HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000199.tiff P7
January 29, 2000
goanna &kata
Board of County Commissioners ,, O 930x Sos
Weld County
P O Box 758 ri^l:tc+. V. '
Greeley, Co 80632
Re: Docket #: 2000-05
Hall-Irwin Construction Co.
I have several concerns regarding the Hall-Irwin Construction Co. file. I don't
know if my concerns would be covered by the Site Specific Development Plan and
Amended special Review Permit #1172 since I have not seen either document.
Therefore, I would like to list my concerns and request that you address these
issues when making your decision.
Concern #1: On Thursday, January 20, 2000 at approximately 2:15 P.M. I was
traveling on WCR2 going east to Highway 85. I drove up behind a large truck
traveling on WCR2 near the stop light at Highway 85. The only reason it caught
my attention was because it was dropping large rocks from the back tailgate of the
truck. The tailgate appeared to be closed, but every time the truck hit a small
bump or applied its brakes a large amount of rocks, not gravel but rocks which
were 2 — 3inches in size, fell onto the highway. The truck turned south on
Highway 85, which was the direction I was also going. Once the truck drove onto
Highway 85 it continued dropping these rocks creating a hazard for any vehicle
driving behind it. I attempted to pass the truck, but because of the rocks falling
from the back of this truck were bouncing around on the highway, I slowed down
and stayed far behind the truck. The truck turned off and went west on Highway 7.
As he was slowing down to turn off to get onto Highway 7, he continued dropping
these rocks on the highway. I believe the driver was not aware of this problem. I
did obtain his truck license number and immediately called Hall-Irwin to inquire if
they had just loaded a truck with that license number. I explained to him my
concern of the danger these rocks created when any vehicle driving over them
could cause the rocks to fly up, hit and crack windshields. I don't know if this is
EXHIBIT
aa'v-()/99 &Safi/703
a responsibility of Hall-Irwin but if they are loading landscaping material,
including rocks, then I would ask you to address the problem created by trucks
leaving their facility which would cause the above problem on county and state
highways.
I also called Camas Gravel Pit which is located south of Hall-Irwin's pit. The
gentlemen I spoke to at Camas said they do not load rocks from that location so he
was sure it was not his truck.
My second concern is regarding the designated roadway use of Weld County Road
2. Will vehicles entering and leaving this site be traveling only east on WCR 2 or
are they granted the right to travel in both directions. I would have concerns if
they are granted the right to travel west on WCR 2. Also is there a specified
number of trucks allowed per day. As you may be aware, the Camas gravel pit,
which is located just south of Hall-Irwin's pit is requesting an increase in their
truck traffic. Will WCR2 be able to handle the increased traffic from both gravel
pits?
I would appreciate your consideration of my concerns as you make a decision on
this matter
Re pectfully
% 1h✓ ly lGt % ( 111
Joanna Sakata
PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS: //.� S , 113.?Lbo . THE SIGN SHALL BE
POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE
EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A
PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL
POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN
AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE
PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR USR- MS- .
THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY:
NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN
SIGNAT R OR PERSON POSTING SIGN
STATE OF COLORADO)
)ss.
COUNTY OF WELD )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS 025" DAY OF 0- Ate` ,71 c,2-CC0
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: CO - 03 0)ad a
THIS FORM SHALL BE PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE FILE FOR THE ABOVE CASE.
4 EXHIBIT
i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 8
� I) 999 le STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, CO 80202-2488
http://www.epa.goviregion08
MAR 16 2000
Ref 8RC
Mr. Jeff Gregg, Vice President
Hall-Irwin Companies
P. O. Box 519
Greeley, CO 80632
Mr.Peter Baurer
Ms. Cindy Baurer
754 Weld County Road 23 3/4
Brighton, CO 80601
Mr. Carl Eiberger
754 Weld County Road 23 3/4
Brighton, CO 80601
Jeffrey W. Schwarz
Massey Semenoff Stem& Schwarz, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
730 17th Street, Suite 330
Denver, CO 80202
Re: Corrected Copy of Findings of Violation and
Order for Compliance
Docket No.: CWA-8-99-23
Dear Mr. Gregg, Mr. &Mrs. Baurer, Mr. Eiberger, and Mr. Schwarz:
Enclosed is a corrected copy of the Findings of Violation and Order for Compliance
("ORDER")for Docket No. CWA-8-99-23. The one sent to you previously had not been filed
with the Regional Hearing Clerk nor did it have the docket number. Therefore, I am sending you
a replacement copy of the document.
e County P1alf,;;;K : ,
4 EXHIBIT
OPrint- - a
::AMA#N72.
When contacting the Agency regarding this issue please reference the docket number of
this Order. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 303-312-6765.
Sincerely,
Tina Artemis
Regional Hearing Clerk
Enclosure
cc: Marc Weiner, 8ENF-L
Barbara Conklin, 8ENF-T
David Mehan, Wright Water Engineers
Kathryn Schenk,USACE, Omaha Dist.
Lee Carlson,U.S. Fish&Wildlife
J. David Holm, Colorado Dept of Health
Timothy Carey, U.S. Corp. of Engineers
Shani L. Eastin,Weld County Planning Dept
Carl B. Mount, Dept. of Natural Resources
00 MAR I 5 Air 8: 08
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
E Fr,
HEM
)
In The Matter of: ) FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
AND
Hall-Irwin Companies ) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
P.O. Box 519 ) FOR COMPLIANCE
Greeley, CO 80632 )
)
Peter Baurer )
Cindy Baurer )
754 Weld County Road 23% )
Brighton, CO 80601 )
)
Carl Eiberger )
754 Weld County Road 23% )
Brighton, CO 80601 j
) DOCKET NO. CWA-8-99-23
)
RESPONDENTS. )
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The following FINDINGS are made and ORDER issued pursuant to the authority vested
in the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") by Sections
308 and 309 of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the "Act"), 33 U.S.C. Sections 1318 and 1319.
These authorities have been properly delegated to the undersigned. The Order is based on the
findings of violation of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)),which,
among other things, prohibits the discharge of pollutants (i.e., dredged or fill material) into Waters
of the United States except as in compliance with a permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the
CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
1. Hall-Irwin Companies ("Hall-Irwin") is a construction company that conducts surface
extraction of construction materials (sand and gravel mining) on land in Section 36, Township IN,
1
Range 67W, in Weld County, near Brighton, Colorado and elsewhere in Colorado. Hall Irwin
Companies is located at 3026 4"' Ave., Greeley, Colorado and its business address is P.O. Box
519, Greeley, Colorado, 80632.
2. Peter and Cindy Baurer and Carl Eiberger own and lease to Hall-Irwin Companies the
property, Section 36, Township 1N, Range 67W, in Weld County, near Brighton, Colorado
where the wetlands are located. The address for the Baurer's and Mr. Eiberger is 754 Weld
County Road 23 %, Brighton, Colorado, 80601.
3. Hall-Irwin Companies, Peter and Cindy Baurer and Carl Eiberger or the"Respondents' are
each a "person" as defined in Section 502(5) CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).
4. In approximately June of 1998, Respondent Hall-Irwin or its agents or contractors
discharged sidecast earthen material excavated from wetland areas and installed a bentonite slurry
wall in wetlands. These delineated wetland areas are adjacent to the South Platte River in Section
36, Township IN, Range 67 W, Weld County.
5. The discharges described in Paragraph 4, above, were performed using common earth
moving equipment operated by Respondent Hall-Irwin or its agents or contractors. As stated by
Respondent Hall-Irwin in its response to EPA's information request under § 308 of the CWA. the
pieces of equipment used in the installation of the slurry wall were as follows:
a. Hitachi 750 Excavator leased and operated by Respondent Hall Irwin
b. Dresser Model 6200 Excavator owned and operated by Respondent Hall Irwin
c. Dresser TD-15 Dozer owned and operated by Respondent Hall Irwin
d. Dresser TD-25 Dozer owned and operated by Respondent Hall Irwin
6. The South Platte River, its adjacent wetlands, and its side channels or tributaries are each a
"navigable water" within the meaning of Section 502 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362.
7. The machinery and earthmoving equipment referenced in Paragraph 5, above, are each a
"point source" within the meaning of the definition set forth in Section 502(14) of the CWA,
33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
8. The discharged materials referenced in Paragraph 4, above, are each a "pollutant" within
the meaning of the definition set forth in Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1362(6) and 40 C.F.R. § 230.2.
9. The discharge in the wetlands adjacent to the South Platte River described in Paragraph 4,
above, constitutes a "discharge of pollutants" within the meaning of the definition set forth in
Section 502(12) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12).
•
10. Respondents are therefore subject to the provisions of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.,
including Sections 301(a), 308, 309(a), and 404 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1318, 1319(a),
2
and 1344, respectively.
11. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the"Corps") have determined that the
discharges described in Paragraph 4, above, were carried out without the required authorization
from the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
12. Since discharging the dredged or fill material as described in Paragraphs 4 and 5, above,
none of the Respondents have been authorized by any permit issued under CWA Section 404,
33 U.S.C. § 1344, to allow the unauthorized discharges to remain.
13. The wetlands, and South Platte River side channels and tributaries, filled and disturbed by
the activities described in Paragraph 4, above, are part of an aquatic and riparian system that
provided various functions and values, including: wildlife habitat for waterfowl, raptors, and other
birds; deer, and other mammals, and fish; water quality enhancement; food chain support; ground
water recharge and discharge; flood conveyance, storage or peak attenuation; and recreation and
aesthetics.
14. Each discharge of pollutants from a point source by any Respondent between
approximately June of 1998 through the present into "navigable waters" without first obtaining the
requisite authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, constitutes a
violation of Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), and the Respondents are jointly and
severally liable for the violations.
15. Each day the discharges remain in the wetlands described in Paragraph 4, above, without
the required permit issued pursuant to Section 404 constitutes an additional day of violation of
Section 301.
16. Although Respondent Hall-Irwin has removed illegally sidecast materials discharged in the
wetlands described in Paragraph 4, above, the extent and impacts of any remaining discharges of
pollutants, including but not limited to the slurry wall, remains unknown.
17. The environmental harm of the violations can be remedied through appropriate
investigations, proper planning and through commonly used construction, digging, revegetation
and best management practices to restore or mitigate the affected wetlands and protect water
quality and the environment.
18. Activities to be carried out under this Order are remedial, not punitive, and are necessary to
achieve the Clean Water Act's objective"to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters." CWA Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (a). The
removal, restoration, and stabilization described in Paragraph 17, above, is appropriate to alleviate
actual and potential harm to water quality and aquatic habitat caused by Respondents unauthorized
activities.
19. These FINDINGS OF VIOLATION and the ORDER which follows have been made after
3
consultation and coordination with the United States Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha District.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF VIOLATION, and pursuant to Section 308 and
309(a), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1318 and 1319(a), it is hereby ordered:
1. Respondents shall immediately terminate any and all discharges of dredged or fill material,
now and in the future, l:o waters of the United States, without prior authorization by the Corps
pursuant to a valid permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
2. Respondent Hall-Irwin shall:
A. Submit a plan ("the Plan") for an independent analysis of the hydrology of the area and
the impact of the slurry wall on wetlands. The Plan shall be submitted within 30-days of the
effective date of this Order and shall:
i. Be developed by a professional hydrologist and a wetlands ecologist whose
qualifications are acceptable to EPA for approval in advance. The professional
resumes of the Respondent Hall-Irwin's proposed consultants shall be submitted to
EPA within 7 days of the effective date of this Order.
ii. Specify methodologies to investigate and document the amount and location of
all dredged or fill material that remains in wetlands due to construction of the slurry
wall.
iii. Specify methodologies to assess the short-term and long-term effects of the
entire slurry wall on the on-site (on the mine lease) and off-site wetlands including
the wetlands northeast of the mine site in the Bauer and Eiberger property. For the
purpose of this Plan"long-term" shall mean at least 10 years after the discharge and
"short-term" shall mean 1 to 3 years from the date of the discharge of fill material.
iv. Specify a schedule for the completion of the investigation and analysis that
encompass at least 6 months of hydrologic data, including the seasonal peak
hydrograph of the South Platte River at this location and provide for delivery of a
report ("Report") documenting the results of the investigations and analyses no
later than September 15, 2000.
v. The Report to be prepared pursuant to the Plan shall include proposals to
remedy any short-term or long-term, direct, indirect or temporal, impacts to
wetlands identified by the investigation and analysis. Proposals shall at a minimum
address the cost, feasibility, reliability and timing of each of the following:
4
a. on-site restoration
b. on-site mitigation
c. off-site mitigation
Proposals described in the Report shall also address items II through IX in the
"Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines. San Francisco District
Corps of Engineers" (Appendix A) of this document. Where notification to the
Corps is referenced in these items of Appendix A, for the purposes of this
document, EPA shall be the contact instead.
B. Upon EPA's approval of the Plan for the analysis submitted pursuant to Paragraph A,
above, Respondent Hall-Irwin shall conduct the analysis consistent with the Plan as approved,
conditionally approved or modified by EPA and deliver five copies of the Report of the analysis,
including raw data, to EPA no later than September 15, 2000.
3. Completion of the above analysis and Report will not preclude EPA from ordering
additional activities or permit applications to be completed by the Respondents to mitigate impacts
to the wetlands that may be identified by the analysis. Upon acceptance by EPA of a restoration or
mitigation proposal, Respondent Hall-Irwin shall seek an after-the-fact permit from the Corps :for
any fill material such as bentonite that will remain in the wetland areas as a result of the resolution
of this enforcement action.
4. Any deliverables, plans, reports, specifications, schedules and attachments required by ibis
Order are, upon approval by EPA, incorporated into this Order. Any non-compliance with such
EPA-approved deliverables, plans, reports, specifications, schedules, and attachments shall be
deemed a failure to comply with this Administrative Order and subject to EPA enforcement.
5. Respondents shall maintain records documenting their compliance with the Clean Water
Act for all future operations involving waters of the United States.
6. This Order is not a permit or an authorization to place or discharge dredged or fill material
in waters of the United States. Respondents shall consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Tri-Lakes Project Office, 9307 State Hwy 121, Littleton, Colorado 80126-6901 (303/979-41:20)
to determine if'any work to be performed pursuant to this Order requires a permit from the Corps
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If necessary, such a permit shall be obtained prior to
implementing the work.
7. This Order shall in no way limit or otherwise affect EPA's authority to enter, conduct
inspections, have access to records, or monitor compliance pursuant to any statute, regulation,
permit, or court order. Owners shall ensure that Respondent Hall-Irwin is allowed access to the
property to carry out all the provisions of this Order.
8. Respondents shall submit all notifications and correspondence to:
5
•
Barbara.Conklin
Section 404 Enforcement Program
Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental
Justice (8ENF-T)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
999 181:h Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
Telephone: (303) 312-6407
Facsimile: (303) 312-6409
9. This Administrative Order shall be effective upon receipt by Respondents. Within 5 days of
receiving this Order, Respondents shall inform EPA in writing of their intent to fully comply with
this Order. EPA suggests Respondents meet with EPA if there are concerns or questions about
the requirements of this Administrative Order.
Be advised that 33 U.S.C. §1319(d) authorizes civil penalties of up to $27,500 per day for
each violation of the Clean Water Act Section 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and Section 1319(c)
authorizes fines and imprisonment for willful or negligent violations of the Act. Section 309(g), 3
U.S.C. § 1319(g) authorizes EPA to impose administrative penalties for violations of the Act.
Issuance of this Order shall not be deemed to be an election by the United States to forego any
civil or criminal action to seek penalties, fines, or other appropriate relief under the Clean Water
Act for the violations giving rise to the Order. Further, the Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of
1984 provides for fines in excess of the amounts specified in the statute under certain
circumstances.
Compliance with the terms and conditions of the Order shall not be construed to relieve
Respondents of their obligation to comply with any applicable federal, state or local law.
DATED this / /~ day of March, 2000
en Carol Rushin
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Enforcement, Compliance
and Environmental Justice
6
OTIS,COAN & STEWART, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Fred L.Otis nnhngL r West Greeley Law Coder DENVER METRO
G.Brent Coen rnur:.y pla 1812 56TH AVENUE (303)659-757,5
Michael D.Stewart t el d GREELEY,COLORADO 80634
(970)330-6700
FAX
,.-1 6OO6OO (970)330-296)
Fi
1.4t, 1 MAIL
pt w ` OCS300(rr1,aol.cont
February 24, 2000
Ann Best Johnson
Weld County Planning Department Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Hall-Irwin Construction Company/USR Amendment Application for USR 1172
Dear Ms. Johnson::
As we previously discussed, Lot C identified on the existing and amended USR Plat, is owned by third
parties and is subject to a Sand and Gravel Lease held by Hall-Irwin Construction Corporation. You will
recall that Lot B within the existing USR area is actually owned by an entity related to the Hall-Irwin group.
We previously indicated to you that the owners of Lot C have suggested to Hall-Irwin that an amendment
of the existing Use by Special Review Permit would either be a violation of the terms of the lease and
therefore a default, or Hall-Irwin cannot get an amendment to the USR permit without their consent.
Obviously, Hall-Irwin has a contrary view of the Sand and Gravel Mining Lease and the provisions the
owners of Lot C are interpreting.
We have discussed that there may be alternative ways to approach the Hall-Irwin landscape materials sales
that would not involve an amendment to the USR Permit. On Tuesday,February 22, 2000,we discussed
the concept of possibly stacking USR Permits on a single property. Mother way to state this is to allow
more than one Use by Special Review Permit for a single property. We can see several circumstances in
which the ability to have more than one USR Permit would be advantageous to Weld County property
owners. The first,obviously, is the situation surrounding the Hall-Irwin sand and gravel mining operation
discussed above. 'The mining permit and the USR Permit cover property owned by two different parties.
Lot C is covered by a Sand and Gravel Mining Lease that contains provisions the Lot C property owner
thinks prohibits an amendment of the USR Permit on Lot B.
A second situation for you to consider is a situation.involving a USR Permit that would allow anything from
a sand and gravel mining operation to commercial sales of nursery products,and then the need to add a cell
tower use to the property. In that situation, there are very different goals, objectives and conditions for
approval associated with each use.Therefore,it would be advantageous to actually have two separate USR
Permits covering each use on the same property. There may be a single property owner but there are
I EXHIBIT
Ann Best Johnson
February 24, 2000
Page 2
different parties involved with the different uses. The cell tower owner would likely be uncomfortable with
the risk that its USR Permit may terminate as a result of the other USR user's actions. Each USR use
would have its own permit to avoid being negatively affected by the other.
Generally,the ability to have more than one Use by Special Review Permit associated with a single property
would relate to circumstances where one permit covers property owned by more than one party,or where
one property has more than one specified use that requires a USR Permit. There may be other examples
that would suggest that stacking USR Permits on a specific property is appropriate. The burden on the
applicant would be: essentially the same whether a new permit is being granted or an amendment to an
existing permit is being granted. We think any additional burden related to record keeping and enforcement
are substantially outweighed by the benefits to Weld County property owners of having the flexibility to
have two separately authorized uses on a single property.
Another alternative that we have discussed, which may not require an amendment to the Use by Special
Review Permit would be to better define the limits of possible landscape material sales at the site. We
could utilize the landscape materials area as a display area for purposes of displaying products that would
be sold and delivered from other Hall-Irwin sites. Under this concept,Hall-Irwin would sell materials that
are produced from the existing mining operation but would only display materials produced from other
locations. This would eliminate some loading of trucks or other vehicles at the USR Permit area,and would
allow Hall-Irwin to display the products produced from other locations. Under this concept, Hall-Irwin
would have approximately 10-15 piles of different types of material on display within the landscape
materials area.
A third alternative we have discussed is to sell imported landscape materials,but limit the amount that can
be purchased at the USR site to 10 tons per load. We have also considered limiting the materials sold at
the site to materials excavated from the site and/or processed in some way at the site. We need to know
whether crushing, screening,or washing materials from another location for sale on site would be allowed
under the existing permit.
You mentioned during our last meeting that you had a couple of other ideas you wanted to discuss with the
other planning staff members. Any suggestions you or the other staff members may have would be greatly
appreciated. Should you have any questions whatsoever with regard to Hall-Irwin's operation, please do
not hesitate to contact me. Additionally, if you would like to discuss any of the alternative ideas listed in
this letter or that the planning staff suggests, I would be happy to meet with you to discuss the same We
sincerely appreciate all of your assistance with this matter, and look forward to receiving input from the
planning staff regarding alternative ways to approach this problem.
Sincerely,
.,_
G. Brent Coan
/gh
S\Wp60A\H.l-bwm\BRIGHTON\MINING.LSE\coneepondence\WeldCwntyPlamng.02-342000fim
Febnury 24,2000(5:1 KPM)
L. 1
4,4
1,4,
Kit1;\:,
Wilk FAX TRANSMISSION
COLORADO WELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
FAx: 970-304-6498
PHONE. 970-353-6100, ExT. 3540
To: G. Brent Coan Date: March 1, 2000
Fax: 330-2969 Pages: 1
Phone: 330-6700
From: Anne Best Johnson
Subject: AmUSR-1172
COMMENTS: Last Friday (2-25-00), staff concluded that an amendment to USR 1172 is
required for the following scenarios:
1. The sale of landscape materials from the proposed location as defined in application
materials for AmUSR-1 172.
2. The sale of landscape materials from the parcel of land adjacent to and west of Phase 2A
as indicated in application materials for AmUSR-1172. Should this site be utilized fin-
the sale of landscape materials mined on-site of USR-1172 or the sale of imported
materials, the new parcel of land shall be included into the USR-1172 site through an
amendment process.
3. If the ski lake(s) are being used as a commercial business, this use will require an
amendment to USR-1172. Through this amendment process, USR-1172 may be
amended in two different ways. The first would be to amend USR-1 172 to include the
commercial ski lake. The second process is to amend out the portion of land the ski lake
is on and then to apply for a separate USR for the ski lake.
Please feel free to contact me with further questions.
CONFIDENTIAL
This facsimile is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged,confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of ibis
facsimile is not the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering the facsimile to the
intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and
return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S.Postal Service. Thank you.
4 moan
0;2 f '7 '
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
)
In The Matter of: ) FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
AND
Hall-Irwin Companies ) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
P.O. Box 519 ) FOR COMPLIANCE
Greeley, CO 80632 )
Peter Baurer )
Cindy Baurer ) d( ` ''
754 Weld County Road 23% ) '
Brighton, CO 80601 )
Carl Eiberger )
754 Weld County Road 23% )
Brighton, CO 80601 )
)
) DOCKET NO.
)
RESPONDENTS. )
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The following FINDINGS are made and ORDER issued pursuant to the authority vested
in the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency("EPA")by Sections
308 and 309 of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the "Act"), 33 U.S.C. Sections 1318 and 1319.
These authorities have been properly delegated to the undersigned. The Order is based on the
findings of violation of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)), which,
among other things, prohibits the discharge of pollutants (i.e., dredged or fill material) into Waters
of the United States except as in compliance with a permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the
CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
1. Hall-Irwin Companies("Hall-Irwin") is a construction company that conducts surface
extraction of construction materials (sand and gravel mining) on land in Section 36, Township IN,
1 4 EXHIBIT
Pim ; 1171
Range 67W, in Weld County, near Brighton, Colorado and elsewhere in Colorado. Hall Irwin
Companies is located at 3026 4'"Ave., Greeley, Colorado and its business address is P.O. Box
519, Greeley, Colorado, 80632.
2. Peter and Cindy Baurer and Carl Eiberger own and lease to Hall-Irwin Companies the
property, Section 36, Township 1N, Range 67W, in Weld County, near Brighton, Colorado
where the wetlands are located. The address for the Baurer's and Mr. Eiberger is 754 Weld
County Road 23 %, Brighton, Colorado, 80601.
3. Hall-Irwin Companies, Peter and Cindy Baurer and Carl Eiberger or the"Respondents" are
each a "person" as defined in Section 502(5) CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).
4. In approximately June of 1998, Respondent Hall-Irwin or its agents or contractors
discharged sidecast earthen material excavated from wetland areas and installed a bentonite slurry
wall in wetlands. These delineated wetland areas are adjacent to the South Platte River in Section
36, Township 1N, Range 67 W, Weld County.
5. The discharges described in Paragraph 4, above, were performed using common earth
moving equipment operated by Respondent Hall-Irwin or its agents or contractors. As stated by
Respondent Hall-Irwin in its response to EPA's information request under § 308 of the CWA, the
pieces of equipment used in the installation of the slurry wall were as follows:
a. Hitachi 750 Excavator leased and operated by Respondent Hall Irwin
b. Dresser Model 6200 Excavator owned and operated by Respondent Hall Irwin
c. Dresser TD-15 Dozer owned and operated by Respondent Hall Irwin
d. Dresser TD-25 Dozer owned and operated by Respondent Hall Irwin
6. The South Pllatte River, its adjacent wetlands, and its side channels or tributaries are each a
"navigable water" within the meaning of Section 502 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362.
7. The machinery and earthmoving equipment referenced in Paragraph 5, above, are each a
"point source" within the meaning of the definition set forth in Section 502(14) of the CWA,
33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
8. The discharged materials referenced in Paragraph 4, above, are each a "pollutant" within
the meaning of the definition set forth in Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
§ 1362(6) and 40 C.F.R. § 230.2.
9. The discharge in the wetlands adjacent to the South Platte River described in Paragraph 4,
above, constitutes a "discharge of pollutants" within the meaning of the definition set forth in
Section 502(12) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12).
10. Respondents are therefore subject to the provisions of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seat .,
including Sections 301(a), 308, 309(a), and 404 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1318, 1319(a),
2
and 1344, respectively.
11. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the"Corps") have determined that the
discharges described in Paragraph 4, above, were carried out without the required authorization
from the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
12. Since discharging the dredged or fill material as described in Paragraphs 4 and 5, above,
none of the Respondents have been authorized by any permit issued under CWA Section 404,
33 U.S.C. § 1344, to allow the unauthorized discharges to remain.
13. The wetlands, and South Platte River side channels and tributaries, filled and disturbed by
the activities described in Paragraph 4, above, are part of an aquatic and riparian system that
provided various functions and values, including: wildlife habitat for waterfowl, raptors, and other
birds; deer, and other mammals, and fish; water quality enhancement; food chain support; ground
water recharge and discharge; flood conveyance, storage or peak attenuation; and recreation and
aesthetics.
14. Each discharge of pollutants from a point source by any Respondent between
approximately June of 1998 through the present into "navigable waters" without first obtaining the
requisite authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, constitutes a
violation of Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), and the Respondents are jointly and
severally liable for the violations.
15. Each day the discharges remain in the wetlands described in Paragraph 4, above, without
the required permit issued pursuant to Section 404 constitutes an additional day of violation of
Section 301.
16. Although Respondent Hall-Irwin has removed illegally sidecast materials discharged in the
wetlands described in Paragraph 4, above, the extent and impacts of any remaining discharges of
pollutants, including,but not limited to the slurry wall, remains unknown.
17. The environmental harm of the violations can be remedied through appropriate
investigations, proper planning and through commonly used construction, digging, revegetation
and best management practices to restore or mitigate the affected wetlands and protect water
quality and the environment.
18. Activities to be carried out under this Order are remedial, not punitive, and are necessary to
achieve the Clean Water Act's objective"to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters." CWA Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (a). The
removal, restoration, and stabilization described in Paragraph 17, above, is appropriate to alleviate
actual and potential harm to water quality and aquatic habitat caused by Respondents unauthorized
activities.
19. These FINDINGS OF VIOLATION and the ORDER which follows have been made after
3
consultation and coordination with the United States Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha District.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF VIOLATION, and pursuant to Section 308 and
309(a), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1318 and 1319(a), it is hereby ordered:
Respondents shall immediately terminate any and all discharges of dredged or fill material,
now and in the future, to waters of the United States, without prior authorization by the Corps
pursuant to a valid permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
2. Respondent Hall-Irwin shall:
A. Submit a plan ("the Plan") for an independent analysis of the hydrology of the area and
the impact of the slurry wall on wetlands. The Plan shall be submitted within 30-days of the
effective date of this Order and shall:
i. Be developed by a professional hydrologist and a wetlands ecologist whose
qualifications are acceptable to EPA for approval in advance. The professional
resumes of the Respondent Hall-Irwin's proposed consultants shall be submitted to
EPA within 7 days of the effective date of this Order.
ii. Specify methodologies to investigate and document the amount and location of
all dredged or fill material that remains in wetlands due to construction of the slurry
wall.
iii. Specify methodologies to assess the short-term and long-term effects of the
entire slurry wall on the on-site (on the mine lease) and off-site wetlands including
the wetlands northeast of the mine site in the Bauer and Eiberger property. For the
purpose of this Plan"long-term" shall mean at least 10 years after the discharge and
"short-term" shall mean 1 to 3 years from the date of the discharge of fill material.
iv. Specify a schedule for the completion of the investigation and analysis that
encompass at least 6 months of hydrologic data, including the seasonal peak
hydrograph of the South Platte River at this location and provide for delivery of a
report ("Report") documenting the results of the investigations and analyses no
later than September 15, 2000.
v. The Report to be prepared pursuant to the Plan shall include proposals to
remedy any short-term or long-term, direct, indirect or temporal, impacts to
wetlands identified by the investigation and analysis. Proposals shall at a minimum
address the cost, feasibility, reliability and timing of each of the following:
4
a. on-site restoration
b. on-site mitigation
c. off-site mitigation
Proposals described in the Report shall also address items II through IX in the
"Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines, San Francisco District
Corps of Engineers" (Appendix A) of this document. Where notification to the
Corps is referenced in these items of Appendix A, for the purposes of this
document, EPA shall be the contact instead.
B. Upon EPA's approval of the Plan for the analysis submitted pursuant to Paragraph A,
above, Respondent Hall-Irwin shall conduct the analysis consistent with the Plan as approved.
conditionally approved or modified by EPA and deliver five copies of the Report of the analysis,
including raw data, to EPA no later than September 15, 2000.
3. Completion of the above analysis and Report will not preclude EPA from ordering
additional activities or permit applications to be completed by the Respondents to mitigate impacts
to the wetlands that may be identified by the analysis. Upon acceptance by EPA of a restoration or
mitigation proposal, Respondent Hall-Irwin shall seek an after-the-fact permit from the Corps for
any fill material such as bentonite that will remain in the wetland areas as a result of the resolution
of this enforcement action.
4. Any deliverables, plans, reports, specifications, schedules and attachments required by this
Order are, upon approval by EPA, incorporated into this Order. Any non-compliance with such
EPA-approved deliverables, plans, reports, specifications, schedules, and attachments shall be
deemed a failure to comply with this Administrative Order and subject to EPA enforcement.
5. Respondents shall maintain records documenting their compliance with the Clean Water
Act for all future operations involving waters of the United States.
6. This Order is not a permit or an authorization to place or discharge dredged or fill material
in waters of the United States. Respondents shall consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Tri-Lakes Project Office, 9307 State Hwy 121, Littleton, Colorado 80126-6901 (303/979-4120)
to determine if any work to be performed pursuant to this Order requires a permit from the Corps
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If necessary, such a permit shall be obtained prior to
implementing the work.
7. This Order shall in no way limit or otherwise affect EPA's authority to enter, conduct
inspections, have access to records, or monitor compliance pursuant to any statute, regulation,
permit, or court order. Owners shall ensure that Respondent Hall-Irwin is allowed access to the
property to carry out all the provisions of this Order.
8. Respondents shall submit all notifications and correspondence to:
5
Barbara Conklin
Section 404 Enforcement Program
Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental
Justice(8ENF-T)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
Telephone: (303) 312-6407
Facsimile: (303) 312-6409
9. This Administrative Order shall be effective upon receipt by Respondents. Within 5 days of
receiving this Order, Respondents shall inform EPA in writing of their intent to fully comply with
this Order. EPA suggests Respondents meet with EPA if there are concerns or questions about
the requirements of this Administrative Order.
Be advised that 33 U.S.C. §1319(d) authorizes civil penalties of up to $27,500 per day for
each violation of the Clean Water Act Section 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, and Section 1319(c)
authorizes fines and imprisonment for willful or negligent violations of the Act. Section 309(g), 3 3
U.S.C. § 1319(g) authorizes EPA to impose administrative penalties for violations of the Act
Issuance of this Order shall not be deemed to be an election by the United States to forego any
civil or criminal action to seek penalties, fines, or other appropriate relief under the Clean Water
Act for the violations giving rise to the Order. Further, the Criminal Fine Enforcement Act of
1984 provides for fines in excess of the amounts specified in the statute under certain
circumstances.
Compliance with the terms and conditions of the Order shall not be construed to relieve
Respondents of their obligation to comply/ with any applicable federal, state or local law.
DATED this /3 ` day of March, 2000
G ' Carol Rushin
Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Enforcement, Compliance
and Environmental Justice
6
APPENDIX A
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines
7
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
i z SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT,CORPS O/ WNGINWWRf
211 NAM STREWS
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA fin- 1f0S
HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROPOSAL
GUIDELINES
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
EFFECTIVE 10/91
Or
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
. T SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT. CORPS OF tNOINEERS
Sit MAIN STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA W el- IISOS
HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROPOSAL GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
•
I. PURPOSE OF GUIDELINES
These guidelines are designed to assist applicants in the preparation of
mitigation and monitoring plans associated with projects requiring Department of the
Army(Corps)permits.
Submission of a mitigation and monitoring plan as described in these
guidelines will not be a substitute for complete compliance with the Memorandum of
Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the
Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation under the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)1 Guidelines dated November 7. 1989. which took effect on February 7, 1990.
Therefore,mitigation proposals will only be considered if avoidance and minimization
have been fully pursued.
The guidelines are supplied early in the permit application process to ensure
that the applicant is aware of mitigation and monitoring components that may be
related to the successful completion of the permitting process. Although individual
components may not be applicable to every project, a proposal should address each
heading in the guidelines. In the annotated portion of the guidelines.we have noted
the kinds of information to be included under earth heading,as applicable. (Appendix
A of the annotated guidelines provides text and f lgure format guidance).
•
II. PLACE OF MITIGATION PLAN IN PERMIT PROCEDURE.
A. Individual Permit
If an applicant is applying for an individual permit and proposes
mitigation,it is preferable that a preliminary ary mitigation and monitoring plan be
submitted along with application materials.A detailed preliminary mitigation
plan should generally not be completed until a final jurisdictionalmap has been
accepted by the Corps and the area offill to be mitigated for has been identified.
The final mitigation plan will usually be submitted following the public
comment period and Corps review of the preliminary plan.
dIP i
•
• B. Nationwide Permit
If an applicant is requesting confirmation of a projects qualification for
a Department of the Army nationwide permit, and proposes mitigation. a
detailed mitigation and monitoring plan must be submitted with the request for
confirmation
C. Final Submission
The final sulunission of all mitigation and monitoring plans should bt in
a SINGLE document It should contain up-to-date versions of all materials,even
if other versions were submitted earlier in the application process.
III. CORPS POLICY
In general. the Corps goal's to permit no net loss of functions and values of
wetland habitat The replacement ratio of wetland acreage required to achieve this
goal is typically at least 1:1. The attainment of replacement functions and values
and an acreage replacement ratio are usually included in final success criteria
associated with the completion of a permittee's mitigation responsibility.
dpIV. COMPLIANCE ASSURANCES
An applicant may be required to prepare a letter of credit tied to the attainment
of agreed upon final success criteria.
V. PERSONS TO CONTACT WITH QUESTIONS .
For answers to questions regarding the interpretation of these guidelines.
contact Molly Martindale of the Compl+anre.Section at 744-3318 Ext. 228.
For answers to questions regarding acceptable mitigation for a specific project, •
contact the person in the Environmental Analysis Section(for individual permits)or
the Area Manager (for nationwide permits)who is handling your permit request
•
11
HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROPOSAL GUIDELINES
� '
• ,SUGGESTED TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page in
Annotated
Outline
SUMMARY ,...1
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
A. Location of Project
B. Brief Summary of Overall Project
C. Responsible Parties
D. Jurisdictional Areas to be Filled
E. Type(s). Functions. and Values of the Jurisdictional Areas
U. GOAL OF MITIGATION 2
dipA. Type(s) of Habitat to be Created
B. Functions, and Values of Habitat to be Created
C. Time Lapse
M. FINAL SUCCESS CRITERIA 3
A. Target Fundtions and Values
B. Target Hydrological Regime
C. Target Jurisdictional Acreage to be Created
IV. PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE 3
A. Location and Size of Mitigation Area
B. Ownership Status
C. Existing Functions and Values of Mitigation Area
D. Present and Proposed Uses of Mitigation Area
• EUCJII
Annotated
Outline
E. Jurisdictional Delineation (if applicable)
F. Present and Proposed Uses of All Adjacent Areas
G. Zoning
V. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 5
A. Rationale for Expecting Implementation Success
B. Responsible Parties
C. Site Preparation
D. Planting Plan
E. Schedule
F. Irrigation Plan
G. As-Built Conditions
VI. MAINTENANCE DURING MONITORING PERIOD 7
A. Maintenance Activities
B. Responsible Parties
C. Schedule
VII. MONITORING PLAN
A. Performance Criteria
B. Monitoring Methods
C. Annual Reports
D. Schedule
•
it
Page In
•' tlruiotated
Outline
VIII. COMPLETION OF MITIGATION 8
A. Notification of Completion
B. Corps Confirmation
IX. CONTINGENCY MEASURES 9
A. Initialing Procedures
B.• Alternative Locations for Contingency Mitigation
C. Funding Mechanism
D. Responsible Parties
APPENDIX A
FORMAT INFORMATION
• A. Text Format Notes for Mitigation/Monitoring Proposals.
As-Built Reports. and Annual Reports 10
B. List of Figures to be Submitted 10
C. Figure Format Notes ...11
I). Schedule 11
•
HABITAT MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROPOSAL GUIDELINES
ANNOTATED OUTLINE
SUMMARY
Provide a one-page summary of report contents.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Location of Project
1. Describe.
' 2. Provide:
a) road map with site location dearly indicated
b) USGS quad map with project site outlined(clear photocopy
is acceptable).
B. Brief Summary of Overall Project
In one or two paragraphs.describe the overall project,(not just the
10 jurisdictional area to be filled). Include type of development and project
size.
C. Responsible Parties
Provide name(s), title(s). address(es), and phone number(s) of
applicant(s), including contact person(s) if applicant is a company, and
preparer(s) of mitigation plan.
D. Jurisdictional Areas to be Filled
Provide full size topo base map with vet hied Corps jurisdictional
area(s) and areas) of proposed fill outlined. (See Appendix Afor map
format information.)
E« Type(s). Functions, and Values of the Jurisdictional Areas
1. Type: e.g. seasonal wetland, vernal pool, freshwater marsh,
eelgrass bed, etc.
• 1
2. Functions and Values.
The Corps has not yet adopted formal procedures to assess
functions and values ofwettnnris. Therefore,to assist in evaluation of the
project,provide a summary of the functions and values of the wetland to
be filled prepared by a knowledgable professional. Any jurisdictional
areas other than wetlands should also be assessed for functions and
values. Examples of features to be addressed are:
Water Quality
• ground water
• recharge/rilcrharge
• • flood storage
• other
Habitat
•
• rare/endangered species
• known or probable wildlife use
• plant communities
• complete species list
• known or probable fish. shellfish. and aquatic invertebrate
use
• other
Recreational Use
• non-consumptive (e.g. birdwatrhing, walking)
• consumptive (e.g. fisbing, hunting)
IL GOAL OF MITIGATION
(i.e. the long-tam goals, which may not be reached until some years after the
applicant's mitigation responsibilites have been completed.)
A. Type(s) of Habitat to be Created
(Refer to Section LE.1. above.) If out-of-kind. present rationale.
B. Functions and Values of Habitat to be Created
(Refer to Section LE.2. above.) Identify, describe, and give location of any
local reference site if different from wetland to be filled.
dp C. Time Lapse
How many years is it likely to take for long-term goal habitat to develop?
M. FINAL SUCCESS CRITERIA
These are criteria that are proposed by the applicant for Corps approval and are
used to determine completion of pe nittee's mitigation responsibilities. Fulfillment
of these criteria should indicate that the mitigation area Is progressing well toward the
habitat type, functions, and values which constitute the long-term goals of this
mitigation. For mitigation plantings.final success criteria will not be considered to
have been met until a minimum of two years after all human support(e.g.
Irrigation. replanting. rodent control, fertilization) has ceased. Major factors to be
considered are:
A. Target Functions and Values
• wildlife species -
• % vegetation cover and/or density
• approximate plant height criteria (shrubs and trees)
• • plant and animal species diversity
• root development
• canopy stratification
• other quantifiable measures of success
B. Target Hydrological Regime
• source(s)of water
• discharge points
• • areas affected by seasonal flooding
• dlrec ions) of flow
• size (and map) of watershed.
C. Target Jurisdictional Acreage To be Created
Where applicable, a formal wetlands determination must be submitted
for COE approval as a part of final success criteria.
IV. PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE
A. Location and Size of Mitigation Area
1. Describe location,Including rationale for choice.Indicate distance
from project site if offslte.
3
•
2. Provide the following maps:
a) full-size copy of USGS quad map with mitigation location
outlined.
b) site location on a road map.
c) base topo map with proposed mitigation area(s)outlined and
acreage indicated. (See Appendix AforJigure format information.)
B. Ownership Status
1. Indicate who presently owns the mitigation site. If different from
permit applicant(s), what is availability of the property? Does the
property carry any easements or encroachments? If on public land.what
arrangements, if any. have been discussed with managing agency?
2. Indicate expected ownership of the mitigation area following
completion of the mitigation project. Who will be responsible for long-
term management and protection of the area? Has a long-term
management plan been prepared for the area? If entity other than
applicant will assume management responsibilities following completion
of mitigation project.is there a signed. written agreement that manager
will manage area In conformance with goals of the mitigation? Include
AI copies of any agreements.
3. Indicate what entity,if any.controls water flow to and/or from the
site. Who maintains water control structures? What arrangements
have been made to guarantee appropriate water flow in the mitigation
area during and after the establishment of the mitigation project?
C. Existing Functions and Values of Mitigation Area
(Refer to Section I. E. above.)
D. Present and Proposed Uses of Mitigation Area
•
Briefly describe all known present and proposed uses of mitigation.
area. Discuss non-native landscape plantings• pipelines, powerlines, roads,
distance and location of nearest structures, if any. etc. on property
containing mitigation site.
IS. Jurisdictional Delineation(if applicable)
If jurisdictional areas are already present on the mitigation site.describe.
Provide base topo map of site with jurisdictional areas (and any proposed fill)
indicated. Describe probable future of mitigation area as habitat if left
® undisturbed.
4
F. Present and Proposed Uses of AU Adjacent Areas
Briefly describe all known present and proposed uses of.all property
sharing a common border with the property containing the mitigation site.
G. Zoning
Give all present and proposed zoning designations for mitigation site and
adjoining properties, including city, county, BCDC, etc.
V. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
A. ' Rationale for Expecting Implementation Success
May refer to previous relevant experience of applicant and/or
implementation consultant or to other similar and successful mitigation
projects. Include hydrology and soils information.
B. Responsible Parties
Give name(s), title(s). address(es), and phone numbers of person(s)
responsible for implementing the mitigation project.
C. Site Preparation
1. Describe plans for grading, hydrologic rbanges,water control
structures, soil amendments, erosion control, bank stabilization,
equipment and procedures to be used, site access control. etc., as
applicable. Include a description of exotic vegetation control techniques,.
planting hole excavation methods (eg. auguring, band digging) and the
size of the planting hole (eg. twice size of container).
2. Provide base topo maps showing planned site preparation. (See
Appendix Afor figure format information.)
3. Provide representative cross-sections of mitigation site with
elevations and scale indicated.
4. Give name,title,address,and phone number of person supervising
or providing biological monitoring during grading activities.
• 5
• D. Planting Plan
1. Briefly describe planting plan and methods.
2. Provide a table of species to be planted, including numbers,
spacing, types of propagules. pot sizes, etc.
3. Indicate source-locale of seeds,plant plugs, cuttings. etc.
4. Show planting and species locations on a base topo map. (See
Appendix AforJlgureformat information) -
5. If transplanting to be done. describe storage method and
duration.
6. Describe any expected volunteer native revegetation that is
included in mitigation planning.
E. Schedule
Provide a schedule.in the form of a legible flow chart showing intended
a timing of site preparation and plantings.
F. Irrigation Plan
1. Describe irrigation method(s)and estimated frequency and amount
during dry months.
2. Indicate water source(s)for mitigation area.
3. Show planned irrigation system and/or water flow on base topo
(may include on planting plan map).
G. As-Built Conditions
The plan should specify that the applicant will:
1. Submit a report to the Corps within 6 weeks of completion of site
preparation and planting, describing as-built status of the mitigation
project If avoidance is incorporated into development project design.
describe as-built status of development project,including any deviations
from original plan in vicinity of, or that will affect,jurisdictional area.
Submit separate reports for grading and planting work if not completed
within six weeks of each other.
• 2. Provide topo maps showing as-built contours of mitigation area.
Indicate location of plantings and any other installations or structures.
6
VI. MAINTENANCE DURING MONITORING PERIOD
A. Maintenance Activities
Describe planned maintenance activities, including irrigation system
inspection, plant replacement, weeding, water structure Inspection.
fertilization, erosion control, herbivore protection, trash removal. and/or any
other such activities..
B. Responsible Parties
Identify persons/entities responsible for financing and carrying-out
maintenance activities, including names, titles, addresses, and phone
numbers.
C., Schedule
Provide a table showing schedule of maintenance inspections.
VII. MONITORING PLAN
A. Performance Criteria
Provide yearly target criteria to be met, as appropriate, based on
reasonably-paced progress toward final success criteria. (Refer to Section M.)
B. Monitoring Methods
1. Describe monitoring methods. If using sampling methods.Include
sample sizes, statistical justification for sampling regime, and data
analyses to be performed. If appropriate,include assessment of natural
population growth by target species.
2. Provide samples of all proposed data sheets.
3. Photos shall be taken during each monitoring period. They shall
be taken from the same vantage point and in the same direction every
year,and shall reflect material discussed In the monitoring report. When
percent cover estimates are made of herbaceous vegetation.photographs
should be taken of sampling quadrats.
7
. C. Annual Reports
1. Annual xcpos is shall be submitted which present monitoring
results. They shall assess both attainment of yearly target criteria and
progress toward final success criteria.
2. Annual reports shall include the following:
a. A list of names, titles. and companies of all persons who
prepared the content of the annual report and participated in
monitoring activities for that year.
b. A copy of Corps permit, any attached. Special Conditions,
and any subsequent Letters of Modification, as an appendix.
c. Analysts of all quantitative monitoring data.
d. Prints of all included monitoring photographs
(photocopies not acceptable).
e. Maps identifying monitoring areas, transects,planting
.zones, etc., as appropriate. (See Appendix Afor f figure format
• Information).
3. Copies of all field data sheets shall be available for Corps review
as needed.
D. Schedule
Since planting and/or site modification may not occur when-planned.
monitoring and performance criteria shall be tied to the actual implementation
date rather than to predetermined years, e.g. the first annual report shall be
delivered on(month, day) of the year following the first growing season after
Planting,
VIII. COMPLETION OF MITIGATION
A. Notification of Completion
When the initial monitoring period is complete, and if applicant believes
final success criteria have been met, applicant shall notify the Corps when
submitting the annual report that documents this completion. Where
appropriate, a current jurisdictional delineation of the created wetland area
• should be submitted with the report(This delineation shall be accompanied by
legible copies of all field data sheets.)
8
B. Corps Confirmation
Following receipt of the report. the Corps may require a site visit to
confirm the completion of the mitigation effort and any jurisdictional
delineation.
•
IX. CONTINGENCY MEASURES
A. Initiating Procedures
If an annual performance criterion is not met for all or any portion of the
mitigation project in any year, or if the final success criteria are not met. the
permittee shall prepare an analysis of the cause(s)of failure and,if determined
necessary by the Corps,propose remedial action for approvaL
B. Alternative Locations for Contingency Mitigation
• Indicate specific alternative mitigation locations that may be used in the
event that mitigation cannot be successfully achieved at the intended
mitigation site. Include current ownership Information if offsite.
C. Funding Mechanism
Indicate what funds will be available to pay forpianning,implementation,
and monitoring of any contingency procedures that may be required to achieve
mitigation goals.
D. Responsible Parties
List names, addresses, and phone numbers of persons/entities
responsible for implementing and monitoring contingency procedures.
i 9
APPENDIX A - FORMAT INFORMATION
®
A. Text Format Notes for Mitigation/Monitoring Proposals.
As-Built Reports. and Annual Reports.
1. The Corps file number and the date of the report should be
Included In title-page heading
2. Include a distribution page listing names.titles,companies/
agencies and addresses of all persons/agencies receiving a copy of
the report.
B. List of Figures to be Submitted
(Page and section numbers in parentheses indicate location of
figure request in annotated outline. For recommended f figure formats, refer to
Section 'C'below.)
1. Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal
a. Jurisdictional Areas and Proposed FIIl on Project Site
(p. 1. LD) (outlines and acreages Indicated).
b. Location and Size of Mitigation Area
- U.S.G.S. quad map(p. 4, IVA2)
- road map(p. 4.IVA2)
- topo map (p. 4, IVA2)
c. Jurisdictional Areas and Any Proposed FYII on Mitigation.
Site(p. 4, IV.E)
d. Mitigation Site Preparation(p. 5, V.C.2)
(base topo map showing preparation plans) •
e. Planting Platt(p. 6, V.D.4)
- plan view on base topo
- representative cross-sections
L Irrigation Plan(p. 6, V.F.3) (may be on planting plan topo)
10
• 2. As-Built Report(p. 6, V.G.2)
1
• a. Final site contours
b. Plantings as installed
C. Figure Format Notes
• All maps and plans submitted shall be legible and Include title,
date of preparation, and date of submission.
• A legend shall be provided if symbols.patterns,or screens are used
on the map or plan.
• If colors are used to Indicate areas on the original map,color copies
shall be included In all copies of the report submitted to the Corps.
• Indicate North and provide a scale and datum
(if appropriate 1.e. tidal area).
• Scale and orientation shall be the same for all maps, except for
detail sections.
• Base topo maps (i.e. for jurisdictional areas, location and size of
mitigation areas, mitigation site preparation plans, planting plans,
Irrigation plans, and as-built reports)shall be full-size(1 inch= 100 feet
or less, 1 inch = 200 feet for very large projects)
• USGS quad maps shall be full-size and full scale (may be
photocopies, if legible)
NOTE: Reduced copies of maps shall be bound with all documents to
facilitate review by advisory agencies. For Corps review, at least two sets of
full-sized copies shall accompany mitigation and monitoring proposal,and one
set shall accompany each annual report.
D. Schedule
When submitting the mitigation and monitoring plan,the applicant shall
indicate the month and date on which the yearly report will be delivered. If plan
Involves planting,this date should be between growing seasons for the primary
plants so that timely decisions can be made about any modifications to the plan.
oil 11
Sent By: TUTTLE APPLEGATE INC U;30345227593034526611 ;IAay-23-00 12:49; Fage 1 /2
t.
7tattleApplegaterinc.
Consultants for Land,Mineral and Water
FAX TRANSMITTAL
DATE: 5/2.3 /pc, TA FILE ti ` 9 — 2Zt
NUMBER OF PAGES: a including cover sheet
TO: rn I r FAX NUMBER: gg7u - 35 2-- 02Y2-
We- C/er t /0 /AL iSQGcrri
FROM:Sy y OrLi/d- Lato-dl�j
COMMENTS:_
('.a.10 =- - -
/eczxte /'n 4Su ifAinet4on _^
3 YLS 75) 1�u ezi,et n I ('.o r '" CUM ill/S51 srf erj
_Pr fez'"' y s/ - /l I2_ ( Haw-- Lr wirt 's Lotnds sales
fo fro Lgy 2 ti woo)
f/ens aI/ hu it r Ott Gizto-e any q, s.72-121rJ
If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone
(if long distance,please call called)and return the original message via the U.S.Postal Service at our expense.
It there are problems with this transmission,please call the receptionist at(303)452-6011.
11990 Grant Street,Suite 304 • Denver,Colorado 80233 • (303)452-8811 • (Fax)452.275' EXHIBIT
; o �;,
Sent By: TUTTLE APPLEGATE INC U;30345227593034526611 ;May-23-00 12:49; Fa 1E 2/2
Hall Irwin Const . ID :970-352-6284 MAY 23'00 11 :34 No .012 P .05
Count to Proposed USR A d1lrent witifx „ /��
The undmigased panto bang admitted as Lend ant Strad,OrwM ad Aggregate Wising
am ad Mast 26, 1997,de besdby gm=their mom to the DM*Wild County Use By
Spatial RevIew Peak a proposed MII*-LwlnConsboeuoo o sto Oar, u, 19414 r4••..0•^)",-‘
Ott rn sr -t of v+.so e.oreg
Isis case*4 liven Wei nen Odle Use By Special Appllptloh Iodides
lbw*Deputies d the
oinadve sd
October201999,t ay mikados primedbylldllssAApplhse.ellag I andwce asdetes edifiedbySSlloi�L as d Cooly
loo.
4141 In wears whew(Uc piatiee Law.mrocmed this Comet on the dey sod yea adjacent to their names.
thraicitacto
•
341:ioo
Pee Barer
irso
►ay.-tce0 ^t 114-S Awttr"h r'Pr-'-T Oa.'-'(' ,
3/1/n
fAROL Harding - 0000180.LTl Page 1
C.
COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
Code Compliance Division '..
1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley,CO 80631
Phone: (970)353-6100, Ext. 3540
Fax: (970)304-6498
May 22,2000
Hall-Irwin Construction Co.
H.I.B.E., LLC
3026 4th Av
Greeley, CO 80631
Hall-Irwin I.
do Molly Orklid-Larson
Tuttle Applegate, Inc
11990 Grant St, Suite 304
Denver, CO 80233-1136
Brent Coan
Otis, Coan, &Stewart
1812 56th Av
Greeley, CO 80634
Subject: VI-0000180, USR-1172, Part of the SE4 of Section 36, T1N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
Dear Ms.Orklid-L.arson and all respective parties :
It has come to the attention of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the uses on your property
may not be in compliance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The potential noncompliance with the
Zoning Ordinance is the violation of USR-1172. The potential noncompliance is a result of selling
landscaping materials on site before amending the USR.
Please call me within five working days of the date of this letter to review these concerns with me or a
thirty-day violation notice will be issued.
Sincerely,
**COPY**
4 EXHIBIT
CAROL Harding -0000180.LTR Page 2
[The letter is to:J
Page 2
Bethany Salzman
Zoning Compliance Office
pc:VI-0000180
Julie Chester, Lead Planner
Bruce Barker, County Attorney
H.I.B.E., LLC
Molly Orklid-Larson,Tuttle Applegate, Inc.
Brent Coan, Attorney
SERV ICE,TEAM WORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
Hello