Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report PC 12.07.97PROJECT INT'ORMATION AIID STAT'F COMMENTS PC t2lt7t97 The Englund/lvloore Subdivision Sketch Plan Charles Englund, Luther & Diana Moore A tract of land situated in a portion of Section 32, T7S, R87W of the 6th PM; more practically described as a tact of land located approximately one (1) mile east of State Hwy. 82 and Cotrnty Road 100 intersection. The site coniists of 22.6 acres. Individual wells krdividual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) Highway 82 Frontage Road A/R/RD A/R/RD REQUEST: OWNER: LOCATION: SITE DATA: WATER: SEWER: ACCESS: EXISTING ZONING: ADJACENT ZONING: I. tr. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREIIENSTVE PLAN The subject property is located in the Low Density Residential (10 and greater ac./du) Area on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1995, Proposed Land Use Districts Map, Study Area I. DESCRIPTION OF TIIE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The property is a vacant parcel generally located between the Highway 82 Frontage Road and the Roaring Fork River There are no dwellings on the properfy on the property. There are five (5) ponds on the property that used to - l- _- $ry' nIJ m. be a part of a private fishing club. There are various wetland habitats on the property, related to the ponds and the river. On the southem boundary of the property is the railroad right-of-way. B. Project Description: The applicants are proposing to subdivide a property identified as being 22.6 aqes in size, into t'wo (2) lots (see sketch plan map in application). The lots are proposed to be ll.2 and 11.4 acres in size and will have only single family dwellings on them. Each of the proposed lots has a building envelope in an area of an existing pond, to be filled by dredged material from the other ponds The lots are to be served by water from a individual wells. Each of the lots will require an engineer designed individual sewage disposal system. Access will be directly off of State Hwy. 82 Frontage Road, using an existing drive that crosses over and adjacent property for Lot 2 and a direct access for Lot l. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS A. Colorado Division of Wildlife: The DOW has noted concerns about the loss of wetland habitat. animal control and wildlife impacts to the property if it is developed. tSee iener pg'.{r+j?-r B. Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District: The District has noted that the access to the subdivision is adequate. Additionally, they noteftat the propefi will be subject to the Fire District impact fees. (See letter pg. -__?-_) C. U. S. Army Coms of Engineers: The COE has expressed a number of concems about the proposed wetland fill proposed by the applicant to estabiish the new building sites proposed. They also note the "no net loss" criteria as a basis for their review. This letter was sent to the County as a part of the COE 404 permit review process. Also enclosed is a copy ofthe public notice form sent out as a part ofthe review process.. ln a verbal conversation with the COE in Grand Junction, they indicated that there have been a nurpber of concems exp;essed by individuals and groups in the area. lSee ieuer pst.ll.ZO I D. Division of Water Resources: In summav, the Division said that based upon the information provided, the proposed ryltel supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights. (See letter pg.'_fl. E. STAFF COMMENTS A. Zoning: All of the proposed lots meet the two (2) acre minimum lot size in the A/R/RD zone district. The A/R/RD zone district only allows one dwelling unit per lot as a use by right. Given the proposed water supply, it does not appear that there will be enough water for either of the lots to have any additional dwellings. There o2o IV. -_ {8. B. is a flood plain identified for the area in question. (See map pg. 22 ) It should be noted that no fill activity can occur within an identified flood plain, without receiving the appropriate permits. It appears that all activity proposed for fill is outside of the flood plain, but this will need to be very clearly explained in *y subsequent applications. Roads: The proposed access to the lots are not classified as roadways since they are technically driveway serving a single family dwelling and not classified as a roadway. It will be necessary for the applicant's to demonstrate that legal access will be granted to Lot 2, by providing a copy of a deed legally describing the access easement. Water and Sewer: The wells proposed to serve the lots will be domestic wells, augmented with water purchased from the Basalt Water Conservancy District. Section 4:91 requires that there be a report as a part of the Preliminary Plan "indicating the availability of ample potable ground water at reasonable depths ....the expected quality and long-term yield of such wells, with the written report by a registered professional engineer..." It will also need to be demonstrated where on the lots the wells would be drilled, to allow for the review of proposed ISDS. The applicants are proposing to use engineered ISDS for sewage disposal . Section 4;92 requires "evidence as the result of soil percolation tests and produce excavations to determine maximum seasonal ground water level and depth to bedrock...". It is difficult for staffto understand how the applicants propose to meet this requirement, prior to the proposed fill being placed on the site and a design being developed as a result of this review. Any other proposal would not appear to meet the regulations. Additionally, it will need to be demonstrated that any proposed ISDS can meet the setback requirements from live streams, waterways, property lines and domestic wells. The soils reports indicate that the use of "community sewer " would be the appropriate way to deal with any sewage disposal in this area. It should be noted that there will a new or upgraded central sewage disposal facility just down stream from this property and the Waldorf School is also obligated to consider connecting with the same system. The applicants need to consider this as an option at the time of any Preliminary Plan submiual. Soils/Geologlr: As noted above, the SCS soils information submitted with the application, indicates some potential for ground water contamination. The applicants note that the information is probably not valid, due to all of the changes that have been made to the site by the creation of the various ponds. Staff also questions the validity of that information, given the proposed f,rlling of one of the ponds with sediment from some of the other ponds. It does not appear possible to provide the type of analysis required in Section 4:70 (/r) of the Subdivision Regulations. Of particular concern is the ability to determine that the fill can meet or- C. F. :--q' G. all of the issues addressed in the previous section, until the actuaf fill is placed. The previously noted Corps of Engineers letter poses a number of serious questions as to whether or not the proposed fill should be allowed. Staff concurs with the applicant that no Preliminary Plan should be submitted until a COE 404 permit is approved. Staff would also suggest that a complete Preliminary Plan application cannot be developed until the fill is placed and analyzed in place. Comprehensive Plan: The applicant has provided their own interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff disagrees with the interpretation of the applicant in some of the interpretations and feels that additional comments are appropriate in other areas. The following comments are offered for consideration: Housing: The applicants have interpreted the housing goal in a manner different than staff. The proposed fill of an existing wetland area is not really being sensitive to the environmental constraints of the site, as much as it is intended to provide river view lots, with a possible higher market value. To classify these lots as upper/mid would seem to be underestimation of the market in Garfield County. The "ripple effect" argument for lower income hgusing is weak at best. Transportation: While the proposed lots will not access directly onto a County road, there will be use of roads in area that are County owned and maintained. Any lots approved will subject to a road impact fee at the time of final platting. Recreation/Open Soace: The proposed dedication of the unusable portions of the property on the south side of the river and the railroad ROW makes sense given the fact that the property really serves no purpose in terms of usable land. Water and Sewer Services: The applicants only state that there will be water readily available form the Roaring Fork aquifer and that there will be engineered ISDS. The State Division of Water Resources has questioned the legality of the water availability. As noted previously, the applicants need to address the feasibility of connecting the existing or proposed sewage treatment facility located downstream of the site. It is the applicant's responsibiliry to determine whether there is a "logical, legal and economic extension of service lines from an existing water and/or sewage system...". Additional language in policy 7.3 states ,,the County will require developers proposing I.S.D.s. to provide data that demonstrates to the County that the proposed site can accommodate these systems prior to project approval." The Septic Systems constraints map notes that the entire area has a high water table, creating the potential for ground water contamination. There are a significant number of questions regarding the use of I.S.D.S.. i- -G' F. Natural Environment: There are two very specific policies that apply to this project: 8.1 Garfield County shall discourage and reserve the right to deny development in areas identified as having severe environmental constraints such as active landslides, debris flows , unstable slopes, bedrock slides, major mudflows, radioactive tailings, slopes over 25 percent, riparian areas and wetlands and projects proposed with the 100 year flood plain. 8.4 The County will require development with river frontage to address the issue through physical design in a way which will protect fragile wetlands and scenic resources and protect flood plains from encroachment. This project includes both flood plain and wetlands issues that need to be addressed in any subsequent application. Density: The applicants note that the property is designated as an area of with proposed density of l0 ac. or greater per dwelling unit. It appears that for the purposes of the densiry calculation that applicants are claiming ownership of the land underneath the Roaring Fork Railroad. with this land and prior to any proposed conveyance of hillside, both of the proposed lots would be excess of 10 acres. If the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority owns the right-of-way, then the applicants do not have the land ownership identified. The hillside south of the railroad ROW would already exist as a separate parcel and the Railroad ROW would not be included in the ownership for the purpose of calculating a lot size. This needs to be researched further, to avoid any conflicts with the RFRHA when a future application is referred to them for review. This issue needs to be included in any further submissions to the Counfy. The following issues will need to be included in the covenants of the proposed subdivision: One (1) dog will be allowed for each residential unit within a subdivision and the dog shall be required to be confined within the owners properry boundaries. The requirement will be included in the protective covenants for the subdivision with enforcement provisions allowing for the removal of a dog from the area as a final remedy in worst cases. No open hearth solid-fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within an exemption. one (1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defied by c.R.s. 25-7- 401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, wil be ailowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natr:ral gas burning stoves and appliances. .uo 1. ) - lcs, 3. Each subdivision shall have covenants requiring that all exterior lighting be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting be directed inward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property boundaries. The Sketch Plan comments shall be valid for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date of the Planning Commission review. If a Preliminary Plan for the proposed subdivision is not presented to the Garfield Cotrnty Planning Commission within this period, the applicant will have to submit an updated Sketch Plan application to the Plaruring Division for review and comparison with the original application. e 6D' ,-q STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BES 0 5 199fi DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPFORTUNTY EMPLOYER John Mumma, Diractor 606O BroadwaY Denvar. Colorado 8021 6 Telephone: (3O3) 297-1 192 t2-3-97 Garfield County Planning Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: The Englund/Moore property is mainly comprised of ponds and their associated wetlandi and riparian type vegetation. A variety of wildlife species utilize the area including smaIl mantmals (beaver, muskrats, raccoon, skunk, coyotesretc. ), song birds, and waterfowl. The proposed development area is most valuable to waterfowl. The siltation of the 2 easterly ponds have, in fact, created better wetLands for waterfowl with the variety of rretland vegetation present. The property across the river on the steep hillside contains winter range for mule deer and e1k. It is adjacent to other parts of the Crown which contain critical winter range for deer and e1k. The current proposal designates thj-s as open space which will continue to benefit wildlife. Inpacts to wildlife will result from the dredging of the 2 eaiterly ponds and fill of an existing pond. There will be direct loss of valuable wetland habitat. Deepening the 2 easterly ponds to create a better fishery does not mitigate the Ioss of wetland and riparian vegetation. If the proposal is approved as designed, the following recommendations will help to minimize wildlife impacts: 1. ft would be best if there was a no net l-oss of wetlands. Creating new wetlands on site may not be possible due to property line constraints. Investigate the possibility of creating wetlands off site to replace those lost 2. Maintain wetlands and riparian vegetation south proposed building envelopes and along the river as those along the westerly border and access route. 3. Install silt fencing along the south edge of the development on the bench above the river and associated wetlands (above the current chain link fence). This fencing should be in place before any surface disturbance, maintained throughout the development period, and removed only after construction is finished and any disturbed soils/sites revegetated. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, ExeCutive DTECIOT WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Charrman . Rebecca L. Frank, Vice-Chairman o Mark LeValley, Secretary J esse Lanssto ^ t"[;,1' ;. t il,'ft " :H:: "'ilft [iJ 1i:; J..,'" "' Lo ns' M em ber '-q-?- of thewell as [-'- For People 4. A11 utillties be buried in access driveways5. Restrict to I doglltolne with a kennel restriction. Kenne1 be constructed before the C.O. is issued. This will help minimize impacts to wintering wildlife across the river6. Homeowners be made ahrare of problems associated with livlng and building within a riparian zone with the associated wildlife such as raccoons, skunks, beaver, deer, and geese. The DoW is not Iiable for damages.to property caused by these species. thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any guestions, please give me a caII. District Carbonda Manager ,* Clarbondale & Hural FIre Prrrteotlon E)lstrlot DEC O December 1,1997 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: EnglundAVloore Subdivision - Sketch Plan Mark: I have reviewed the application for the proposed Engh.rnd/Ivloore zubdiuision and have visited the site. I would offer the following comments. Access The proposed access to the sites via the driveways off Old Highway 82 generally appear to be adequate for fire apparatus. The driveways should be constructed to support fire apparahrs weighing 56,000lbs. Wao Supplia Water upplies for fire protection would initially be provided from water carried on fire apparatus. Additional water could be provided from the ponds. Imprct Fees The development is subjea to impact fees adopted by the District. The developer will be required to enter into an agreement with the Dstrict for the payment of development irnpact fees. This payment is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot impact fee adopted by the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please call if you have any questions, Bill Gavette Fire Marshal -?s rl l:__--,,-{Mcadoryod Dryg co 81623 (s/o) 9€$2491 (970) s634569 ffi BEPLY TO ATTENTIOI{ OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEEF DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACFAMENTO. CALIFORNI A 9581 4.2922 November 21, L997 Regulat.ory Branch (199775319) Mr. LuEher E. and Mrs. Diana G. Moore 15513 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 87623 Mr. Charles E. Englund 2205 Shalimar Drive CoLor-ado Springs, Colorado 80915 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Moore and Mi. Englund: We are wriE,ing to you concerning Department, of the Army Fublic Notice number 1997753L9. We have reviewed your response Eo the comments received; and, we continue tLc have quest'ions about t,he project. These guestions relate primarily to al"ernatives analysis and project feasrbiLiiy. The first most basic item we must evaLuate is a detailed alt.ernatives analysis for the proposeC project. As pointed out in E,he Environmenlal Prot,ection Alency's commenE letr-uer datred OcEober !6, 1997, a portion of the project involving the ievelopment, of t,wo homesites is noE ccnsiaered a waEer-depenCent activily. rrWater-dependent'r means thaE tl:e activi-uy associaEed with thl discharge oE oredged or fill maEerial wi-thin waters of the Unieed, StaEes requires access to, proximiEy Eo cr siting within, a waterbcdy or wetlands t,o fulf1Il its basic purpose. your request to dr-dge accumulaEed sedimenE. from E,he Johnson anC S poncis in order Eo improve fisheries and pond storaEe capacit'y is wat,er-Cependent. A house does noE require fill in a pond or weciand area to fu1fi11 it.s basic purpose of shelEer. The me1-e fact that another alternative siEe may cost more does not necessarily mean t,hat it is not practicable. Before we can consider any aspects of E,he permit further, this subject of alt-ernat.ives musi be further investigat,ed. Assuming that you can show E,hat the homesites as currently proposed are the onlv prcven oracticable alternative, the following discussion applies. We disagree with your d.iscussion thaE the catt,ail-dominat,ed wetlands within the Johnson Pond are non-jurisdictional. The slow accumuLation of sediment in Ehis pcnd is a "normal cj.rcumst,ance" aS are t,he development, of emergent wetLand plant speci.es in t,his pond. Therefore, wetland losses of Ehis kind must be considered. Based on t,his, cur figures show a proposed '14- , --. -3- 4. Provid.e a compensatory wetLand mitigaEion proposal whichincludes sketches and a fuII aicounting of t[e mitigation goa1s,methods and materials to be used, Eiming of miEigationimplementation, maj-ntenance requirementE, monj-toiing andreporting program, _contingency plan for unsuccessful miEigation,and measures to safeguard agaj-nst further adverse impact. Onsitein-kind compensatory mitigat,ion is preferred. ., - 5. WhaE coord,ination has occurred.with the county on thisploposal? what j.s your alternative plan should the cointy d.enyall or a portion of your current plane We ask that you provide a response to Ehis letter within 30days- Pgpetding upon your responses, the possibility exisEs that -th" application will be withdriwn and another public notice willbe processed to include additional project detlirs. rf aresponse is not received, lour applicalion will be withdrawn.Please submit your response to Ms. susan Nalir or our Grand.runction office aE 402 Rooc Avenue, Room 142, Grand .Tunction,colorado 81501-2563 who may also be reached at, telephone (970)243-1199, extension 16 S j-ncere1y, Brooks CarterChief, Intermountain Regulatory Section Copies Furnished: Ms. sarah Fowler, u.s. Environmental protection Agency, gEpR-Ep, 999 18t,h street, suite 5oo, Denver, colorado gazoz--z+eaMr. Rick Krueger, u.s. Fish and wildlife senrice, 764 HorizonDrj-ve, south Annex A, Grand .function, colorado g1506 -3946Mr. 'John Farrow, colorado Department of Health, wecD-B2, ,/ 4300 cherrT creek Drive south, Denver, colorado 90222-1530/14r. Mark Bean, Garfield county, 109 gth street, suite 303,Glenwood Springs, Colorado g1GO1 -il*- US Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 9581 4-2922 Public Notice' Public Notice Number: 1 9977531 9 Date: September 16, 1997 Comments Due: October 16, 1997 ln reply, please refer to the Public Notice Number TO WIIOM IT MAY CONCERN: SUBJECT: Appiication for a Departnent of the Army permit under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA to dredge approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment from turo ponds and discharge into a 0.6 acre pond, as showa in the attached drawings. APPLICANT: Luther E. and Diana G. Moore rCharles E. Englund 16613 Highway 82 and 2205 Shalimar Drive Carbondaie, CO 81623 Colorado Springs, CO 80915 LOC^{TION: The project site invol ves a 22.6-acretract of iaod located approximately fotu miies east of the Town of Carbondale benveen the Roaring Fork River and Highway 82. The Roaring Fork Bed & Brealdast is at the north end of the property which is within the NW 1/4 of Section 32, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, Garfield Cor:nty, Colorado. PURPOSE: The appiicants wish to improve the quaiiry of fish habitat in the existing ponds, insure the continued suppiy of adjudicated water tbrough the controVdiversion structures, and provide atr area suitable for the constnrction of two singie family residential sites with private driveways. Upon completion of the project, it is the intention of the appiicants to subdivide the tact inro two essetrtially equal tacts, each containing a residential site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site aopears to be an old fish hatchery with five ponds fed by BIue Creek which outlets to the Roaring Fork River. The work proposed consists of removing accumulated siit from two the eastern most ponds (Johnson Pond = 0.5 sr:rface acre and the "S" Pond = 1.7 acres) and repairing or replacing for:r existing contoVdiversion sbuctures. The stocked tout will be shockdd and removed, and the ponds dewatered one at a time by pr:mping to facilitate the r.se of conventional excavating equipment zuch as a tacked loader and dr:mp tnrcks to remove the excavated materials. It is estimated that approximateiy 20,000 cubic yards of material will be removed - 14,000 cubic yards from the "S" Pond and 6,000 cubic yards from the Johnson Pond. The majorilv of the excavated pond mateiais (15,000 cubic yards) will be placed on-site in the southwestern 0.6 acre River Pond which will also be dewatered. Jhs lgrnaining 5,000 cubic yards will be disposed of off-site in an upland area. tO -l CESPK-CO-R Page 2 Public Notice Number 199775319 The controVdiversion str.lctures consist of smail l8-inch culverts with either a slide gate or a pllnrood panel for upsrearn control. After a pond has been dewatered, the related sbr.lctues wili be excavated using a backhoe, ali necessary repairs or replacements made, and the structures will be bacldlled with the original excavated materials. Earthen grass dikes serve as vehicle access around the ponds. Approximately 900 linear feet of these dikes, on the east andwestends,wi1lbemachinegradedwithasmai1dozerorgraderandarol1ercompacted surface course of 140 cubic yards of forr inch Class 6 aggregate base cotuse added to serye as drivew'ays for the homesites. One-fourth of the Johnson Pond (0.125 acre) contains a cattaii dominated wetland which wouid be removed by the excavation activiries. Approximately 0.1 acre of wiliow dominated perimeter wetlands on the River Pond, as well as the 0.6 acre pond, will aiso be perneanently impacted by fi-II activities. An addirional 0.2 acre of willow dominated wetlands sr:rror:nding the Johnson and "S" ponds will be temporarily impacted by the ponds dewatering and excavation activities and diversion suucture repairs. ALTER\ATIIES: An anaiysis of aiternatives was not provided in the applicants submittal. The o',rmers wish 1s sltain the investmeat potetrtial from sales of the two homesite in the current proposal. It does appear that the southeru portion of thi property does not offer a practicable buiiding site based on access problems and steep mountainor:s terrain. The applicants also own an ll-acre tact of land immeCiately eas of this site. IIowever, this tract is primariiy w'etland and is currently being evaluated by the appiicants as another potential residentiai homesite which would aiso require processing of an individual permit application. Ooe obvious altemative to the proposed activiry is no action or permit deaial. Another alteraative that would reduce impacts to the aquatic environment wouid be to decrease the scope of the project to develop only one homesite. AREA DESCRIPTION: 'I\e 22.6 acre site is located in the Roaring Fork Valley at an elevation of aror:nd 6,315 feet msl. The property contains five ponds with associated wetland borders which encompass about six acies of the site. These private ponds are fed by Blue Creek which runs 30+ cubic feet per second (cfs) and outlets to the Roaring Fork River. The owrrers have a 12 cfs aCjudicated water right off Blue Creek to feed these ponds which are stocked with tout and generate income through private catch-and-release cusromers. The ponds do sit elevationally higher than the river and, in fact, are not mapped within the 100- year floodplain. lvlost of the ponds are relatively deep (12 feet) but do contain zubmergent and emergent vegetation, in addition to the opeu water, and provide habitat primarily for fish and waterfowl. The perimeter wetlands are contain willow (Salix exigua), cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), canary reedgrass (Phalaris anrndinacea), sedge (Carex aquatilis and rostrata), and a mix of other grasses. o lE- l )t' CESPK-CO.R Page 3 Public Notice Nurnber 199775319 The north end of the prope{v contains a home and business just off of the Frontage Road for State Highway 82. The southenr end of the property ssnfains the Roaring Fork River bordered on the south by the Denver & Rio Grande Raiiroad and a steep mountain property managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Residential homes are scattered east and west of this properfy with the exception of the irnrnediate east properfy also owned by the applicaas and discussed above in the Alternatives Section. ADDITIONAL DEORILATION: The applicant has requested water quality certification from the Colorado Deparment of Pubiic Heaith and EnvironmetrL Water Quaiity Control Division in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Written comments otr water quality certification should be zubmitted to IvIr. John Farrow, Planning and Standards Section, Colorado Departnent of Public Health and Environmenl Water Quaitty Control Division, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Deover, Coiorado, 80222-1530, oo or before October 16, 1997. The Colorado Deparment of Public Health and Environmen! Water Quatity Contol Division also reviews each project with respect to the anti-degradation provision in state regulations. For the project which is the subject of this public notice, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environmenl Water Qualiqv Contol Division has freliminariiy determined this project may be disallowed unless additional water quality mitigation to offset the expected imFace is provided. For further information regarding anti-degradation provision, please contact Mr. Farrow at the Colorado Deparhent of Public Heaith and Environmenl Water Quality Control Division, telephone (303) 692-357 5. The latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places and its montily zupplements have been reviewed and there are no places either iisted or recourmended as eligible which wouid be affected. No further cuinral resources review is warranted because the permit area has bees extensively modified by previor:s work This activity would not afflect any tkeatened or gsdengered species or their critical habitat. The Diseict Engineer has made this determination based on information provided by the applicant and on the Corps' prelimina4v investigation. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on or before October 16, 1997. Any person may request, in writing, within the cornment period specified in this notice that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particulariry, the reasons for holding a public hearing. :. e t#- CESPK-CO-R Page 4 Pubiic Notice Number 199775319 The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed acivity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeabie detiments. A11 factors which may be reievant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; zrmong those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environraental concems, wedands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, enerry needs, safery, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consideration of properry ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activiries involving 404 discharges, a permit u'iil be denied if the discharge does not comply with the Enviro''-entai Protection Agency's Section 404(b) (1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteri4 a permit wiil be granted r:nless the Distict Engineer detem.ines it would be contrary to the pubiic interest. The Cor^os of Engineers is soliciting cornments from the public;..Federal, state, and local agencies and officiais; Indian Tribes; and other interested panies in order to consider and evaiuate ftg impacts of this proposed activir-v. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, '*'ater quality, general environmentai effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environrnentai lmpact Statement pr:rsuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Commeats are also used to determine the need for a public hearing aad to determine the overall pubiic interest of the proposed activiry. \\,ritten comments on this permit applicadon should be submitted to the District Engineer at the address listed above. Please fuiaish a copy of your written courments to the attention of Susan Bachini Nall, Westem Colorado Regulatory Ofitce, U.S. Army Engineer Distict, Sacramento, 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142, Grand Juncdon, Colorado 81501-2563. For further informarion, please contact Susan lsghini Nall, at telephone number (970) 243-1199, extension 16. Dorothy F. Klasse Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Enclosures: 5 Drawines 12 fg' * ,{At t),',/ zs -/t <r/:4/,// .164 a< 6rl rlqLl o0-<oQ< lriiI /, { Nr /' I I'Mulford Ctq{ CAREONDALE, COLO. 39107-02-TF{24 1961 PHOTOREVISED 1987 DMA 4562 I NW-SERIES V87? E--ff,-r =': -a2==== ,.8 a ,rrr r,or or oL06rc^\ rs.vry. rrsror. v,.cr{.^ r... iffi7,if,... ." ROAD CLASSIFICATION !o-^ Primary hignway, Light.duty road, hard or "+)i:, hard surfaCe imiroved'surfa.e - -' - *:- Secondary hignway, hard surface- Unimproved road.__=-=----.. l- lnterstare Route ! U. S. noute Q State Route Si.ss ^g.sffi,,, ;*V -,'-/5-1).G--.,)i),'/6:ill-Z2e>N.r;iN-\\f,r\// ./\ ) ffiN \r-- \ 'r.\\-J\.\,,,;=-\:/Llf6-;<ftir $J"t(yS NKko 1, .,1 \r. R. 38 W. R. 87 W. \.--:.,. L0CATIoN l-^np z t Nonr OUAORAI{GLE LCC1TION ,l#'- PA6E / g5 ---r\ c, iii% $,.. .[ .1 i. :l.. I..1 r\iA) '/. I -'-'-) ' ---4 -=X r\\ =, H-i''=\'. B -r-.\-/ r E ta_ - ,.{}, j7o ? l ll $ \ '- -. >E I Il. b3.'-.3 ui IF ir{t tt ili;tia it';fvi: ( l.< iiE;iliiliE i;rt rfi ttB Ello I l-r l, t;r I E B E NIiirril -i--t-iiill HIIiI 5 iF!l-6;rilfr iliii 'rIFObi38 rl!t -f,5 !:tr -6 l{UI ,-{Ic:et .3t3 IiiiE ii{if, iBr3I f,t dFF8ii'liiET,o o 6I :l ,8It.o H.il EI i 'I |h ?_ 0t.t\ c- s$sob\ &I U \A +g h tA r^l (A Fs9r IP't\ h tr5\i > ) -n\- \ I t,l N G\f\ N s \(l ::H LT .t ie ^.;a -l tl uII 0 0 -1') -rl I .lJ 4!.€N?coD sF4 Naaj AnntrtaNALa:ert.s*nf .5 rt 1 7' /'\/ 7LE l'7P 3 ff - P:nt,ur:r&,L.Z)/J.a,D -€Acg €x/r7/NG rqND J+3, P-cJ/D€/vr/At- )/ / a,J *o. 3<s ac<.; PLAN V/€1/)/ r*rd = 2@ F€Er Y,'CiN'/-Y / t,vci 3 ZO JA4N. tlOt :\ ,O'{o 0'f IJ etti(\ {"5e $s \ l\l<\ s T { Oa_,ra_*..^\ , a€!. - ir- '*rr" .W cpsZ N ts- s\ -t(i(\\rEic'i T$3 D/4 se T\ ItrI'tlr N \ s \ $. R #/ {"la NN 0| .-,ruruetY tu4D/v/t/c/\/i cF 22.4 ac. TeAcr t .a{ r\1s €x,1-tue/uaes F/-r/J m^,D ":&4fi,I-*Ar,rr,eE D€,qT/^L tzrr &€tr -^4- l,i5- -ws.)',r lls:ri \ Ttryn o'{' -=/ lS -,oc,uar[ I -ffi ::i: -Lar gN€4tI '--'"- PAC€ 3 ar .CA,zPP*r, ,ry ! \ .tl(\ lr. \,s lrl N t\ N$ t r) t t.t. Iu \( I NI ') \ l"( t\ st .aI l,r Js. /?'t *n II tr $l\\u' $t II $ \X \h -{ .IIt/ Si't- $ a i(-' N.f\ \ \ Nai\ Nll:$t)t\ n- lrg Fs Ir-:t B$*}I \\ r'" \\ nlr,r IJ. rlr '.-- 't'*--..:, -. - -''' IrI $. ,iq a \N Ir( g( il Nrt I N ,{ t \tr\iI I Hrtt\ n >\N \\[ \'t\ \ )s' rr) a \.,,i *g;E :-- " "-.. L ^,rZ-.3\v )/ 1_ gJfl'E 4iIt \"pA \ r €.(c^v\,-/o,'/l ./ ;-:.cj ticr/o,y A-A' J \ lnr €x€Avar/aN (ur+l vAE/€r /o'roit, J:g€rl€N E3A' *Jn'liF,v€Nr Na / / tx*^/r A {*'t;Lu,*,n/r+.,tco4{ F/f*'Pa/D R€,1/a.1 / R-.ft6^rrZ^L f/1lf U€S7 , e fr- Fta€{oFg a^ .t \ -/,a, -r2 \ -- - -Da+18-L99? 14:58 DIU hJRTER RESOURCES 383 866 3589 P.A2/A2 STATE OF COLCI1ADC OfFICE Of THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Reiources Depanment of Natural Resources '1313 Sherman Streec Room 818 Denver, Cblorado 80203 Phone (303) 856-3581 FAx (303) 866-1589 Roy Romer GnrQrnor Jancs 5. Lodrherd Exrrutivc Director Hrl O. Simpaon Sure Engincer Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re:Englund /lVloore Subdivision S%NW% & NY,SW% Sec. 32, T7S, R8nV, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Mr. Bean: We have reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 2..6 acres into 2lots of 11.2 and 11.4 acres, with one single family dwelling on each lot. There are severEl existing ponds on the parcel. The applicant proposed to provide water through incliviclual on lot wells pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the Disrict). A copy of the contrac{ was provided. Sewage disposalwill be through individual septic systems. Although well permits for this area mey be available if the well is included in the Disfict's temporary substitute supply plan, no mention of such inclusion was made in the submiftal, no well permit application has been submitted for review by this office, and there is no guarantee that a well permit can be issued. Furthermore, to be considered a legally reliable source of weter the well must be included in a cou( approved augmentation plan, since there is no guarantee that a temporary substitute supply plan will be renewed. No information was provided on the adequacy of fre water supply. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Seaion 3C2&136(1Xh)(l), that the proposed water supPly willcause material injury to decreed tyater rights. Due to insufficient information we cannot comment on the physical adequaqy of the water supply. lf you or the applicant has any questions conceming this matter, please contad Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, December 5, 1997 Steve Lautensctrlager Assistant State Engineer SPUCMUenglund.doc e:. Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Berquist, Water Commissioner, District 38 -Al--u TOTRL P.A2 x@/'t^. 6'r l't' ./@/. kr\-,vt N;, .\-\r\\ '<:r$ \ r <\.I /.----"'' I-T- ,,/ / ,'/ -'-/',/ ,/ ,- 11o N (o x 6oOO- )-' :U eb t\ r^ ) \rrt {l rl (D x nJc'a l:-- ZU r1 .,L \o \ ) r.g' tix.-.4-ol iL'2. W- Effi,\\ ul3;::' E$^ xiffi# ,l'9:@-Jl Itl . .tjl,t ^l'nt'r It.;l Ir)-I.1 q, I l' ,,tt, I ,i,/= ,\e lr'.1t-' F=,1Dl ti ill!!_-J{t ,,$i! i ;/lttt .' #is' 6je, r 'ili'\oti{ t<l'r.l.ial f \l,l$\ r\1\ ffi ffi\W qN q'-]./ -rr <+.'tt \ ,=\je \\-\\\ '\\ l\-1\.\-s^\ \\ -z.r'.$\ ^'i)--)\ - irN,5 .S-- i'e .,./L -\:_ .\ ':J'^HI \ /1,n, - (i\ o/ r/t'\ ,//N // ;:l Nlla//@ llx tl qil i^.---* /'1. vJ?-* -- ol'r,1: il',:l,'li- rit,tv N o No\r\'NVOr-+r @ \o i\ STATE CF CCLOT(ADO COLORADO GEOTOGICAL SURVEY Division of Minerals and Ceology Department of Natural Resources 'I 313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-2611 FAX (303) 866-2461 June 2, 1998 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Department Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Englund/lVloore Subdivision Geologic HazardReview Dear Mr. Bean: Based on our conversation Monday, June 1, 1998, I would like to clariff and expound on our review dated May 26,1998. As stated in that letter "This office has reviewed the Preliminary Subsoils Study by HP Geotech dated March 31,1998 and we generally concur with its content. We agree that the backfill and embankment materials are unsuitable for residential structure support." Later statements were, '?rovided the deep foundation and mounded type septic systems recommendations are complied with for this site, this office finds no other major geologic hazards that would preclude development." Our statements above presume additional site-specific soils work will be done. Since the backfilling has already occurred, site specific geotechnical investigations will be required to determine minimum bearing elevations of the deep foundations and the engineering properties of the backfill. We have presumed that deep foundations will be designed because we have no information whether the backfill was properly placed and compacted structural fill, as required in the preliminary subsoils study to contemplate shallow foundations systems. Even though the residences will be founded on deep piles bearing on the packed river gravels below, soils engineering data is still required of the backfill where concrete flat work and pavements are contemplated. These materials, if not placed as engineered fill, will be soft, saturated, and possibly compressible, and likely require a period of consolidation or surcharging prior to construction. Provided the engineering and investigations tasks are done properly we find no conditions that would prevent development. Ifyou have any questions please contact this office at (303) 894-2167. Sincerely, (xlt,[tt"ff DEPARIMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Roy Romer Covernor James S. Lochhead Executive Director Michael B. Long Division Director Vicki Cowan State Ceologist and Director GA-98-0025 /vw/ Jonathanl. White Engineering Geologist ,, lr.its, lj iiii! - DEPARTMENT OF THE ABMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEEB DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 958I4.2922 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF February 5, 1998 Regulatory Branch (L997753L9) l{r. Luther E. and Mrs. Diana G. Moore 15613 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 8L623 Dear Mr" ancl Mrs. Moore: We are enclosing two draft copies of Department of the Atmy Permit Number Lgg7753L9 for your and Mr. Charles Englund's review and signature. We also wish to respond to several items in your letter dated January L9, 1998 expressing frustration about the processing of your permit. First, and as explained in our November 2L, L997 letter, We have determined that the Johnson Pond wetlands are jurisdictional; and, they provide functions and values to surrounding environs such as sediment trapping, water quality purification, and wildlife habitat. As such, and in accordance with our goal of rrno net loss of wetlandsrr, compensatory nitigation will be required for their loss (see pernit special conaition number 2). In addition, ds addressed in our Mitigation Memorandum with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , rrThis special recognition of wetlands resources does not in any manner airninisfr the value of other waters of the United States, which are often of high valuetr. Thus, other aquatic resources, such as rivers and ponds, will be accorded the full measure of protection under the Guidelines, including the requirements for appropriate and practicable mitigation. Secondly, inaccuracies exist in your comparisons of Corps evaluation for nationwide and regional general permits. Not only does your project not qualify for these tlpes of permits, but they lre not i,automatiC" approvals as your letter inplies. AIl genLral permits are reviewed case-by-case, with the.underlying goal of protecting and enhancing aquatic resources in accordance witfr the Clean Water Act. They also require the important sequential assessment of avoiding, minimizing, and nitigating aquatic impacts. Ms. Susan NaIl of our Grand Junction office had met with you several times prior to receipt of yoYr application to discuss and provide information on our evaluation and mitigation factors. Had your application included an alteinatives analysis and detailed mitigation plan, permit processing times would have been reduced. -2- Finally, the review of your proposed project by individualpernit has nothing to do with your and l.tr. Englundrs joint ownership of the property. Individual permit review is based onthe proposed project,s impacts which include 0.6 acre of openwater loss (River Pond), 0.18 acre of wetland loEseE (to benitigated), and O.2 acre of temporary wetland l.mpacts. I assure you that you and Mr. Englund are not being singl.ed out. Manyguestions exist on a project such as ycursr invclvingr non-water dependent home developments within an aquatic site. Although DIs.NaII has spoken with you about your letter, we felt it aIEo important to cornmunicate this infornation to !Ir. Englund. In addition to the conditions of this pemit, we offerseveral other recommendations for the proJect. PegtlaJ.dea,berbiaideg, or torLng ghould not be applLed to laadecaplag etthese giteg Ln au effort to proteat the adJacent poada, uetlaads, and rater gualLty of the Roariag lorls BLver. Iou nay also uLghto perforu uatar quality testlag to nonitor Lnpacta tron thc mouaded individual sewage dLaposal ayet€tra, drLlled vater uells, aad any laudecaplng applicatioug. Douestlc pets arc algo discouraged at these houesites aa they nay bavc aD lupact upo!local vLldltfe populatLoas - partl.cularly DLrdg fron catpredation. At a uiaimun, pets should De confLned aad leashed shea acaon[ranyiag their owaer. These advisements are nade to encourage you as homeowners to exercise a conscientious respectfor the diverse aquatic resources on your property and within and surrounding the area. To complete pernit processing, please do the following: a. Srgn and date both ccpies of the pamit on Page 3. Your signatures will indicate acceptance of all permit conditions. b. Enclose a check or money order in the amount of $10.00 made payable to ||FAO-USAED, Sacramentort. c. Return all of the above itens in the envelope provided. Upon receipt of these itemsr w€ will issue your pemit. Theoriginal will then be forwarded to you. -3- Thank you for your cooperation. ff you have any questions,please write to Ms. Susan Bachini Nall, iestern ColoridoRegulatory Office, 4O2 Rood Avenue, Room L42, Grand Junction,colorado 81501-2563 or telephone (920) 243-LL99, extension 16. Sincerely, Brooks CarterChief, Intermountain Regulatory Section Enclosures Copies Furnished (w/o encl) : I,lr. Charles E. Eng1und, 2205 Shalinar Drive, Colorado Springs, - Colorado 80915 )Ur. Mark Bean, Garfield County, 109 8th Street, Suite 3O3,./ Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 LAURA M. B. STRUEMPLER 777 BUCK POINT DRIVE CARBONDALE, COLOMDO E I 6239622 leTol 37e'6779 November 18, 1997 lou and Diana Moore 16613 Highway E2 Carbondale, CO 8L623 Dear Lou and Diana, Thank you again for taking the time to show me youf ponds and land yesterday. You were very generous to spend so much time with us. Your land is very unique and represents an cxtraordinary resotuce. Through our visit yesterday, I feel that I was able to come to a much better underJtanding of your needs, the ovenrhelming financial considerations that you are deahng with, as well as the natural p:uameters of the ponds and wetland areas. I feel after seeing the area that the proposed plan does not meet the requirements of itr" +O+(t)l guidetine.s, at least as I understand them. This th6ught has not left me since I left you yesterday.I kep! thinking,.there mosibe a solution that will mcet thEir needs and allow them to build a home on the property. After much thought for your predicament, I guite humbly offer thii idda. I realize the amount of etfort and funds you have investid in your current plan. However, if your permit should be denied, or you shouid be requirei Uy Ure Corps to subrnit a developed scheme for an alternative, this may be work for you' The idea still contains the elements of building two homesites, subdivision of the 22 acres, and de-silting of the ponds as described in your proposal. The changes involve moving the homesites to the upper banks ofthe Johnson and Moe ponds, using the silt for different purposes, and slightly- re(outing the lot line between the 22 acre parccl and the I Ll3 acres parcel which you now live on. The homesite for the westcrn I I acre parcel would be located jtrst on the northern bank of the Moe pond. The lot line would be shifted to the norttr just enough to accommodate the home. The cabins could be rcmoved or iclocated, possibly selling them for some profit. The eastern homesite would be l-ocated on the northwest corner of the bank of the Johnson pond, or in other words, in thc area of the curve in the existing road. The silt could be uscd to extend the homesites slightly into the existing oPen water area$ of thc ponds. Or, the homes could have beautiful southern decks that extend with pilings out over the edge of the oPen water- Additional silt could be used to create earthen berms for noisc rcduction and privacy. A berm could be built along the highway frontagc, and one or two more could be strategically placed to create privacy and noise reduction for the future homes. A talented architect such as Mr. Englund prcsumably is, could dcsign homes which fit the characteristics of the site, allowing reaching views of the ponds, privacy from the northern I 1/3 acre Parcel and from Frog _ Excavating. Win spccific construction mcthods (suaw bale being a perfect choice), one could effcctivcly block the highway noise by that alone. The pond "roads" then could be landscaped with stone paltrways and flowCrs rather than road base. Each homesite could retain a private pathway around the ponds and have private acces$ to the river. Landscaping around the homesitcs could furttrer creatc privacy and noise reduction. Your need to have the I l/3 acre site available for sale would still be met. A new berm along thc highway would greatly increase its value. The far eastern parcel could still be sold as well, with even less impact from the proposed homesites on the 22 acres. Though I can't give you any cost estimates or comparisons, my gues$ is that you would stand to save quite a bit in leach field costs and foundation co$ts by building on higher ground. I understand it must bc a difficult process to go through having strangers involved in your pcrsonal dreams. I offer this idea with the hopes that it will make the future come more closely to those dreams than it might if you arc denied the current 404 permit. Respectfully, Laura M. B. Struempler cc: Charles E. Englund Susan B. Nall Dorothy F. Klasse Beach FI cL\f*iEl-o cqrH-rY January 26,1998Resource Management, LLC Susan Bachini Nall Environmental Engineer Westem Colorado Regulatory Office 402 Rude Ave, Room 142 Grand Junction, CO 81501-2563 vIA FAX 970-241-2358 Re: Moore/Englund Dear Susan: I am writing in response to the additional details provided by Mr. Moore regarding his altematives' analysis and preliminary layout for the homes on Project Reference No. PN199775319. Since I recognize that this response is provided after your January 20, 1998 deadline, I will attempt to make it as brief as possible. I am including a copy of a letter written by Laura Struempler to Mr. and Mrs. Moore dated November 18,1997 in which she suggests that at least one altemative is available to the Moore/Englund property that would limit the impact of the project on the existing wetlands. Ms. Struempler's letter says that a viable altemative is in fact available despite the evaluation of alternatives contained within the Moore/Englund responses. I agree with her conclusion. Next, I am concerned with the general approach taken in the applicant's response, which included an inference (Response No. I , pa3e l) that your classification of cattails as wetlands is unfair and may not fit with the definition or intent of the Clean Water Act. If the point being made is that the mere existence of cattails does not indicate a jurisdictional wetland, the point may be valid. However, this general area clearly comprises a jurisdictional wetland and once such a determination is reached the task of delineating its boundaries should be defined to protect the maximum area supported by science and not the minimum area required to support development. With this in mind, we would like to encourage the Corp. of Engineers to reach a finding that continues to protect the known jurisdictional wetlands in this area and to ensure that if in fact a reasonable alternative exists to the applicant's proposal, that alternative should be recommended and that all wetland areas that are negatively impacted by any permitted activity should be replaced on at least a one to one basis. Conditioning a permit with several mitigation requirements is well within the Corp's authority. Finally, we wish to make an additional comment on the proposed wetland mitigation plan which we believe fails to meet the generally accepted self-sustainability standard for replacement wetlands. We direct you to the hydrology section of the report prepared by Nature Tech that 2lO E. Hyman Ave. Suite 30 I Aspen, CO8l6l I Tel (970) 925-3475 tax 925-4754 ilmg,:i I$98 BEACH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT suggests that "if water levels appear to be limiting the distribution in density of desired plant species, water levels will be manipulated so that the desired species will be maintained." This concem arises from the fact that the report also indicates that the proposed site monitoring appears to be minimal. We are unclear about how the promised monitoring and mitigation will be implemented in the future if deficiencies are discovered in the mitigation plan , in the vegetative distribution, in water levels, etcetera. All mitigation plans must demonstrate a high potential for success and we have reservations over the ability of this plan to ensure a high degree of success without continual oversight by your agency. Recognizing the inherent limitations of staffing and budget to enforce small mitigation plans, we would suggest that these plans be scrutinized and improved to increase the mitigation plan's chance of success. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, 0037c1.04 Sarah Fowler, US Environmental Protection Agency Bob Leachman, US Fish & Wildlife Service Mark Bean, Garfield County Laura Struempler Letter - Susan B. Nall January 26,1998 Page2 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources 'l 313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3s89 ,d;:-.1.,,-.,,-., t.,.,,,, i..y Roy Romer Covernor lames S. Lochhead Executive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Re: Englund /Moore Subdivision S%NW%&N%SW% Sec. 32, T7S, R87W, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Mr. Bean: This letter is in response to information received on December 19,1997, during a phone conversation will Paul Bussone, the applicant's consultant. Mr. Bussone informed us that well permit nos. 49280-F and 49281-F were approved for the England/Moore Subdivision, which is a proposal to subdivide a parcel of approximately 22.6 acres into 2 lots of 11.2 and 1 1.4 acres, with one single family dwelling on each lot. There are several existing ponds on the parcel. The applicant proposed to provide water through individual on lot wells pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District (the District). A copy of the contract was provided. Sewage disposal will be through individual septic systems. We have confirmed that the well permits were issued by this office on December 1, 1997, pursuant to contracts with the District. The wells are each limited to ordinary household purposes inside one single family dwelling with an attached caretaker apartment and the irrigation of not more than 6,000 square feet of home garden and lawns. However, we have not received a Well Completion Report, Pump lnstallation Report, or Statement of Beneficial Use for these wells. lf these documents are not receive prior to December 1, 1998, the well permits will expire and be of no effect. Based on the above, it is our opinion, pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1XhXl), that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains valid well permits. Due to insufficient information we cannot comment on the physical adequacy of the water supply. lf you or the applicant has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Craig Lis of this office for assistance. STA|E OF COLOTUDO January 16, 1998 lrI i j frs Sincerely, t .-f-l^..\--)lrs,$q.- tl".^ LsrE *r&0*grr Steve Lautenschlager Assistant State Engineer SPUCMUenglundl.doc cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Bergquist, Water Commissioner, District 38 .lrlt\I 2 DLe^IA-L99? 14:58 DIU UJRTER RESOURCES 3A3 855 3589 P.@2/42 STATE OF COLOTUDO OfFtCE OT THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Rtsources Depanment of Natural Rcsources 'l31ll Sherman Strc.e[ Room 818 Denvqr, Cblorado 80203 Phone (3oJ) 866-3581 FAX (303) 866-3589 Roy Romet Cwcmor lames S. Lochhead Exc.cutivc Director Hrl D. Sirnp*on Sute En6ineer Mark Bean Garfield County Building and Plannang 109 8th St Ste 303 Glenwood Springs CO E1601 Re: Englund /Moore Subdivision S%NW%& Nr/rSW% Sec. 32, T7S, R87VV, 6TH PM W. Division 5, W. District 38 Dear Mr. Bean: We have reviewed the above referenoed proposal to subdivide a paroel of apprcximately 22.O acres into 2 lots of 11.2 and 11.4 acres, with one single family dwelling on each lot. There are several existing ponds on the parcel. The applicant proposed to provide water through individual on lot wells pursuant to a contract with the Basalt Water Conseryancy District (the DisEict). A copy of the contracil was provided. Salage disposal will be lhrough individual septic systems. Although well permits for this area may be available if the well is induded in the Disfict's temporary substitute supply plan, no mention of suclr inctusion was made in the submiftal, no well permit application has been submitted for review by this office, and there is no guarantee that a well permit can be issued. Furthermore, to be considered a Iegally relaable source of weter the well must be included in a court approved augmentation plan, since there is no guarantee that a temporary substitute supply plan will be renewed. No information was provided on the adequacy of the water supply. Based on the above, it is our opinaon, pursuant to Sedion 3G2&130(1XhXl), that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed urater rights. Due to insufficient information we cannot comment on the physical adequacy of the water supply. lf you or the applicant has any questions conceming this matter, please contacf Craig Lis of this office for assistance. Sincerely, December 5, 1997 \St* Steve Lautenschlager Assistant State Engineer SPUCMUenglund.doc cc: Orlyn Bell, Division Engineer Joe Berquis( Water Commissioner, District 38 TOTRL P.A2 '__r; 1t'l/ N JNXr) (D 66 /i[ tii I \ o.i 6 -o 89.t* iO tl ) I( I 1,/ u" '\ :- l n .ri'* \\ i I ",is'i ,DS,.,'r >C<lN't 5ix4, Y)fr' WAW),:GfuB1Ii; fii,Br&- < G--; i, -/ ; '.1 l)...- '. Xx i6- ,r\ ','5 o-,;,<t,tj\ l}o9 V:t\ii ,*N. )\\ F-/\!\- G-\'f\*\"-1, /N,NK'-, < -:x-ffi 6 / l,)lo,-r ^ O I./' l)8)/tl/t/ ,/ / .ttiKitl ,/ io \, / [r- [\N]:.. -\\a\\,--- \.M o9.- o-J ilr' 6 Yb\.U \s\=' ,,1/\i\,->1" I .f'.-..---- (tr; D}\-Tl, @.1 Xt g-/)rox 6.lqn=t I--t- I N',// /,/' ---,. ,--.'/ /'*J t:) : nE_D-o tsn zu \lrt tl {l >1/r F..i'Jr\\.\.4a4\'I -m, #!,lt ti'lllM -\-Ji ). , N 9: 6N' o'orn- 6- Zs ;,'- /{) "t I o :q:E -';"rr',,///o,t^oi / /t\ ,A -'C t 3-Jnl@^l , ,,,,N- )tD f6 IN ro !N rox r) rn !? JI ( A:\< qt{ ixlqlI [] ;,r- ry(.i.@l/:;\ts(o I =. il ttllt ilt,/- li I i( : \\lIr) r\:L 6 :t. r_1r. \\\':,E \\ iu I Ic tr*<^---l/__\ \_ /.1 . ll \ ,/-1,-----'-_,ju -.N ,l /,.',R i. -/qt _/ --f G\}llaislr'"-'' 'ur;' . , .,^r fLlF:tr+;_'r ' -{1 t' !( I h i? t"t f ;$rhei , hlr$r*srf,' t fi+ildfj. /-'**&.**:-,.,iry,aqr^ (i!+a FEPLY TO ATTENTION OF Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGlNEER DISTRICI SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS I325 J STREET SACFAMENTO. CALIFORNI A 9581 4.2922 November 21- , L997 (]-9977531_9) F,,fl.ffii+l; ilotaI [:J, -.-^":- Lp,l-\'rt: th.: q*il r99? . }UN 4 rL Bi'ln i\j .f"IY Mr. Luther E. and Mrs. Diana L5613 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 87623 Mr. Charles E. Englund 2205 Shal-imar Drive Col-or-ado Sprirrgs, Colorado Dear Mr. and Mrs. Moore and G. Moore 80915 Mr. Englund: We are writing to you concerning Department of the ArmyPublic Notice number L99775319. We have reviewed your responseto the comments received,' and, we continue to have questions about the project. These questions relate primarily toalternatives analysis and project feasibility. The first most baslc item we must evaluate is a detailedalternatives analysis for the proposed project. As pointed outin the Environmental Protect.ion Agency's comment letter dated October L6, 1-997, a portion of the project involving the development of two homesites 1s not considered a water-dependentactivity. 'rWater-dependentI means that the activity associatedwit.h the discharge of dredged or fill materj-al within waters ofthe United States requires access to, proximity to or sitingwithin, a waterbody or wetlands to fuIfil1 its basic purpose. Your request. to dredge accumul-ated sediment from the Johnson and S ponds in order to improve fisheries and pond storage capacityis water-dependent. A house does not require fill in a pond orwetland area to fulfiii its basic purpose of shelter. The merefact that another alternative site may cost more does notnecessarily mean that it is not practicable. Before we canconsider any aspects of the permit, further, this subject ofalternatives must be further investigated. Assuming that you can show that the homesites as currently proposed are the onlv provenpracticable alternative, the following discussion applies. We disagree with your discussion that the cattail-dominatedwetlands within the .fohnson Pond are non-jurisdictional-. Theslow accumulation of sediment in this pond is a "normalcircumstance" as are the development of emergent wetland plantspecies in this pond. Therefore, wetland losses of t.his kind musL be considered. Based on Ehis, our figures show a proposed -2- Pennanent wetland impact of 0.18 acre, a temporary wetland impactof 0.24 acre, and a per:manent loEe of 0.5 acre of open water. wealso agree that partial mitigation is necessary to compensate forthe permanent loss of these special aquaEic resources. Bypartial, w€ mean mitigation for the wetl-ands in accordance withour national goal of t'no net loss,. we have determined thatmitigation for the pond will not be required. Because weElandmitigation can be difficult to achieve, we believe the ratlo for compensatory mitigation proposals such as, enhancement ofexisting wetlands and creation of nnew,,'wetlands, shouLd be atacreage of mitigation to acreage of loss ratios of 3 : l_ and of2:!, respectively. While you have proposed compensatorymitigation in the amount, of 0.12 acre of created wetl_and, drradditional 0.24 acre is needed to meet the o.3G compensatorymitigation goal (0.18 X 2). Furthermore, w€ question whether t.he0.L2 acre of miEigation will 'rfit," between the River and Islandponds based on plans for two homes, two septic systems and anyother associated impact,s (garage, driveway, utilities,landscapi*g, and so forth). Fina1]y, we question whether the two homes are attainableand economically feasible as currently proposed. The source offill material-s for home ccnstruction is described as sand andsi1t. Has this material been sampled and tested to determinecontents and if it is an acceptable fill source for theconstruction of two homes? In order to continue eval-uation of your request, Lhefollowing information is required: l-. Provide a full and detailed alternatives analysi-s forthe two homesites that clearly shows that the proposed Locationis the least damaging alternative to aquatic resources whichfulfi11s the basic purpose of shelter. Include a writtenidentificat,j-on (including lega1 location) of any other areaproperties owned and/or available for purehase. This descriptj-on shouLd include any land owned by you and/or your spouse in anyform of ownershi-p such as partner, corporation, joint tenant, co-tenant,, or as a tenant-by-the-entirety. 2. Provide justification that dredged materials are anacceptable source of fill for home development at the Rj-ver Pondlocation where ground water appears to be very high. 3. Provide an engineered individual sewage disposal systemfor each home in compliance with the requirements of Garfieldcounty and the state of colorado. Alsof provide a preli-minary drawing that depicts the layout for Lwo homes and associatedfeatures to show that the project wiLl ,,fit,'. -3- 4. Provide a compensatory wetland mitigation proposal whichincludes sketches and a fu11 accounting of the mitigation goa1s, methods and materials to be used, tj-ming of mitigation implementation, maintenance requirements, monitoring andreporting program, contingency plan for unsuccessful mitigat.ion, and measures to safeguard against further adverse impact. Onsite in-kind compensatory mitigation is preferred. 5. What, coordj-nation has occurred with Ehe count,y on thisproposal? What is your al-ternative plan should the county deny all or a portion of your current plan? We ask that you provide a response to this Letter within 30days. Depending upon your responses, the possibilj-ty exists thatthe application will be withdrawn and another public not,ice will be processed to include additional project, details. If a response is not receivedr four application will be withdrawn. Please submit your response to Ms. Susan NaII or our Grand Junction office at 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142, Grand .Junction, CoLorado 81501-2563 who may also be reached at telephone (970) 243-1199, extension 16. Sincerely, Brooks CarterChief, fntermountain Regulatory Section Copies Furnished: Ms. Sarah FowLer, U.S. Environmental- Protection Agency, SEPR-EP, 999 LBth Street, Suite 500, Denver, Col-orado 8A202-2466Mr. Rick Krueger, U.S. Fish and WildLife Service, '764 HorizonDrive, South Annex A, Grand ,functj-on, CoLorado 8l-506-3946Mr. ,fohn Farrow, Colorado Department of Health, WQCD-B2, ,/ 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 80222-L530 /Vt . Mark Bean, Garfield County, 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Col-orado 81501 G US Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 9581 4-2922 Public Notice Public Notice Number: 1 9977 531 I Date: September 16, 1997 Comments Due: October 16, 1997 ln reply, please refer to the Public Notice Number TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: SUBJECT: Application for a Departnent of the Army permit under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA to &edge approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment from two ponds and discharge into a 0.6 acre pond, as shown in the attached drawings. APPLICANT: Luther E. and Diana G. Moore 16613 Highway 82 and Carbondale, CO 81623 Charles E. Englund 2205 Shalimar Drive Colorado Springs, CO 80915 LOCATION: The project site involves a 22.6-acre lract of land located approximately four miles east of the Town of Carbondale between the Roaring Fork River and Highway 82. The Roaring Fork Bed & Breakfast is at the north end of the properfy which is within the NW 1/4 of Section 32, Township 7 South, Range 87 Wesq Garfield County, Colorado. PURPOSE: The applicants wish to improve the quality of fish habitat in the existing ponds, insure the continued supply of adjudicated water through the controVdiversion structtues, and provide an area suitable for the construction of two single family residential sites with private driveways. Upon completion of the project, it is the intention of the applicants to subdivide the tract into two essentially equal tracts, each containing a residential site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project site appears to be an old fish hatchery with five ponds fed by BIue Creek which outlets to the Roaring Fork River. The work proposed consists of removing accumulated silt from two the eastern most ponds (Johnson Pond : 0.5 surface acre and the "S* Pond = 1.7 acres) and repairing or replacing four existing controVdiversion structures. The stocked trout will be shocked and removed, and the ponds dewatered one at a time by pumping to facilitate the use of conventional excavating equipment such as a tracked loader and dump trucks to remove the excavated materials. It is estimated that approximately 20,000 cubic yards of material will be removed - 14,000 cubic yards from the "S" Pond and 6,000 cubic yards from the Johnson Pond. The majority of the excavated pond materials (15,000 cubic yards) will be placed on-site in the southwestern 0.6 acre River Pond which will also be dewatered. The remaining 5,000 cubic yards will be disposed of off-site in an upland area. CESPK-CO.R Page 2 Public Notice Number 199775319 The control/diversion structures consist of small l8-inch culverts with either a slide gate or a plywood panel for upstream control. After a pond has been dewatered, the related structures will be excavated using a backhoe, all necessary repairs or replacements made, and the structures will be backfiiled with the original excavated materials. Earthen grass dikes serve as vehicle access around the ponds. Approximately 900 linear feet of these dikes, on the east and west ends, will be machine graded with a small dozer or grader and a roller compacted surface course of 140 cubic yards of four inch Class 6 aggregate base course added to serve as driveways for the homesites. One-fourth of the Johnson Pond (0.125 acre) contains a cattail dominated wetland which would be removed by the excavation activities. Approximately 0.1 acre of willow dominated perimeter wetlands on the River Pond, as well as the 0.6 acre pond, will also be permanently impacted by frll activities. An additional 0.2 acre of willow dominated wetlands surrounding the Johnson and "S" ponds will be temporarily impacted by the ponds dewatering and excavation activities and diversion stnrcture repairs. ALTERNATIVES: An analysis of alternatives was not provided in the applicants submittal. The owners wish to obtain the investnent potential from sales of the two homesite in the current proposal. It does appear that the southern portion of the property does not offer a practicable building site based on access problems and steep motrntainous terrain. The applicants also own an ll-acre tract of land immediately east of this site. However, this tract is primarily wetland and is currently being evaluated by the applicants as another potential residential homesite which would also require processing of an individual permit application. One obvious alternative to the proposed activity is no action or permit denial. Another alternative that would reduce impacts to the aquatic environment would be to decrease the scope of the project to develop only one homesite. AREA DESCRIPTION: The 22.6 acre site is located in the Roaring Fork Valley at an elevation of around 6,315 feet msl. The property contains five ponds with associated wetland borders which encompass about six acres of the site. These private ponds are fed by Blue Creek which runs 30+ cubic feet per second (cfs) and outlets to the Roaring Fork River. The owners have a 12 cfs adjudicated water right off Blue Creek to feed these ponds which are stocked with trout and generate income through private catch-and-release customers. The ponds do sit elevationally higher than the river and, in fact, are not mapped within the 100- year floodplain. Most of the ponds are relatively deep (12 feet) but do contain submergent and emergent vegetation, in addition to the open water, and provide habitat primarily for fish and waterfowl. The perimeter wetlands are contain willow (Salix exigua), cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), canary reedgrass (Phalaris arundinacea), sedge (Carex aquatilis and rostrata), and a mix of other grasses. CESPK-CO-R Page 3 Public Notice Number 199775319 The north end of the property contains a home and business just off of the Frontage Road for State Highway 82. The southern end of the properly contains the Roaring Fork River bordered on the south by the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad and a steep mountain property managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Residential homes are scattered east and west of this property with the exception of the immediate east property also owned by the applicants and discussed above in the Alternatives Section. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant has requested water quality certification from the Colorado Deparbnent of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Wriuen comments on water quality certification should be submiued to Mr. John Farrow, Planning and Standards Section, Colorado Deparfinent of Public Health and Environment, Water Qualrty Contol Division, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado, 80222-1530, on or before October 16, 1997. The Colorado Deparfinent of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division also reviews each project with respect to the anti-degradation provision in state regulations. For the project which is the subject of this public notice, the Colorado Departrnent of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division has ilreliminarily determined this project may be disallowed unless additional water quality mitigation to offset the expected impacts is provided. For further infonnation regarding anti-degradation provision, please contact Mr. Farow at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, telephone (303) 692-357 5. The latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places and its monthly supplements have been reviewed and there are no places either listed or recommended as eligible which would be affected. No further cultural resources review is wa:ranted because the permit area has been extensively modified by previous work. This activity would not affect any threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. The District Engineer has made this determination based on information provided by the applicant and on the Corps' preliminary investigation. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on or before October 16, 1997. Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. CESPK.CO.R Page 4 Public Notice Number 199775319 The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered incl'uding the cumulative effects thereof; ,tmong those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, weflands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consideration of property ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving 404 discharges, a permit will be denied if the discharge does not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's Section 4040) (l) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the Distict Engineer determines it would be contrary to the public interest. The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modiff, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Commeats are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. Written comments on this permit application should be submiued to the District Engineer at the address listed above. Please furnish a copy of your written comments to the attention of Susan Bachini Nall, Western Colorado Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Engineer District, Sacramento, 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142, Ctrand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563. For further information, please contact Susan Bachini Nall, at telephone nunber (970) 243-1199, extension 16. Dorothy F. Klasse Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer Enclosures: 5 Drawings 'i/$-li;'r(r7,-rr'-,,-.\'t \',29 LOCATION MNP + NonrH .364 <\ a.< 6n)frEl?<rdo0-<o Qq t7 ._9\/ \...-// /?_l \-- .< )a-ai --==''/ 5z--'- 1 |\//',// ^, I, f -,^< (/ /^ I--\1 - )z R.88 W. R.87 W t39"22',30',3150@EE O rrtteroe G€o!ocrc ! sutvEy. tEstof,. vracr{ra reaa ROAD CI,ASSIFICATION Primary highway, Secondary highway, ] lnterstate Route ] u. Unimproved road Light-duty road, hard or S. Route Q State Route CARBONDALE, COLO. 39t07-D?-TF-O24 1951 PHOTOREVISED 1987 DMA 4562 I Nw-5gp16g yg77 107'07'30" ao-to*!.^ *.- [---l /*'-.**\ QUADRANGLE LOCATION PA6E / F5 I -lI I 0' #r ll -= v- L\ E 1557,000 lg d roilzEtrrl. CO.trOl' nE col.opt@ strrE PLrrC C@torrE 991 r tE,50t 2 E ri53!.3....ur< ClrEm.E eur8o. a A o x '€ \i\,:J 'Y \\ /-;*Ld\>F'\ *'t - I .'/ \. {ro!l. J Ieolrl l 6 ;l:,/ i .r5J36 E r.slt,J:t. 'i/#ff-l i I ENOtuuO/t"\ooR€ PO;rDs s douE strEs ELEVATT O41 t €./ srsnr- einrl 2o(t. L.riGPr co6rrcorc ,rorEctlri. txE tuj.GrE 0j!E e €s!€,tn 16 ?nrxcrrnor t?rtoGi rE lE USEO. Gr corlts' U r:lslas(E.zv: aL2=t rl !,ii l. r':!:!566aor: taSr:i.E 9AE_9f_E!!94t_99!,q. u3c a c sEr LEVEL OrUr A S€O Or TtC tctr-Lorrrc EEHAS: rrG co€R a,aaltx o{s 2i - aR2lt .!7OrP3 ?ri .GlO LEGENO flGiL Cotrrot vtFrErl' co.rnq. lE[croB to!€ cEt tEP Gm ar ctQSs s€clloi o xl.t -r - FEICE ( ) ?r€Eg m r lEntVJ i I torarrfi.r N sEcttor itrE ',i + Eouio gtctroi cof,i€. -:- ufouto sE€?tor cEfrc,t. lrea s€ctor LriE @rFLrtDx 37 a6riceencrnc qar6g5 Fior 6'cEL. YElfica rEt[L ,olorffi t[cx Ea lt,lall7, r: nts ra, :ror.ttrcs m uroi.L rp rCAllCr s?lt O E3 ,tP.ego lF .uLYflCrL tJRErt [c..6t srroil aoao cq.oil& seqr.c€| ca FF' !ot- rgl{olt, sclrl n FEtl 4)OC?r!G -:COiIOul (rlru-a rEI coton/roo llvER rr.o tnlarT RiES FLOOO PLATN STUOY ' Ttttrr€D For clRFl€LO a MESr cq[flEs. coloalDo 0 cootgil?lt wr co|.OarOO rrrEi Ol*iutm lom OCwql.:.r-a'r*.. atCqtLaa, arlP FtootPtArat Yl aP Paoe 2 or 5 H't/ i \$t\ 0\ $ tSr Jil a\ tl\i 4J- 'rra' t\ N ,s = $$ Ouvge.' A, f pg,k, /tAcn oapfaUNDIDO,V i$I$ [ $$[il t/ud .*t7 -t\ $$N Rt N"lt I t\fr -$x $ ,\ $ Nr) $^str TN il\ $'{. N *$ T$ \N u,$ "l lxruttj;ff1^,#?l N rS TT "*i$%l'4 t5a\-"-f *-- d iNlt $N i <.\A "iit\ ;"\ ry\ *$ \\ NH \.. \ N ,VfF#AfrHL/ onnz+ry ..asN(n2 ni(t, ga tt, Jt<,.- -7(J I i- /v/uLdH I fgeort fuons€ t D/2"?i -----d ,4.L.v,2A/4 F;Li Etv;c Pa,sD $r \ / €atrrt4(q (t,QOtJ*".D &ECTTON KArtu;n .ErvsE rQNc P€4/t/#4>l/k ")A)€-N,2S l_, I i rli tl 4" cu1f 4 &Eitart (ruarr) \- €uirr',*a :Qt*'{ t/a tr .' l*hl€g€V€,* /'f Li lf 7?ftat xrl&,|lY ,sailal .(cui tr/*6 Dksl ) ExIrBrr A t€nA-u*i.)/NcXz€ ,qfu runo ;4€/1b-4 f -f/N4L€ pv,14r1v PElrHx'"vA{. ,\ tgA€*'/,{€ lz4Ar2€ /?' uttnrtJ 4E fo'D-.af DtH€ ,cgt€ * CF 5 I.l r\ **R r €KcAv\r/os/{./.i, -\\ tF€r/eN A-A' .T \ lnr €x davar/.i N (ryIlvAe/€r /o'ro 3 t J:g'€rr,€N R;A *;r"+"ti&+r€Nf ,{A / / €K4/4/r A &tttu*'n/*tmas fiH Px/D p€Ha,q /,<erta^rTtal gril u6s" PAAF 5of 5 \"p( \ Clanlrondale ll, Rural FIre Proileotlon DEC 0 s 199?i Deoember 1,1997 -', ';\)tiff tY Mark Boan Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Englund/Moore Subdivision - Sketch Ptan Mark: I havo rwiewed the applicuion for the proposed Enghrndilvloore suMivision and I would offer the following oomments. Access The proposed aocess to the sites via the driveways off Old Highway 82 appear to be adequate for fire apparatus. The driveways should be constructed to support fire 56,000lbs. weighing Waler Suppha Water zupplies for fire protection would initially be provided from water caried Additional water could be provided from the ponds. Impact Fees fire apparatus. The dwelopment is subject to impact fees adopted by the District. The developer be re,quired to This payment fee adopted by enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of development impact is due prior to the recording of the final plat. Fees are based upon the per lot i the District at the time the agreement is executed. Please call if you have any questions, Bill Gavette Fire Marshal visited the site. c=rct{,l '.-..i f i ,:..,, Mcadorud Drhn co 81623 (e70) 90&249r (970) 903-0s69 r.-na? STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Bm 0 5 199?d Crnrrt*uD associated wettands and riparian type vegetation. A wildlife species utitize the area including small ma ariety 1s (beaver, muskrats, raccoon, skunk, coyotesretc. ),birds, and For For People and their of eto , in fact,of wetland tains other for deer space 2 11 bee2igate the f wetlands. due to bility of th of thes well as the iatedhis fencing , removed bed DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER John Mumma, Director 606O Broadway Denvar, Colorado 8O216 Telephone: l303l 297 -1 1 92 L2-3-97 Garfield County Planning l-09 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81-601 Dear Mr. Bean: The Englund/Moore property is mainly comprised of waterfowl. The proposed development area is most val waterfowl. The siltation of the 2 easterly ponds hav created better wetlands for waterfowl with the variet vegetation present. The property across the river on the steep hillside c winter range for mule deer and elk. It is adjacent t parts of the Crown which contain critical winter rang and e1k. The current proposal designates this as o which will continue to benefit witdlife. Impacts to witdlife will result from the dredging of easterly ponds and fill of an existlng pond. There w direct loss of valuable wetland habitat. Deepening easterty ponds to create a better fishery does not ni Ioss of wettand and riparian vegetation. If the proposal is approved as designed, the followi recommendatj-ons will help to ninimize wildlife impact 1. It would be best if there was a no net loss Creating new wetlands on site may not be possibl property line constraints. Investigate the poss creating wetlands off site to replace those lost 2. Maintain wetlands and riparian vegetation so proposed buitding envelopes and along the river those along the westerly border and access route 3. Install silt fencing along the south edge of development on the bench above the river and as wetlands (above the current chain link fence). should be in place before any surface disturban maintained throughout the development period, only after construction is finished and any dis soils/sites revegetated. DEPAHTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James S. Lochhead, Executive WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman . Rebecca L. Frank, Vice-Chairman . Mark Le Jesse Langston Boyd, Jr., Member . Chuck Lewis, Member o James Long, Louis F. Swift, Member . John Stulp, Member , Secretary 4. AII utillties be buried in access driveways5. Restrict to L dog/ltorne n ith a kennel restriction. Kenne1 be construct,ed before the C.o. ls issued. This will help rninimize impacts to wintering witdlife across the river6. Homeowners be made ayrare of problems associated withliving and building within a riparian zone with the associated witdlife such as raccoons, skunks, beaver, deer, and geese. The DOW is not liable for damages to property caused by these species. llhank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have anyguestions, please give me a caII. Sinc K6vin lilrDistrict Carbonda l,[anager REPLY TO ATTENIION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER OISTRICI SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO. CALIFOBNIA 95814.2922 August 22, 1997 (]-9e77s260)Regulatory Branch Mr. Lou Moore Roaring Fork Bed & Breakfast 1-5513 Highway 82 Carbondale, Colorado 8\623 Dear Mr. Moore: We are responding to a request received on July 22, 1,997 , byyour consultant, Nature Tech Consultant Ser-rices, forverification of a jurisdictional determination on your property.The approximate 11-acre property, described within Lots 10 & tg,is located approximately seven miles east of the town ofCarbondale on the south side of O1d Highway 82 adjacent (east) tot.he Roaring Fork Bed and Breakfast. The property is locatedsouth of the Basin Ditch and includes segments of Blue Creek andthe Roaring Fork River within the w t/2 of section 32, Township 7South, Range 87 West, Garfield County, Colorado. Based on a site inspection by susan Bachini Nal1 of thisoffice on July 9, L997, w€ have determined that your wetlandboundary delineation is accurate. The plan referenced below isan accurate depiction of the limits of Federal jurisdiction underSection 404 of the Clean Water Act. The plan is l_abeled: Land Survey PIat, of Moore/Eng1rrnd property Sheet 2 of 2, Dated 7/3/97 This verification is valid for a period of five years fromthe date of this letter and is based on informat.ion supplied byyour consul-tant. If that j-nformat:Lon proves t.o be f alse orincorrect, we will adjust our determination accordingly. Ms. NaI1 visited the site again on August 2L, L997. Duringt,his visit, Ehe question of a buildable homesite on the property was asked since the only upland area is mapped floodway. rt wasnoted that a path of wetland vegetation has been cl-eared andunauthorized fill material placed to faciLitate an access to thesmal] upland riparian area. Additionally, much of the riparianveget.ation has been cut and burned to ',cIear" Lhe area. whilet.his activity does not require a Department of the Army permit,it is disturbing to see - especj-a11y in an area that may not be abuildable homesit.e. We are of the understanding you will revisitproposed plans for the property. In the meantime, theunauthorized fill material is to be removed from the wetlands. I am also encl-osing an information paper that addresses our qAtriELD c*;*i,, StO a s Dsl -2- evaluation factors in consideration of non-water dependentactivities such as homesites within waters of the United States. We have assigned number 199775260 to the jurisdictional determination. Please contact Ms. Nall and refer to this numberif you have any questions regarding this mat,ter and for permit requirements at (970) 243-l-l-99, extension L6 or the address below S j-ncere1y, Grady L. McNureChief, Northwestern ColoradoRegulatory Office 402 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 8L501,-2563 Enclosure Copies Furnished: Mr. CharLes E. Englund, 2205 Shalimar Drive, Colorado Springs,Colorado 8091-5 w/EnclosureMr. Mike Vi11a, Nature Tech Consultant Services, c/o Pitkin County Public Works, 76 Service Center Road, Aspen, Colorado 8l-511 /1,t . Mark Bean, Garfield County, 109 8th Street, Suite 303, GLenwood Springs, Colorado 8160L REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEEB DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 958T4.2922 September 4, 1997 (1-9e77 5260)Regulatory Branch Mr. Charles E. Englund 980 Pico Point Col-orado Springs, Colorado 80906 Dear Mr. Englund: I am responding to your letter dat,ed August 26, 1997 ,concerning your property jointly owned with Mr. Lou Moore. Asyou are aware, this 11.O7-acre site was delineated or mapped todefine the jurisdictional waters of the United States andverified by our office on August 22, L997. Your letter addressesseveral questions which I will attempt to answer. Firstly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates thedischarge of dredged or fill malerial i; ,'iwaters or the unitedStates" under Section 404 of t.he Clean Water Act. Within thecontext. of section 404, "waters of the united states" incl-udedthe terrritoriar seas,'; perennial and ephemeral streams; 1akes,ponds and impoundments; and wetlands. The majority of yourproperty contains such waters in the form of Blue Creek, theRoaring Fork River, and associated wetlands. Federal lawrequires that any individual or entity, whether public orprivate, obtain a Department of the Army permit prior to commencing a discharge in waters of the United States.Unauthorized fi11s constitute a violation of the Clean Water AcL. The wood pallets that have been placed within wetlands onthe property constitute fill material. Fi11 material-, ds definedin the Section 404(b) (t) guidelines on page 85341, is defined as " . . . materj-ai discharged tor t.he primary purpose of replacing anaquatic area with dryland or of changing the bottom elevation ofa water body for any purpose. " As I discussed with you bytelephone, we are willing to consider a request to maintain t.hisfill temporarily. rn order to do so, you must submit. a reguestdefining the quantity and location of the fi]], purpose and need,and the length of time requested. The 404 (b) (1) guidelines al-so require that t.he Corpsconsider water dependency in evaluat.ion of permit requests andselect the most. reasonable practicable alternative. As discussedin the information paper entitled Discharqes of Dredqed and Fil1Material in Wetlands Evaluation and Mitiqation enclosed i-n ourlast letter, a home is not considered water dependent and doesnot, require access or proximity to or siting within a specialaquatic site (i.e. wetlands) to fuIfi1I its basic purpose of -2- shelLer. As the paper discusses, less damaging alternatives should be considered and discussed in your permit applicatj-on as well as optional access rouLes to minimize aquatic impacts. One obvious route wouLd be a western shared access with the current proposed homes on your adjacent. eastern "ponds property". An individual permit application is required for a road and homesite development on your property. I have enclosed a copy of the individual- application booklet and form for your review and completion. This applicati-on requires a ful1 public int-erest- review and will be coordinated with Ioca1, state, and federal agenci-es as weIl as the public. Please note that we wil-I al-so evaluate associated impacts from the proposed project (such as floodplaj-n values) in determining whether t.o grant or deny apermit. An alternat.ives analysis should be included in your permit submitt.al- and all it.ems checked on t.he enclosed application checklist. Background information on this sit.e would also prove very he1pfuI. After receiving the requested information, w€ will issue a public notice on your application. Your drawings are used in our public notice. This is the primary method of advising all int.erested part.ies of your proposal, and of sol-iciting their comments and other informatj-on necessary to evaluate the probable impact on the public interest. For these reasons, and to avoid unnecessary delays in processing your application, d11 relevant information must be included and adequat.ely shown on your drawings. Your application cannot be processed until all requested information has been furnished. If you have any questj-ons, please write to Susan Bachini NaI1 of this office or telephone (970) 243- 1199, extensj-on 15. Sincerely, Susan Bachini NaI1 Environmental- Engineer Western Colorado Regulatory Office 402 Rood Avenue, Room l-42 Grand Junction, Colorado 8150L-2563 Enclosures Copies Furnished: Mr. Lou Moore, 15513 Highway 82, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 /*t. Mark Bean, Garf ield-County, LO9 Bth Street, Suite 303, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81501