The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 Correspondence-05-94 a3: 41P1.1 - /1 E--C,E H 4 =HJI ILIJ f ISENT EY IT,ITN UALLEY DEU 5UC5 OEo August 5, 1gg5 David Micheelson G;,fi;H CountY Planning DePartment Garfield CountY CoutthouEe Glenwood SPrlngs, CO Dear Dave: I would appreciate it if you wol!9 review the current Roclry Mountain Natural Gas pipeline construction pLi*"t *itr, ,"gerd to compliance wiih their EA' lt would appear to me tnriiiifiue'rrout$.e d th"i.tipulate that thev will minimize disturbance to the ,i". it their trench' -Referenoe to this aPpoars irr several areas and includ"* "utting of u.g6di"", J.=ing, grading etc. unfortunately' they appear to Ue-c;licrting ,iA irr"n conOuding major gradlng ac{ivities across the entire siiloli rigf',[otway o,"itt.""ntire.length of the projeot' Additionalty, *rerJt;; il;, ansotuiely no action.taten io preserve topsoll' which l wourd assume *iir'*irrorsly hindei any resloraron efforts. Additionally' informal msesurBments taken by myself and otner adjacent property owners indicates that in severa! aroas grading *rttnOJ*"ir u"VonA 5b' and ihe clearcutting of all pinion, iuniper, and s6rub oik ateo ,pp".r* to frequently have occurred outside of this right of waY' A ouick review of the EA raiees a number of questions which would appear to *eiit investigation- Theee lnclude: ln section 2,0 of their EA theY state ..Vrgetetlon...Thismethodoflimitingthecompleteremovalof vegetation improves tre suii;;iffihmation. lt leaves the plant's root systems intaa ovBr most oiin" rignt-of,way. ....Aleo the undamaged roots nelp'rioraihe soil, decreasini the potentialfor erosion'" I would question that their construction techniques in eny wey mest the intent of this assertion "ni'wouto "rro u["s-;'ii"ith;p'.?l.be vlrtuailv no portione of anv ,oot =V*t"ms intact within any erea of the right of way' rn section 3.0 there are severar referencee within the first thrse paragraphs which discuss a commitment to minimize-tn* i-tttt and degree of sufface damage' I do not feel that a'cut and fill tf,at appeai= to .n." in exJess of two feet in grade straight down " *trnttin can be considered to meet this provision' There are severalvery specific aseertiona withln Appendix A 2 whlC! are clearly not being aUtreiJaio.' in"*" fn.ira"-n-i.S,Z.l, A.i.3.3, and A-2'3 '4' A'2'4'1 and moet imPortantlY A'2'4'3' s45??85 H ? SENT EY:f'lTN UHLLEY DEU SUCS E8-ra5-S4 E3:41F1'1 o lamGertaln$notaper$onwhopossesse$theexpertisenecessarytofully interpret al! of tn" L'*u*" addre=eed *itt'tin this EA' Howevor' Gommon sen86 would s6em to clearly indioate that d;-;;**'tion" end aEsurancss found within the EA are not in any way repr6u.ntao in ttr" congtruction practicee which are currently underway. - I would uppr"r'ili' iiiifi could investigate this lesue and take any action p$rii#;;;i[".f*ce oompliance snd minimize the dEmase whlch is ourrently ,iJ**"V. ffrani you for your atte-ntion to this matter' lf you should have questions you can ,e."i*" at 945-2306 or 945-6710' SincorelY, fr Bruce Christensen I r:r ,gi:' - - . I -.r rr,i. x : ,,. 4;..n, r,ti: i,:r rr,.f -!urlr::!r., .i,ni.,ri;i,i,,,i,inirs August 7, 1994 3648 CountY Rd 1 17 Glenwood SPrings, CO 81601 Marian Smith Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Marian: I am seeking your assistance with regard to the Rocky Mountain Natural Gas pipeline construction project which is currently progressing through the 4 Mile area. Many residents of the area are very concerned about the damage that is occurring as a resrit of this project and I would expect that this level of concern will continue from other parts of the county as the project moves forward' As you know, nearby property owners did not receive notice of the proposed project and therefore did not provide input during the period of public comment. ilowever, following review of the plans submitted by Rocky Mountain Natural Gas, I seriously doubt that any reasonable person would have strongly opposed the project. The description of the effort which was to be implemented to minimize visual and environmental damage that is stressed throughout the plan is significant and would satisfy the concerns of most people. Examples include statements such as: "...will trim trees in preference to cutting trees, and will cut trees in preference to bulldozing. ...Ihese techniques will be used in comhination to produce a natural looking or feathered edge appearance rather than a strai ght-li n ed ap p earan c e. " "Vegetation - creis will remove vegetation only above the trench ... This method of timiting the complete removal of vegetation improves the success of rehabilitation. ... Thus, the opportunity exisfs for many plants to recover by re-sprouting ... Also, the undamaged roofs help hold the soil, decreasing the potential for erosion. ..." I have talked with one of the company's construction supervisors and he has advised me that at no point along the project have the above techniques been employed. ln fact, he told me that he has never seen the Plan of Construction document and has never been instructed by the company to employ any measures of this type. The company's total disregard for any action to minimize damage is exemplified throughout the work completed to date and occurs on both public and private land. Additionally, the company also appears to be regularly working outside of its right-of-way and appears to occasionally arbitrarily pick the easiest route up a particular hill. There are many other inconsistencies between the plan documents which you based your approval upon and the actual practices which are currently occurring. I do not feel that any private developer or property owner would ever be allowed to continue a project which is so totally out of compliance with the provisions of the documents upon which approval was based. I request that you immediately suspend the company's approval for this project pending a review of these concerns' I would suggest that approval for a resumption of the project could be based upon completion of several items such as.. comPletion of an assessment of violations which have occurred to date . submission of a new plan to adequately reclaim areas which have been damaged as a result of the company's non-compliance . submission of a plan to alter construction practices to those which will minimize damage during the remainder of construction activities within Garfield countY o development of mechanisms which will provide assurance that future construction activities will be in compliance with the terms of approval including agreement to a plan for regular supervision by county staff I feel very strongly that, because of the company's apparent disre-gard for demonstrating complianie with its own planning documents, residents of the areas which have been affected (or will be affected) should be entitled to review the company's plans and assurances for compliance priorlo the granting of approval to resume construction. I appreciate your attention to this matter and offer any assistance that I may be able to provide in reaching a solution' Sincerely, Bruce Christensen United States Department ofAgriculture Soi1 Conservation Service 401 23rd Street, guite 10G Glenwood Springs,Colorado 81601 August 11, L994 Garfield CountyPlanning Department 1O9 8TH ST.-Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 8L601 Dear Mark, r t99k a trip to the site of the gas pipeline in the four mile areaearlier this morning. You had asfea if- r thought the oak Brush wouldcome back on the area disturbed. This a split answer but, f think thatthe area that was cut deep (down to the wnite powder subsoil materi.al)will not have many if any living root stock. on the lower elevationthat I walked this area is 15 to 20 feet wide on the north side of thecut. The other half or two thirds of the area has some topsoil left inplace and probably has live root stock. when the topsoil is spread back over the area, Iive root stock will bereplaced over the subsoil and mixed with subsoil material. The rootstock in this material may or may not root and start growj-ng. Factorssuch as size of root stock, soil moisture, moisture in tne ioot itsse1f, and the amount of physical damage will effect the success ofreestablishing vegetation with this metfroa. Given the very dry year all the plants will be stressed and in veryweak condition. r hope that letting only regeneration from existingvegetation in not.the only method planned foi reclaiming tt" irea. Toestablish vegetatj-on and prevent eiosion conservation piactices suchas: water bars (smalI diversions) murching, use of ero-sion mats,seeding, and limiting use (vehicie and fooi traffic) may need to beappl ied. Sincerely, / r,It \/ /\)r'o'-'' 4\/ r't: -':u" -- Dennis Davj-dson, District Conservationist USDA Soil Conservation ServiceGlenwood Springs, Colorado945 5494