Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit BB - RFC Recommendations on Section 7-203 and 204To: June 4, 2013 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 108 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 8160 RE: Proposed Changes to Article 7 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (Phase II) Dear Garfield County Board of County Commissioners, Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on Article 7 of the Unified Land Use Resolution. Roaring Fork Conservancy appreciates Garfield County’s interest in continued protection of its valuable water resources and would like to propose modifications to section 7-203 and 204 that would preserve this important natural and community asset. Using regional and national studies, the following proposal considers best management practices in protection of riparian and wetland areas and the associated water quality and wildlife. As mentioned in the letter to Garfield County Board of County Commissioners dated May 29, 2013, healthy wetlands and riparian areas are essential to healthy rivers. Current research shows that the greater the riparian buffer, the greater the protections from physical and chemical damages such as sedimentation, erosion, and runoff contaminants. In addition, riparian buffers offer essential wildlife habitat protection. “It appears that a 30m (100ft) buffer is sufficiently wide to trap sediments under most circumstances… An absolute minimum width would be 9m (30ft).”1 To reduce nitrate concentrations, buffers of 15m (50ft) are usually sufficient with 30m (100ft) providing good control. To maintain adequate habitat, “10-30m (35-100ft) native forested riparian buffers should be preserved or restored along all streams.”2 When considering which setbacks are most appropriate for Garfield County, the above guidelines should be considered along with the specific attributes of the local waterways and character of the community. The previous code conditions upheld the minimum standard for most necessary protections. Roaring Fork Conservancy recommends, at minimum, retaining the previous code standard of 35ft and encourages increasing these standards, as indicated above, to enhance 1 Wegner, S., 1999. A review of the scientific literature of riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation, http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/service/tools/buffers/buffer_lit_review.pdf . 2 For a detailed discussion on recommended buffer guidelines, see: Wegner, S., 1999. A review of the scientific literature of riparian buffer width, extent and vegetation, http://www.rivercenter.ug a.edu/service/tools/buffers/buffer_lit_review.pdf. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Ramsey Kropf President Rick Neiley Vice President Jennifer Sauer Secretary Ted Borchelt Carter Brooksher Stephen Ellsperman Jim Light Rick Lofaro Executive Director Don Schuster Diane Schwener Past President Rivers Council Liaison Jacque Whitsitt Town of Basalt Representative Larry Yaw Valerie Alexander Yaw PROGRAM STAFF Rick Lofaro Executive Director Claire Britt Office Manager Sharon Clarke Watershed Action Director Sarah Johnson Education Outreach Coordinator Tim O’Keefe Education Director Chad Rudow Water Quality Coordinator Heather Tattersall Land, Water & Policy Coordinator Sarah Woods Director of Philanthropy protections for waterways and aquatic life. The Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife recommends a 300ft setback from rivers and waterways.3 Table 1 contains setbacks upheld in the land codes of nearby and comparable counties. While these adaptations should not dictate the policy of Garfield County, awareness of policy adapted by counties with similar resources could prove useful in decision making. Table 1 COUNTY SETBACK PROVISION Mesa 200ft For feedlots and CAFOs from perennial stream Mesa 100ft from 100 year floodplain For mining excavation from any watercourse Mesa 100ft from floodway From the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers Routt 50ft from high water line All new construction Rio Blanco 50ft From Wetlands one acre or less Rio Blanco 100ft From Wetlands greater than one acre Pitkin 100ft Measured horizontally from the high water line Eagle 75ft Measured horizontally from the high water line or 100 year floodplain, whichever is greater In each of the above codes, exceptions can be made for unique circumstances -a provision Garfield County should consider as well. In the meeting that took place May 30, 2013, Commissioner Jankovsky relayed the concern of the Commissioners as well as the Planning Committee that the need for setbacks was obsolete based on the often entrenched state of the Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers. In fact, research shows that entrenchment requires comparable protections due to increased risks for erosion. In highly entrenched streams, riparian areas can be too small to function as adequate buffers. One study suggests setbacks in these circumstances of 2.5 times the dimensions of the bank-full channel or 50 feet, whichever is less.4 In addition, the protections provided by a riparian buffer are not negated by the entrenchment. The benefit of riparian buffers on entrenched streams remain intact, including but not limited to: protection from erosion and sedimentation, mitigation of contaminants carried by runoff, addition of organic matter to the river, and vegetative shade to provide habitat and stabilize water temperature. In addition, riparian vegetation can protect banks from further erosion that would result in loss and/or damage to property. Erosive effects are nearly 5 times more likely on un-vegetated stream 3 Colorado Division of Wildlife, 2010. Actions to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Resources, p.3 4 Chagrin Watershed Partners, Inc. 2006, Riparian Setbacks: Technical Information for Decision Makers. www.crwp.org/files/riparian_setback_paper_jan_2006.pdf banks, and up to 30 times more likely on stream bends lacking riparian vegetation.5 Regarding Section 7-204, Water Quality from Pollutants, Roaring Fork Conservancy recommends keeping increased protections afforded in Garfield County’s current land use code. The current iteration, which states “At a minimum, all hazardous material shall be stored in compliance with applicable State and Federal hazardous materials regulations”, may not be adequate protection for the high quality water resources contained in Garfield County. Gold Medal Fisheries in the Roaring Fork Valley as well as popular recreation areas in the Colorado River basin should be held to a higher standard to ensure the protection of water quality and the associated beneficial economic impacts from tourism and recreation. Permitting under the Clean Water Act, while necessary and beneficial, may not adequately protect the rivers. Restricting storage of hazardous materials within the County Land Use Resolution makes the applicant accountable to the county, allowing enforcement and clean-up on a local level with support from the state and federal government when appropriate, rather than relying on distant regulators to ensure the safety of our water resources. Given this information, Roaring Fork Conservancy recommends the code be updated as follows: SECTION 7-203 PROTECTION OF WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS AND WATERBODIES A. Minimum Setback A setback of 506 feet measured horizontally from the Typical and Ordinary High Water (TAOHW) on each side of a water body is required of all activity and development after <date of land use resolution approval>. Activity and development may include, but is not limited to: placement of materials such as soil. sand, organic material or snow, construction or installation of any structure, removal of soil or vegetation, and/or disturbing the natural flow pattern of the waterway. This 50 foot setback may be reduced to between 50 and a minimum of 357 feet upon demonstration by the applicant that such reduction shall not result in water quality 5 Chagrin Watershed Partners, Inc. 2006, Riparian Setbacks: Technical Information for Decision Makers. www.crwp.org/files/riparian_setback_paper_jan_2006.pdf 6 Though a 50 foot setback is requested above, Roaring Fork Conservancy strongly recommends a 100 foot setback as a best management practice for optimum river health. 7 Though a 50 to a minimum of 35 foot setback reduction is requested above, best management practices would allow for potential reduction in setbacks to between 100 and a minimum of 50 feet. degradation, stream back erosion and/or a reduction in the quality of existent riparian or wetland habitat. B. Structures Permitted in Setback Irrigation and water diversion facilities, flood control structures, culverts, bridges and other reasonable and necessary structure may be permitted if there is no feasible alternative and adverse impacts will be adequately mitigated. Bank stabilization, riparian restoration and restoration of natural, dynamic riverine functions may also be permitted provided that impacts will be adequately mitigated. C. Entrenched Streams In the case of entrenched or incised streams, where the vertical distance from the bank exceeds 25 feet, all activities will adhere to a setback of 2.5 times the dimensions of the bank full channel width or 50 feet, whichever is less. SECTION 7-204 WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTANTS8 At a minimum, all hazardous materials shall be stored and used in compliance with applicable state and federal hazardous materials regulations. A. Storage Restrictions Near Waterbodies The storage of hazardous materials within 100 horizontal feet of any waterbody is restricted. When no practical alternative exists, site specific BMPs must be utilized to minimize potential adverse water quality impacts. Sand and salt for road traction, while not hazardous materials, shall not be stored within 100 horizontal feet of any waterbody unless there is no practicable alternative, in which case suitable site-specific BMPs must be utilized. B. Spill Prevention Measures shall be designed and implemented to prevent spilled fuels, lubricants or other hazardous materials from entering a waterbody, including ground water, during construction or 15 operation of equipment and/or facility. If a spill occurs it should be cleaned up immediately and disposed of properly. 8 This Section is adapted from the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution and Northwest Council of Governments’ Water Quality Protection Standards C. Machine Maintenance be performed within 100 feet of any waterbody. Emergency maintenance can be conducted until the vehicle or machinery can be moved. Routine equipment maintenance should be performed in a designated area and measures such as drip pans used to contain petroleum products. D. Waste Storage Areas used for the collection and temporary storage of solid or liquid waste should be designed to prevent discharge of these materials in runoff from the site. Collection sites should be located away from the storm drainage system. Other BMPs such as covering the waste storage area, fencing the site, and constructing a perimeter dike to exclude runoff may also be necessary. E. Fuel Storage Containment measures shall be provided for all fuel storage areas to prevent release to any waterbody. Inventory management or leak detection systems may be required. The verification of the above code will help ensure the prosperity of human and natural communities in Garfield County. Current research indicates “that the influence of riparian corridors on water quality is proportionately much greater than the relatively small area in the landscape they occupy.”9 Water resource protection is far more cost effective and efficient than subsequent restoration often required in unprotected areas. In addition, “several studies have shown that people will pay a premium to live or work near greenways or other protected areas, and this allows the developer to recoup at least some of the costs of not developing up to the stream bank.”10 Furthermore, Roaring Fork Conservancy has worked with developers at Blue Creek and Midland Point, both in Carbondale and Park East in Glenwood Springs to establish Conservation Easements in riparian areas adjacent to developments. Absent development, these river areas are open to the public for recreation such as hiking and fishing, and become beneficial not only to the rivers, aquatic life and wildlife, but also to the community. Roaring Fork Conservancy strongly urges that the above iterations of Sections 7-203 and 7-204 are accepted into the Garfield County Land Use Code. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Rick Lofaro Heather Tattersall Executive Director Watershed Action Coordinator 9 Chagrin Watershed Partners, Inc. 2006, Riparian Setbacks: Technical Information for Decision Makers. www.crwp.org/files/riparian_setback_paper_jan_2006.pdf, p6. 10 Chagrin Watershed Partners, Inc. 2006, Riparian Setbacks: Technical Information for Decision Makers. www.crwp.org/files/riparian _setback_paper_jan_2006.pdf, p49.