Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Correspondence• • • JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON DAVID C. HALLFORD CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER ANNE MARIE MCPHEE AMANDA N. MAURER DEBORAH DAVIS* DAVID P. JONES ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK AND MISSOURI BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. 0. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.8902 www.balcombgreen.com September 16, 2003 OF COUNSEL: KENNETH BALCOMB Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Application for Special Use Permit (Resort)/Okanela Ranch, Canyon Creek, Colorado Dear Fred: As previously discussed with you, given that the notices supporting the September 2, 2003 public hearing on the above -referenced Special Use Application were deficient, the hearing held on that day was effectively a legal ni ll'ty. Given my representations to the Board of this fact, it is my understanding that the continued hearing on October 6, 2003 has been vacated. As also discussed with you, the primary point of contention from the neighboring land owners addressed the resort designation sought under the Special Use Application. In order to resolve this issue with the neighboring land owners, my client now intends to accomplish through the subdivision of 35+ acre parcels, that which was sought under the Special Use Permit Application. It is my understanding that staff is in concurrence with this approach. Accordingly, by this letter I would ask that your department return to me the application materials filed in this matter, the same being hereby withdrawn by my client. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any o f the above, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. cc: Peter Knobel E:\WP Docs\Donna\Tim\Jarman Ltr2.wpd Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. By unoth son • • • October 13, 2003 Tim Thulson Balcomb & Green, P.C., Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 790 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: County Road 137 Right -of -Way / Okanela Ranch Dear Mr. Thulson: As you are aware, on October 13, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners moved to require your client, Peter Knobel, present owner of the "Okanela Ranch" property on County Road 137, to remove all trees and all portions of the fence recently installed by your client from the County Road 137 Right -of -Way in accordance with the survey prepared by High Country Engineering on September 18, 2003. Further, your client shall be required to remove these trees and portions of the fence during the fall of 2003. Do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any questions. Very truly yours, Fred Jarman, AICP, Senior Planner 970.945.8212 CC Marvin Stevens, Garfield County Road and Bridge Department Don DeFord, Garfield County Attorney 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 • • • JUL-0(—WS lb: la rac VtV:ONLI.Vrao a VrtLa.••I • JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR, Scorr BA14CoMo LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THUL$ON DAVID C. HALLFORD CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER ANNE MARIE L&HAN AMANDA N. MAURER DESOR&H DAVIS• DAVID P. JONES Aiiv .0.m*Tra To owcnec .• NM' YOi & M40 M1930ow Via Facsimile: (970) 479-7501 Michael English 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 PALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. APPORANEYS AT LAW P. O. DRAWER 790 $1$ COLORADO AVENUE GLEN -4470013 SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.8902 www.baicombgreen.com July 7, 2003 OF COUNSEL: KENNETH BALCOMA RECEIVED JUL 0 8 2003 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Peter and Patrice Knobel Water Rights Associated with Okanela Lodge Property Dear Michael: You called to inquire about the water rights owned by Peter and Patrice Knobel in connection with the Okanela Lodge property. I have prepared a list of the water rights which is denominated as Exhibit A, and include it with this letter. We have advised the Knobels that each of the water rights is properly decreed for the purposes indicated. In addition to the foregoing water rights, the Knobels have acquired an option to purchase additional senior water rights in the Vulcan Ditch in the approximate amount of 20 acre feet. They are adjudicating an augmentation and change of water rights plan, which will enable them to get the benefit of the Vulcan Ditch water right at the Okanela Lodge property. It is our opinion that the adjudication will proceed, and that a decree in favor of the Knobels allowing the usage of the Vulcan Ditch water right will be entered in due course. It is the opinion of the Knobels' engineers that the completion of this adjudication will provide an adequate legal water supply as more fully described in the engineering reports dated December 31, and March 17, copies of which are enclosed for your information and convenience. LILI 4 •0= •L r•CYPa=ONLI. VWO d YlCGGPI [-a. II. •/ = a r 11,0•111.41.•L• BAJLCOM B & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW • Michael English July 7, 2003 • • Please contact us if you require any additional information on this subject. Thank you. Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. By SB/gg Enclosures cc:,Peter and Patrice Knobel Page 2 Scott Balcomb E\WP-DocsGGaihScoWs ClientsIKnabel Poecalaglish Michael ltr 07.02.03.wpd EE reriRESOURCE • MIME ■•UU■ E N G I N E E R I N G INC. • Scott Balcomb, Esq. Balcomb and Green, P.C. PO Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE Peter Knobel — Okanela Lodge Water Rights Dear Scott: December 31, 2002 The purpose of this letter report is to provide the information necessary to make a water court application for water rights and change of water rights to serve the Okanela Lodge property owned by Mr. Peter Knobel. The property is located on Canyon Creek at the confluence with Possum Creek in Section 19, Township 5 South, Range 89 West, 6`h P.M. and Section 24, Township 5 South, Range 89% West and Range 90 West, 6th P.M. in Garfield County (see Figure 1, Location Map)_ The water rights are in Water District 39, Division 5. The property is currently served by several ditches and springs which carry multiple water rights some of which have junior decrees subject to administrative curtailment during periods of low flow in Canyon Creek. In 2002, the dry year of record in Canyon Creek, most of the Okanela Lodge water rights were out of priority for at least a part of the irrigation season. The purpose of this proposed water rights action is to enhance the ability of the owner to better meet the water demands for current and future uses on the property. Toward that goal it is proposed that new water rights and a change of water rights for the Vulcan Ditch be obtained. The water uses on the property include 1) irrigation of up to 137 acres from a central sprinkler irrigation system which collects water from three ditches (pipelines) which divert from Possum Creek and East Fork Canyon Creek into a single pond and 2) a flow through water feature near the main house which gets its supply from Possum Creek. The three ditches which deliver water for these two uses are the Lewis Ditch No. 1 out of Possum Creek and the Lewis Ditch No. 2 and the Warner Ditch out of East Fork Canyon Creek. NEW WATER RIGHTS Lewis Ditch No. 1 diverts out of Possum Creek under two water rights, both decreed for irrigation use. Warner Ditch diverts out of East Fork Canyon Creek under two water rights also decreed for irrigation. New water rights for multiple uses will be sought at each ditch. Lewis Ditch No. 1, 2"° Enlargement Location: Headgate located on the North bank of Possum Creek in the NWY4 SWY4, Section 19, Township 5 South, Range 89 West, 6r" P.M., at a point 1,400 feet from the South line and 60 feet from the West line of said Section 19. The location is described in previous decrees at a point whence the North quarter corner of Section 20, Township 5 South, Range 89 West, e P.M. bears North 66° 29' East, 8,811.8 feet. •Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ■ (970) 945-6777 ■ Fax (970) 945-1137 r • • J1lL-1LJ/—VJ lU •G zrtV1• u/'��. �. u�/u v v��r.. a...� • v Scott Balcomb, Esq. December 31, 2002 Page 2 Source: Possum Creek tributary to Canyon Creek, tributary to the Colorado River. Appropriation: July 15, 2002 by construction of water Structure and formation of intent to appropriate water. Amount 0.27 cfs, conditional Use: Aesthetic and fire protection Warner Ditch, 2"tl Enlargement Location: Headgate located on the West bank of East Fork Canyon Creek in the NE% NE'/, Section 24, Township 5 South, Range 90 West at a point 805 feet from the North line and 530 feet from the East line of said Section 24. The location was described in previous decrees at a point whence the Northeast comer of Section 24, Township 5 South, Range 90 West, 6th P.M. bears North 66° 14' East 923.1 feet. Source: East Fork Canyon Creek tributary to the Colorado River. Appropriation: November 11, 2002 by location of place of use and formation of intent to appropriate water. Amount: 0.40 cfs, conditional Use: Irrigation and fire protection (supplemental irrigation on up to 137 acres in the NE1/, Section 24, Township 5 South, Range 90 West, 6t' P.M. via a sprinkler irrigation system). CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS Vulcan Ditch and Vulcan Ditch, 1st Enlargement for 6.00 cfs and 4.00 cfs respectively are decreed for irrigation use. The ditch diverts from the west bank of Canyon Creek in the NW% SW%, Section 25, Township 5 South, Range 90 West, 6th RM. at a point 2,200 feet from the South line and 1,000 feet from the West line of said Section 25. The original water right was adjudicated in the District Court of Garfield County in Case No. 1319 and the First Enlargement was adjudicated in Case No. 4004. In Case No. W-2127, decreed in Division 5 Water Court on June 26, 1974, the court fixed the historic dry year consumptive use associated with the Vulcan Ditch water rights at 440 AF per year and made that amount of consumptive use available for augmentation use. The historic irrigation occurred on parts of the S'/2, Section 34 and the SW'/a, Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 West, 6t' P.M. and the N'h, Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 90 West, 6th P.M_ See Figure 2. Included in the augmentation uses are irrigation, pond evaporation and domestic use. A copy of the decree in W-2127 is attached. It is proposed that Mr. Knobel acquire 20 AF of the 440 AF adjudicated for augmentation in Case No. W-2127 and change the point of diversion and place of use to the Okanela Lodge property. The 20 AF is 4.54% of the total -----RESOURCE IIIONIMIS N O t ry E E i. IN i N G. • • JUL. -10/ -la 3 1b: 13 YKUi :UMLl.Urats b. la CC Yl, 1U=.7/,!/JYJC Scott Balcomb, Esq. December 31, 2002 Page 3 adjudicated historic C.U. and proportionately equals 0.27 cfs and 0.18 cfs of the original and First Enlargement rights in the Vulcan Ditch. New points of diversion include: 1. Lewis Ditch No. 1 on Possum Creek 2_ Lewis Ditch No. 2 on East Fork Canyon Creek 3. Wamer Ditch on East Fork Canyon Creek The points of diversion for Lewis Ditch No. 1 and Warner Ditch are as described above. The point of diversion for Lewis Ditch No_ 2 is on the East bank of East Fork Canyon Creek in the NE% NEY4, Section 24, Township 5 South, Range 90 West, 6th P.M., at a point 460 feet from the North line and 325 feet from the East line of said Section 24. The new place of use is on the Okanela Lodge property located in the NEA, Section 24, Township 5 South, Range 90 West, 6t" P.M. The change in point of diversion and place of use of 20 AF of historic C.U. and direct diversions in the amount of 0.27 cfs original priority and 0.18 cfs of the First Enlargement of Vulcan Ditch will not injury to other vested water rights users. The specific use of the 20 AF will be defined in a future augmentation plan. Sincerely, CE ENGINEERING, INC. Paul S. Bussone, P.E. Water Resource Engineer PSB/mmm 967-1.0 E:1CGent\9671sb water rts 967.doc Attachment RESOURCE E N r3 i N E E ri r N G SC1:EDUL 2 3 , _RETWE`'='t RAMILTON R. DUN RUSTEE, AND STORM KInG MINES, IN THE DISTRICT COURT annx 626 f Sb5 TO HAARA,N1TY DEL'D DATED May 2, cAN, JR_, INDI_VIDUAL-LY, AND AS IKc. IN' AND FOR WATER DIVISION NO. 5 STATE OF COLORADO CASE NO. W -2J.27 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) PINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS FOR HATER RIGHTS OF RIVE'? ND ) OP LAW AND DECREE APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION II ) CHANGE OF WATER RIGHTS GARFIELD COUNTY THIS MATTER, having•come on for hearing upon the applica- tion ofRiverbend Development Corporation for approval or a change of water rights which vas filed on'December 3, /973, and -the Court having considered the pleadings, the herein., and the evidence presented, ?INDS: 1. That this matter was re-referred to the Water Judge on February 27, 1974; that timely and adequate notice o; this pro- ceeding.has been given in the manner- required by 2.aw; and that the xiatsr Judge sitting in this Court has jurisdiction over.the subject utter of this proceeding and over all parries arrected hereby, whether they have appeared or not. The Colorado River Water Con- servation District has timely entered an appearance in t:11s proceeding; the and County of Denver, acting by and through It: Board of Water Commissioners, has timely riled a statement or opposition; and the time for the filing Or additional statements of opposition has expired. 2. Anpllcant owns approximately 1_5 squa~e u -'-es 1.n Town- ships 5 and a .=+ouch, range 90 West .of the 6th P.M., of which it intend: to develop approximately 600 acres for residential and recreational purposes. The development"w1?/ eventually contain approximately 550 dxe1iti units and approximately 120 acres of irrigated Aeadosr. Apniic:ant has f i lea this application tor change of water rights in order to provide a water supply .for =is development on a year- round basis. • sl LJ I— O.3 • ♦ 0 = 1 J tR Vt'1=0 M1.1. V rt0 • tID mffu Gf; r: &569 3. Applicant owns the following water rights: October 10, a. Ynlcan Ditch, Basin Ra No. 1117r iOctober 5, 1973 Revised Priority 106 aWater Di District No. 39, Priority No, 175, Ditch No. for 6.0 ens., approor.aciondateAprilC1, 1907, adjudicated by Decree and t the t for Garfield County, entered September 1A, 1908. Vulcan Ditch First Enlargement, Basin Rano: No. 3729 in October 10, 1973 Revised Priority List for Water Division 5, Priority No. 242, being Ditch(No. 106 3.n District No. 39 , for; 4.0 cfs . , appronr_ation date October 8, 1942,+adiudicated by Decree ShetDisterict Court in and for Garfield County, entered 5, 1952. om on The dpointdonoint of the Westsbankcion thereofrwhenceytheCreek corner common z p 2.4 25 and 26 , Towns p 5 th, to Sections 23, °o6' ;test 1632.7 South, Range 90 west bears South 89 Dias of d've_� feet, variation l5° East. The actual, p slop is and apparently always has been at..a point on the West hank of Canyon creek in the Mfg Section 25, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the ' 6th P.M. b. The following Keds, as conditionally decreed by the Water Court in and for Water Division Ho. 5 by the Referee's Ruling of March 21, 1979, in Case Humber W--2125, for 0.67 ells- each, appropriation date June 1, 1973, located as follows:. Riverbend Well No. 1: At a point whence the South- west Corner of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M. bears South 02°30' West 2680 feet. Riverbend Well No. 2: At a paint Whence the South- west Corner of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M., bears South 1a°30' West 2600 feet. - Riverbend Wel? No. 3: At a point whence the South- west Corner of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.:4., bea=n South 18°90' West 2610 Leet. Riverbend Well No. 4: At a point whence the South- west Corner of Section 35,Township ship 52South,Weange ear 90 West of the 5th P _... , st 2590 feet. Riverbend Well No. 5: At a point whence the South- west Corner of Section 35, Township 5 South, Range 90 :lest of the 6th P.M. bears South 34°30' West, 2675 feet. • 4. The source of .supply for the domestic water service for applicant's development will be :rater diverted from the Colo - rade River alluvium. This water will be directly applied to municipal -type purposes to_supply the development through a centra' water supply system. The means of diversion of such water will be through .'fiver end 'tells 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. in order to provide water service t_`Irough its central .system during tines of the year when its • * wells rsfla GT) :tes 570 wells will be ouG of priority, applicant proposes to use said as alternate points of diversion Cor Dart or Its Vulcan Ditch rights, whi?e contineing.ca divert through Vulcan Ditch for irriga- tion purposes, to the extent permitted. Az long as the total mount of water diverted through wells and ditch does not exceed the amount of water decreed to Vulcan Ditch, and as long az the combined depletion to the river system from the Biverbend wells and Vulcan Ditch is not greater than the historic depletion. from Vulcan Ditch, no vested rights will be insured by applicant's change of point or diversion of part or all of the Vulcan Ditch rights. 5_ The total consumptive use or the Vulcan Ditch rights has been approximately 440 acre feet per year .in dry years. Since the precise allocatl.on o: water among the several uses to which applicant proposes -to put its rights In connection with its project is not fixed, the amount of the annual depletions to the Colorado River and Canyon Creek caused by water use in applicant's develop- ment cannot presently be ascertained. 'However, the 440 acre feet consumed b.Sstor_cal].y is avaiA.able :or consumption -n a.pplita=l='s development without injuriously affecting other Nater rights. The emount of consumptive use associated with each aspect of applicant's development has been calculated as follows; For residences, all of which w{11 be connected to a central water and sewer system, household consumptive use, not including yard irrigation, will. be Ivor the water supplied thereto- Although there may be certain other forms of consumers on the central 'water system than single- family douestic dwelling units, Such as multi -family or light commercial, the totalconsuscpcIve use can adequately be expressed as a function of 'residential equivalent units." Each_r=sideutial equivalent emit x.11 require the diversion tor in-house purposes of 0.3920 acre -feat oer year, based upon a per ca?ita denand of 100 gallons per day, and an occupancy of 3.5 persons per dwelling unit.. At 37: coosumocive use, this results in an annual consumptive use or 0.0113 ac=e -feet per residential equivalent unit. Applicant's JUL—W r— I. r 10,1.! CRUi7=OI'9L1.UMO 626 rec 3: 3cxage treatment program ' ztion of approximately 120 by its sewage treatment plate for 1== -b +_ ated by water acres of pasture and hay meadow hiecor'_eal_y ir: s This program will require construe - effluent during the winter period This ppnd will be emptied each of the said land treatment program, for the storace of contemplates reuse of the effluent prcduced diverted through Vulcan Ditch. tionof a pond In which to store when no land is being i rieated. Succeeding summer by weans that stor2$e space will be during the following winCer. carryover 'storage from one effluent pond has not been available This will result in there year to another. The exact size determined, but 1t 13 expected to . The evaporation of surface area of between water from the surface feet per acre of water high water pasture as level. required of water through the historic hay this effluent or Riverbend wells, so effluent being no of the have a fot_r and twenty of this pond is surface Applicant the for aces calculated to be 1.0 acre per Year calculated at the des'! gn will supplement the irrigation of the a fu?l supply thereon by the direct diversion Vulcan Ditch or the Rtverbead wells- For e_ ees of whether it ie Irrigated ed by water diverted through Vulcan Ditch or the, is calculated to' be 2.0 acre feet of irrigation water for lawn by consumptive use She conemeptive Lse and Landscape purposes is also calculated to be 2.0 acre feet per per acre per -year. acre per year. 6. several pressed by the following formula: [0_0118 acre-feet x Al + [1.0 acre Peet/acre x HJ [2.0 acre feet/acre x C] + D e 440 acre feet Lae tctal n ben o_` residentla equ?ve�ent unite A 1s acres calculated at the unite; B is the stnrracs area zi design high water level of cz a sewage effluent stcra e pond.; C._s the total :lumber of =7t5 of lawn, lel pe or other irrieaticn supplied by the central water system and the number of acres of historic hay meadow continued in Irrigation, each year; and 0 is the coral yearly amount in acre feet, of any other con3umptive use3. The use o: c' -its formula Limits tee amount o: water which may be consumutifele used to an amount which will prevent injury to other The total yearly consumptive use resultjng from'the purposes env_Yaged by applic! may be conveniently ex- JUL-07-10:5 11=1: 14 1-KUtm:rsLP9rs tWA 626 nxE5?2 water users, while permitting applicant flexibility in determining the allocation of its water resources_ So long as applicant's uses conform to this formula and net depletions of the Colorado r ear, then no in— jurysystem do not exceed 440 acre feet pe y Jury will occur to the rights of ogler water users. 7. Applicant's proposed change of water right involves moving the point of diversion of the Vulcan Ditch priorities from Such a change have the a tributary to .the mzinStem river. effect oC enhancing the physical supply of water available to appli— cant, to the detriment or rights on the mas-nscem river andtheeeSr river system as a whole. In addition, water left in Canyon : to the extent of water taken through the wells, may be subject to interception by junior water rights prior to reaching the Colorado River mainstem, where le is required in order to avoid injury to users thereon. If applicant is required to instal' a measuring device in Canyon Creek or on the Vulcan Ditch headgate- to insure that its supply or water would not exceed the amount that would nave .:atonic poi :t of elve=;i= ., add been available to t at tl'c meansc to insure the delivery of water.to the Colorado River in Such amount as is being diverted from the alternate roint.of diversion, proper administration can be ra.c:.litated. sileb CONCLUSIONS OF La` The Court finds as a matter oC law: 1. The change of water ri.ht3 proposed by applicant is. one contemplated by law, and if administered in accordance with this decree, there will be no adverse effects on any vested water rights on the Colorado River system. 2. The State Engineer say be lawfully required to ad— minister t:« priority in the =anner set north herein. DEC?`'E IT XS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDOLD AND DECREED: 1. The change or water rish;s contemplated by applicant herein is htl7eby approves subject to the following conditions: • JUL—tit—WJ 10,LY rCC VIO,-,L a. v ..o a C„CA..a..•_ a. That the total amount of water diverted throng% all oC applicant's points of diversion at any time rot exceed the amount decreed to the Vulcan Ditch. b_ Applicant shall opeeeze its development by means or a Central water and sewer system, supplemented by Yulc=n Ditch diversions as described in paragraph 5 oC the Findings of Fact hereof. c. That applicant's depletion of the Colorado River and Canyon Creek, pursuant Co the exercise of the rights described herein, not exceed 440 acre feet per year and that applicant's consumptive use of water for all purposes be determined by the following formula: • [0.0118 acre—feet x A] + [1.0 acre Leet/acre x 8] + [2.0 acre feet/acre z C) + D 4+0 acre feet where A is the total number of residential equivalent units; H is the surface area in acres calculated at tte design. high water level oC the sewage effluent storage pond; C is the total »umber 01 acres of lawn, landscape or other irrigation supplied by the central -water system and the number of acres of historic hay meadow continue`' in irrigarior_, to :ear; and D iz the tote'_ „z acre rest, _J other consu[pti e .ses- At. the request of the Division Engineer, the Denver Nater Board or tie Colcrado River Water Conservation District, applicant shall supply evidence entabl.2.shing the values or the variables used in the said equatiau. d. - Applicant shall not divert more water at any time at its new alternate points of diversion,and at its historic pointe or diversion combined than would have been available to it at the historic point of diversion. Ap— plicant shall i.ztall measuring devices, continuous re— corders and ditch tueaoura in the hea.dgate of, the Vulcan Ditch or in Canyon Creek Just upstream therefrom, sufficient in the opinion of tie D1-risaon engineer to permit the ad— ministration with respect to historic availability, and sufficient to guarantee the delivery or water to the mainstem of the Colorado River in the amount or the_water being pumped at the alternate points of diversion_ • JUL-07-03 16= 15 FROM=BALL:WW b. I.I I EV VL. 2. _Tt � ha+ —G•21; ilf )i.� lJ Is -hereby specifically ordered, adjudged and decreed 4110 that applicant may continue to use the preheat poislc"of diversion of Vulcan Ditch, the location of union la ac a point on t:r& west bank of Canyon Creek in tnc NL/1/4 SW1/4 Section 25, Township 5 South, Range 90 Vest of the 6th P.M. 3. Further, it is he.^eby ordered, adjudged and decreed that applicant may also use alternate points of diversion for part or all of the Vulcan Ditch rights at Riverbead tfeU 1, 2, 3, fi and 5, located as described in finding 3(b). k. Further, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that applicant's water rights above-described may hereafter be used for year-round runic' -pal use .(including commercial, -indus- trial, domestic, irrigation incident thereto, and sewage treatment including land disposal), irrigation, recreation, fish and wild- life propagation, and all ocher beneficial purposes, including storage for each of the above purposes. Dated tb*s . e day of , 1974.. • • APPROVED: !enneth 4aieomb, Attorney for Colorado River Hates Conser- vation District {7 er Judge - Water Division No_ 5 State of Colorado Xenneth r. 8roaanurst, Attor- ney for C:.ty and County o; Denver, ac:Ing by and through its Board of :crate: Commis- sioners om is- sione_s • JUL-07-03 16,1b k -I Utn,tsHL.Lvrit a ""'EESOUECE ■...r E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. David Jones, Esq. Baicomb and Green, P.C. PO Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE: Okanela Lodge — Peter Knobel Dear David: March 17, 2003 The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) has proposed instream flow appropriations for Canyon Creek, East Canyon Creek and Possum Creek. The Canyon Creek and East Canyon Creek minimum stream flow segments are above the Okanela Lodge property. Each of the stream segments terminates at critical ditch headgates; Baxter Ditch #1 on Canyon Creek and Keyser Creek Ditch on East Canyon Creek. In our opinion these CWCB instream flows protect the flow in the upper reaches of the respective creeks without negatively impacting Mr. Knobel's water rights plans. The CWCB Possum Creek instream flow covers the entire creek from its headwaters to the confluence with East Canyon Creek. it crosses through Okanela Lodge property and is more problematic. The CWCB minimum flow has been adjusted downward for the summer months to account for two of the water rights owned by Mr. Knobel on Possum Creek (Possum Creek Ditch and Possum Ditch #1). And of course, these two water rights are senior to the proposed instream flow appropriation. Lewis Ditch No. 1 on Possum Creek is also owned by Mr. Knobel and is senior to the CWCB claim. In Case No. 02CW400, Mr. Knobel claimed a new water right at Lewis Ditch No. 1 for 0.27 cfs, aesthetic and fire protection. This water right, although very junior relative to the Canyon Creek rights, should be senior to the CWCB instream flow. However, future development of water resources on Possum Creek will be seriously impacted by this appropriation. It would be ideal if the downstream terminus of the instream flow reach would be at or above the Lewis Ditch No. 1. We have not conducted a full analysis of the CWCB report which supports the claim for 2.40 cfs (May 1 — August 14) and 1.60 cfs (August 15 — April 30) on Possum Creek. However, our initial review indicates that the analysis procedure is appropriative. A copy of the report is attached. if you would like for us to look into this matter in more detail, please call. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. P ul S. Bussone, P.E. Water Resource Engineer PSBlmmm 967-1.0 E:\Client967'dj cwcb 967.doc Attachment •Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, 00 81601 ■ (970) 945-6777 ■ Fex (970) 945-1137 Summary The information contained in this report and the associated instream flow file folder forms the basis for staff's instream flow recommendation to be considered by the Board. It is staffs opinion that the information contained in this report is sufficient to support the findings required in Rule 5.40. Colorado's lnstream Flow Program was created in 1973 when the Colorado State Legislature recognized "the need to correlate the activities of mankind with some reasonable preservation of the natural environment" (see 37-92-102 (3) C.R_S_)_ The statute vests the CWCB with the exclusive authority to appropriate and acquire instream flow and natural lake level water rights_ In order to encourage other entities to participate in Colorado's Instream Flow Program, the statute directs the CWCB to request instream flow recommendations from other state and federal agencies. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recommended this segment of Possum Creek to the CWCB for inclusion into the Instream Flow Program. Possum Creek is being considered for inclusion into the Instream Flow Program because it has a natural environment that can be preserved to a reasonable degree with an instream flow water right. The BLM is very interested in protecting stream flows because the stream has been historically stocked with Colorado River Cutthroat Trout, and the stream is very suitable for long-term management of a cutthroat population. Possum Creek is a tributary of Canyon Creek and is approximately 6.0 miles long. It begins between Haypress Lake and Deer Lake at an elevation of approximately 10200 feet, and terminates at the confluence with the Canyon Creek at an elevation of approximately 6,050 feet. Of the 5.8 mile segment addressed by this report, approximately 75% of the segment, or 4.4 miles, is located on federal lands, while the remainder of the segment, 1.4 miles, is located on private lands. The creek is located within Garfield County. The total drainage area of the creek is approximately 6.8 square miles. Possum Creek generally flows in a southwesterly direction. The subject of this report is the entire length of Possum Creek, from the headwaters to the confluence with Canyon Creek. This segment is located northwest of Glenwood Springs_ The staff has received only one recommendation on this segment, from the Bureau of Land Management. The recommendation for this segment is discussed below. Instream Flow Recommendation(s) BLM recommended 2.4 cfs, summer, and 1.9 cfs, winter, based on its August 29, 1996, data collection effort (see Appendix A)_ The modeling results from this survey effort are within the confidence interval produced by the R2Cross model. Land Status Review Upper Terminus Lower Terminus Total Length (miles) Land Own_ ership % Private % Public Headwaters East Canyon Creek 5.8 25% 75% Approximately 75% of the reach is located on federal lands managed by the BLM. - 2 - • • • Biological Data The BLM has conducted field surveys of the fishery resources on this stream and have found a natural environment that can be preserved. As reported for this reach of stream in the letter to the CWCB "Fishery surveys indicate that the stream environment is in good condition, and supports a self-sustaining brook and brown trout fishery. Channel and bank stability, substrate, and water quality are excellent for salmonids. However, lack of pools and suboptimal cover are limiting factors for fish habitat, underscoring the importance of adequate flows to prevent further stress to the fishery. Because of some natural stream barriers, the stream also has potential to provide habitat for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout" (See CDOW Fish Survey in Appendix B). In addition, Colorado Division of Wildlife has historically stocked this stream with Colorado River Cutthroat Trout. Field Survey Data BLM staff used the R2Cross methodology to quantify the amount of water required to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree. The R2Cross method requires that stream discharge and chaxmel profile data be collected in a riffle stream habitat type. Riffles are most easily visualized, as the stream habitat types that would dry up first should streamflow cease. This type of hydraulic data collection consists of setting up a transect, surveying the stream channel geometry, and measuring the stream discharge. Appendix B contains copies of field data collected for this proposed segment. Biological Flow Recommendation The CWCB staff relied upon the biological expertise of the cooperating agencies to interpret output from the R2Cross data collected to develop the initial, biologic instream flow recommendation. This initial recommendation is designed to address the unique biologic requirements of each stream without regard to water availability. Three instream flow hydraulic parameters, average depth, percent wetted perimeter, and average velocity are used to develop biologic instream flow recommendations. The CDOW has determined that maintaining these three hydraulic parameters at adequate levels across riffle habitat types, aquatic habitat in pools and runs will also be maintained for most life stages of fish and aquatic invertebrates (Nehring 1979; Espegren 1996)_ For this segment of stream, one data set was collected with the results shown in Table 1 below. Table 1 shows who collected the data (Party), the date the data was collected (Date), the measured discharge at the time of the survey (Q), the accuracy range of the predicted flows based on Manning Equation (240% and 40% of Q), the summer flow recommendation based on meeting 3 of 3 hydraulic criteria and the winter flow recommendation based upon 2 of 3 hydraulic criteria. Table 1: Data Party Date Q 250%-40% Summer (3/3) Winter (2/3) BLM 8/29/1996 4.08 10.2 —1.6 2.4 1.9 wn—pu�cau m ran UVN' — 1leutc (1) Prodicted flow outside oY a accuracy range of Ma nning's Equation. ? — Ultima acvcr mct in R2CROSS Staging Table. Biologic Flow Recommendation The summer flow recommendation, which meets 3 of 3 criteria and is within the accuracy range of the R2CROSS model is 2.4 cfs (See Table 1)_ The winter flow recommendation, which meets 2 of 3 criteria and is inside the accuracy range of the R2CROSS model is 1.9 cfs (See Table 1). -3- .JUL-07-03 16=lti t-h'um=timt.t.umm tl. I.KLGIY Hydrologic Data After receiving the cooperating agency's biologic recommendation, the CWCB staff conducted an evaluation of the stream hydrology to determine if water was physically available for an instream flow appropriation. The hydrograph below was derived from data collected by the USGS stream gage for Possum Creek above New Castle, CO OD #09085400), which has a drainage area of 6.4 square miles (See Gage Summary in Appendix C). The total drainage area of the Possum Creek Drainage upstream of the East Canyon Creek is approximately 6.8 square miles. The period of record for this gage was 1969 to 1982, the period of record used by staff in their analysis was 1969 to 1982, or 13 years of record_ Table 2 below displays the flow of Possum Creek upstream of the East Canyon Creek (Table 2), in terx ns of a percentage of exceedence_ Table 2: Possum Creek cstiraatcd flow upstream of East Cssryon crock 131:en.ta &mam as Jaw, 35 ;Wulff 28 3 5,° S815 -- 61 2568.... 74 421 82 9.fi 916 3 2.52 68 5 39 3 318 10% 25 244 22 2 5 58 9 2. 3L 4 44 4 12 54 46 37 9 22 2316 21 2 1.9 43 x2 33 98 59 41 35 27 26 97x 16 t7 1$ 25 14 18 7.1 48 32 27 23 2 874 1.3 L4 u 1.8 628 8 48 3 23 22 1.8 1.5 3174 it 1.1 1.2 35 453 62 37 26 2 2 31 12 95% ars 878 it 14 3.57 29 36 127 1 a9 1 09D3 TM a& 8477 0907 1.2 287 tffi 14 t1 os 881 atO nest Table 2 above shows that the summer recommendation of 2.4 cfs is available April 15th through October 31' and the winter recommendation is available November 1 through December 30_ The winter flow recornmendatiou were further reduced to 1.6 cfs for the time period of January 13t through April I4th based on limited water availability. Precipitation Data Staff reviewed local precipitation data sets from 2 different sites located around the Canyon Creek Drainage (see Precipitation Data in Appendix C). These sites include Rifle and Glenwood Springs. Table 3 shows the water year and the percent of average precipitation recorded at each site. -4 • • • .sJUL-0/—OJ u v.�._.r.. .. Table 3: Precipitation Data as a percentage of Average. Rifle % Average Glenwood Springs % Average 1969 141% 128% 1970 125% 140% 1971 104% 116% 1972 118% 92% 1973 No Data No Data 1974 85% No Data 1975 85% No Data 1976 96% ^T' 77% 1977 85% 102% 1978 136% 147% 1979 No Data No Data 1980 No Data No Data 1981 137% No Data 1982 111% 114% Average 111% 115% Table 3 shows a slight variation of precipitation between the two precipitation sites. It is staff's opinion that the 13 years of stream -flow data analyzed is representative of slightly above average water years. Existing Water Right Information Staff has analyzed the water rights tabulation and consulted with the Division Engineer Office (DEO) to identify any potential water availability problems. There are 2 decreed surface diversions (Possum Creek Ditch and Possum Ditch #1) within this reach of stream. After discussing the above water availability analysis with the DEO and taking into account the existing diversions, the summer recommendation was reduced to 2.4 cfs from May 1 through August 14th and the winter recommendation was reduced to 1.6 cfs from August 15th through April 30th. Based on this analysis staff has determined that water is available for appropriation on Possum Creek, from Headwaters to the East Canyon Creek, to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree without limiting or foreclosing the exercise of valid existing water rights. 5 .JUL-10/-WJ 1ti= I I Y IUM,MML.t.UMt$ !k UKttM Yl- llJ==/YJ='i=w=W:c CWCB Staff's Instream Flow Recommendation Staff recommends the Board fonn its intent to appropriate on the following stream reach: Segment: Headwaters to East Canyon Creek Upper Terminus: Headwaters at (Latitude 39° 38' 42") (Longitude 107° 22' 16") Lower Terminus: East Canyon Creek at (Latitude 39° 36' 04") (Longitude I07° 26' 24") Counties: Garfield Length: 5.8 miles USGS Quad(s): Carbonate, Adams Lake, Storm King Mountain Flow Recommendation: 2.40 cfs (May I ai — August 14th) 1.60 cfs (August 15th — April 30th) • -6- • Possum _Creek ISF_RPT_vl.doc • • • .JUL-07-03 16:17 FRONrEALCONB & GREEN PC ID:97094513902 VALit; ZIZIG3 .JUL-07-03 16:18 FROM.BALCOMB & GRF:BN FU Exhibit A 1 O. U IWUgbeIWWIC rni.c c.ai c.a Structure Priority No. Decreed Amount Appropriation Date Decree Date Case No. Amount Owned By Knobels Lewis Ditch No. 1 154BB-1 0.44 c.f.s., absolute 6/1/188511/22/1905 CA. 1148 0.44 c.f.s., absolute Lewis Ditch No. 1 1541313-1 0.16 c.f.s., conditional 6/1/1885 11i274905 C.A. 1148 0.16 c.f.s., conditional Lewis Ditch No_ 1 289 1.01 cis., absolute 6//1920 11/10/1966 C.A. 4914 1.01 c.f.s., absolute Warner Ditch 291 4.65 c.f.s., absolute 611/1920 11/10/1966 CA. 4914 4.365 cfs., absolute Lewis Ditch No. 2 154BB-2 0.04 cfs., absolute 6/111885 11/22/1905 CA.1148 0.04 c.fs., absolute Lewis Ditch No. 2 290 1.10 cfs., absolute 6/1/1920 11/10/1966 C.A. 4914 I.10 c_f_s., absolute Buster No. 1 Ditch 287 1.48 c.f.s., absolute 6/1/1920 11/10/1966 CA. 4914 1.48 c.f.s., absolute Possum No. 1 Ditch 288 2.14 els., absolute 6/1/1920 11/10/1966 CA. 4914 2.14 c.f.s., absolute North Canyon Spring & Pipeline 0.203cf.s., absolute 5/5/1988 12/31/1990 90CW120 0.203 Cis., absolute North Canyon Spring & Pipeline" 0.033 cis; conditional 5/5/1988 12/31/1990 90CW120 %CW261 0.033 c.f.s, conditional Deer Pond 0.84 a.f., absolute W19/1988 12/31/1988 88CW390 0.84 a.f., absolute Deer Pond Ditch 0.25 cfs., absolute 8/19/1988 12/3111988 88CW390 98CW220 0.25 c.f.s., absolute Cattail Spring 0.022 c_f_s_, absolute 8/19/1988 12131/1988 88CW390 98CW220 0.022 c.f.s., absolute Lewis Ditch No. 1 2"° Enlargement pending 7/152002 pending 02CW400 027 cEs., conditional pending decree Warner Ditch, 2i° Enlargement pending 11/11/2002 pending 02CW400 0.4 c.f.s., conditional pending decree Vulcan Ditch 6.0 cis. 4/1/1907 9/14/1908 CA.1319 0.27 c.f.s. of Consumptive Use Credit as Decreed in W-2127 Vulcan Ditch, 1" Enlargement 4.0 c.f.s. 10/8(1942 9/5/1952 CA. 4004 0.18 c.f.s. of Consumptive Use Credit as Decree in W-2127 Form No. GWS -25 APPLICANT OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 LIC WELL PERMIT NUMBER 251012 DIV. 5 WD 39 DES. BASIN MD PETER KNOBEL % BALCOMB & GREEN P 0 DRAWER 790 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602- APPROVED WELL LOCATION GARFIELD COUNTY NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 24 Township 5 S Range 90 W Sixth P.M. DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 1253 Ft. from North Section Line 1249 Ft. from East Section Line UTM COORDINATES Northing: Easting: (970) 945-6546 PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules.2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) as the only well on a tract of land of approximately 40.00 acres described as that portion of Sec. 24, Twp. 5 S, Rng. 89.5 W, and Sec. 24, Twp. 5 S, Rng. 90 W, Sixth P.M., Garfield County, more particularly described on the attached exhibit A. 4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside not more than three (3) single family dwellings, the watering of poultry, domestic animals and livestock on a farm or ranch and the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns. 5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM. 6) The retum flow from the use of this well must be through an individual waste water disposal system of the non -evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system in which the well is located. 7) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this permi APPROVED JSG State Engineer `Receipt No. 0510984 DATE ISSUED 06-12-2003 By EXPIRATION DATF 06 -,)005 J COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1313 SHERMAN ST., RM 818, DENVER, CO 80203 phone — info: (303) 866-3587 main: (303) 866-3581 fax: (303) 866-3589 http://www.water.siiate.co.us RESIDENTIAL Note: Also use this form to apply for livestock watering Water Well Permit Application Review instructions on reverse side prior to completing form. The form must be completed in black ink. 1. Applicant Information Name of applicant Peter Knobel CIO Balcomb & Green P.C., Attn Scott Balcomb _. ___... Mailing address PO Drawer 790 City State Zip code Glenwood Springs CO 81602_ -_ ----- Telephone# --�- (970) 945-6546 2. Type Of Application (check applicable boxes) Construct new well ❑ Use existing well ❑ Replace existing well 0 Change or increase use '—'Rea c -at on (exp -.,.J permof, 0 Change source (aquifer) �+ Y'ri ' ❑ Other: 3. Refer To (if applicable) fine - Water Court case # Well permit # NA NA --- Designated Basin Determination # I Well name or # NA Guest House Well 4. Location Of Proposed Well Garfield ield SE 1/4 of the County NE G_._-.' N or S j Range E or W Principal Meridian Section Township ❑ '; 90 ❑ El 6th 24 S _._-- -----.-_-- --- fine---- Distance of well from section lines (section lines are typically not propertylines) 2111 Ft.from N 0 S 500 Ft. from la E 0 W ____ ...._.... o new well direction For replacement wells only - distance and direction from old well t feet Well Wlocation address (if applicable) Optional: GPS well location information in UTM format Required settings for GPS units are as follows: Format must be UTM Zone must be 13 Units must be Meters Datum must be NAD27 (CONUS) Unit must be set to true north W ere points averaged? DYES ❑ NO Northing290890 'acting 4386232 WhichWell Wil Be Locateci 5. Parcel On A You must check and complete one of the following: ❑ Subdivision: Name Lot Block ---Filing/Unit -- ❑ County exemption ' ionlont(attach copy of county approval & survey): Name/# Lot # ❑ Parcel less than 35 acres, not in a subdivision, attach a deed with metes and bounds description recorded prior to June 1, 1972 Name/# ❑ Mining claim (attach a copy of the deed or survey): O Square 40 acre parcel as described in Item 4 , Parcel of 35 or more acres (attach a metes and bounds description or survey) O Other (attach metes & bounds description or survey and supporting documents) B. # of acres in parcel C. Are you the owner of this parcel? 35._35 EYES CI NO (if no - see instructions) _ D. Will this be the only well on this parcel? EYES 0 NO (if no list other wells) Office Use Only 1 .11 Form GWS -44 (3/2003) 6. Use Of Well (check applicable boxes) See instructions to determine use(s) for which you may qualify ❑ A. Ordinary outside household ld use in one single-family dwelling El B. Ordinary household use in 1 to 3 single-family dwellings: Number of dwellings: 1 121 Home garden/lawn irrigation, not to exceed one acre: area irrigated 1 0 sq. ft. ll acre El Domestic animal watering — (non-commercial) 0 C. Livestock watering (on farm/ranch/range/pasture) 7. Well Data (proposed) Annual amount to be withdrawn Maximum Pur ping rate gpm 15 3.0 -___.._. _ ..._...__.._ Aquifer feet Total depth 100 Alluvium 8. Water Supplier Is this parcel within boundaries of a water service area? OYES j24 NO yes, provide name of supplier: 9. Type Of Sewage System _.... • Septic tank / absorption leach field O Central system: District name: O Vault: Location sewage to be hauled to: ❑ Other (attach copy of engineering design and report) 10 Proposed Well Driller License #(optional): ,r. e-fe. E. State Parcel ID# (optional): 11. Signature Of Applicant(s) Or Authorized Agent off The making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in the second lass 1 misdemeanor pursuant to C.R.! degree, is PI havebread thele 24-4-104 (1(13))(a).statements herein, know the contents thereof and state th _t the are true to my knowledge.Dais._ -. Sign here y101ust b ori. '�-ignature) s/Z 3/6 Print name & title C.:: J t c A„IntS Office Use Only tiSGS map name WE- cc"' WR CWCB ..Ir; TOPO MYLAR SB5 r 7WR rnar. nn Surface Receipt area only invoice # 510f1S , i5129/2a3 9/2fine 1"3:47:� lsas ieT ID1 '3 $441LN Check Purchase- 1140577 DIV WD BA MD • • • Jun -25-2003 02:16pm From - Form No. 0W5-26 • AppLICANT T-211 P 003/004 F-444 OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 813 Conlonnlel Bldg., 1313 Sherman 81„ an1Nr, Colorado 60203 (803) 806.3881 LI C WELL PERMIT NUMBER 1011.19R1 - DIV. 5 MY2 33 WO 3 DES. BASIN MD — Lot: Block: Filing: Subdiv: ROSEMARIE GLAS C/O 106 S MILL ST STE 200 ASPEN , CO 81611 303-920-10213 PERMIT TO USE AN EXIBRING WELL 6PPR9VED WELL. LOCATIOJ4 COUNTY GARFIELD 9W1�4 NE 1/4 Section 24 Twp 3 S , Range 90 W 6th P.M. QI S,ES FaQM SECTION_ N IES FI. from 080 North Section Une 1340 Ft. from East Suction Une SINCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT 'CgpmgN¢ OF_RF fIOVAL 1) This well shall be used In such a way as to cause no material Injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief In a civil court action. 2) Approved pursuant to CRS 37.92.602(3)(b)(II)(A) for the use of a well constructed under MH -17965 as the only well on a tract of land of 70 acres described as that portion of the $ 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 24, Twp. 5 South, Rng. 90 West or the Sixth P.M., Garfield County, being more particularly described on the attached exhibit 'IP. 3) The use of ground water from this well Is limited to fire protection. ordinary household purposes Inside one (1) single family dwelling, the irrigation 01 not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns and the watering of domestic animals. 4) The maximum pumping rate shall not exceed 16 GPM. 6) The return flow from the use of this well must be through an Individual waste water disposal system of the nonevaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system In which the well is located. q-3o-Rf plit2OVED: 032903' Receipt Na. 43. PatitZik. DATE ISSUED EXPIRATION OCT 0 1 1997 ERATION DATE OCT 01 1993 _._ • Jun -25-2003 02:16pm From- WELL COMIPLET1ON AND TEST REPORT STATE OF COLORADO, OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER .1 WELL PERMIT NUMBER xx-17965 dWNERB NAME(8) Rosea►arie Glass Mailing Address P . O . Box 5172 c , St Zap A,speati, (:,o. 81612 Pone (945) —06-6( WELL LOCATION AS DRILLED : SV 1/4 DISTANCE FROM SEC. LINES : Sec. Lina. And R From Pt. From LOQ- BLACK SUBDIVISION: STREET ADDRESS AT WEU.. LOCATION NR 1/4 Sec. 24 T-211 P.004/004 F-444 MEI Ing UBE ONLY MO IMUEIVED SEP 13 '91 WArgp sroreEERRcE+ caro. APPROVAL / avati-smaa Twp. 55 Rarige 909 Sea, Una. Or FILING (UNIT) GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION ft DRILUNG METHOD : kir Rotaxq DATE COMPLETED 08/15/91 . TOTAL DEPTH 106 ft. COMPLETED DEPTH n (10 0.0 5. GEOLOGIC LOQ g Non Typo or Mr�erld tlrirL valor 1Ype dna wrr T Igda1S ,1__ p0-076 Rooks. 8oujjers9, Dirt• J75 -1Q6 Gravels 106 ft 1 74 74 106 7. RAIN CASING OD(in) Kind WaJI Size Flom (f) To (ft) 7.0 Steel. 0.24' -Qs 0 74 65106 6.6 Stasi 0.1 WATER LOCATED : 80+ REMARKS : PERF. CASING; Screen Blot 6,§ Steel 0.188 106 8. Filter flak 6. Packer Placement Material Type Sine Depth -intrist 10. GROUTING RECORD: World MOW �oe=ent 2 a►k _ Drn�l�► PN0°"� . 66 gal/ssd0-20 =axed H oz DoNFEC'1ON : Tvp 12, WELL TEST DATA : (j Check Sox If Test Dam la Submitted On Supplernenml Form. TESTING METHOD : Static Lel: 75 ft, Date/Time Measured 08/16/91 Pumping Level : Total Remarks Ina. read ne slirmrda mode herein an to rn/ cAdI Aes perjury in ins same &v°s ins i9 pvistsibis as r dem 1 rr adlrnernar CONTRACTOR : Shelton Drilling Co. Phone: 303-927-4182 Mailing Address : PO Boa 1059 Basaalt. Co. 81621 i Datme Measured 08/16/91 warner I TM (Pram Typr a PV Wayne, 5kke1 tea / Oster Produclon Rate Test Length (hrs) 15 gem 2 5. the rI Lia No. 1095 1 09/16/91 ____] ORIGINAL Jun -25-2003 02:15pm From - T -211 P 002/004 F-444 • • Fred Jarman From: Steve Hackett Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 11:05 AM To: Fred Jarman Cc: Andy Schwaller Subject: Okanela FYI Code Compliance Office August 19, 2003 Okanela Ranch, LLC 392 Mill Creek Circle Vail CO 81657-5168 Okanela Ranch LLC, Page 1 of 2 It has been reported to this office that a fence, approximately 8 feet in height, has been constructed on the front of property owned by you at 2518 County Road 137 in unincorporated Garfield County. It is a violation of Colorado Revised Statutes 30-28-205 & 210, enabling Uniform Building Code, to construct a fence over 6 feet in height without a building permit. It is a violation of Colorado Revised Statutes 30-28-124 & 124.5, enabling zoning regulations, to construct a fence that is over 3 feet in height on the front property line of your property. It has been further alleged that some of the fencing and trees that have been placed on your property may actually be outside of the property line and in the public right of way. You are hereby given notice, pursuant to the above statutes, that you must completely correct the violations within thirty (30) days of the date this notice is received. Please be advised that violation of the above statutes is a misdemeanor crime punishable by a fine of not more than $100.00 or imprisonment for not more than ten days, or both, and that each day that the violation continues is deemed to be a separate offense. If you have any questions regarding what actions are required to achieve compliance, or you wish to report compliance action taken, please contact this office in writing at the address below, or by e-mail at the address above. ill Sincerely, 8/20/2003 • Steve Hackett Compliance Officer • • 8/20/2003 Page 2 of 2 "; AldiA /.'e9 g *, ate' _7_ c It iri 7d5 Ad am 49% App 7‘ e592 X? .744Z- 422 e-71. .� 4 , 77 %'a, .4�/* 2,0e, .1 0 ii'4 ilizae' 7#/S A.i47 /17 A., ,74761 C ;cQ, 7 !,a71. 7 Ge..7o 7%/ei Gt, 70 /2ea/ .7 7. A A- cam- i� /O ,7e273 rev/c- 7275 i .q7z' CoGa/yl/77/& .&/2 5 /10Qcd Gm,cl /33-Agr e 2/(4e% /x977x977/b 7�.c�` � D� 7`/'am T/tP ...0,7.3-7g /37 /F6/) s?20/4e, nzz%+mho, .3/7 1.77 /0 a/-- i)iae-,- ion�oJf �d ��ee/ Y�l3� 141/2?/lil �� �• ,?-2f_.re,i2 1-eid a >2 e -,72/4c/ 7,77e671,02 A2'45* We ,�,a�d �iitce L�v� )/-#e dcs /mei; G2/ ,f) • • • ace /ro of 3 7ge csivai?72 e7/' 7//4-,A7 c_J fete, `"e5 74n) 1 e4- s A rR' / 22 e4 - 644,,e, /Le / , c /‘s/ a)7G•e 4 lJanre ,77P 76) am al le/ -44 72/,' %7g , o.•ce 7y Co%%c-e-,92-5- a,'4,i- 2W CG'e.%✓ -, A. /n it;Oiv/72 4e/i-? .,;•./2,tv ,2.) ?ie_ er» .7J78 ,497 i ©// e3iae% 7f)? -d 7‘ /le o/� ,5-714/' - 77/4/y2 -- C .);,/ epj' .1/Ciai- /Yeice4.), 7/i' A de_., /iis4) �°ke/A Etna/ 7ge 41ie a 2) �e.,7 12Z,,e942 s 44441 i 4, ,Cry Aid, 7DAe ei, , J/'pee 44 yirAe 4V#2nk z4,f /04pee/ ,7,/,e. /iti) a_ 4t. e /,,-/-ty264) 7145c 724,.'/74e5Owe l,72,e %):l/-1-DLc9eb; y .Z ,14,/# dix _ma_ � �/ / � ��� ,� r ��� �e 7,4 , �, 72/ o i� m an 71 / ,a42 j�� C ,oar, / /3 4244S c_5271,7e cpy A, 47eii %ii/P 7 CelVe /7 .4/,/,e/.Come i GOWv, / G4)If e!_ /r /4J/ �i/ie 4.14) We %� et ,74:e/ J/4 ye7 Edi, 747 7A to r// ca'45e 44 At7eil iw, 7' eve 1,7 ,,ire r► cice me. ,4'--e)2/7/7/1 7/1 / /0.-046,10i »// fes' ve 70 ic, O .� /Se- >77 A/7 /f,e9) 7,27 72,sf 4 ow/ 2 eoe 60, i,v x/71 L7 i,) , Li-e792/1-A,p s, /272- r/L-e12", /Z 7/ 72,1(1 w. Xdilia//‘ 4 Wim.=-iao' At'e-Sic-, 474 7ZJ'J 7 77,4) ,&et, 7Ati' r7e/e.)-- < 04 4am 1,ths,o )'s //b „21 6ic. 71 7/1,5e -a 3:7 /1)/--/11 i1 �l/l> O4�i ,A7C/t e o ,Zo.) 71A)74e Om /71 ,eGeS 7O, Aii27/e2-0,Y1 r/l,S d 4,4 ..O7--a's/? 44 €7 7C 118 •-aXj`ej2 CPC 72,a, 714 /toga/ /-eGelves- Aiw ,44/1f) /rr%4)/°4Y7-X' w/2, 710 //1e 7 a i/fit trd. /9,5",C,/±21 per./ oW/7 „leg, 71/m -es //4/ c797 ee saw • • RECEI M EfPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY ArrrENT&J DING & PLANNING August 26, 2003 U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO AUG 2 7 2003 CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET GARFIELD COUNTPACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2922 Regulatory Branch (200375288) Mr. William N. Johnson Earth Resource Investigations, Incorporated 1700 County Road 103 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Dear Mr. Johnson: We are responding to your request for a Department of the Army permit to restore a 1,100 foot section of creek channel and adjacent wetland/riparian corridor at the Okanela Ranch property. Project activities include the placement of 10 rock -vortex weir drop structures (172 cubic yards of 3-5 foot diameter native rock) and revegetating denuded channel banks with 0.9 acre of wetland and riparian plantings. The project site is located at East Canyon Creek within the NW 1/4 of Section 24, Township 5 South, Range 90 West, Garfield County, Colorado. The Chief of Engineers has issued Nationwide General permit number 27 which authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States for stream and wetland restoration activities. We have determined that your project will not affect threatened or endangered species protected by the Endangered Species Act. Your project can be constructed under this authority provided the work meets the conditions listed on the enclosed information sheets, is constructed according to the plans submitted to our office and is subject to the following special conditions: 1. Drop structures shall be constructed so that the maximum change (increase) in the ordinary low water surface elevation upstream of the drop structure does not exceed two feet above the ordinary low water surface elevation immediately downstream of the drop. There shall be at least one area on each drop structure where fish may pass the structure with 18 inches or less of drop and an adequate acceleration pool. 2. You must send finished photographs and a signed letter of certification to the Corps of Engineers within 30 days after completion of the work (see general condition number 14). A copy of the certification statement is included for your use. -2 - This verification is valid until August 26, 2005. If you have not completed your project by that time, you should contact the Corps of Engineers to obtain information on any changes which may have occurred to the nationwide permits. You are responsible for remaining informed of such changes and for ensuring that all contract and construction personnel are familiar with the terms and conditions of this permit. We have assigned number 200375288 to your project. Please refer to this number in any correspondence with this office. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Mark Gilfillan of this office, telephone (970) 243-1199, extension 15 or email mark.a. gilfillan@usace.army.mil. Sincerely, Ken Jacobson Chief, Colorado/Gunnison Basin Regulatory Office 400 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Enclosures Copies Furnished: Mr. Ron D. Velarde, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 711 Independent Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado 81505 Mr. Bill Clark, Colorado Division of Wildlife, West Region Habitat Section, 711 Independent Avenue, Grand Junction, 'Colorado 81505 Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County, 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Mr. Peter and Mrs. Patrice Knobel, 392 Mill Creek Circle, Vail, Colorado 81657 • JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON DAVID C. HALLFORD CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER ANNE MARIE MCPHEE AMANDA N. MAURER DEBORAH DAVIS* DAVID P. JONES * ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN NEW YORK AND MISSOURI BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.8902 www.balcombgreen.com September 16, 2003 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 OF COUNSEL: KENNETH BALCOMB RECEIVED SEP 1 E 2003 Re: Fence and Fence Setback Issues re: Okanela Ranch Property/Canyon • Creek, Colorado • Dear Fred: Given the recent actions of the Board of County Commissioners thereto, I felt it would be appropriate at this time to attempt to clarify with you the procedures that my client, Peter Knobel, and the County have agreed to follow in hopeful resolution of the above reverenced matter. By way of background, I would note that the genesis of this matter derives from Mr. Steve Hackett's correspondence to my client of August 19, 2003. In this correspondence, Mr. Hackett alleged that a fence constructed by Mr. Knobel, along with the trees planted to screen the same violated: A). The Uniform Building Code, which requires the issuance of a building permit for all fences exceeding six (6) feet in height; B). Section 5.03.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Regulations, which limit the height of fences within the required front yard set back to a maximum of thee (3) feet. 'As you are aware in the A/R/RD Zone District, the required setback is fifty (50) feet from street center line or twenty-five (25) feet from the front lot line, whichever is greater. Given that County Road 137 in this area actually lies within the Okanela property, the relevant limitation in this regard is fifty (50) fee from street center line. • • BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fred Jarman September 16, 2003 Garfield County Building and Planning Department Page 2 Mr. Hackett has also alleged that portions of the fence and/or the trees screening the fence may lie within the County's road right-of-way, thus constituting a trespass to the County's properties rights. My client's understanding as to the present status of these issues is as follows: Building Permit Issues My client would note that C.R.S. 30-28-205, (1) pertaining to the administration and enforcement of Building Codes, would appear to specifically exempt agricultural structures such as the fence at issue. This authority not withstanding, ,my client is willing to pull all required building permits, even though applied for after the fact, which may be required for this fence structure. It is my client's understanding that these permits, will be issued by the County in due course. Zone District Text Issues The front yard setback requirements, as discussed, with its three (3) foot fence height limitation, would appear to place a great number of Garfield County properties in violation of the Zoning Resolution. Because of this incongruity, my client is willing to file and process an application for Zone Text Amendment, which amendment would allow for the location and construction of agriculturally related fences which exceed this height limitation. It is my understanding that so long as such application is filed before October 13, 2003 and processed diligently thereafter, that the County will withhold any action under Mr. Hackett's letter pending completion of this application process. Public Right -of -Way Issues As reported by me to the Board of County Commissioners, my client should have a completed survey of the County Road 137 road right-of-way to you for your review either today or tomorrow. Simply stated, if any improvements constructed or planted by my client within this right or way, whether said improvements will need to be removed is a matter entirely within the County's discretion. In order to ensure a full review of this issue prior to the required October 13th hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, I will distribute this survey for review to your office, the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department and the Garfield County Attorney's Office. It is my understanding that the Board of County Commissioners want or anticipate the filing of a report prior to the October 13th hearing which will enable them to rule on this matter. • BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Fred Jarman September 16, 2003 Garfield County Building and Planning Department Page 3 If any of the above does comport with your recollection, I would ask that you notify me of the same so that we may reach a consensus on this matters. Of course, if you have any questions or concerns on this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. cc: Peter Knobel E:\WP Docs\Donna\Tim\Jarman Ltr.wpd Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. By • • The Okanela Ranch Fence Issue: (8/18/03) The owners of the Okanela Ranch have installed an eight foot wire fence along County Road 137. The property's two entrances are also from CR 137 making the area where the fence is located the front yard (pursuant to Section 2.02.54. The fence can only be 36 inches in the front yard per Section 5.05.05(8) of the Zoning Resolution. Both Sections are stated below: 2.02.54 Yard: The open space on a lot (other than an interior court) unobstructed from the ground upward, except as otherwise provided in this Resolution: (1) Yard, front: a yard extending the full width of the lot, the depth of which shall be measured in the shortest horizontal distance between the front lot line and the nearest wall of the principal building; such distance to be known as the front yard setback; Section 5.05.03 (8) (8) Accessory Structure in Required Yards: a fence, hedge or wall may be located in any required yard provided that no such installation shall exceed eight (8) feet in height in a required side yard or rear yard, nor shall any such structure exceed three (3) feet in height in any required front yard. Photo: Side View of fence with landscaping.