|  |
 |
|
Rocks in the River, Part Two |
Bill Hudson | 7/28/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read Part One
“I’m just going to ask you really bluntly,” Town Councilor Angela Atkinson began her question to Recreational Engineering and Planning (REP) engineer Gary Lacy at last Thursday’s Pagosa Springs Town Council work session.
“How did we get so crossways with the [Army Corps of Engineers]? How did we arrive here? I think we’re dealing with a lot of murkiness and facts here, a lot of numbers are being thrown around, and I will say for myself, I’m really confused about how the decisions were made along the way. Help me.” Continued...
Gary Lacy of Recreational Engineering and Planning (REP) defends his company's performance in connection with the Town's proposed white water park, at last Thursday's Town Council work session. |
The fact that Atkinson finds herself confused about the Town’s four-year struggle to install a “white water” park in the downtown stretch of the San Juan River, may, in itself, say a good deal about how the Town and Lacy’s company have handled the project from the beginning and through to the present moment. Atkinson was part of the committee that wrote the original Request For Proposal in 2004, and now finds herself sitting on the Town Council, discussing what to do next.
In this point in Thursday’s meeting, we had already heard that REP and the Town still do not have the final permits needed to complete the project — not do they have the easements needed. Both the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW) must legally give their permission for the final phase of the project, but so far have not done so. We also knew that the owners of the Springs Resort, the Whittington family — who must grant the Town crucial easements before the project can proceed — are happy with the existing “Fishing is Fun” structures and would like to see any future white water park be located somewhere else besides where REP has it currently sketched, right along the Springs Resort property.
Gary began his answer to Atkinson’s question by reviewing some facts about his company, which began in 1983 and which has built, he claims, 80 percent of the white water parks in the U.S. — about 60 projects — all of which, he said, were permitted by the ACOE.
“In 2004, we were contracted by the Town of Pagosa Springs to develop preliminary designs for a white water park extending roughly from the Hot Springs Boulevard bridge to the [Apache Street bridge] and we did create a preliminary plan for those improvements. It was a public process, we attended public meetings here; basically, in the public process, we took guidance from the Town; if we were requested to come to a meeting, we came to a meeting…”
“Then in March of 2005, there was a lot of excitement in Town to get something done, and basically, there were a couple of things that were highlighted to me. There were a couple of structures that were a hazard to people, for inner-tubers particularly, a foot-entrapment issue. The fire department had been called out to get people off these structures… One of the things our company has done, probably the majority of our work, has been modifying rivers for public safety…”
From what I have been able to learn, the Town has had two instances of inner-tubers stranded on the "Fishing is Fun" structures in the past 13 years.
Lacy also noted that the original “Fishing is Fun” structures, installed in 1995 with ACOE and DOW permission, failed to correct certain hazardous riverbank issues. Across the river from the Springs Resort, a “failing” riverbank was shored up by exposed I-beam pilings, rusted wire mesh and chunks of broken concrete when the Town began its incorrectly-permitted work in March 2005 under lacy’s supervision — and those riverbank conditions “made it extremely hazardous for anyone to get to the river,” in Lacy’s opinion. Lacy’s plan would try to address safe public access and prevent erosion by hardening that same riverbank with rock terracing.
“At that time, the Town staff notified me that they had applied for a ACOE permit to do the first phase of the work, and that they’d like to do it quickly.” River work is normally done during periods of low water flow — during the spring or fall. So time was of the essence in March 2005. As noted in Part One, the actual labor and heavy equipment was donated by Wolf Creek Ski Area owner Davey Pitcher — and the March time-frame apparently worked well for him as well.
Unfortunately, the Town had not actually obtained the correct permit — nor the other agency permissions — to do the work Lacy had sketched out. It was not quite clear, from Lacy’s explanation, how he missed the fact that the Town had obtained a permit to perform “maintenance” but not to install a brand-new white water feature.
“Our company is not hired to obtain permits for that, the Town obtained the permit — a Nationwide 3 Permit for the removal and replacement of structures and maintenance work, to replace the [existing “Fishing is Fun” structures] and the bank work, with essentially the work that is there now.”
A few questions arise in relation to Lacy’s explanations. Looking at the contract Lacy signed with the Town in December 2004, it seems fairly clear that REP in fact agreed to oversee the permitting process as part of the scope of work for which they would be paid $50,000.
Meanwhile, a letter to the Town from the ACOE dated March 1, 2005 stated that the Town’s Nationwide Permit 3 allowed the Town to “to repair several rock structures within the San Juan River for recreational safety purposes… by relocating several large rocks.”
Lacy’s design involved much more than simple “repair” to existing rock structures and “relocating several large rocks.” The REP-designed modifications included complete removal of three or four grant-funded “Fishing is Fun” structures, the construction of a completely new “U” structure in a completely new location, and the installation of over thirty new boulders along the west bank of the San Juan.
The ACOE responded to the “repairs” supervised by Lacy and REP with the following reprimanding letter, dated April 6, 2005:
“… The intent of the Nationwide Permit 3 is to authorize work… consistent with the original permit (199375014). The work performed within the Town of Pagosa Springs… exceeded this verification and includes the following:
- Removal of the “W” structure near the Visitors Center;
- Removal of the USGS stream gage #9342500;
- Failure to notify the USGS per special condition #5 of permit 199375014;
- Installation of a new “U” structure downstream of the “W” removed;
- Use of concrete grout for the new “U” structure;
- Approximately 300 feet of west bank work;
- Removal and reconstruction of… three triangular rock deflectors…
- Installation of large random boulders (6-9) within the river..."
Click here to view the ACOE letter as a PDF.
“In addition,” the earlier March 2005 ACOE letter had noted, “the proposed project shall not adversely alter the flow of the river or cause bank degradation downstream of the activity.” From comments made by Bill Whittington at Thursday’s meeting, it appears that the "U" structure installed under Lacy’s direction has, in fact, caused significant erosion downstream.
“I think there were some mistakes made,” Lacy continued with his response to Atkinson’s question. “I think, looking back, the ACOE’s position has been that we exceeded the boundaries of that type of permit. I been involved in this type of permit in many, many cases similar to this — such as in Boulder Creek, where structures fail or get outdated and we get this permit and replace these structures. It sure seemed fairly simple to me to do that type of work here.
“I think there was a lot of misinformation, with people getting upset and calling the ACOE and saying the Town is doing this or that or the other thing. Since that time, our company has worked diligently for the Town to make sure, if there is any violation or perceived violation, and particularly, any permitting for the entire project — and that easements and permits and any ‘Fishing is Fun’ permissions are obtained so the overall project can be completed.”
Lacy did not elaborate on what he may have meant by “diligently.” Earlier on in the Thursday meeting, Councilor Jerry Jackson asked interim Town Manager Tamra Allen if REP and the Town have obtained any of the several easements needed to install the REP white water park design. Allen replied simply, “No.”
Nor does REP have any of the necessary permits finalized.
Four and a half years after signing the REP contract, the Town has no easements, no final permits, and has been told by the ACOE to remove the only structure installed thus far — the Davey Wave — because of erosion problems and a raised flood level.
Hydrologist Chris Philips of Riverbend Engineering, a Pagosa Springs engineering firm which also submitted a response to the 2004 RFP for the river work, stood up at the Thursday meeting and suggested that the Town has already paid out about $80,000 to REP for the unfinished project.
The original contract between the Town and REP was for $50,000, so I wondered if Philips’ figure was accurate. I obtained a printout from the Town Finance Department, and it appears that the Town made its first payment of $12,490.50 to REP on April 15, 2005, and the most recent invoice, dated July 1, 2008, was for $3786.25.
Payments made to REP total $83,924.20.
How is it possible that the Town has paid out nearly $84,000 for an unfinished plan, for which they have no easements and no final permits after four and a half years of “diligent” work?
Read Part Three
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|