No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC20-332 LRE WaterROCKY MOUNTAIN | MIDWEST | SOUTHWEST | TEXAS 1221 Auraria Parkway Denver, CO 80204 | Office: 303-455-9589 | LREWATER.COM September 4, 2020 Beth Oliver, Deputy County Attorney P.O. Box 850 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631 RE: Review of Edwards River Park Land Development Application & Associated Wetlands Impacts/Mitigation - Addendum Dear Ms. Oliver, Eagle County (the County) is currently in the process of reviewing the land use application (the application) for the Sierra Trail Investments’ (the applicant) proposed Edwards River Park project. The County requested LRE Water (LRE) to review the application and relevant documents with a focus on potential impacts to the wetlands at the potential Edwards River Park site, and whether the proposed setbacks and/or mitigations are sufficient to preserve the health of the wetlands. LRE conducted this review and provided the County with a memorandum on August 26th, and the County met with the applicant to discuss LRE’s memorandum and associated recommendations on August 27th. The applicant requested a number of clarifications to the LRE memorandum, and the County requested that LRE Water provide a proposal to complete an addendum to the memorandum. This proposal provides a scope and cost estimate for this effort. I.SCOPE OF SERVICES LRE will draft an addendum to its August 26th memorandum that provides answers and clarification to the applicant’s questions listed below 1: “• Clarification regarding adaptive management as discussed with regard to Condition 12 - how are you distinguishing this from the initial implementation and why is the County cautioned against allowing corrective actions post impact? We would appreciate some additional clarity in this area to help us in drafting revisions to condition 12. • Soils testing/sampling - specifically what would be measured, and what are the characteristics of the soil that may change post-development? The applicant has indicated that plant health will be the best indicator of problems with water quality impacts, including impacts to soils, and does not believe soils testing/sampling is necessary. Would you agree that plant health could be a good indicator of water quality 1 Questions provided to LRE by Beth Oliver on September 2nd. DocuSign Envelope ID: 6A383680-963D-4FA9-A2E2-B30BF1A243CC C20-332 Beth Oliver September 4, 2020 Page 2 of 5 impacts? Do you think plant health could serve as substitute for soil testing/sampling? We would appreciate some additional clarity in this area. • Wetlands water quality testing – do you have any opinion as to the appropriate method for collecting a representative sample? The applicant has agreed to establishing specific locations for water quality sampling and monitoring in close proximity to the fen area, and has agreed that sampling would occur prior to commencement of construction and annually thereafter. The applicant does not believe that sampling and monitoring of stormwater needs to occur in addition to sampling the above unless some corrective action is needed to address any negative results of the fen water sampling. Would you agree that what the applicant has proposed is sufficient? If not, could you explain why you don’t think it’s sufficient? • Recommended hydrogeologic study. The applicant has indicated it does not believe a hydrogeologic study is necessary. In support of that position, the applicant has provided a technical memo (attached) that explains what is occurring on the property, and it has also provided a copy of the drainage report for the project. The applicant said that the project is being developed above the ground water table measured at its highest 500-year level last year. The applicant indicated that after review of the technical memo, if there is still a concern, the applicant will agree to a hydrogeologic study occurring prior to the issuance of a construction permit so that it can be based upon the actual detailed development plan. • Clarification regarding potential for human interaction with the wetlands and whether the applicant's Wetlands Protection and Access Control Plan is sufficient/adequate. I reviewed your proposed changes on this issue. Are you able to specifically conclude/confirm whether what the applicant has proposed is sufficient/adequate, and, if so, why it is adequate to protect against human/pet interaction? Can you also confirm that you don’t have any recommendations for conditions 8 and 9 with regard to human interaction? • Clarification as to whether the applicant's proposal meets the Envision document's “Improved” buffer category, considering that it requires a 50 ft minimum buffer with no greater than 10% engineered controls, and given that the applicant proposed less than 50' and engineered controls at more than 10% of the wetlands boundary. In other words, is there support for going to 40’ as was proposed for some areas. UPDATE: As of September 1, 2020, the applicant has agreed to a minimum 50' setback from the area of the fen. It has also agreed to a 50' buffer from the wetland boundary in the areas away from the fen area, thus increasing the overall buffer to the wetland. This change may require future realignment of the lower road "B" which can be accomplished at final plat so that residential development can occur between the wetland or fen buffer and the roadway. Additionally, the applicant has agreed that the buffer area will be developed with native plant species so that the area has a natural quality. It has also agreed that the area would include some form of barrier (fence) to prevent use and foot traffic in the buffer except where access easements (sewer bench) and community soft trails are proposed (connection to boardwalk). The buffer area will ultimately contain stormwater management activities (swales, bio swales, rain gardens etc.). With respect to the amphitheater and community plaza area, no encroachments into the wetlands DocuSign Envelope ID: 6A383680-963D-4FA9-A2E2-B30BF1A243CC Beth Oliver September 4, 2020 Page 3 of 5 are being proposed. The applicant is willing to concede that there would be no ground level intrusions into the floodplain associated with the decks proposed on either side of the plaza but rather the use of cantilevered decks over the floodplain and buffer area. There will be piers within the floodplain (not within the wetlands) related to the amphitheater. The applicant states that this area is providing more protection to the wetlands because it makes it impossible for people or pets to get into the wetlands. The applicant explained that it is basically a wall to the wetlands for a small percentage of the entire wetland boundary, and that all of the runoff is collected and treated before being returned to the substrate. The applicant states that is basically what has been occurring on the property for the last 40 years or so. Today there is a tall berm that prevents stormwater from flowing into the wetlands directly and there does not appear to have been a negative impact based upon this less sophisticated approach. The applicant states that the proposed plan improves upon this greatly with a comprehensive approach to water quality and wetland barrier. Currently, the wetland boundary is approximately 3,500 linear feet of the project, of which approximately 950 feet is in PA6 where the amphitheater is. Can you confirm whether there is some flexibility in the analysis such that this revised proposal would meet the Envision document's “Improved” buffer category? If not, could you explain why not?” This scope of work includes time for a conference call with the County to discuss the above questions prior to commencing work on the addendum. This scope of work also includes time to confer with the County to discuss LRE’s draft addendum, and/or facilitation/discussions with the applicant after the addendum is finalized, at the County’s request. LRE anticipates that the work outlined above will cost approximately $3,500. II. TIME REQUIRED We can begin the proposed services as soon as we receive authorization to proceed. We estimate the addendum can be drafted and provided to the County one week after receiving authorization to proceed. Meetings with the County and/or the applicant will occur after the addendum has been drafted and/or finalized. It is LRE’s understanding that the information from LRE’s review will be utilized by the County for a Commission hearing scheduled for October 6th. Delays caused by major changes in the project plans or by circumstances beyond the control of LRE could extend the time of completion. III. PAYMENT We believe the services described above can be accomplished for $3,500. Invoices are submitted monthly for time and expenses incurred. Terms of payment are net 30 days. Overdue accounts DocuSign Envelope ID: 6A383680-963D-4FA9-A2E2-B30BF1A243CC Beth Oliver September 4, 2020 Page 4 of 5 are subject to an interest charge of 1.5 percent per month and services will stop whenever payment is overdue more than 75 days. Payments for our services, like other professional services, are based on the actual time spent on your behalf and are measured by standard hourly rates in effect at the time the services are performed. For those assigned to your team, those rates currently range from $200–$265 for principals; $100–$250 for engineers and hydrologists; and $70-$130 for data processing, technicians and IT support. Individuals are assigned to a project based on the type of services involved and the experience and expertise of the individual. Routine expenses such as telephone and copies are included in the rates above. Outside expenses such as laboratory analysis, obtaining aerial photos, or other special services incurred directly in connection with the project are billed at cost plus 5 percent to cover handling and administration. Reimbursable expenses billed at cost include airfares, automobile rental, and other travel or per diem costs. Subconsultants to LRE are billed at cost plus 10 percent. The scope described under Part I represents our estimate of the services required based on the information provided. As the project proceeds and additional facts are discovered, it may be necessary to perform additional services and some items described may not be needed. For these reasons, we can provide only an estimate of the time and cost of completing the services. IV. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY In recognition of the relative risks and benefits of the project to both Eagle County and LRE, the risks have been allocated such that Eagle County agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to limit the liability of LRE and its officers, employees, and sub-consultants, to Eagle Count and all of Eagle County’s contractors and consultants, for any and all claims, losses, costs, damages of any nature whatsoever; or claims expenses from any cause or causes, including attorneys’ fees and costs and expert witness fees and costs, so that the total aggregate liability of LRE to Eagle County shall not exceed the total amount of $100,000 or the total fees billed to this project, whichever is less. It is intended that this limitation apply to any and all liability or cause of action however alleged or arising, unless otherwise prohibited by law. V. SPECIAL SERVICES Services in addition to those described under Part I will be performed or obtained for the client’s account upon request and approval at rates currently in effect. Special services may include, but are not limited to, expert testimony, appearances at public meetings, soil investigations, topographic and land surveys, including establishment of boundaries, well drilling, well and aquifer DocuSign Envelope ID: 6A383680-963D-4FA9-A2E2-B30BF1A243CC Beth Oliver September 4, 2020 Page 5 of 5 testing, electric logging, water quality sampling and analysis, preparation of construction drawings and specifications, material testing, and environmental permitting. Acceptance of this proposal and authorization to proceed with the services can be indicated by signing one copy and returning it to us for our files. The terms of this proposal will be honored for a period of 30 days. We look forward to discussing this proposal with you and if you have any questions or concerns about the services offered in the proposal please call Jessica DiToro at 802-793-8545. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to present this proposal to Eagle County. Sincerely, For: _____________________________________ Contracting Agency R Gregory Roush, PE By: _____________________________________ Principal Authorized Signature/Title Date: Jessica DiToro, PE Senior Project Engineer DocuSign Envelope ID: 6A383680-963D-4FA9-A2E2-B30BF1A243CC Eagle County County Manager 9/10/2020