Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff ReportSia it/O1.41, Glenn Hartmann From: Paul Currier [pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:22 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: 'rjo' Subject: Roaring Fork - Pre App Glenn, Come in on the south side, I believe its Bluebell Lane. See arrow. Bob O'Brien and I will meet you at the gate at 1:30 next Thursday Feb. 23r1 . Thanks! - Paul - 618-3213 "'+ Global Mapper v11.02 - REGISTERED (IR Floodpl&III pata.i,mnr) Fie Edt 'rh'w TONS Seardl GPS 6-0p IriI I I4 I 4141411A 6 1 01tIkai 1tAll l 5' 1fi' mpx SRI' 4;. 014° \,) - Paul 1 March 19, 2010 Paul Currier Water Resources Consultants LLC. 244 Hutton Ave. Rifle, CO 81650 BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: Bailey Family Investments/Iron Rose Ranch, Floodplain Development Permit Application FDPA 7167 Dear Mr. Currier, The Building and Planning Department has received the submittal documents for the above referenced Floodplain Development application and has determined that the application does not yet include all required information per Garfield County Regulations. The application is therefore deemed technically incomplete and the Planning Department cannot process this 'application until the information listed below has been provided to the satisfaction of this department and the county attorney office. Please address the following items and submit three copies of the revised application to this office so that we may continue the review of this application: Authorization from land owner to apply for and obtain land use permits. Per Colorado Revised Statues (CRS 38-30-172) there must be sufficient "...evidence of the existence of an entity and the authority of one or more persons to act on the behalf of an entity to convey, encumber, or otherwise affect title to real property"... The Special Warranty Deed and the Warranty Deed submitted with this application show the properties are owned by Bailey Family Investment not Iron Rose Ranch as indicated on the application and the Statement of Authority forms. Furthermore, the letter submitted March 16, 2012 from Iron Rose Ranch authorizes AquaTerra Services LLC not Water Resources Consultants LLC to act a representative for this application. In order to clarify ownership and authorization, the application, Statement of Authority, and the Authorization Letter should be revised to show Bailey Family Investments as the property owner/legal entity holding title to the properties and naming Thomas Bailey as the person/agent authorized to affect title. The Statement of Authority needs to be recorded at the county clerk's office. 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 • (970) 285-7972 • Fax: (970) 384-3470 Making these revisions will provide a clear and unquestionable line of ownership and authority to encumber the property, Mr. Bailey will then need to determine whether AquaTerra Services or Water Resources Consultants will represent Bailey Family Investments to apply for and obtain the Floodplain Development permit. All future correspondence will be directed to only one authorized representative. ULUR 4-501 Application Materials. Section 4-501 A. 4. Names and mailing addresses for owners of record of all adjacent property within a 200' radius and mineral rights owners of the subject property as recorded in the records of the office of the Clerk and Recorder. Per Section 4-111 A.4., at least fifteen days prior to the Director's decision the applicant must send a public notice, certified return receipt to all property owners adjacent to the subject property boundary within a two hundred foot radius. An example of the public notice will be sent to the owner's representative once the application has been determined complete. ULUR 4-503 Description of Submittal Requirements for Land Use in Floodplain Overlay District A. Floodplain Overlay: Site Plan In accordance with ULUR 4-501 staff is recommending the Director waive the requirements for inclusion of those site plan items such as water surface elevations and topographical contours as you have indicated this information will have little effect on the scope of the work proposed in the floodplain. The existing irrigation, water supply ditches, and new culverts however, must be shownto determine location of these features and where That work will be done, C. Floodplain Overlay: Construction Specifications- Details on culvert location, installation and stabilization should be included. E. Floodplain Overlay: Floodway Analysis - In accordance with ULUR 4-501 staff is recommending the Director waive the requirement of a detailed hydraulic analysis as the subject water course will not be permanently altered and there will be no structures built at or above existing grade. ULUR 7-212 B. Reclamation Plans should include B M P s, restoration and revegetation plans for the above grade disturbed areas. A list of revegetation seed mix and plants should be submitted for review by the county Vegetation Management office. General Note Please note that if the application' is not complete, the Director shall inform the applicant of the deficiencies in writing and shall take no further action on the application until the deficiencies are remedied. The deficiencies have been indicated above. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiencies within sixty (60) calendar days, the application shall be considered withdrawn and returned to the applicant. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions at (970) 945-8212. Respectfully, Gale D. Carmoney Code Enforcemen ",FM cc: Carey Gagnon, Assistant County Attorney (via Email) Bob O'Brien, AquaTerra Services LLC. (via Email) File: T:1Planning4Currcnt Plamring4Land Use Change Permitsllmpact Review4Floodplein DevelopmenttBailey Family Iron Rose RanchlCarrespondence4NTC letter.dacx Gale Carmoney From: Gale Carmoney Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:25 PM To: 'pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com' Cc: Carey Gagnon Subject: RE: Bailey 1 Iron Rose Ranch Paul think you had better check you parcels again. I see High Country Starship Limited (239335201008 & 239335201004); Marian Nilsen (239335300041); James and Erma Schauster (239335200011); Myrna Orosz (239335200012); and Ranch at Roaring Fork (239336100005). All of these including Deane parcel appear to be within 200 ft of Bailey parcels and must be notified. Take a closer look and provide a list of all parcel owners and mineral owners within that 200 ft. That is what the land use code requires. By the way you don not have to recreate everything you have submitted thus far to complete the application we have on hand now. Just provide copies of the Recorded SOA, list of property and mineral owners so we can add it to what we have. The 5 additional copies we need to send out for referral, however, should include everything you submitted on March 26 plus the info we are requesting now. I hope this is clear so there are no more hang ups. Call me if you need clarification. Gale Carmoney CARCO Bldg & Planning 970-945-8212 From: Paul Currier [mailto:Dcurrier@wrc-lic.comi Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:45 AM To: Gale Carmoney Cc: Carey Gagnon Subject: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Thanks, Gale. The only property within 200 ft is to the east: Parcel #: 239335100002 DEANE, DOANE H 0477 ROSE LANE Carbondale, CO 81623 I'll get copies to you Monday a.m.,, and also drop the SOA off with Brenda at the Clerk and Recorders office. Have a blessed Easter, and talk with you Monday. - Paul From: Gale Carmoney [mailto:gcarmoney@igarfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:11 AM To: pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com 1 Cc: Carey Gagnon Subject: RE: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Paul Here is what needs to be done. The Statement of Authority (SOA), not the authorization letter, needs to be recorded and we still need a list of the property and mineral owners within 200 feet of Bailey property (refer to NTC letter sent March 19) , Once that is done we should be good to go and can send out the application for review. I will need 5 additional copies with the recorded SOA. I am working in the field now but as soon as I get back to the office I will start work on the public notice and Technically complete letter. When I receive those copies I will send you the notice and copies out for comments. Don't let that wind blow you away today. It is wicked bad out there. Gale D. Carmoney GARCO Bldg & Planning Dept. 970-945-8212 From: Paul Currier [mailto:pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:52 AM To: Gale Carmoney Cc: Carey Gagnon; Carolyn Cottrell Subject: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Thanks, Gale. - Paul From: Gale Carmoney [mailto:gcarmoney@garfield-county.com] Sent; Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:40 AM To: pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com Cc: Carey Gagnon; Carolyn Cottrell Subject: RE: Bailey / Iran Rose Ranch Just waiting on review for attorney's office and then we will be able to move ahead. I suspect we will hear something by tomorrow. Gale Carmoney GARCO Bldg & Planning 970-945-8212 From: Paul Currier [mailto; pcurrier@wrc-llc.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:39 AM To: Gale Carmoney Subject: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Gale, Any update on the Floodplain Permit app? Thanks. - Paul Paul C. Currier, P,F., CFM 2 Pau[ Currier From: Paul Currier [pcurrier@wrc-llc.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:46 PM To: 'Gale Carmoney' Cc: 'Carey Gagnon' Subject: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Q1t Page 1 of 4 Attachments: Revised Flooplain Permit Application, Bailey 3-26-12 - addenda 4-9-12.pdf Gale, As requested, and discussed in person today, I had the "SOA," aka the "Statement of Authority" re- recorded (see page 33 of the attached PDF document). Secondly, the addresses of owners of properties within 200 feet of the affected parcels is included (page 34). Addresses are from the GarCo Assessors records as of today. I concur with your findings as to properties within 200 feet (at least, according to the GarCo Assessors interactive web site). Lastly, per your request for proof of ownership of mineral rights, pages 35-45 are further warranty deed detail noting that there were no severed mineral rights with either parcel. Additionally, I checked the Assessors records this morning (4/9/2012), and there was no record of severed mineral rights. I'm e -mailing this to you because: 1) it provides a time stamped, chronological record; 2) I believe its easier for you and other reviewers to follow the information; and 3) Its simply expedient. But, per your request, we will be hand delivering to your office tomorrow a.m. five (5) additional complete, V e c ti "c 'AV) paper copies and three (3) sets of the above addenda. {� rr+L\sitk. I appreciate your help in moving this permit process along. - Paul Paul C. Currier, P.E., CFM WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC 244 Hutton Ave. Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 618-3213 (970) 618-5433 (Fax) From: Paul Currier [mailto:pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 9:45 AM To: 'Gale Carmoney' Cc: 'Carey Gagnon' Subject: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Gale, Aha... a difference in understanding. I understood you wanted properties within 200 feet of the project... not within 200 feet of the borders of the parcel. My mistake. - pc 4/9/2012 Page 2 of 4 From: Gale Carmoney [mailto:gcarmoney@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 4:25 PM To: pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com Cc: Carey Gagnon Subject: RE: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Paul think you had better check you parcels again. I see High Country Starship Limited (239335201008 & 239335201004); Marian Nilsen (239335300041); James and Erma Schauster (239335200011); Myrna Orosz (239335200012); and Ranch at Roaring Fork (239336100005). All of these including Deane parcel appear to be within 200 ft of Bailey parcels and must be notified. Take a closer look and provide a list of all parcel owners and mineral owners within that 200 ft. That is what the land use code requires. By the way you don not have to recreate everything you have submitted thus far to complete the application we have on hand now. Just provide copies of the Recorded SOA, list of property and mineral owners so we can add it to what we have. The 5 additional copies we need to send out for referral, however, should include everything you submitted on March 26 plus the info we are requesting now. I hope this is clear so there are no more hang ups. CaII me if you need clarification. Gale Carmoney CARCO Bldg & Planning 970-945-8212 From: Paul Currier [mailto:pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:45 AM To: Gale Carmoney Cc: Carey Gagnon Subject: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Thanks, Gale. The only property within 200 ft is to the east: Parcel #: 239335100002 DEANE, DOANE H 0477 ROSE LANE Carbondale, CO 81623 I'll get copies to you Monday a.m., and also drop the SOA off with Brenda at the Clerk and Recorders office. Have a blessed Easter, and talk with you Monday. - Paul From: Gale Carmoney [mailto:gcarmoneyOgarfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 10:11 AM To: pcurrierOwrc-Ilc.com Cc: Carey Gagnon Subject: RE: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch 4/9/2012 Page 3 of 4 Paul Here is what needs to be done. The Statement of Authority (SOA), not the authorization letter, needs to be recorded and we still need a list of the property and mineral owners within 200 feet of Bailey property (refer to NTC letter sent March 19) . Once that is done we should be good to go and can send out the application for review. 1 will need 5 additional copies with the recorded SOA. I am working in the field now but as soon as I get back to the office I will start work on the public notice and Technically complete letter. When I receive those copies I will send you the notice and copies out for comments. Don't let that wind blow you away today. It is wicked bad out there. Cale D. Carmoney CARCO Bldg & Planning Dept 970-945-8212 From: Paul Currier [mailto:pcurrier©wrc-Ilc.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:52 AM To: Gale Carmoney Cc: Carey Gagnon; Carolyn Cottrell Subject: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Thanks, Gale. - Paul From: Gale Carmoney[mailto:gcarmonevOgarfield-countv.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:40 AM To: pcurrier(a wrc-Ilc.com Cc: Carey Gagnon; Carolyn Cottrell Subject: RE: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Just waiting on review for attorney's office and then we will be able to move ahead. I suspect we will hear something by tomorrow. Gale Carmoney CARCO Bldg & Planning 970-945-8212 From: Paul Currier [maiito:pcurrier@wrc-lic.com] Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:39 AM To: Gale Carmoney Subject: Bailey / Iron Rose Ranch Gale, Any update on the Floodplain Permit app? Thanks. - Paul Paul C. Currier, P.E., CFM WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC 4/9/2012 REFERRAL FORM Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212/Fax: (970) 384-3470 Date Sent: April 17, 2012 Return Requested: May 7, 2012 File NumberlName(s) Project Name(s) Type of Application(s) FDPA 7167/Bailey Family Investments Bailey Family Investments / Iron Rose Ranch Floodplain Permit Staff Planner: Gale Carmoney Phone: 970-945-8212 Applicant: Bailey Family Investment Phone: 970-963-4817 Contact Person: Paul Currier / Water Resource Consultants Phone: 970-618-3213 Location: 1000 Blue Heron Lane Summary of Request: Erosion mitigation and flood damage minimization alongRoaring Fork River Planning Commission The Garfield County Planning Department has received a land use request as referenced above. Your comments are an important part of the evaluation process. In order to review all appropriate agency comments and incorporate them into the Staff Report, we request your response by day AND date, GARFIEI,D COUNTY Office or Division OTHER Number or Detail Road & Bridge (district) 1 Engineering (company) Mike Edon Water Resources Engineering Attorney HOA Housing Planning Commission N/A Sheriff's Dept. Board of County Commissioners NIA Vegetation Manajer 1 Oil and Gas Public COLORADO STATE LOCAL/FED GOVT ENTITIES Water Resources / State Engineer Town — GWSIBasalt/DeBeque/Cdalefetc Carbondale Geological Survey (Fee) _ County — Eagje/Mesa/RioBlanco/Fitkin Department of Transportation Bureau of Laud Management Water Conservancy Board US Forest Service Mined Land Reclamation Board U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 Health Department Forest Service (Fee) - Wildlife Division (GWS OR GJ Office) DISTRICTS/SERVICES e II S West Public S Pag 6. SA 00 1 o Holy Cross Electric AT&T aa �{Uftt Pffl I5 y rAin School District — RE -1, RE -2, 16 Fire District —GWS/Silt/Rifle/GV/Cdale Soil Conservation District Water/Sanitation RF1A Beach Buck and Natasha Deane 0477 Rose Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Buck and Natasha: so,t:_ •12 ro 1) 33 Psospcc[ot Rd Asfsen, CO 81611 1 r 1:')7O92s 3475 Eax:9/O9L,4J •1 atWv. h.schc:;vitoi.r:�i�+�te..c^m May 2, 2012 Sent via email to httcL !c r, ., ,t tIC.tt-t_11 Re: Flood Plain Development Permit At your request, I have briefly reviewed the Flood Plain Development Permit provided to you by Garfield County Staff. Thank you for providing me with an explanation as to why there was not Flood Impact Study included in the packet of information. Despite the thought that because the work that is being proposed is intended to protect agricultural lands of your immediate neighbor, I regret to say that there does not appear to be enough information for me to render an opinion regarding the potential risks of the plan to your property. 1 do understand that Mr. Bailey proposes to build a berm on his property to protect his propety against future flooding, but since the river is on your property in the area of the proposed berm, there appears to be the potential for flood impacts to your property if the berm is constructed to keep all flood waters on your property. I think additional information would help determine whether the risk of flood impacts to your property would be reduced or increased by the construction of the proposed berm. 1 am aware that your intent is not to obstruct or to increase the risk of damage to your neighbor's property and would assume that his intentions are similar. 1 would recommend further conversations with the County and Mr. Bailey to deterniine whether additional information is, or could be made readily available to resolve this matter amicably. Sincerely, By Ga ea, h, SICES Principal Consult i llffirc. ire Asputr, (, lit is +Gtt 6351 fp pmt response .apd cc: Brad Switzer. Esq Buck and Natasha Deane 0477 Rose Lane Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone (970) 963-2149 May 16, 2012 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 1o8 8th Street, Suite 4oi Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Bailey Family Investments/Iron Rose Ranch, Floodplain Development Permit Application Dear Mr. Jarman: I own property in Garfield County which is directly east of property owned by Bailey Family Investments; my real property is also immediately upstream of the Bailey Family Investments property on the Roaring Fork River. The purpose of this letter is to express my concern that the floodplain development application submitted by Bailey Family investment Co. ("Bailey") does not meet the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use Code. Although there are many concerns which I have regarding the floodplain development application, my primary concem is that the plan purposed by said application will likely result in additional flooding on my property as a result of the proposed "above -grade berm" which Bailey seeks to construct on a disputed boundary line. This area has historically flooded and placing a berm or dike will, in effect, put more pressure on my land, not in theory. I have already lost many acres to the roaring fork because of on going changes made on my property. This flood plan is not in keeping with the Master Plan Created by Mr. Dave Rosgen hired by Mr. Bailey, approved by the Army Corps of Engineers in the stretch from Catherine Store Bridge to Carbondale Bridge. Mr. Robert O'Brian the lead site consultant. Part of this plan called for the removal of dikes along this stretch to allow the Roaring Fork to have relief or "sheet flooding". Which Mr. Bailey was a committee member and strong advocate and leading benefactor, yet Mr. Bailey seeks to construct one. But through some loophole of the floodway maps it's ok? In 2006 we harden this corner because the river was jumping the bank and Mr. Eubank was being threatened by high water and Mr. Bailey didn't want the Roaring Fork to divert through our property. I understand that Mr. Bailey had spent a considerable sum keeping the river in its historic channel running through his property. Since his purchase of Mr. Eubanks property, Mr. Bailey has been manipulating the river on the lower end of my property. Over the last 2 years he has been dredging large amounts of the river bottom driving the river into a flood channel that is located on my property. Last year Mr. Bailey was again in the river before high water and created this a very high riffle or gravel bar or plug. Thus defeating the work we did in 2006 to harden this comer. The channel along my bank has been deepened so even more water is directed into this flood way. I was on site with Mr. O'Brian and he himself was surprised, however he was unable do anything because "... he really wasn't working for Bailey." Needless to say the consequences were extreme during 2011 runoff. So here we are again the Spring of 2012 and I catch Mr. Bailey in the river again digging, dredging and according to one engineer visually it appeared as of May i'` Bailey was diverting 40% of the Roaring Fork out of the main channel across my property to his. I called the Sheriffs office and they spoke with the operator of backhoe his statement was they had a water right through this side channel and they were not trespassing. Mr. Bailey does not have a point of diversion through my property in this over flow channel. 1 find it ironic that Mr. Bailey would like to place a berm or dike along the same location to protect himself from his unauthorized use of my property to create this diversion from the river. Presently Mr. Bailey has a water court case pending, since January of 2005 of which I was never noticed on. This application asks to place his water right from several ditches into the Roaring Fork and then be allowed to divert it from the river, through my property. My question to the Planning department is how can someone create a flood plan when the applicant is in fact creating his own flooding and is directing the Roaring Fork River onto his property? Currently Mr. Bailey has a 404 permit, which was designed to address the re -stabilization of the banks where a temporary dike had been placed on my property after the flooding in 2011. I would not allow them to do this work because it included several other features and they refused to show me the 404 permit. I wanted to know why they could keep doing all this work on my property? I wanted them to address the widening, deeping & hardening of this overflow channel. Mr. O'Brian implied Bailey could get a permit to do this work without me anytime he wants. The truth hurts, they were issued permits on my property without noticing me or even naming me as the property owner. On Feb 9th 1 began my discovery about his diversion plan. If Mr. Bailey is genuinely concerned about flooding I would encourage him to use that permit to replace the dike and harden the bank. I have reached out willing to meet with Mr. Bailey or Mr. O'Brian to have a transparent conversation about the proposed river work in this 404 permit. They agreed and then withdrew shortly after I filed a motion to intervene in his pending "diversion" water case. If Mr. Bailey is not granted his planned diversion that he has already implemented who will undo the severe damage created on my property and to the Roaring Fork River? Who is going to put the Roaring Fork River Back into its rightful channel? Who is going to reharden this comer to right the years of undoing? I have been a great neighbor, I have agreed to several beneficial projects in the river. I feel strongly about maintaining the Roaring Fork River in its historic channel I encourage a site visit be made to my property to have a better understanding of the real issue not just my word. I believe all would agree upon seeing the current state of the river that the best solution is to maintain he Roaring Fork River in its historic channel and not allow a berm or dike to confuse the situation even further. I have attached hereto a letter prepared by Gary L. Beach, of Beach Environmental, which expresses his opinion regarding the potential increased flood impacts to my property if the berm is constructed. I understand that Mr. Chris Romeyn of Rapid Engineering. While I am extremely sensitive to Bailey's concerns regarding erosion and flood protection in this area of the Roaring Fork River, I believe Bailey's application requires close scrutiny and more transparency by the Garfield County Building and Planning Department and the Board of County Commissioners. I am requesting, therefore, that you take these concerns into consideration prior to rendering your decision on the Bailey floodplain development application. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. With kind regards, Doane "Buck" Deane Enc MAY 2 9 201? WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC May 25, 2012 Gale Carmoney Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: FDPA 7167 — Iron Rose Ranch, LLC Response to Staff Comments received 5/22/2012 via e-mail Gale, As discussed via phone earlier today, I am providing you with a response to the list of seven recommendations in your staff report of 5/2112012. Recommendations are reiterated in italic type face, Responses are noted in regular, indented type face. 1. All representations contained in the Application submittals and in .supplements dated 3/5/12, 3/25/12, and 4/10/12, shall be considered conditions of approval including but not limited to site plan map details, trench, berm, and culvert construction information, and all revegetation. Response: No action necessary. 2, Prior to issuance of Permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all State and Federal regulations pertaining to this type of development, in particular, written approval from the United States Corp of Engineers (USACE). The USACE may inspect work at a later date to determine if any Clean Water Act regulatory action is necessary. Response: See e-mail in packet from USACE dated May 07, 2012 from the USAGE (Mark Gilfillan, Grand Junction). Farming activities are exempt from regulation by the USACE. Thus, the Corps is by no means obligated to respond to a request for an exempt activity. However, the Corps (Mark Gilfillan) has graciously responded. Additionally, see the Corps Road Exemption Summary for Farm, Forest or Temporary Mining Roads (attached). No permit and thus no response from the Corps is necessary. 3. Applicant shall provide evidence from the USACE that a 404 permit has been issued or is not applicable. Response: See response to #2, above, and see attachment. 244 Hutton Ave., Rifle, CO 81650 PH / Fax (970) 625-5433 pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com Gale Carmoney FDPA 7167 — Iron Rose Ranch, LLC Response to Staff Comments of 5/21/2012 May 25, 2012 Page 2 of 3 4. Prior to issuance of Permit, the Applicant shall comply with recommendations in the May 15, 20121etter from the County's engineering consultant Resource Engineering. Response: The Resource Engineering letter lists three items: 1. Applicant shall provide a letter prepared by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer stating that the mitigation of the Roaring Fork River into the flood fringe has not changed the floodway boundary beyond the proposed berm, and that the proposed project will not result in damage to upstream or downstream properties. Response: A) This letter is signed and stamped by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer, Paul C. Currier, #24753. B) The floodway boundary will not change, as all above grade work will occur in the flood fringe. The very definition of the flood fringe is an area that can be completely filled with no adverse affect or impact on the floodway. Thus, the floodway boundary will not change. C) By not placing fill above grade in the floodway, damage will not result to adjacent, upstream or downstream properties that is in excess of the very definition of the regulatory floodway and floodfringe. By County and FEMA definition, the floodfringe is the area that can be completely filled and the main channel will still have adequate carrying capacity for flooding events. 2. Applicant shall provide evidence of Section 404 permitting (either a permit or no permit required). Response: See response to #2, above (Garfield County's list). 3. Applicant shall obtain a GARCO Grading Permit, if determined to be required. Response: As discussed via phone today with yourself, a Grading Permit is not required. Akk WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC Gale Carmoney FDPA 7167 — Iron Rose Ranch, LLC Response to Staff Comments of 5/21/2012 May 25, 2012 Page 3 of 3 5. The Applicant shall provide an inventory, of and treat all Russian Olive trees found in the project area as recommended in the May 7, 2012 letter, f roaar the County's Vegetation Manager. Response: All Russian Olive trees on the subject parcels have already been removed. The last two remaining trees were removed earlier this month. 6. The project work shall 1701 ianpair the development of the Town of Carbondale's wells or the quality or quantity of water available to these wells downstream from the project. Response: The project will have no affect on the Town of Carbondale's wells. The project will not require the use or storing of hazardous materials, No changes in the flow characteristics of the Roaring Fork alluvial aquifer will occur as a result of construction or maintenance of this project. 7. The project shall not interfere with public use upon the portions of the Roaring Fork River which traverses the Bailey Family Investment LLC/Iron Rose Ranch property. Response: The project will not change the Roaring Fork River. No work related to this project will be performed in the River. All work will be on private property, with no public access. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC 00 REG/ I 4 .G 75 ÷- sto 4 F 6. Paul C. Currier, P.E. PCC/pcc cc: Tom Bailey Bob O'Brien Attachment: USACE Road Exemption Summary / 460-1.0 Response to Staff Recomrnendations.doc AIL 1 WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC US Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Road Exemption Summary FARM, FOREST, OR TEMPORARY MINING ROADS Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) and Federal Regulations (33 CFR 323.4), certain discharges have been exempted from requiring a Section 404 permit. Included in this exemption is construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment. To meet this exemption, such roads must be constructed and maintained in accordance with the best management practices (BMPs) to assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of waters of the United States are not impaired, that the reach of the waters of the United States is not reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment will be otherwise minimized. The following best management practices must be followed in order for the activity to be exempted from requiring a permit: (1) Permanent roads (for farming or forestry activities), temporary access roads (for mining, forestry, or farm purposes) and skid trails (for logging) in waters of the U.S. shall be held to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific farming, silvicultural or mining operations, and local topographic and climatic conditions. (2) All roads, temporary or permanent, shall be located sufficiently far from streams or other water bodies (except for portions of such roads which must cross water bodies) to minimize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (3) The fill shall be bridged, culverted, or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of expected flood flows. (4) The road fill shall be properly stabilized and maintained during and following construction to prevent erosion. (5) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States to construct a road fill shall be made in a manner that minimizes the encroachment of trucks, tractors, bulldozers, or other heavy equipment within waters of the U.S. (including adjacent wetlands) that lie outside the lateral boundaries of the fill itself. (6) In designing, constructing, and maintaining roads, vegetative disturbance in the waters of the U.S. shall be kept to a minimum. (7) The design, construction, and maintenance of the road crossing shalt not disrupt the migration or other movement of those species of aquatic life inhabiting the water body. (8) Borrow material shall be taken from upland sources whenever feasible. (9) The discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of, a threatened or endangered species Endangered Species Act, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species. (10 ) Discharges into breeding and nesting areas for migratory waterfowl, spawning areas, and wetlands shall alternatives exist. (11) The discharge shall not be located in the proximity of a public water supply intake. (12) The discharge shall not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production. (13) The discharge shall not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System. (14) The discharge of material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. (15) All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety and the area restored to its original elevation. as defined under the be avoided if practical CESPK-CO-R Page 2 Exemption Summary A Section 404 permit is required if either of the following occurs: (1) Any discharge of dredged or fall material resulting from the above activities which contains any toxic pollutant listed under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act shall be subject to any applicable toxic effluent standard or prohibition, and shall require a permit. (2) Any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States incidental to the above activities must have a permit if it is part of an activity whose purpose is to convert an area of the waters of the United States into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow or circulation of waters of the United States may be impaired or the reach of such waters reduced. Where the proposed discharge will result in significant discernible alterations to flow or circulation, the presumption is that flow or circulation may be impaired by such alteration. For example, a permit will be required for the conversion of a wetland from silvicultural to agricultural use when there is a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States in conjunction with construction of dikes, drainage ditches, or other works or structures used to effect such conversion. A discharge which elevates the bottom of waters of the United States without converting it to dry land does not thereby reduce the reach of, but may alter the flow or circulation of, waters of the United States. If the proposed discharge satisfies all of the above restrictions and the best management practices, it is automatically exempted and no further permit action from the Corps of Engineers is required. If any of the restrictions of this exemption will not be complied with, a permit is required and should be requested using ENG Form 4345 (Application for a Department of the Army permit). A nationwide permit authorized by the Clean Water Act may be available for the proposed work. State or local approval of the work may also be required. For general information on the Corps' Regulatory Program please check our web site at www.spk,army.m illregulatory. For additional information or for a written determination regarding a specific project, please contact the Corps at the following addresses: Sacramento Main Office -1325 J Street, Room 1480, Sacramento. CA 95814 (916) i 557-5250 Redding Field Office -152 Hartnell, Redding, CA 96002 (530) 223-9534 Reno Office -300 Booth Street, Room 2103, Reno, NV 89509 (775) 784-5304 Intermountain Region Main Office -533 West 2600 South, Suite 150, Bountiful, UT 84010 (801) 295-8380 Colorado/Gunnison Basin Office -402 Rood Ave., Room 142, Grand Junction, CO 81501 (970) 243-1199 Durango Office -278 Sawyer Dr., Unit #1. Durango, CO 81301 (970) 375-9506 Frisco Office -301 W Main, Suite 202, P.O. Box 607, Frisco, CO 80443 (970) 668-9676 St. George Office -321 North Mall Drive, Suite L-101, St. George, UT 84790 (435) 986-3979 Updated DEC 2004 Gale Carmoney From: Chris Romeyn [chris@rapidh2o.com] f/ Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 9:40 AM -- �- + '� f r "� "`��� y/D To: Gale Carmoney; Fred Jarman Cc: 'Natasha'; buckdeane@me.com Subject: RE: Bailey FDPA 7167 call up Attachments: photol.JPG; photo2.JPG; Pages from 3rd submittal Revised Application Bailey 3-26-12 - addenda 4-9-12.pdf Gale and Fred, While the Deane's concerns remain unaddressed they have requested that we cancel the call-up. We would, however, like you to look at the attached photos. Sometime around May 25th a straw bale wall was constructed on the Deane/Bailey property line. (Row of Bales with fences on both sides) I have attached a photo from the ground and a photo from the air. I also attached a marked up version of their application map. It appears to me that the straw bale wall extends well into the regulatory floodway. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Chris Romeyn, P.E., CFM Principal Engineer Rapid Engineering, LLC 1911 Colorow Rd. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 303.877.8802 chris@rapidh2o.com www.rapidh2o.com From: Gale Carmoney [mailto:gcarmoney@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 9:26 AM To: Chris Romeyn Cc: Natasha; buckdeane@me.com Subject: Bailey FDPA 7167 call up Chris Will you be at the June 4th BOCC meeting? I have the Bailey item on the agenda so I don't see a need to be there at 8:00 but I remind you that this is a rolling agenda so I do not know exactly when this item will be discussed. Gale D. Carmoney Code Enforcement Officer Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 Eighth St. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-8212 www,garfield-county.com Garfield ('utrno. i Gale Carmoney From: Gale Carmoney Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 2:46 PM To: 'pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com' Subject: Bailey's wall Attachments: Photo 2 of straw bale fence.JPG; Photo 1 of straw bate fence.JPG Paul What the heck is this stuff?? Supposedly this is new work on Bailey's property within the Floodway. What is going on? Gale D. Carmoney Code Enforcement Officer Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 Eighth St. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945-8212 www.garfield-county.com CC;aa_Jielrl ('aunt). From: rjo <rjo@atsgeo.com> Subject: carmoney RFI Date: June 10, 2012 9:04:15 AM MDT To: Paul Currier <pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com> Paul, thanks for forwarding Gale's e-mail regarding the fencing work on the Iron Rose Ranch. please forward this reply at your earliest convenience. Gale, the massive changes in the river last year produced significant damage to both property and buildings on the bailey property last year...to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. while damage to the buildings was evident, changes to the infrastructure were less so, but those repairs are proving just as expensive. since mr. deane declined to cooperate with the ranch at roaring fork hoa and the iron rose ranch to repair the river, re -design and reconstruction of the infrastructure is required. as a general rule, there is more going on underground on the iron rose ranch than exists on the surface. building repairs and foundation protection have taken precedence, and while various utilities were moved out of harm's way before the approach of runoff, i did not get a high pressure irrigation network relocated. the main for this network runs parallel to and adjacent to the property fencing. the delay is associated with specifications for a series of soft -close valves that will enable various sections in the system to automatically isolate without causing water hammer damage when the next runoff comes through and reaps its inevitable damage. in this respect, i should mention that last year we removed several Targe gravel bars inside the affected parcel; these bars ranged in height from 3-4 ft and ran 100-250ft in length (a photo of the distal end of one bar is provided below). from this point forward, the gravel deposits will not be removed since this ground is now 3-4ft lower than the river which has aggraded beyond the point of planform stability. it is expected the river will come through the property fence every year for some time to come and that emergency permits will be required to restore the river to it's normal course. over a period of years, this section of ground will eventually attain sufficient elevation equivalence to direct flood damage and land loss to the north. bar 3; view to south P1030510.jpeg the parallel fence in question was put in place in the vicinity of the avulsion to help protect the public. runoff last year exceeded the bankfull discharge for only a couple of days, however, it did run at the bankfull level for an extended period, enabling the river to accomplish quite at bit of work in a geomorphic sense. prior aggradation in the adjacent deane reach encouraged and produced an avulsion through the iron rose ranch, and following runoff, 85% of the discharge of the roaring fork river was going through the iron rose ranch. recreational boaters, unaware of the change in the river, followed the river through the deane parcel and onto the iron rose, where they were met with downed steel and wire fencing, downed trees and the usual flood debris. I'm told a few individuals were trapped on the fence and were lucky to escape unharmed. as a result of those incidents, signs were installed on the river to warn boaters and direct them to portage through deane and half of the iron rose property. a photo looking up at the property boundary in question is provided below. the vantage point is about 250ft downstream from the property line and was taken in mid august of last year, well past runoff. it was not physically possible at that time to approach the property boundary. it is hoped the parallel fencing will bend to the force of the river much like the fencing in the foreground of this photograph in future events and not give way completely, thus alerting boaters to the approaching hazard. view looking east; property boundary in far background P1030261 jpeg the straw bales were placed to reduce the velocities expected during runoff this year, with the idea being to protect the irrigation main from scour and the line break that would result. without the valves in place, a break in the main would bring the system down and result in the loss of hay production on the entire eastern side of the ranch, and in this drought year, that loss would be significant. the bales do not prevent flooding, as they are porous to flow and become buoyant with stage increases. the area behind the bales is already flooding even though the discharge is in the 700 range, which is well below normal (a photograph taken saturday is provided below). it is important to note that bankfull discharge in this reach is about 5,250cfs, so it is expected that if the river climbs higher, significant sheet flow will be experience throughout the area. it should be noted the worst area for potential scour and damage to the irrigation main is in the centerline of the avulsion. this area would be protected by the berm that was part of the floodplain permit, as it extends past—most of the avulsed river section: it vvitl Ise fir more effective than the bales, and hopefully, will direct scour back to the main channel. wh'I�e the bales can be removed if they are causing heartburn, i would plead they be kept in place. without them, the irrigation main will certainly be exposedand if the Iine breaks, we'll have to build a coffer dam to effect repairs and that would be a real mess. view looking across damaged upper section of pasture to the west -south-west; double fence line is to left, just out of view view wsw.jpeg Gale Carmoney From: Paul Currier [pcu20wrc-Ilc.com] n"I � Sent: Monday, June 11,, 20112 11:44 AM Sa� ov �► To: Gale Carmoney t)(tea w�`°')z .Gr Subject: RE: land use change permit `"� °� (J Gale, I'll see if I can find out what's happening. I haven't been out there in a coons age, so can't say. Meanwhile, for whatever reason my web hoster thinks your e-mails are spam... so I just saw this. At first blush, it looks like a haystack, two bales high. - Paul nx't� �` "�a 1u; Paul C. Currier, P.E., CFM WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC, 244 Hutton Ave. r/ Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 618-3213 (970) 625-5433 (Fax) From: Gale Carmoney[mailto:gcarmoney@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 9:45 AM To: pcurrier©wrc-tic.com Subject: land use change permit Paul I thought I should remind you that I have not sent a Land Use Change permit yet because of the call up and then the photos of the work being done in the river. You have not responded to my question about the photos I sent. You should not be doing any of the bank stabilization work until you have the Land Use Change Permit in hand. Gale D. Carmoney Code Enforcement Officer Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 Eighth St. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-8212 www.earfield-counly.com C . Grrr/wlrl County No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.21781 Virus Database: 2433/5062 - Release Date: 06/11/12 i Account Page 1 of 1 Account: R011055 Location Parcel Number 2393-352-00-003 Situs Address 000498 ROSE LN 000498 470 COUNTY RD City Carbondale Carbondale ZipCode 81623 81623 Tax Area 011 - 1R -MF - 011 Legal Summary Section: 35 Township: 7 Range: 88 A TR IN LOTS 3 & 4 Transfers Sale Price Tax history. Tax Year * Estimated Taxes *2012 $525.80 2011 $525.80 Owner Information Owner Name BAILEY FAMILY INVESTMENT COMPANY In Care Of Name IRON ROSE RANCH Owner Address 1000 BLUE HERON LANE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Sale Date 06/13/2007 06/13/2007 04/16/2007 04/09/2007 Images • Map • Photo • GIS Doc Type S\VI) ()CD EAS AGR :Assessment Ilistor, Actual (2012) $26,420 Primary Taxable $7,670 Tax Area: 011 Mill Levy: 68.5540 Type Actual Assessed Acres SQFT Units Improvement $18,190 $5,280 0.000 0.000 0.000 Land $8,230 $2,390 34.580 0.000 0.000 Focusing On: 000498 ROSE EN CARBONDALE 81623 Book Page 13: 1946 P: 883 B: 1946 P: 867 https://act.garfield-county.com/assessor/taxweb/accaunt.jsp?accountNurn=R011055 6/19/2012 Gale Carmoney From: Gale Carmoney Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:53 AM To: 'rjo' Cc: Andy Schwaller; Fred Jarman; 'GilfiIlan, Mark A SPK' Subject: FW: iron rose fp permit Attachments: Currier reply to Carmony 6_10.rtfd.zip; ATT00001.htm; Logo smalLj,pg; ATT00002.htm Mr. O'Brien sincerely appreciate your providing this explanation of the recent project on Iron Rose Ranch. Had this information been provided when you sent it to Mr. Currier or better yet included in the floodplain application which was deemed Technically Complete in April it could have avoided a lot of the issues we are dealing with today. As I tried to explain to Mr. Currier, staff is not obligated to issue any new land use change permits (in this case a floodplain development permit) if there appears to be an existing code violation; hence the delay in issuing the permit. GARCO staff was not aware of this recent project and believe this project should have been submitted for staff review. Can you tell me when this straw bale fence was established? At this time I am drafting a Notice of Violation concerning the work done in the floodplain w/o permits. I have also been in contact with Mark Gilfillan to find out what was permitted onBailey's ranch and have learned more about some of the projects that have been permitted by USACE. Again this information would have been extremely valuable in understanding recent flooding events and measures taken to mitigate future events. Looking back it seems that this information including ACE permitting and the recent bale fence should have been included in the floodplain application. Very little of that information was provided prior to your email. i will confer with my supervisor about the Notice of Violation before sending it out. I had hoped to go on site this Friday in the morning with Mark Gilfillan but may need to delay that until another time after we obtain permission from Mr. Bailey. Thanks again for being so helpful and informative. Gale D. Carmoney Code Enforcement Officer Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 Eighth SI. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-8212 www.garfield-caunly.com ;�. Gurfidd C orruh° From: rjo [mailto:rjo@atsgeo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:50 PM To: Gale Carmoney Subject: iron rose fp permit gale, talked with paul briefly; understand the concern regards the hay fence. i've attached an e-mail i sent to paul a week or so ago explaining its placement...not sure if it was forwarded to you; i've attached it as a rich text formatted file. if you have any questions, I'm working in a semi -remote area of delta county and don't have communication access until the late evening. i've forwarded your access request but my understanding is bailey 1 is traveling and not likely to respond for awhile. meantime, i've no worries anymore over the river taking out the pipeline and could request the bales be removed. due to my schedule on this project, i would not be able to complete the pipeline modifications until late summer or early fall, which is just as well in this drought. i would not want to interfere with irrigation at this point, even if the repairs only required a week. please advise through e-mail if you have further questions. bob 2 Gale Carmoney From: rjo [rjo©atsgeo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:30 PM To: Gale Carmoney Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: Re: iron rose fp permit Attachments: SPK -2012-00039 Compliance Report.pdf; ATT00001.htm; Logo smali.jpg; ATT00002.htm gale, to reiterate, i conducted emergency work under 404 permit last august. the purpose was to turn the river back to its normal channel and eliminate life threatening conditions on the deane and iron rose parcels. i performed far less work in the river than was described under the permit out of respect for the 404 process (a different permit was more appropriate) and the fact that work was being conducted on deane's property without his knowledge or permission (he was in Canada and unavailable). following that work, a more suitable 404 permit was submitted and approved with a DOW condition that work be completed in February. unfortunately, i was unable to acquire deane's permission and only a small portion of work was performed. having no other recourse at that point, the floodplain permit was submitted. again, the bales were put in place AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE, intended for use this spring only. the purpose was to reduce sheet flow velocities that would break an irrigation main that is currently subject to the vagaries of the river. THEY WERE ALWAYS INTENDED TO BE REMOVED following runoff. i have contacted the ranch and they assure me the bales will be removed tomorrow, with photographic evidence provided asap. as for requesting a site review by Mark G, a compliance report was submitted to him in February, a copy of which is provided below and remains valid. i Ed - � 0,-,A)��� otoNua tAitwi" V4')43 - .lune 22, 2012 Bailey Family Investments 498 CR 470 Carbondale Case # Certified Return Receipt Ful 4,9 occi NOTICE OF VIOLATION - ZONING CODE Dear Property Owner: co„ Cra. c - The Garfield County Building and Zoning Code Enforcement Officer has reason to believe a possible violation may exist on your property located at 498 Rose Lane, County Road 470 (parcel #2393-352-00-003). On June 11, 2012, the Code Enforcement Officer observed what appeared to be fill and other improvements within a designated floodway on the property. The Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended does not allow this activity in the Rural Zoning District without a land use change permit. Based on my observations the activity on your property appears to be in violation of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended. You are hereby given notice, pursuant to Article XII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended, that you must completely correct the violations or cease and desist from continuing the violations within ten (10) days of the date you receive this notice. Under Article XII of the Garfield County Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended, your failure to correct or cease the violations on your property may result in one or more of the following enforcement actions being taken against you: 1. Revocation of any building permits issued for improvements of the subject property; 2. Denial of additional land use approvals or building or other development applications pertaining to the subject property; 3. Suspension of any land use approvals for the subject property; 4. Withdrawal of any development permits that are being violated; 5. Forfeiture of any vested property rights; 6, Criminal enforcement; 7. County court civil penalties; and 8. Civil lawsuit. You have the right to appeal this Notice of Violation, pursuant to the provisions of the Garfield County Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended. Pursuant to Garfield County's Land Use Page 1 of 2 N Resolution of 2008 as amended, Article XII, the county may pursue any of the available enforcement procedures and penalties in connection with this violation. Garfield County Building and Zoning regulations, Enforcement Protocol and permit application forms are available at www.garfield-county.com in the "Building and Planning "directory. 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 gcarmoneyAgarfield-county.com Respectfully, Gale D. Carmoney Code Enforcement Officer Garfield County Administration Building 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 cc: Fred Jarman, Building and Planning Director (via Email) Andy Schwaller, Chief Building Official (via Email) file T:1Code Enforcement\NOV Letters-Cases\Bailey-Iron Rose RanchINOV Zoning.Docx Page 2 of 2 Gale Carmoney From: rjo jrjo@atsgeo.comj Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:36 PM To: Gale Carmoney Cc: Fred Jarman Subject: Re - Bailey Floodplain permit gale, sorry, i should have been more clear. during training, the iron rose does not allow motorized vehicles close to pastures that contain fresh animals. for that matter, employee activities in those vicinities are kept to an absolute minimum. since a contingent of people is therefore out of the question, mr. bailey was gracious enough to offer to walk people to the site, one by one, and as mutual schedules allowed. however, since reading your second e-mail, and discovering the reason the permit has been held up is your concern over an emergency 96-07 permit granted in 2011 for work on THE DEANE PARCEL, there is no need to enter the iron rose ranch. that is because, as i've stated numerous times, all of the river work in question occurred on the deane property. i fail to see the statutory or otherwise regulatory connection between a floodplain permit application on one property and a 404 permitted action on another property. i would think such connection would set a rather complicated precedent. more importantly, your office WAS notified of this work in 2011 AND WITHOUT RESPONSE. similarly, no response was received for proposed work on the deane parcel in 2012. i fail to comprehend why work completed a year ago is of such concern tiow, when at the time, a response could not be elicited. last, i would like to emphasize the river removed thousands of cubic yards of material from the deane parcel alone during the runoff event of 2011. by placing 250 cubic yards of native material from the deane parcel onto the deane parcel, and with the express purpose of eliminating a life threatening condition, i don't see how any sensible person could view that federal action as subservient to local approval, let alone regard the obviously laborious floodplain permit process as more important than saving lives. in this respect, i would like to point out that once the dangerous condition was discovered, i placed a call to the section chief in grand junction on a saturday morning. she responded in under an hour and gave verbal approval to conduct the work. as stated previously, a formal permit application followed almost contemporaneously, and was approved. however, after some reflection, it was agreed by myself and nathan green of the Corps to only conduct de minimus work, in keeping with the intent of 96-07. an application for more comprehensive work was prepared, submitted and approved but failure to obtain deane's approval resulted in the current floodplain permit application on the iron rose property. since ALL of the river work in question is on the deane property, it appears sensible to conduct whatever site review deemed necessary there. it probably goes without saying, but michael erion is both very capable and experienced in river work and should he visit the deane parcel, he will find the work to be readily apparent. i would be happy to provide michael with the permit drawings and other materials if he requires them. meantime, since we aren't sufficiently versed, i will inform mr. bailey that both paul and my services are no longer required and perhaps his interests are better served by others. On Jun 26, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Gale Carmoney wrote: i Bob Thanks for keeping us informed. As I said in the email to Paul yesterday it does not appear that we will be able to get the people we need together that soon. If Mr. Bailey can have someone else take us to the site that may work out better. I understand his concerns with the cows. We will consider our options. Thanks Gale Carmoney GARCO Bldg & Planning 970-945-8212 From: rjo [mailto:rjo@atsgeo.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:47 PM To: Gale Carmoney Subject: Re: Bailey Floodplain project gale, spoke to mr. bailey in montana. he returns tuesday evening and is available starting wed of this week to personally walk you through the property line. because he is in the middle of his training season, and there are fresh cows in that area, it will have to be one individual at a time and one per day. as for viewing the river work completed last year, it is within view from the fence line. if you require a closer look, you'll have to access that ground from Deane's side. please advise. On Jun 25, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Gale Carmoney wrote: Paul We would still like to do a site visit and look at the work done in the floodplain including the area filled under the ACE permit. Because we need to get several people together we should try to come up with a couple of different dates to do this. At this time our consultant Michael Erion is booked until July 9th Can you arrange something for us during that week? Gale D. Carmoney Code Enforcement Officer Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 Eighth St. Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-8212 www.garfield-county.com <imageool.png> <image00l .jpg> 2 Robert J. O'Brien AquaTerra Services, LLC 1153 Bergen Parkway, M474 Evergreen, CO 80439 The information in this electronic message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressees). Access to this electronic message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted is prohibited and may be unlawful. This e-mail and any attachments were free of malicious code when sent, but could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender is not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this message or its attachments. 3 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 August 10, 2011 Regulatory Division SPK -2011-00757 Mr. Tom Bailey Iron Rose Ranch 1000 Blue Herron Lane Carbondale, Colorado 81612 Dear Mr. Bailey: We are responding to your request for a Department of the Army permit for the Iron Rose Ranch - Roaring Fork River Flood Damage project. This project involves activities in waters of the United States to repair flood damage on the Roaring Fork River and to allow water to reach two existing irrigation diversions. The project is located approximately 1 mile northeast of the Town of Carbondale, at the Roaring Fork River within the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 35, Township 7 South, Range 88 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Garfield County, Colorado. Based on the information you provided, the proposed activity is authorized by Regional General permit (RGP) number 53 - (SPA 96-07) - Work Associated with flood protection and repair work for flood -damaged areas. Your work must comply with the general terms and conditions listed on the enclosed RGP information sheets and the following special conditions: Special Conditions 1. Within 60 days following completion of the authorized work or at the expiration of the construction window of this permit, whichever occurs first, you shall submit as - built drawings and a description of the work conducted on the project site. The drawings shall include the following: a. The Department of the Army Permit number. b. A plan view drawing of the location of the authorized work footprint (as shown on the permit drawings) with an overlay of the work as constructed in the same scale as the attached permit drawings. The drawing should show all ""earth disturbance," wetland impacts, structures, and the boundaries of any on-site and/or off-site mitigation or avoidance areas. The drawings shall contain, at a minimum, 1 -foot topographic contours of the entire site. c. Ground and aerial photographs of the completed work. The cameral positions and view -angles of the ground photographs shall be identified on a map, aerial photograph, or project drawing. -2- d. A description and list of all deviations between the work as authorized by this permit and the work as constructed. Clearly indicate on the as -built drawings the location of any deviations that have been listed. 2. All construction activities associated with this permit verification must be overseen by a qualified hydrologist. 3. You must sign the enclosed Compliance Certification and return it to this office within 30 days after completion of the authorized work. This verification is valid for two years from the date of this letter or until the RGP is modified, reissued, or revoked, whichever comes first. Failure to comply with the General Conditions of this RGP, or the project -specific Special Conditions of this authorization, may result in the suspension or revocation of your authorization. Please refer to identification number SPK -2011-00757 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Nathan Green at our Colorado West Regulatory Branch, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 134, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563, email Nathan.J.Green@usace.army.mil, or telephone 970-243-1199 x12. For more information regarding our program, please visit our website at www.spk.usace.army.mil/regulatory.html. We appreciate your feedback. At your earliest convenience, please tell us how we are doing by completing the customer survey on our website under Customer Service Survey. Sincerely, Susan Bachini Nall Chief, Colorado West Regulatory Branch Enclosure: 1. RGP 37 Information Sheets 2. Compliance Certification Copy furnished without enclosures: Mr. Robert O'Brien, Aqua Terra Services, LLC, 1153 Bergen Parkway, Suite M474, Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Mr. Fred Jarman, Garfield County Building & Planning, 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Permit File Number: SPK -2011-00757 Regional General Permit Number: RGP #53 - (SPA 96-07) Work associated with flood protection and repair work for flood -damaged areas Permittee: Tom Bailey Iron Rose Ranch 1000 Blue Herron Lane Carbondale, Colorado 81612 County: Garfield Date of Verification: August 10, 2011 Within 30 days after completion of the activity authorized by this permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Colorado West Regulatory Branch, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 134, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit your authorization may be suspended, modified, or revoked. If you have any questions about this certification, please contact the Corps of Engineers. * * * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above -referenced permit, including all the required mitigation, was completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit verification. Signature of Permittee Date °k 2011 FIS map - ArcMap - ArcView File Edit View Bookmarks Insert Selection Geoprocessing Customize Windows Help 12 x .F+ okXY els' °° "i• ; 7 w R r y ''rJ E_171 iE [WY ; 4: an'Ii © R? 1:7,567 4x Identify from: <Top -most layer> CI Parcels 239335200003 Location: 310,949.951 4,364,008.369 Meters Field NAME BAILEY FAMILY INVESTMENT COMP; OBJECTID 1863856 OBJECTID 30 OBJECTID 1 OBJECTID 11426 OBJECTID <null> PAGE <null> PARCELNB 239335200003 PARCELNB 1 239335200003 PARCELSEQ <null> RANG <null> RECEPTION_NO 733285 SECTION <null> Shape Polygon Shape.area 137669.249258 Shape.len 1872.054802 SQFT 0 STATE CO STREETDIR STREETNAME ROSE STREETNO 498 STREETSUF LN SUBCODE <null> SUBDIVISIO 0 SUBNAME <null> SUFFIX <null> TAX EXEMPT 0 TAX_EXEMPT_CODE 0 TAY FYFMPT FT.ITTTV DQTWATF (WWI FPSHTP` <1 Vak ie Identified 1 feature I Table Of Contents I IIdentify 310941.944 4364949.3 Meters T:\Code Enforcement\NOV letters-cases\Bailey-Iron Rose Ranch\Aerial parcel Iocation.docx 2011 FIS map - Arch/ - Araiew 'X Fie Edit View Bookmarks Insert Selection Geoprocessing 47 CI •Zr411 0 4IR • k 0 c=1 :D8E115 1.B15 x Table Of Contents IR1 2011 preliminary FIS map 2 0 NewFPVSOIdFP El 3 0 OldFP_Parcelint NewFP_Parcel_Int LJ 9 0 Atkins structures data • I=1 1:1 S_BF5 ▪ 1:1 S_BA5E INDEX 9 0 S_FIRM PAN • S_GEN_STRUCT • E S_F1D_HAZ_LN x + , Customize Windows Help rnxv 1:16,620 B 1=1 S X5 2 0 Flood Plain 1=,- 2 S_FLD_HAZ_AR FLD_ZONE, FLOODWAY rfj 0.2 PCT ANNUAL CHANC El A, AE, CI AE, FLOODWAY AO, D, IT -1 2 2011 Aerial Photos s CI S_WTR_LN 1 , < 1 310204.497 4365541.55 Meters 2011 FIS map - ArcMap - ArcView 1=11 15, l[x 1 File Edit View Bookmarks Insert Selection Geoprocessing Table Of Contents v L� I ICX tiles �y ♦ Rte-® RiO9P ■ L ❑ Structures I 0 Watersheds and Facilities • ❑.r Parcels i El Control 8 E Roads C+J I State or Federal Highway • I I County Road O © City Streets I� LocalStreets ® Trails O Railroad OO ❑� County Line ©+ Hydrology ©+ ❑ City or Town I: I] 2011 preliminary FIS map ❑ NewFPV5OIdFP ❑ 8 © OidFP_Parcel_Int l� 0 NewFP_Parcel Ink E ❑ Atkins structures data O ❑ S_BFE ▪ S_BASE_INDEX 2 0 S_FIRM_PAN ur CustomizeWindows p► Windows Help 111.4— old O ^�, I* T- . 1:16,620 0 7i w 11 < 309786.74 4365457.999 Meters IRON ROSE RANCH Garfield County Floodplain Development Permit Application Feb. 27, 2012 / Revised Mar. 23, 2012 Effective FIS Floodway, Jan. 3, 1986 overlain on Aug. 22, 2011 High Resolution Aerial Note: No irrigation ditches will be impacted — irrigation is via sprinkler Purple Dashed Line: Approximate extent of straw bale wall. EROSION PROTECTION In Flood Fringe — below and above grade EROSION PROTECTION In Floodway— below grade FLOOD PROTECTION Berm to minimize sheet flow around structures Twin 421 Culverts. Livestock & Farm Access Crossing -`� See Detail WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC File Notes - Bailey Floodplain Development application FDPA 7167 February 23, 2012 Pre -application meeting was in the field with Glenn Hartmann and Paul Currier. Staff explained the application process as best we could without benefit of having code book and application available to review with Currier. He did not seem to think that a formal meeting was necessary. We walked the approximate location of the proposed work while Currier described the project. March 5 First submittal of floodplain application (FDPA 7167) was sent electronically (email) on March 1st. Mr. Currier did not feel that submitting 3 hard copies as required in the application documents was necessary as stated in his March 1 email to Commissioner Jankovsky. NTC letter was sent March 16, application named a different representative than Currier and there were other incomplete items, all which were outlined in the NTC letter. Submittal did not include enough of the project information on the site plan to show the actual work being done as described in the project description. March 26 Second application submittal, still NTC, an email was sent April 6 to explain deficiencies. The list of SPO was incomplete, I had to provide a list of PO that I identified on the GIS maps so Currier could get mailing info for them. April 9 Third submittal, even though there were still some items that could have been better documented the assistant attorney deemed the application technically complete. The public notice and referrals were sent out shortly thereafter. May 16 After 6 weeks of delays due to NTC submittals, Director's Determination was completed, 35 days after complete application was accepted. June 4 Bailey floodplain permit was called up by neighbor Buck Deane and was scheduled to go to BOCC public meeting to determine if a Public Hearing was warranted. Buck Deane decided it was not worth the hassle and w/d his request for call up through his representative Chris Romeyn (Chris Romeyn is the engineer representing Deane). Chris sent me an email to w/d recall request and also provided photos of new work being done on property boundary b/t Bailey and Deane. By Chris's estimate it appears this work, a straw bale fence bounded by a metal and cedar pole fence on both sides, extends into the floodway as show on Paul Currier's aerial photo which outlines the floodway boundary. June 6 1 forward photos of straw bale fence to Paul Currier and asked what was going on and told him that it appears to be new work in the floodplain. June 11 Paul did not reply to my June 6 email until I reminded him on Monday, June 11th that I had not issued the permit because of the photos I sent him and that he had not responded. Paul finally responded but I was out of the office by that time attending a meeting with Mike Prehm about drainage on Upper Cattle Creek. Currier's response on the 11th did not hint at any urgency to getting his floodplain permit but he did mention that my email was being filed as spam and that was the C:\Documents and Settings\aschwaller\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Dutlook\2M86WUA2\File notes (3).docx reason for his delayed response. This seems unlikely when throughout the application process we had exchanged at least 11 other emails without a problem. I did not return to the office that day to respond to any email because I went from meeting with Mike to a site visit on Buck Deane's property. Mr. Deane took me to several points along the boundary of his property along the Roaring Fork to explain various work projects that had occurred over the years and recent work being done by Bailey. By Mr. Deane's account some of that work required placement of a backhoe in the river and crossing Deane's property at various points. Mr. Deane eventually took me to the spot with the new straw bale fence had been established and I took some more pictures of that site which are on file. ULUR Section 12-103 Enforcement Procedures D. Revoking and Withholding Building Permits. 2. In the event that an Enforcement Official has knowledge of any violation of this Land Use Code, the Building Code or other provisions of this regulation, no land use approvals or building or other development permits shall be issued with respect to the property where the violation is believed to exist during the period of such violation. The Board of County Commissioners may suspend or revoke any existing land use approvals for the property where the known violation exists, subject to conducting a properly noticed hearing where such hearing would be required for the land use approval that is the subject of the revocation, following the same process and notification required to obtain such original approval. More importunately, the scope of work changed with the addition of the hay fence for this project. The hay fence has the potential to radically change the flow of the river within the floodway. This could affect other property owners along this stretch of the river. This change was brought to our attention by Mr. Deane's engineer. C:\Documents and Settings\aschwaller\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\2M86WUA2\File notes (3).docx 27 26 ygR 6 42 6144 ZONE B 34 1 \ ZONE C ZONE C Culvert 35 ZONE El 61 ZONE C m B ZONE ZONE B ZONE A ZONE 6162 JOINS PANEL 1859 ZONE C NOTE: MAP AREA SHOWN ON THIS PANEL IS LOCATED WITHIN TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 118 WEST ZONE C 6168 ZONE B 6170 ZONE C ZONE B ZONE B ZONE B To determine if flood insurance is a, contact your insurance agent, or call 11 Program, at (800) 6386620. APPROXIMATE SCAL 500 0 1111111111111 NATIONAL FLOW FIRM FLOOD !NSW GARFIEL COLORAI (CNINCORPC PANEL 1657 (SEE MAO INDEX FI COMMON! JA Federal Emergent SECTION 4-503 DESCRIPTION OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE IN FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT. A. Floodplain Overlay: Site Plan. In addition to the site plan requirements set forth in Section 4-502(C)(3), the site plan shall include the following elements. The Floodplain Administrator may require, or the applicant may choose to submit, a more detailed version of all or part of the site plan. (See Standards 7-701) 1. Base flood boundary and water surface elevations. 2. Floodway boundary. 3. Channel of the watercourse. 4. Existing and proposed topographic contours shown at vertical intervals of no greater than 2'. 5. Elevation of the lowest floor, including basement and garage, of each existing and proposed structure. 6. Proposed elevations to which structures will be flood proofed (if applicable). 7. Location, dimension and elevation of proposed landscape alterations. 8. Elevations of existing streets, water supply, and sanitation facilities. 9. Boundaries and total land area of all existing and proposed impervious surfaces, including structures. 10. Location of existing water supply ditches, irrigation ditches and laterals. B. Floodplain Overlay: Channel Cross -Section. A typical cross-section showing the following elements: 1. Channel of the watercourse. 2. Boundaries of floodplain adjoining each side of channel. 3. Area to be occupied by the proposed land use. 4. Existing Flood Fringe Flood Fringe and ro osed Flcodw y S t r c i m `.. Channel base Flood Fringe Flood Fringe 100 -Year Floodplaln flood elevations. C. Floodplain Overlay: Construction Specifications. Specifications for construction and materials of buildings, flood proofing, filling, dredging, grading, channel improvements, storage of materials, water supply, and sanitation facilities as applicable. D. Floodplain Overlay: Alteration of Water Course. Description of the extent to which any water course will be altered or relocated as a result of the proposed development. E. Floodplain Overlay: Floodway Analysis. A floodway analysis prepared by a qualified professional engineer shall be required for all land use proposed to be located in a Floodway, and shall meet the following guidelines. If a detailed hydraulic floodway analysis has not been performed, the Floodplain Administrator shall require the applicant to provide the analysis necessary for determining the floodway boundary. 1. The Floodway Analysis shall be completed using methodology acceptable to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Colorado Water Conservation Board: 2. The Floodplain Administrator may require a detailed hydraulic floodway analysis based on the identical hydraulic model used to develop the current engineering study adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, if available. 3. The hydraulic model shall be updated to reflect existing hydraulic conditions, to determine any increase in the 100 -year water surface elevation levels that has occurred as a result of development since the floodplain was established. a. Alternate floodway configurations may then be analyzed based on methods as outlined in the current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC - RAS Water Surface Profiles Users Manual and submitted to the Floodplain Administrator for review and approval. b. The analysis shall provide a determination of the cumulative effects of the proposed development, plus the effects of development since the original flood hazard area was established, on the base flood elevation. c. At the Floodplain Administrator's discretion, where a regulatory floodway has been designated, it may not be necessary to determine the cumulative effects of existing development. 4. Floodway boundary configurations shall be examined and approved by the Floodplain Administrator. The following information shall be included for the stream reach 1000 feet upstream and 1000 feet downstream from the proposed encroachment: a. A copy of the printout for the hydraulic computer model representing the base flood profile run for conditions existing at the time the currently effective floodplain was developed. The printout must include the full input and output listing. b. A copy of the printout from the hydraulic computer model representing the floodway run for the proposed floodway configuration and including developments and other hydraulic changes within the floodplain since the currently effective floodplain was established. The printout must include the full input and output listing with all input changes from the original model highlighted. c. A copy of the floodway data table representing data for the proposed floodway configuration. d. A copy of the currently effective official engineering study showing the existing floodplain and the proposed floodway configuration. e. Certification from a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer that the proposed floodway configuration, in combination with current floodplain hydraulic conditions, meets FEMA and CWCB requirements when evaluated against flood elevations established when the original floodplain study was completed. F. Floodplain Overlay: Floodplain Impact Report. An engineering report addressing the standards set forth in Article 7, Section 7-701. Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Gale Carmoney, Code Enforcement Office DATE: May 29, 2012 SUBJECT: Reconsideration of Director Determination Bailey Family Investments Floodplain Application (File FDPA 7167) On May 16, 2012 the Director of the Building and Planning Department issued a Director's Determination of approval with conditions regarding the Bailey Family Investments LLC General Administrative Permit application for a Land Use Change Permit for floodplain development. The County has received a request from Buck and Natasha Deane, an adjoining property owner, that the Board of County Commissioners "Call-up" the Application and review the applicant's submittal with regard to Sections 3-401, 4-503, and 7-701 of the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR). See attachments. The Applicant's request is being processed in accordance with Section 4-111(B)(1) of the ULUR which calls for the Board of County Commissioners to "review the request at the next regular meeting of the Board and set a public hearing by a majority vote of the Board in favor of said hearing". The purposes of that hearing would be Reconsideration of the Director's Decision including any conditions of approval. In accordance with the ULUR we have placed this item on the next available Board of County Commissioners agenda, Monday, June 4, 2012, under the Public Meetings section of the Building and Planning Issues. This agenda item will be for the Board of County Commissioner's deliberation on whether a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners is warranted. Included in the Board's packet is the following information: • Request for Board Consideration from the adjoining property owners Buck and Natasha Deane and their consultant engineer, Chris Romeyn of Rapid Engineering. • Director's Determination and Approval with Conditions • Staff Report (including description of the Application) and referral comment letters Building and Planning Department Staff and the County Attorney's Office will be available at the public meeting to answer any questions regarding the Application, Determination, and Reconsideration Process and Request. The Applicant has been advised of the public meeting and Board consideration. "I:\PlanninglCurrent Planning\Land Use Change Pernrits\Impact Review\Ploodplain Developrnen1113ailey Family Iron Rose Ranch\Call Up\Bailey Reconsideration Cover Sheet.doe Buck and Natasha Deane 0477 Rose Lane Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Phone (970) 963-2149 May 16, 2012 Fred Jarman Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Bailey Family Investments/Iron Rose Ranch, Floodplain Development Permit Application Dear Mr. Jarman: I own property in Garfield County which is directly east of property owned by Bailey Family investments; my real property is also immediately upstream of the Bailey Family Investments property on the Roaring Fork River. The purpose of this letter is to express my concern that the floodplain development application submitted by Bailey Family Investment Co. ("Bailey") does not meet the requirements of the Garfield County Land Use Code. Although there are many concerns which 1 have regarding the floodplain development application, my primary concern is that the plan purposed by said application will likely result in additional flooding on my property as a result of the proposed "above -grade berm" which Bailey seeks to construct on a disputed boundary line. This area has historically flooded and placing a berm or dike will, in effect, put more pressure on my land, not in theory. I have already lost many acres to the roaring fork because of on going changes made on my property. This flood plan is not in keeping with the Master Plan Created by Mr. Dave Rosgen hired by Mr. Bailey, approved by the Army Corps of Engineers in the stretch from Catherine Store Bridge to Carbondale Bridge. Mr. Robert O'Brian the lead site consultant. Part of this plan called for the removal of dikes along this stretch to allow the Roaring Fork to have relief or "sheet flooding". Which Mr. Bailey was a committee member and strong advocate and leading benefactor, yet Mr. Bailey seeks to construct one. But through some loophole of the floodway maps it's ok? In 2006 we harden this corner because the river was jumping the bank and Mr. Eubank was being threatened by high water and Mr. Bailey didn't want the Roaring Fork to divert through our property. I understand that Mr. Bailey had spent a considerable sum keeping the river in its historic channel running through his property. Since his purchase of Mr. Eubanks property, Mr. Bailey has been manipulating the river on the lower end of my property. Over the last 2 years he has been dredging large amounts of the river bottom driving the river into a flood channel that is located on my property. Last year Mr. Bailey was again in the river before high water and created this a very high riffle or gravel bar or plug. Thus defeating the work we did in 2006 to harden this corner. The channel along my bank has been deepened so even more water is directed into this flood way. was on site with Mr. O'Brian and he himself was surprised, however he was unable do anything because "... he really wasn't working for Bailey." Needless to say the consequences were extreme during 2011 runoff. So here we are again the Spring of 2012 and I catch Mr. Bailey in the river again digging, dredging and according to one engineer visually it appeared as of May 1St Bailey was diverting 40% of the Roaring Fork out of the main channel across my property to his. I called the Sheriffs office and they spoke with the operator of backhoe his statement was they had a water right through this side channel and they were not trespassing. Mr. Bailey does not have a point of diversion through my property in this over flow channel. I find it ironic that Mr. Bailey would like to place a berm or dike along the same location to protect himself from his unauthorized use of my property to create this diversion from the river. Presently Mr. Bailey has a water court case pending, since January of 2005 of which 1 was never noticed on. This application asks to place his water right from several ditches into the Roaring Fork and then be allowed to divert it from the river, through my property. My question to the Planning department is how can someone create a flood plan when the applicant is in fact creating his own flooding and is directing the Roaring Fork River onto his property? Currently Mr. Bailey has a 404 permit, which was designed to address the re -stabilization of the banks where a temporary dike had been placed on my property after the flooding in 2011.1 would not allow them to do this work because it included several other features and they refused to show me the 404 permit. I wanted to know why they could keep doing all this work on my property? I wanted them to address the widening, deeping & hardening of this overflow channel. Mr. O'Brian implied Bailey could get a permit to do this work without me anytime he wants. The truth hurts, they were issued permits on my property without noticing me or even naming me as the property owner. On Feb 9th I began my discovery about his diversion plan. If Mr. Bailey is genuinely concerned about flooding I would encourage him to use that permit to replace the dike and harden the bank. I have reached out willing to meet with Mr. Bailey or Mr. O'Brian to have a transparent conversation about the proposed river work in this 404 permit. They agreed and then withdrew shortly after I filed a motion to intervene in his pending "diversion" water case. If Mr. Bailey is not granted his planned diversion that he has already implemented who will undo the severe damage created on my property and to the Roaring Fork River? Who is going to put the Roaring Fork River Back into its rightful channel? Who is going to reharden this corner to right the years of undoing? I have been a great neighbor, I have agreed to several beneficial projects in the river. I feel strongly about maintaining the Roaring Fork River in its historic channel I encourage a site visit be made to my property to have a better understanding of the real issue not just my word. I believe all would agree upon seeing the current state of the river that the best solution is to maintain he Roaring Fork River in its historic channel and not allow a berm or dike to confuse the situation even further. I have attached hereto a letter prepared by Gary L. Beach, of Beach Environmental, which expresses his opinion regarding the potential increased flood impacts to my property if the berm is constructed. understand that Mr. Chris Romeyn of Rapid Engineering. While 1 am extremely sensitive to Bailey's concerns regarding erosion and flood protection in this area of the Roaring Fork River, I believe Bailey's application requires close scrutiny and more transparency by the Garfield County Building and Planning Department and the Board of County Commissioners. I am requesting, therefore, that you take these concerns into consideration prior to rendering your decision on the Bailey floodplain development application. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. With kind regards, Doane "Buck" Deane Enc Beach Environmental Buck and Natasha Deane 0477 Rose Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 Dear Buck and Natasha: Suite 4210 0133 Prospector Rd. Aspen, CO &1611 Tel: 970.925.3475 I Fax: 970.925A754 � www.beachenvironrnentaLcorn May 2,2012 Sent via email to buckdeanerrimac.coin Re: Flood Plain Development Permit At your request, I have briefly reviewed the Flood Plain Development Permit provided to you by Garfield County Staff. Thank you for providing me with an explanation as to why there was not Flood Impact Study included in the packet of information. Despite the thought that because the work that is being proposed is intended to protect agricultural lands of your immediate neighbor, I regret to say that there does not appear to be enough information for me to render an opinion regarding the potential risks of the plan to your property. I do understand that Mr. Bailey proposes to build a berm on his property to protect his propety against future flooding, but since the river is on your property in the area of the proposed berm, there appears to be the potential for flood impacts to your property if the berm is constructed to keep all flood waters on your property. I think additional information would help determine whether the risk of flood impacts to your property would be reduced or increased by the construction of the proposed berm. I am aware that your intent is not to obstruct or to increase the risk of damage to your neighbor's property and would assume that his intentions are similar. 1 would recommend further conversations with the County and Mr. Bailey to determine whether additional information is, or could be made readily available to resolve this matter amicably. Sincerely, ,,; 4� By s,..- GarY ea h, Principal Consult' Offices in Aspen, Basalt, and Carbondale, Colorado 0394 Fp pmt response .wpd ex: Brad Switzer. Esq. RAPID Walt CIVIL 1 WATER 1 RESTORATION www.rapidh2ocom 1911 COL0R0W RD. GLENWOOD SPRINGS. CSD 81601 393.877.8802 lchrisrapidh2o.com May 25, 2012 Mr. Fred Jarman & Mr. Gale Carmoney Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Call-up of Bailey Family Investments Floodplain Permit FDPA 7167 Dear Fred & Gale, On behalf of Doane and Natasha Deane I would like to request a Director Call-up of the decision made in the Bailey Family Investments Floodplain Permit Application as outlined in section 4- 111{A)(8). Please see my letter to you dated May 15, 2012. We are concerned that the proposed activity as presented in the Permit Application may not meet the standards outlined in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution; specifically sections 3-401, 4-503, and 7-701. We are concerned that the Applicant may not meet all the requirements outlined in the Director's decision. We are also concerned that the proposed activities may not comply with the Colorado Water Conservation Board's Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado. Please notify us of the submission deadline for the BOCC public meeting where we will present our supporting documentation. Sincerely, Chris Romeyn, P.E,, C.F.M. Principal Engineer Rapid Engineering, LLC RAPID Wad CIYIL 1 WATER I RESTORATION www.rapidh2o.com 1911 CDLDRDW RD. GLENWDDD SPRINGS, CD BEI 303.377.88D2 IchrisFrapidh2o.com May 15, 2012 Mr. Gale Carmoney Code Enforcement / CFM Garfield County Building and Planning Dept. 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Comments on Bailey Family Investments, aka "Iron Rose Ranch, LLC" Floodplain Development Permit Application Dear Gale, Thanks for your time today. As we discussed on the phone, I have been retained by Buck and Natasha Deane to review and comment on the Floodplain Development Permit application by Bailey Family Investments, aka "Iron Rose Ranch, LLC." 1 have reviewed the packages submitted on March 5, 2012, and on March 26, 2012. The application submittal does not address a number of critical issues necessary to assess compliance with the County Code and the National Flood Insurance Program. For example, the application does not contain a floodplain impact report demonstrating compliance with Section 7-701 of the Garfield County Land Use Code. This report would provide critical information about the project's impact on the Base Flood Elevation and the Deane's property. We have additional concerns with other aspects of the application as well. Our concerns could be addressed in a public hearing or some other proper forum. Given the dynamic nature of the Roaring Fork River, the proximity of the Deane's property to the proposed development, and the potential risk to Life and property, it is only reasonable to provide the applicant the opportunity to address our concerns and demonstrate compliance with the code. We can provide more detail regarding our concerns at your request. We encourage you to deny the floodplain permit application until our concerns have been addressed through adequate vetting. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, 64,4 Chris Romeyn, A.E., C.F.M. Principal Engineer Rapid Engineering, LLC Garfield County May 16, 2012 Paul Currier Water Resources Consultants LLC. 244 Hutton Ave. Rifle, CO 81650 BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT Director Determination Bailey Family Investmentsll:ron Rose Ranch, Floodplain Development Permit FDPA 7167 Dear Mr. Currier: This letter serves as the Directors Determination for an administrative review of a Floodplain Development Permit application submitted by you on behalf of the Bailey Family Investments LLC (aka Iron Rose Ranch) located at 1000 Blue Heron Lane, Carbondale, CO 81623 (parcels# 2393-352-00-003 and 2393-352-01-009). The application request is for placement of below grade and above grade erosion control materials along the Roaring Fork River and is characterized as a bank stabilization project. This project also includes culverts for control of irrigation water. The application has been reviewed in accordance with the Unified Land use resolution of 2008 as amended (ULUR); specifically the process as outlined in Section 4-111, the zoning parameters of Section 3-401(B)(2) and standards in Section 7-701 of the ULUR. The director hereby approves the Floodplain Development Permit (hereafter referred to as the Permit) for Bailey Family Investments subject to the conditions outlined below. 1. Prior to issuance of Permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all State and Federal regulations pertaining to this type of development, in particular, written approval from the United States Corp of Engineers (USACE). The USACE may inspect work at a later date to determine if any Clean Water Act regulatory action is necessary. 2. Applicant shall provide evidence from the USAGE that a 404 permit has been issued or is not applicable. 3. The Applicant shall comply with recommendations in the May 15, 2012 letter from the County's engineering consultant Resource Engineering. 4. The Applicant shall provide an inventory of and treat all Russian Olive trees found in the project area as recommended in the May 7, 2012 letter from the County's Vegetation Manager. 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 • Fax: (970) 384-3470 5. The project work shall not impair the development of the Town of Carbondale's wells or the quality or quantity of water available to these wells downstream from the project. 6. The project shall not interfere with public use upon the portions of the Roaring Fork River which traverses the Bailey Family Investment LLC/Iron Rose Ranch property. Section 4-111 of the ULUR requires the Director's Determination be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for their review. Within ten (10) calendar days of the Director's Determination, the BOCC, the applicant or an affected adjoining property owner may request reconsideration of the Director's Determination ("Call -Up") of the application for public hearing. In this case the Call -Up period expires on May 26th. If no Call-up is requested a Land Use Change Permit to allow development within the floodplain will be issued with the conditions herein. Respectfully, Fred Jarman, AICP Director of Building and ' . Department cc: Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Andy Schwaller, Building Official Carey Gagnon, Assistant Attorney File:T:IPlanninglCwrrent Planninglland Use Change PermilsUmpacl Review\Floodplain Developmentllailey Family Iron Rose Ranch\Director Delerrninalion.doex PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT (OWNER) REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION ACRES ZONING FDPA-7167 GC Administrative Review for a Flood Plain Development Permit Bailey Family Investments LLC Paul Currier, Water Resource Consultants LLC East of Carbondale and north of CR 100 (Parcels No. 2393-352-00-003 & 2393-352- 01-009). 48+/- acres Rural I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Applicant is requesting approval for construction of erosion mitigation and flood damage controls within the Roaring Fork River floodplain as well as culverts for control of irrigation water form a side channel of the river. According to the Applicant's statements, in 2011, due to the Roaring Fork River's meandering nature, a new channel was created which impacted existing agricultural structures. The proposed project intends to minimize flood damage to those structures and prevent further river migration into the Applicant's pasture areas. The proposed site work involves excavating a six to eight foot deep trench along the eastern boundary of the Applicant's property at the flood fringe and filling the trench with boulders. This work will then be covered with three to four foot high berm composed of smaller aggregate, top soil, and replanted with pasture mix. Similar work will be done along the floodway but will not extend above existing grade. Project work also includes two forty two inch culverts twenty feet long to control a side stream channel that enters the property at the southeast portion of the project site. These culverts are intended to maintain irrigation flows and provide farm road access to grazing areas on the other side of the channel. II. AUTHORITY A. Pursuant to Section 4-111 of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR) the Director of the Building and Planning Department has the authority to make decisions regarding Administrative Land Use Change Permits for Development in the Flood Plain. 1 B. The Floodplain Overlay regulations contained in Section 3-401(B)(2) of the ULUR outline the prohibited and permitted uses within the Flood Fringe. The Applicant proposes activities within the Flood Fringe with minimal activity in the floodway. C. Section 4-503 of the ULUR contains the submittal requirements for Application for development within the flood plain and Floodplain Overlay District. The Submittal requirements include but are not limited to site plan mapping, topography and elevation information, and technical evaluation of impacts on the flood fringe. D. Section 7-701 contains specific standards for development in the Floodplain Overlay District. The standards address a range of requirements related to flood carrying capacity and construction standards. E. The Application is also subject to compliance with any drainage and storm water requirements as contained in Article 7 of the ULUR. The required 35 ft. stream setback documented in Section 7-203 is also applicable to the site. III. STAFF ANALYSIS — REFERRAL COMMENTS 1. Referral Comments received from various agencies and are attached and summarized as follows: • Resource Engineering -Consulting Engineers for the County: Recommended approval of the permit request with conditions stated in May 15, 2012 letter, which includes evidence of Section 404 permitting (USACE), no effect on upstream or downstream properties, and a GARCO grading permit if applicable. • US Army Corp of Engineers: demonstration of compliance with all State and Federal regulations, USACE reserves the right to inspect work at later date to determine if Clean Water Act regulatory action is needed. • Town of Carbondale: Project shall not impair quality or quantity of Town wells downstream or interfere with recreational use of river. • Garfield County Vegetation Manager: provide an inventory of and treat all Russian Olive trees in the project area. • Garfield County Road and Bridge: "no concerns with this project." 2. Staff conducted an onsite meeting with the Applicant's representative on February 23, 2012. A Pre -application letter was sent to the representative on March 1, 2012, the first application submittal was received on March 5th with subsequent submittals on March 26th and April 10th to complete the application information required. 3. The Applicant's representative did not present a formal project impact study or any contour or elevation surveys. Instead the representative stated that the project would have no impact on the mapped floodplain, and opined that no technical report was warranted. IV. RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff supports a Director Decision approving the Bailey Family Investments LLC Application for an Administrative Land Use Permit for Development in the Flood Plain based on a finding that the Application is in compliance with relevant Sections of the ULUR including but not limited to Section 3-401(B)(2) and Section 7-701, subject to the following conditions: 1. All representations contained in the Application submittals and in supplements dated 3/5/12, 3/25/12, and 4/10/12, shall be considered conditions of approval including but not limited to site plan map details, trench, berm, and culvert construction information, and all re - vegetation. 2. Prior to issuance of Permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all State and Federal regulations pertaining to this type of development, in particular, written approval from the United States Corp of Engineers (USACE). The USACE may inspect work at a later date to determine if any Clean Water Act regulatory action is necessary. 3. Applicant shall provide evidence from the USACE that a 404 permit has been issued or is not applicable. 4. Prior to issuance of Permit, the Applicant shall comply with recommendations in the May 15, 2012 letter from the County's engineering consultant Resource Engineering. 5. The Applicant shall provide an inventory of and treat all Russian Olive trees found in the project area as recommended in the May 7, 2012 letter from the County's Vegetation Manager. 6. The project work shall not impair the development of the Town of Carbondale's wells or the quality or quantity of water available to these wells downstream from the project. 7. The project shall not interfere with public use upon the portions of the Roaring Fork River which traverses the Bailey Family Investment LLC/Iron Rose Ranch property. IIHIRESOURCE E N G I N E E R I N G ! N C. Gale Carmoney Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: FDPA 7167 — Iron Rose Ranch, LLC Floodplain Development Permit Application Review Dear Gale: May 15, 2012 At the request of Garfield County, Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) reviewed the Floodplain Development Permit Application submitted by Iron Rose Ranch, LLC. The application is for "proposed erosion mitigation and flood damage minimization" structures located along the Roaring Fork River approximately 2.5 miles upstream from the confluence with the Crystal River. The submittal is a March 26, 2012 letter (with attachments) prepared by Water Resource Consultants, LLC. The proposed project includes excavation of a trench that will be backfilled with large boulders to create a future river migration boundary and/or to prevent high water flows from establishing a new channel through existing ditch and created fishery stream side channels. In the flood fringe area, where fill could be approved to elevations above the existing grade, the project would include a boulder and gravel berm covered with top soil and vegetation. Culverts would be installed through the berm for the ditch and fishery stream side channel diversions from the river. A berm is proposed around existing horse related structures located in the flood fringe to prevent shallow inundation from overbank flooding during high flows on the Roaring Fork River. The subject area experienced overbank flooding, erosion and shallow inundation of horse structures during the high flow in 2011. Emergency repairs to the stream bank were made on the Iron Rose Ranch, LLC and adjacent property. This work was partially in the floodway, but appears to be restoration to prior ground elevations. The proposed work would result in no new fill within the apparent floodway. Fill within the flood fringe is permitted by virtue of a defined regulatory floodway and flood fringe on the FEMA Floodway map, Panel dated January 3, 1986. It should be noted that the river has migrated into the flood fringe area delineated on the effective FEMA Floodway map. It appears that a more comprehensive solution to "management" of the river is required in this reach. RESOURCE recognizes that other property owners would need to be involved in that process. However, given the very dynamic nature of the river, it is not clear whether the proposed project will result in unintended impacts to other property. The NFIP community (GARCO) is required to ensure that all federal and state permits have been obtained (44 CFR 60.3 (a)(2)). Applicant should demonstrate they have obtained or don't require a Section 404 permit for the work. Also, it appears the work will require a GARCO Grading Permit. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue n Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 Fl (970) 945-6777 FJ Fax (9701945-1137 Gale Carmoney Page 2 RESOURCE recommends approval of FDPA-7167 with the following conditions: May 15, 2012 1. Applicant shall provide a letter prepared by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer stating that the mitigation of the Roaring Fork River into the flood fringe has not changed the floodway boundary beyond the proposed berm, and that the proposed project will not result in damage to upstream or downstream properties. 2. Applicant shall provide evidence of Section 404 permitting (either a permit or no permit required). 3. Applicant shall obtain a GARCO Grading Permit, if determined to be required. In addition, RESOURCE recommends the Applicant work on a comprehensive solution for "management" of the river in this reach. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. Michael J. Erion, P,E, Water Resources Engineer MJE/rnmm 885-80.0 fl�FIESOLJRCE From: GilfiIlan. Mark A SPK To: Gale Camn.onev Cc: pcurrierClwrc-Ilc.conl Subject: Bailey -Iron Rose Ranch -floodplain permit (UNCLASSIFIED) Date: Monday, May 07, 2012 10:17:35 AM Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Gale, Above and below grade floodway fills (i.e., erosion protection berms) identified via blue and yellow highlighted lines on the Aug. 22 aerial may impact waters of the US or wetlands, but may also only impact non -jurisdictional upland areas within the floodway. Certain fill activities, reviewed for agricultural exemption applications in waters of the U.S. may apply (i.e., stock and farm culvert crossing) and may not be regulated under the Clean Water Act. Additional information may be necessary to determine if the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is likely under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act -for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, rivers, perennial, ephemeral, or intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, springs, vernal pools, marshes, wet meadows, and springs. Project features that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to starting work. Mark Gilfillan District Tribal Liaison/RD-PM US Army Corps of Engineers -Sacramento District, Regulatory Division 400 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone: 970-243-1199, ext. 15(o), 970-241-2358(f), 970-250-7949(c) mark.a.gilfillan@usace.army.mil Information on the HQ Tribal Community of Practice. http://usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/TribalIssues.aspx Information on the Regulatory Program. http://vvww.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx Please let us know how we're doing by taking our brief customer survey at http://per2.nwp.usace.army.milisurvey.html "We provide innovative and enduring engineering solutions across the full spectrum of program/project delivery to provide value and quality, on -schedule, to our military/civilian customers and partners and we support our federal/state partners by responding to national emergencies with leadership and technical expertise." Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Town of Carbondale 511 Colorado Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 (970) 963-2733 May 7, 2012 Gale Carmoney Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Planning Item #FDPA 7167/Bailey Family Bailey Family Floodplain Permit Dear Gale: Thank you for referring the Bailey Family Investments/Iron Rose Ranch application to the Town of Carbondale for the Town's review and comment. The Town owns and operates three municipal wells on this property that provide a main source of water to the Town's Roaring Fork Water Treatment Plant. In addition to its rights to these three existing wells, the Town holds conditional water rights for future development of seven additional wells (six of which have legal descriptions on this property and the other of which is legally described as being on the adjacent Hite property). A map showing the locations of the Town's groundwater rights is attached. The Town is also the owner of certain downstream properties, including (1) the "Island Property" which, although not accessible by road, is utilized recreationally by boaters corning down the Roaring Fork River; and (2) the Gateway Park immediately west of the Highway 133 Bridge, which property includes a public boat launch that is used both as a take out for boaters who launch upstream of the Bailey property and as a put in for boaters headed downstream toward Glenwood Springs. Given its dual interests in preserving both the quantity and quality of water within and recreational access to and use of this reach of the Roaring Fork River, the Town requests that the Garfield County Planning Department consider including the following conditions as part of any approval: 1. The project shall not impair the development of the Town's wells or the quantity or quality of water available to these wells. 2. The project shall not interfere with public floating or fishing upon the portions of the Roaring Fork River which traverses the Bailey Family Investments/Iron Rose Ranch property. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, anet Buck Town Planner • 4.6.44 Source: Carbondale Quadrangle RESOURCE ENOJNEERI NO, INC. WI COW.. A.M., OY,ew..d Sinsp. CO 11401 Wo' 07010 4S711 %VW ........a... Figure 1: Carbondale Municipal Well Nos. RF 1-10 Location Map Town of Carbondale a 0 750 1,500 1 in = 1,500 ft 3,000 Feet Dale: 4/30/2012 File: 476-2.6 Drawn: RKM Approved: MJE 1 O ft w InigiffirifinirlightfirM14010111 tl III Reee tlon#. 795253 Jean plbsrlao 1212 p01tiy 01:49:15 PPI i2 0 12 Aso F 9 15 P Don F lhario GtaFIFIELO COUNTY CO 16. EXHIBIT S (Survey) DOW -Carbondale Access Easement Page i of i Garfield County Gale Carmoney Garfield County Building & Planning Department RE: FDPA 7167 Dear Gale, Vegetation Management May 7, 2012 Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Staff requests that the applicant provide an inventory of the noxious weed tree, Russian olive that may be found in the project area. There is a native shrub, Silver Buffaloberry that also grows in the area. Buffaloberry is fine; however it does resemble Russian olive, so the applicant may need to contact someone that can distinguish between the two plants. Staff requests that the applicant cut and treat any Russian olive trees found in the project area. Please let me know if you have any questions. Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation. Manager 0298 County Road 333A Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-625-8601 Fax: 970-625-8627 From: Michael Prehm To: Gale Carmonev Subject: Bailey Family Investments / Iron Rose Ranch Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 6:05:27 AM Gale, Road and Bridge has no concerns with this project, Mike A16, WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC TRANSMITTAL TO: Gale Carmoney CC: Bob O'Brien FROM: Paul Currier, P.E. DATE: May 4, 2011 RE: Iron Rose Ranch, LLC - Floodplain Development Permit Application FILE: 460-1.0 Gale, Enclosed are the return receipts showing proof of mailing. Notices were mailed April 20th 2012. Any questions, please feel free to call. WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, LLC Paul C. Currier, P.E. PCC/pcc 460 - Transmittal 2012-05-04, Gale Carmoney.doc / 244 Hutton Ave., Rifle, CO 81650 PH / Fax (970) 625-5433 pcurrier@wrc-Ilc.com SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Doane H. Deane 0477 Rose Lane Carbondale, CO 81623 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY Rece:: z -d Name) pa.dr: s different from item 1? 0 Yes 5, enter de ivory address below: 0 No 1 ❑ Agent ❑ Addresse C. Date of 1 11Z e elivery 3. Service Type ❑ Certified Mail ❑ Registered 0 Insured Mall 0 Express Mail 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service !abet) PS Form 3811, February 2004 701,0 0290 0002 2752 6465 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-154( SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 1. Article Addressed to: High Country Starship Limited POB 155 Woody Creek, CO 81656-0155 0 Agent F> Addressee C. Da : of Der •ry LI 2 D. Is delivery a.. ress different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, en er delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Type 0 Certified Mail 0 Registered 0 Insured Mail ❑ Express Mall 0 Rotum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7010 0290 0002 2752 6496 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Marian Nilsen lea E Michigan Ave., No K -012a Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3966 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X 0 Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type 0 Certified Mail ❑ Registered 0 Insured Mail 0 Expross Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service fabs!) 7010 0290•-0002 2752 6502 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 -D -D ru 1.11 r- ru ru c=i rr ru ED r - U.S. Postal Service', CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) 7010 0290 0002 2752 For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com, us. cARBoote Co Postage Certified Fee Return Recelpt Foe (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee {Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 0543 rikot $0. 85. '44/20/20 4.31-1(? Sent To ,.!reet, Apt. No.; orPQ Box No. City, Slate, ZIP+4 PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse tor Instructions U.S. Postal Service', CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.como KAU16 40 73' Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee {Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees /20/2012 Sent To .gtreet, Apt. No.; or PO Pox No. Ctty, State, ZIP+4 PS Form 3800, August 2006 - See Reverse for Instructions co L.r) ru r- ru ru rzi D D D I1 RJ 1-1 r - U.S. Postal Service,' CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic !Ail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.conu, katil 11 A [1 - Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees Sent To Street, Apt. No.; or PO Sox No. 80.45 82.95 82.35 80.00 $ 85.75 0543 07 i*f 0/2012 Cdy, state, ZIP -i4 PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse for instructions Er ru u1 r - RJ ru tl co rnJr D 1-9 U.S. Postal Servicem • CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For deiivery Information visit our website at www.usps.coma MU CREEK CO 81656 Postage $ Certified Fee Return Reneipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees Sent To 80.45 0543 :gtreet, Apt. No.; or PO Box No, City, State, Z!P+4 PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse for instructions SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. IN Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. II Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association Inc c/o Steve Coley, Manager 14913 Hwy 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 A. Signature X - ecoived by ( Printed (/)f) 1 Agent D Addressee C.);t1 of De ery D. Is delivery address different from item 1'? Y If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Type O Certified Mail O Registered 0 Insured Mail 0 Express Mail 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 0.0.0, 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) D Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer fmm service label) 7010 0290 0002 2752 6458 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Donesti.. Ri'ttrt 102595-02-M-1540