the landfill.
3. Does the inspector remain on-site for the entire process or are
there only certain stages of the process that are inspected? Please
see answer #2. The slaughter process, the Inspector is on- site.
The further processing or fabrication of products, the Inspector
may come by and observe the sanitation performance of the
plant.
4. A comment was made that in-edible by-products will be properly
disposed of by Waste Management, does any agency regulate the
storage of those by-products prior to pick-up for disposal? We
regulate storage to the extent that the waste material products do
not contaminate or adulterate the inspected and passed product.
This Agency used to require a letter from the state stating that
transport of inedible materials could be transported to local
landfills. The Colorado Department of Agriculture State
Veterinarians Office no longer issues these letters to official
establishments in Colorado. The local health department, at their
discretion, would be responsible to address the transport of
inedible and condemned products off-site.
5. Does the USDA regulate by-products – those that may be used for
human consumption (the viscera, blood, intestines, etc) and those
by-products that may not be consumed but utilized for other
products (such as the rendering process, tallow, hides, etc)? Yes,
we regulate any meat and poultry product that is produced at an
official establishment that is intended for human consumption to
assure the products are wholesome and unadulterated. We do regulate
some processes such as rendering if it is done on-site as well as
edible fats and tallow which may be used in the cosmetic industry.
Hides are not in our regulations unless they are prepared for human
consumption (fried pig skin or chicherones). There is an outfit
from Scottsbluff, NE currently buying and picking up hides from
slaughter plants.
6. Are liquid by-products typically disposed of in the septic
system? Some research describes the paunch as being disposed, in
whole, in the sewer, is this standard? Others describe a process of
washing out the paunch and screening the solids for disposal – any
comments on these processes and what the county may need to
consider? Blood is mostly disposed of in western Colorado. It may
go to the local landfill. Paunch contents from ruminants typically
go to landfills or used as fertilizer. The paunch, after being
washed, can be used as edible by-product. Our interest would be if
the holding or storage would create reservoirs of flies or pests.
We would assure that this situation would be rectified
immediately.
7. How large a role does potable water play in this process? I
understand the need for water to clean up after the process but how
is the water utilized in the slaughtering? This is a critical
question due to the hauling of water to the site for storage in
tanks which could result in possible contamination. It is of
paramount concern to USDA-FSIS as well. During the slaughter
process and in all departments producing food for human
consumption, only potable water may be used. There is continual
washing of hands, aprons, tools and equipment that may come in
contact with edible product. See 416.2(g). In the case of private
water systems and wells, we require testing of water for coliforms
twice per year. Connection to domestic water entities, we request
the test results yearly from that source. We are aware that Eagle
Springs Organics (ESO) will be hauling water to the site. They will
be required to test the water at a water site in the plant, such as
faucet, hoses used for washing, etc, at a minimum of twice per
year. If an Inspector suspects an insanitary condition resulting
from the water, additional testing may be requested.
416.2(g)(1).
8. Some of the research I’ve done states that sterilization is
required for cleaning purposes, any idea on how the sterilization
may be affected if the plan is to use hauled water stored in
outdoor tanks? Yes, there are some equipment and tools that must be
sanitized frequently, especially
during the slaughter process. The establishment can either use
water that is at 180°F at the nozzle or a chemical sanitizing agent
that is acceptable in food producing establishments. Sodium
hypochlorite (bleach) or an organic iodine are also used at
recommended concentrations. I must emphasize again, USDA-FSIS would
only use potable water to formulate an acceptable sanitizing
agent.
9. Refrigeration would appear to be necessary. You are correct. The
carcasses after slaughter must be held at ≤45°F to prevent any
outgrowth of pathogens.
10. My understanding is that they plan on processing cows, but they
also want to retain the ability to use the facility for custom cut
orders. Is there an issue with slaughtering multiple types of
animals in one facility – cows, pigs, elk and deer? Cattle, swine,
goats, and sheep can all be slaughtered there if ESO applied for
those species in their application for inspection. Deer, elk, and
bison (buffalo) may also be slaughtered if ESO has an approved
application for “Voluntary Inspection.” These would be ranch raised
game animals. We are required to observe all slaughtered animals
when the animal is alive to detect some disease conditions. As you
may expect, big game animals harvested in the wild state would not
qualify for the Federal mark of Inspection because an Inspector
does not have the opportunity to observe the animal prior to
slaughter. An official establishment may also apply to conduct
“custom-exempt” slaughter operations. This situation would be in
the case of a person bringing in an animal for slaughter and
processing for their own use. In this case, the animals are
identified as “custom” animals and the Inspector is not on-site
during the total process. In such cases, an USDA-FSIS Inspector
also performs a yearly review to check the water certificates,
verified handling of the inedible products, written plans that
address that all bovines were able to stand and move on their own,
and some other items to assure that an official establishment is
not handling animals that are unfit for human consumption. This is
a record review process mostly but facilities are checked over as
well.
Any assistance you can provide in this review would be very helpful
in understanding the land use. Thank you. I have included the
section from our Regulations that are discussed in this email. The
Regulation is 9 CFR 416. I also high-lighted some of the concerns
you asked about.
Kathy Eastley, AICP
9 CFR § 416.1 General rules.
Each official establishment must be operated and maintained in a
manner sufficient to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions
and to ensure that product is not adulterated.
§ 416.2 Establishment grounds and facilities. (a)Grounds and pest
control. The grounds about an establishment must be maintained to
prevent conditions that could lead to insanitary conditions,
adulteration of product, or interfere with inspection by FSIS
program employees. Establishments must have in place a pest
management program to prevent the harborage and breeding of pests
on the grounds and within establishment facilities. Pest control
substances used must be safe and effective under the conditions of
use and not be applied or stored in a manner that will result in
the adulteration of product or the creation of insanitary
conditions.
(b) Construction. (1) Establishment buildings, including their
structures, rooms, and compartments must be of sound construction,
be kept in good repair, and be of sufficient size to allow for
processing, handling, and storage of product in a manner that does
not result in product adulteration or the creation of insanitary
conditions. (2) Walls, floors, and ceilings within establishments
must be built of durable materials impervious to moisture and be
cleaned and sanitized as necessary to prevent adulteration of
product or the creation of insanitary conditions. (3) Walls,
floors, ceilings, doors, windows, and other outside openings must
be constructed and maintained to prevent the entrance of vermin,
such as flies, rats, and mice. (4) Rooms or compartments in which
edible product is processed, handled, or stored must be separate
and distinct from rooms or compartments in which inedible product
is processed, handled, or stored, to the extent necessary to
prevent product adulteration and the creation of insanitary
conditions. (c) Light. Lighting of good quality and sufficient
intensity to ensure that sanitary conditions are maintained and
that product is not adulterated must be provided in areas where
food is processed, handled, stored, or examined; where equipment
and utensils are cleaned; and in hand-washing areas, dressing and
locker rooms, and toilets. (d) Ventilation. Ventilation adequate to
control odors, vapors, and condensation to the extent necessary to
prevent adulteration of product and the creation of insanitary
conditions must be provided. (e) Plumbing. Plumbing systems must be
installed and maintained to: (1) Carry sufficient quantities of
water to required locations throughout the establishment; (2)
Properly convey sewage and liquid disposable waste from the
establishment; (3) Prevent adulteration of product, water supplies,
equipment, and utensils and prevent the creation of insanitary
conditions throughout the establishment; (4) Provide adequate floor
drainage in all areas where floors are subject to flooding-type
cleaning or where normal operations release or discharge water or
other liquid waste on the floor; (5) Prevent back-flow conditions
in and cross-connection between piping systems that discharge waste
water or sewage and piping systems that carry water for product
manufacturing; and (6) Prevent the backup of sewer gases. (f)
Sewage disposal. Sewage must be disposed into a sewage system
separate from all other drainage lines or disposed of through other
means sufficient to prevent backup of sewage into areas where
product is processed, handled, or stored. When the sewage disposal
system is a private system requiring approval by a State or local
health authority, the establishment must furnish FSIS with the
letter of approval from that authority upon request.
(g) Water supply and water, ice, and solution reuse. (1) A supply
of running water that complies with the National Primary Drinking
Water regulations (40 CFR part 141), at a suitable temperature and
under pressure as needed, must be provided in all areas where
required (for processing product, for cleaning rooms and equipment,
utensils, and packaging materials, for employee sanitary
facilities, etc.). If an establishment uses a municipal water
supply, it must make available to FSIS, upon request, a water
report, issued under the authority of the State or local health
agency, certifying or attesting to the potability of the water
supply. If an establishment uses a private well for its water
supply, it must make available to FSIS, upon request, documentation
certifying the potability of the water supply that has been renewed
at least semi-annually. (2) Water, ice, and solutions (such as
brine, liquid smoke, or propylene glycol) used to chill or cook
ready- to-eat product may be reused for the same purpose, provided
that they are maintained free of pathogenic organisms and fecal
coliform organisms and that other physical, chemical, and
microbiological contamination have been reduced to prevent
adulteration of product.
(3) Water, ice, and solutions used to chill or wash raw product may
be reused for the same purpose provided that measures are taken to
reduce physical, chemical, and microbiological contamination so as
to prevent contamination or adulteration of product. Reuse that
which has come into contact with raw product may not be used on
ready-to-eat product.
(4) Reconditioned water that has never contained human waste and
that has been treated by an onsite advanced wastewater treatment
facility may be used on raw product, except in product formulation,
and throughout the facility in edible and inedible production
areas, provided that measures are taken to ensure that this water
meets the criteria prescribed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
Product, facilities, equipment, and utensils coming in contact with
this water must undergo a separate final rinse with non-
reconditioned water that meets the criteria prescribed in paragraph
(g)(1) of this section.
(5) Any water that has never contained human waste and that is free
of pathogenic organisms may be used in edible and inedible product
areas, provided it does not contact edible product. For example,
such reuse water may be used to move heavy solids, to flush the
bottom of open evisceration troughs, or to wash antemortem areas,
livestock pens, trucks, poultry cages, picker aprons, picking room
floors, and similar areas within the establishment.
(6) Water that does not meet the use conditions of paragraphs
(g)(1) through (g)(5) of this section may not be used in areas
where edible product is handled or prepared or in any manner that
would allow it to adulterate edible product or create insanitary
conditions.
(h) Dressing rooms, lavatories, and toilets.
(1) Dressing rooms, toilet rooms, and urinals must be sufficient in
number, ample in size, conveniently located, and maintained in a
sanitary condition and in good repair at all times to ensure
cleanliness of all persons handling any product. They must be
separate from the rooms and compartments in which products are
processed, stored, or handled.
(2) Lavatories with running hot and cold water, soap, and towels,
must be placed in or near toilet and urinal rooms and at such other
places in the establishment as necessary to ensure cleanliness of
all persons handling any product.
(3) Refuse receptacles must be constructed and maintained in a
manner that protects against the creation of insanitary conditions
and the adulteration of product.
§ 416.3 Equipment and utensils.
(a) Equipment and utensils used for processing or otherwise
handling edible product or ingredients must be of such material and
construction to facilitate thorough cleaning and to ensure that
their use will not cause the adulteration of product during
processing, handling, or storage. Equipment and utensils must be
maintained in sanitary condition so as not to adulterate
product.
(b) Equipment and utensils must not be constructed, located, or
operated in a manner that prevents FSIS inspection program
employees from inspecting the equipment or utensils to determine
whether they are in sanitary condition.
(c) Receptacles used for storing inedible material must be of such
material and construction that their use will not result in the
adulteration of any edible product or in the creation of insanitary
conditions. Such receptacles must not be used for storing any
edible product and must bear conspicuous and distinctive marking to
identify permitted uses.
§ 416.4 Sanitary operations.
(a) All food-contact surfaces, including food-contact surfaces of
utensils and equipment, must be cleaned and sanitized as frequently
as necessary to prevent the creation of insanitary conditions and
the adulteration of product.
(b) Non-food-contact surfaces of facilities, equipment, and
utensils used in the operation of the establishment must be cleaned
and sanitized as frequently as necessary to prevent the creation of
insanitary conditions and the adulteration of product.
(c) Cleaning compounds, sanitizing agents, processing aids, and
other chemicals used by an establishment must be safe and effective
under the conditions of use. Such chemicals must be used, handled,
and stored in a manner that will not adulterate product or create
insanitary conditions. Documentation substantiating the safety of a
chemical's use in a food processing environment must be available
to FSIS inspection program employees for review.
(d) Product must be protected from adulteration during processing,
handling, storage, loading, and unloading at and during
transportation from official establishments.
§ 416.5Employee hygiene.
(a) Cleanliness. All persons working in contact with product,
food-contact surfaces, and product- packaging materials must adhere
to hygienic practices while on duty to prevent adulteration of
product and the creation of insanitary conditions.
(b) Clothing. Aprons, frocks, and other outer clothing worn by
persons who handle product must be of material that is disposable
or readily cleaned. Clean garments must be worn at the start of
each working day and garments must be changed during the day as
often as necessary to prevent adulteration of product and the
creation of insanitary conditions.
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
www.hceng.com
Garfield County Road and Bridge (Dan Goin, Dist. 3 Foreman) May
26th Comment Letter:
From: Dan Goin To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE: Ken Sack Animal
Processing Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 7:17:26 AM
Kathy This driveway has been updated with a concrete apron so it
meets standards so I they should be good to go on this one. Dan
Goin District 3 Foreman Garfield County Road and Bridge 0298 CR
333A, Rifle CO 81650 970-625-8601 From: Kathy A. Eastley Sent:
Thursday, May 21, 2015 10:46 AM To: Dan Goin Subject: Ken Sack
Animal Processing Good morning Dan, Have you had a chance to look
at the application for the slaughterhouse on CR 315? You should
have received an email in late April asking for comments from Road
& Bridge on the request. Please let me know if you have any
questions. Thank you. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield
County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs,
CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470
[email protected]
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
Garfield County Community Development (Kathy Eastley, Senior
Planner, May 29th Email Comment Letter:
1
From: Kathy A. Eastley <
[email protected]> Sent:
Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:19 PM To: Matt Langhorst; Karl J. Hanlon
Cc: Tamra Allen Subject: Ken Sack
Good afternoon Matt,
Thank you for the site visit, it was very informative. I have a few comments based upon what we learned yesterday:
1.
The application must be amended based upon the following information:
a.
The product will be butchered and packaged at the site as opposed to what is described in the
application which states that the product will be transported to the butcher shop in the City of Rifle
where it would be cut and packaged;
b.
The water tanks are 2,000 gallons each as opposed 2,500 gallons are erroneously noted in the
application;
c.
The site will process swine, sheep and goat as well as cattle (fowl is processed on the adjacent property
and is not USDA certified);
d.
Revise and expand the project narrative to accurately describe the activities on the property as well as in
the animal processing facility;
2. Supplemental materials a.
Provide water usage numbers from the facility, the single family home and any other activity that is
proposed to use water from the water storage tanks (page 4 of the utility report indicates that “These
manifolds send water out to the steel building, irrigation system and the home on the site.”), and fire
protection if any is proposed. The numbers provided in the application materials related to the
processing appear to be low,and the addition of different animals for processing may affect the amount
of water utilized, particularly the fowl. This information is critical in determining that adequate physical
water can be provided to serve the proposed use.
b. Provide a noxious weed inventory; c.
Provide a map which indicates the proposed access to the facility;
d.
Provide plans and profiles of the proposed access to the facility;
e.
Provide easement documentation regarding Eagle Springs Ranch Road.
Staff is currently unable to determine that the proposed use meets the minimum standards contained in the LUDC,
particularly regarding access and water.
We are awaiting updated fire district comments (regarding water storage for fire protection and access issues), as well
as comments from the Environmental Health department. As you are aware the Planning Commission hearing is on
June 10th therefore any information to be considered in the review needs to be submitted no later than May 29th.
Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.
Kathy Eastley, AICP
Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th
Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext.
1580
1517 Blake avenue, suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
City of Rifle (Nathan Lindquist) May 29th Email Comment
Letter:
1517 Blake avenue, suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
Eagle Springs Meats Answers to questions
See attached flow Diagram
Cows shall be walked over to facility from Eagle Springs Organic herds.
If we are processing cattle for other ranchers, the cattle will be brought
to Eagle Springs via Eagle Springs main entrance. The animals shall be
placed into our pens (pens can hold up to 20 head).
Since we are dry aging our beef, beef will hang for min of 14 days.
The maximum number of hanging cattle is 40 every 14 days.
It takes 40 minutes to process a cow from live to hanging, with 2 to 4
employees. Further processing shall be done off site at Eagle Springs
Meats in Rifle.
We anticipate using 34 gallons of water per cow. Our 6,000 gallons of
water will be refilled as needed.
Pigs, Goats or Sheep
See attached Flow Diagram
Pigs, goats or sheep will be walked to the facility from Eagle Springs
Organic herds.
If we are processing pigs. Goats or sheep for other ranchers, they will
be brought to Eagle Springs via Eagle Springs main entrance. The
animals shall be placed into our pens (pens can hold up to 40 head).
It takes 20 minutes to process a pig, goat or sheep with 2 employees.
We anticipate using 4 gallons to process a pig, 3 or less for goat and
sheep.
Poultry Processing
We can process 100 chickens a day using 100 gallons of water.
Two to 3 employees.
We expect that initially we will have USDA inspection 1 to 2 days a
week. Will increase if our meat sales warrant.
The 6,000 gallons of water is more than sufficient to meet our needs for
a long time. We would like to eventually get City of Rifle water brought
to our property from the County.
We are now discussing renewal of an easement across the ranch by
URSA, which will include their improving the “slaughterhouse road” to
accommodate their trucks or their improvement of existing roads near
solar. Either way, the roads will be improved per Oren’s request.
Under USDA, we are considered a small plant. We anticipate that all
processing will be done under USDA inspection.
Process Flow Diagram
11. Lactic Acid Spray
11. Lactic Acid Spray
13.Receiving lactic acid
01/26/2006 Version; Supersedes all other versions
Process Flow Diagram Process Category: Slaughter Product: Pork,
sheep, goats 1. Receiving Live Animals
2. Stunning / Bleeding OR Shooting/Bleeding
3. Head Removal (optional)
10. Trim Zero Tolerance
Process Flow Diagram
2. Receiving/Holding Live Poultry
feet removal
13. Storage of packaging materials
and wax
10. Liver/heart/ gizzard:
6. Neck cutting
CCP 1B
CCP 2B
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
From: Matthew Langhorst
Revised: June 30th, 2015
Project: 482 County Road 315, Silt. Eagle Springs Meat Processing
Center
Subject: Submittal Comment Reponses Letter
The purpose of this letter to is to review the comments received
from Chris Hale, Colorado River Fire Rescue, Melvin Gore (USDA),
Garfield County Environmental Health Department and a water usage
email from Homestead Meats in Delta Colorado. I. Chris Hale
Comments from June 29th, 2015: Email Correspondence
1. The fire suppression pond, location and access will be reviewed
by the CRFR. They have requested some small changes to the intake
location and hydrant location, but nothing that will affect the
overall design of the facility or quantity of water available to
them.
2. The site wells will need to be augmented through a West Divide
contract to allow for water usage out of the wells for pond/above
ground usage. This process is in the works through the permitting
and augmentation process.
3. If the County and County Engineer are requesting a fence around
the OWTS system fields at this time, the owner of the property will
abide by this condition.
II. Colorado River Fire Rescue from June 26th, 2015: Email
Correspondence
1. More detailed fire hydrant and pond drawings will be worked
through with CRFR. The current plans allow for 45,000 gallons plus
of water to be located 2’ to 3’ above the intake per the CFRF
details for a pond intake structure. HCE will work with CRFR to
provide the detailed information that they require for final pond
approvals.
2. As per the Access Report a Geotechnical Engineer will be onsite
during the construction of the road to make sure that the proposed
road section is 100% appropriate with the existing onsite soils.
The roadway section design was compiled from a sampling of site
soils that were available and consistency in the soils along the
entire roadway will need to be verified as will the compaction of
the placed material during construction. HCE will also provide a
Design Engineer onsite as needed to assure that drainage, alignment
and width of roadway are being maintained as per the design and as
field conditions regulate.
Civil engineering Land surveying
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
www.hceng.com
3. There will be no lock added to the main entrance gate. This
gate/access is utilized by multiple parties and a lock would hinder
that use. If a lock were ever added to the gate it would be a CRFR
approved Knox Lock.
III. Melvin Gore Response to Kathy Eastley Email, June 23rd,
2015:
1. The sewage disposal system for the waste water leaving the
processing room is to be directed to a OWTS system designed to
handle the flow from this room, estimated at 300 gallons per day at
maximum processing requirements. The BOD/Effluent quality from this
room has been confirmed and the information has been sent to All
Service Septic. Prior to the Final OWTS system permitting an
updated design packet will be submitted and approved through
Garfield County. A final system design acceptance letter will be
provided to the USDA-FSIS.
IV. Garfield County Environmental Health Development, Morgan Hill
Letter, June 26th, 2015:
1. Answers to subsections per comment letter: a. The facility owner
agrees that the water tank storage and water hauling method
is
not the ideal situation for the facility. If the facility were to
run out of water for any reason the facility would have to shut
down until water was made available again, which is not ideal for a
business thus the alarms on the tank levels. The water delivery
service can have water to the facility within one days’ time, which
with the tank alarms for half full tanks, provides enough security
in timing that the water delivery company can make their need
delivery and the facility can maintain a reliable operation. A long
term potable pressurized piped water supply is being investigated
for feasibility with the City of Rifle. The extension of the Cities
mainline at the airport is being discussed and worked out if
possible with the City.
b. As stated above, if the facility uses more water than the
estimate due to unforeseen circumstances and the facility runs out
of stored water, they will have to shut down the facility until
water is delivered. Due to the tank alarms, no matter what amount
of water is being utilized that day, the alarms will sound and the
plant manager will order more water. The owner can only predict the
water usage that they see on a standard day; all other usages will
be outside of a normal day and will be handled with a water
delivery if necessary. Water usages were lowered when the overall
water requirements shifted from a combination of the kill room and
production room to individual water usages for each room, not a
combined number.
2. Answers to subsections per comment email:
a. To my knowledge All Service Septic has not requested the
effluent information from Mark (plant manager) or Ken Sack (owner)
directly. The effluent quality information has now been provided to
All Service Septic as of this date. Any revision to the OWTS system
design that may follow with the information that was provided will
be caught up in the Building Permit process when the OWTS system is
officially permitted for.
1517 Blake avenue, suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
www.hceng.com
b. The MicroFast system is required by the State of Colorado to
have a service contract for the life of the system to ensure that
the system is functioning properly. Garfield County does not have a
system for regulation on the MicroFast system or other second level
treatment systems available to the public. The Owner of the
property will need to supply the County the initial 2 year contract
for the system that Valley Precast provides upon installation of
the system and then also provide the year to year contracts to the
County for the remainder of the life of the system.
c. A hard pipe connection that is detachable via a union or other
method of construction will be attached to the solid waste disposal
piping flowing from the building to the tank as per the County
request.
V. Water usage email provided to Kathy Eastley from Dale Dexter at
Homestead Meats in Delta Colorado, June 26th, 2015:
1. Kathy Eastley had requested Homestead Meats provide a water
usage quantity for their similar processing procedures from Dale
Dexter.
a. The response from Dale on their water usage is fairly unusable
for a comparison to this facility. As per Dale’s comments they
utilize approximately 50,000 gallons of water at their facility
during a single month to process 100 head of beef, 65 hogs and 20
lambs. This amount of processing is above and beyond the agreed
upon numbers for the proposed facility. Dale also states that they
produce other items such as sausage. Upon review of the Homestead
Meats website the facility also provides custom cuts on a daily
basis for store customers in addition to their actual processing
facility in the shop. They also have a store to sell their product
to the public. This appears to be a larger facility than the
proposed facility with more staff, restrooms for staff in the
store, restrooms for the plant staff and other facility options
that this processing plant is not requesting or providing for. The
Homestead Meats processing facility has machinery onsite for
grinding meat, sausage packing, smoking meats, etc. Grinding and
packing machines require significant water to clean and the process
of producing the sausage also requires water. This facility is
hooked to a municipal water supply and Mark the Plant Manager at
the proposed facility has stated that if they were hooked to a
municipal facility they would be less conservative with their water
usage. Maybe all facilities should have limited water so water
conservancy is a must. A more defined water usage chart from this
facility would need to be reviewed prior to making a comparison or
a comparable facility that is run from a limited water supply
should be reviewed for comparison.
Please let me know if you have questions pertaining to this Land
Use comment response letter. Thanks,
Matthew Langhorst, P.E. High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake avenue, suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. (Chris Hale) June 29th Comment
Letter:
From: Chris Hale To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE: Ken Sack Animal
Processing Date: Monday, June 29, 2015 9:53:30 AM
Kathy: I have reviewed the additional material provided for Ken
Sack Animal Processing. The review generated the following
comments:
- The fire suppression pond, location, and access should be
reviewed by the Fire Department.
- The Applicant should discuss if the site wells allow fire
suppression as a use; the Applicant should provide well permits to
be used for filling of the fire suppression pond.
- A condition should be included to fence off the OWTS from
pasture/animal grazing areas. Feel free to call or email with any
questions or comments. Sincerely,
Mountain Cross
Engineering, Inc.
Ph: 970.945.5544
Fx: 970.945.5558
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:
[email protected]] Sent:
Monday, June 22, 2015 12:48 PM To: Chris Hale; Morgan Hill; Orrin
Moon; Gore, Melvin - FSIS Cc: Tamra Allen; Kelly Cave Subject: Ken
Sack Animal Processing Good afternoon, Ken Sack has submitted
additional materials related to the request for a USDA Animal
Processing Facility. You had all reviewed and commented upon the
application therefore I would appreciate it if you could review the
attached documents to see if your concerns and comments have been
adequately addressed. There is a short timeframe for your review so
I would appreciate it if you could respond with any comments at
your earliest convenience. I do need comments by the end of
the day Friday, June 26th. Thank you and feel free to contact me
with any questions. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield
County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
www.hceng.com
Colorado River Fire Rescue (Orrin Moon, Fire Marshal) June 26th
Comment Letter:
From: Orrin Moon To: Kathy A. Eastley Cc: Mike Morgan; Rob Jones
Subject: RE: Ken Sack Animal Processing Date: Friday, June 26, 2015
8:17:47 PM
Kathy, I have reviewed the latest changes to the Animal Processing
Facility and have the following comment;
1. The latest changes cover my concerns for this facility. I will
request that engineered plans be submitted to me on the Fire Pond
and Dry Hydrant. I have concerns on the fire hydrant location and
the location of the suction pipe and would like to see further
detail.
2. The access road from Eagle Springs Ranch Road looks to be
adequate in design and structure. I would like to have insurance
that the road is built as designed. I am assuming that the
engineering firm will have an inspector.
3. I noticed that the entrance gate at the intersection to the
entrance road showed no lock. I want to be clear that if this gate
locked that we need to have a Knox lock installed for access.
Thanks again for allowing me to comment on this referral. Thank
you, Orrin D. Moon Fire Marshal Colorado River Fire Rescue
970-625-1243
[email protected] From: Kathy A. Eastley
[mailto:
[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015
12:48 PM To: Chris Hale; Morgan Hill; Orrin Moon; Gore, Melvin -
FSIS Cc: Tamra Allen; Kelly Cave Subject: Ken Sack Animal
Processing Good afternoon, Ken Sack has submitted additional
materials related to the request for a USDA Animal Processing
Facility. You had all reviewed and commented upon the application
therefore I would appreciate it if you could review the attached
documents to see if your concerns and comments have been adequately
addressed. There is a short timeframe for your review so I would
appreciate it if you could respond with any comments at your
earliest convenience. I do need comments by the end of
the day Friday, June 26th.
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
USDA (Melvin Gore) June 23rd Response Email:
From: Gore, Melvin - FSIS To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: RE: Ken
Sack Animal Processing Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 12:33:37
PM
USDA-FSIS is concerned that Federal Regulations are followed,
and specifically in this case 9 CFR 416.2(f) “Sewage disposal.
Sewage must be disposed into a sewage system separate from
all
other drainage lines or disposed of through other means
sufficient
to prevent backup of sewage into areas where product is
processed, handled, or stored. When the sewage disposal
system
is a private system requiring approval by a State or local
health
authority, the establishment must furnish FSIS with the letter
of
approval from that authority upon request.”
It was the high-lighted sentence that eventually brought
Garfield
County Planning and Health Departments into review of this
project. Without approval of the septic sewerage disposal
system
by a State or local health authority, USDA-FSIS could not
grant
inspection of meat and poultry products privileges to Eagle
Springs Organics. This being stated, I see two areas of
clarification for USDA-FSIS: 1) Will Garfield County require
connection of the processing (slaughter and product
fabrication)
facility to the OWTS prior to issuing a permit for use? and 2)
Will
the chicken processing facility be connected to the OWTS as
part
of the permit of use?
When Eagle Springs Organics presents your letter of approval
of
the sewerage/septic system, USDA-FSIS review will start over
to
ascertain that Federal sanitary standards will be met.
One final observation: The engineering reports stated upon
occasion that the USDA-FSIS Inspector will be “grading” the
carcasses. This is a semantic issue. USDA-FSIS does not grade
the slaughtered animals which would place the USDA “Prime,”
“Choice,” grades on the carcasses. USDA-FSIS inspects the
carcasses for wholesomeness and no adulteration to insure
food
safety; USDA-FSIS does not involve inspection for quality
grades.
Have a great day!
Melvin Gore, DVM, SPHV c/o Colorado Homestead Ranches 741 West 5th
St. Delta, CO 81416 Office: (970) 874 - 8637 Cell: (970) 371 - 8093
OFO -- Verifying Food Safety and Animal Welfare every day
From: Kathy A. Eastley [mailto:
[email protected]] Sent:
Monday, June 22, 2015 12:48 PM To: Chris Hale; Morgan Hill; Orrin
Moon; Gore, Melvin - FSIS Cc: Tamra Allen; Kelly Cave Subject: Ken
Sack Animal Processing Good afternoon, Ken Sack has submitted
additional materials related to the request for a USDA Animal
Processing Facility. You had all reviewed and commented upon the
application therefore I would appreciate it if you could review the
attached documents to see if your concerns and comments have been
adequately addressed. There is a short timeframe for your review so
I would appreciate it if you could respond with any comments at
your earliest convenience. I do need comments by the end of
the day Friday, June 26th. Thank you and feel free to contact me
with any questions. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield
County Community Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs,
CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470
[email protected]
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
Garfield County Environmental Health Development, Morgan Hill, June
26th, Letter:
Garfield County Public Health Department – working to promote
health and prevent disease
Public Health
Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street Glenwood
Springs, CO 81601 Attn: Kathy Eastley June 26, 2015 Hello Kathy, My
comments for the Ken Sack Animal Processing facility amendments are
as follows:
1. Water Supply a. I stand in support of my earlier comments
regarding the supply of water using
holding tanks that must be filled on a regular basis. i. The
current water supply system of three storage tanks that
requires
water to be hauled to the slaughterhouse is not a good long-term
solution for the life expectancy of this operation. Garfield County
Land Use Code requires that a potable water supply be provided that
is adequate and of a high enough water quality for consumption by
employees; and in this case the processing of meat. We recommend a
well be drilled, if possible, that would be tested using the
“Deluxe Colorado Package” of the CDPHE Lab Services Division.
b. The new estimate on water usage per animal is even lower in the
revised updates, indicating that only two gallons per cow of water
will be required. While I understand it might be physically
possible to use that little of water, this does not allow for the
potential to need extra cleaning in the event that animals might be
dirty or for other processes requiring water. I recommend
significantly increasing the amount of water per animal needed to
ensure adequate supply for cleanliness during slaughtering and
processing.
2. Wastewater Treatment a. In All Service Septic’s Design
Specifications, Carla Ostberg indicates that the
applicant still has not provided information regarding effluent
quality from the Butchering room. This should be provided to both
Carla and the Community Development Department.
i. It is unclear as to what sort of materials will actually be
entering the second OWTS designed for the actual animal processing
facility. On our site visit, we were made aware that the blood,
intestinal, and other waste coming from the kill room would not be
sent into the OWTS but rather stored and hauled to the landfill.
However, our understanding was that the room where meat is
processed into various cuts for clients will drain to the septic
system. Before we approve the system designed by All Service
Septic, all parties involved should be aware of exactly what will
be entering the system to know how large it should be sized and
what level of secondary treatment is necessary.
195 W. 14 th Street
Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-5200
2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-6614
Garfield County Public Health Department – working to promote
health and prevent disease
b. The MicroFAST treatment system proposed for use in the OWTS from
the butchering room requires an operation and maintenance contract
that they will have with the client. Copies of this contract and
maintenance records should be submitted to Garfield County Public
Health and Community Development.
3. Solid Waste Disposal a. The piping that comes from the kill room
should be connected fully to the tank
that will be used to haul solid waste to the landfill, rather than
an open air spout that empties into the tank. This will reduce the
potential attraction of flies and other pests to this area, as well
as the potential for spills.
4. Product Labeling and Sale a. I did not see an update in the
application revisions answering my questions about
the names of the various components of Mr. Sack’s operations.
Several of their listings online indicate that there is a “USDA
Meat and Poultry Processing Plant on site” which is not correct as
of this date. This must be removed and all mislabeling
addressed.
b. Eggs that are produced at the farm are being sold in the Farm
Fresh Café. Eagle Springs must be a certified egg dealer through
the USDA in order to sell eggs at a retail food establishment.
Please contact Heather Nara, the current retail food establishment
inspector for the Rifle area, with questions at (970)
683-6648.
Thank you,
Morgan Hill Environmental Health Specialist III Garfield County
Public Health 195 W. 14th Street Rifle, CO 81650 (970)
665-6383
1517 Blake avenue, suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970-945-8676 phone 970-945-2555 fax
www.hceng.com
Water usage email provided to Kathy Eastley from Dale Dexter at
Homestead Meats in Delta Colorado, June 26th, 2015:
From:
[email protected] To: Kathy A. Eastley Subject: Re:
Meat Processing and water usage Date: Friday, June 26, 2015 9:12:24
AM
Kathy, I don’t have numbers by species. In general, we slaughter
and process about 100 head of beef, 65 hogs and 20 lambs per month.
On average we use about 50,000 gallons of water per month. We also
make other products, such as sausage—these products are not related
to the slaughter of these animals. So some of that water is used
for those unrelated activities. Hope this helps, Dale 970-874-1145
From: Kathy A. Eastley Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 1:25 PM To:
[email protected] Subject: Meat Processing and water usage
Mr. Dexter, I am a land planner for Garfield County and we are
currently reviewing a proposal for a USDA inspected animal
processing facility. I am interested in understanding the amount of
water used in the process – for holding of the animals to
slaughter, clean-up and butchering for cows, goats, sheep, pigs and
chickens. Could you provide me any estimates on how much water it
takes to process one of each of these animals? I have received
varying information – anything from 1 gallon of water to process a
chicken to 2 gallons of water to process a cow and am just trying
to get a ball- park amount of water needed for a facility. Any
information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank
you. Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community
Development 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone:
970-945-1377 ext. 1580 Fax: 970-384-3470
[email protected]
Main: (303) 866-3581 Fax: (303) 866-2223
[email protected]
GENERAL PURPOSE Water Well Permit Application Review instructions
on reverse side prior to completing form. The form must be computer
generated, typed or in black or blue ink. 1. Applicant Information
Name of applicant
Mailing address
Construct new well Use existing well
Replace existing well Change or increase use
Change source (aquifer) Reapplication (expired permit)
COGCC Well Other: ________________
Water Court case #
Designated Basin Determination #
Well name or #
1/4 of the
Principal Meridian
Distance of well from section lines (section lines are typically
not property lines)
Ft. from N S Ft. from E W
For replacement wells only – distance and direction from old well
to new well
feet direction Well location address (Include City, State, Zip)
Check if well address is same as in Item 1.
Optional: GPS well location information in UTM format You must
check GPS unit for required settings as follows:
Format must be UTM
Zone 12 or Zone 13
Units must be Meters
Datum must be NAD83 Unit must be set to true north
Was GPS unit checked for above? YES
5. Parcel On Which Well Will Be Located (PLEASE ATTACH A CURRENT
DEED FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL)
A. Legal Description (may be provided as an attachment):
B. # of acres in parcel
C. Owner
D. Will this be the only well on this parcel? YES NO (if no list
other wells)
E. State Parcel ID# (optional):
Office Use Only
6. Use Of Well (check applicable boxes) Attach a detailed
description of uses applied for.
Industrial
Municipal
Irrigation
Commercial
gpm
acre-feet
feet
Aquifer
8. Land On Which Ground Water Will Be Used Legal Description of
Land (may be provided as an attachment):
(If used for crop irrigation, attach a scaled map that shows
irrigated area.)
A. # Acres
B. Owner
C. List any other wells or water rights used on this land:
9. Proposed Well Driller License #(optional):
10. Sign or Entered Name Of Applicant(s) Or Authorized Agent The
making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second
degree, which is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor pursuant to
C.R.S. 24-4-104 (13)(a). I have read the statements herein, know
the contents thereof and state that they are true to my knowledge.
Sign or enter name(s) of person(s) submitting application Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
If signing print name and title
Office Use Only USGS map name DWR map no. Surface elev.
AQUAMAP
Form GWS-45 (07/2013)
COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES GWS-45 GENINST (07/2013)
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
GENERAL PURPOSE WELL PERMIT APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS Applications
must be computer generated on-line, typewritten or printed in BLACK
or BLUE INK. ALL ITEMS in the application must be completed.
Incomplete applications may be returned to the applicant for more
information. Applications are evaluated in chronological order.
Please allow approximately six weeks for processing. This form may
be reproduced by photocopying or computer generation. Reproductions
must retain margins and print quality of the original form. If
filing online see online filing instructions! You may also save,
print, scan and email the completed form to:
[email protected] For further information please visit
www.water.state.co.us FEES
: This application must be submitted with a $100 filing fee.
Acceptable forms of payment are check or money order, payable to
the Colorado Division of Water Resources. Visa, MasterCard or
Discover are accepted by phone through our Records Section at
303.866.3581. Fees are nonrefundable.
USES
: This form (GWS-45) i