Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout264723100010_0059.2012.paemDOCUMENT LAYOUT Certificate of Occupancy or Letter of Completion Permits Final Inspections Any Supporting Documents Site Plans (NOTE: All structural plans will be grayed out. If you require the ability to see structural plans, you must have a letter from the owner stating you are allowed to have plans. This letter must be submitted to Pitkin County Community Development Department) CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY/ LETTER OF COMPLETION & Maid Mimk ./. 3* , as> r>74/#& Inte3*29*x«u,d:. & Cover Sheet Pitkin County Community Development Permit Number:0059.2012.PAEM Parcel ID:2647-23-1-00-010 Address:6855 CAPITOLCREEK RD SNOWMASS, CO 81654 Owner Name:Ad bline,€A peop cap n AL CO Ke PERMITS 110. 03 030221 1 9«00 «UD=: CLEARING, GRUBBING AND EARTHMOVING PERMIT APPLICATION 130 S Galena Street. · Aspen. CO · 81611 970-920-5526 Fax 970-920-5439 Permit #C©59. 301(11 pao m www aspenpitkill com Receipt#/10(134953 VALID PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON SITE AT ALL TIMES Permit valid for one year unless otherwise specified. 1 Job Address· 6855 Capitol Creek Road, Snowmass, CO 81654 2. Legal description of properly:See Attachment A Contact Number Mailing Address: IX9r Mitchellarties Capital Corp.5070 Hwy.a, vero Beach FL 32963 7 Parcel ID numberof property wher 264723100010 3. Owner(s)'s Name: Andlinger PropE 4. Owner's Authorized Agent· Thomas Fenton 5 Contractor's Name: Custom Builders 6 Architect or Engineer or Record· Eric Petterson, Contact Number:Mailing Address: Smith 925-2600 600 E. Hopkins, Ste. 205, Aspen,CO Contact Number Mailing Address.81611 of Aspen 618-6396 P.O. Box 2071, Basalt, CO 8162-_ Contact Number Mailing Address· Rocky Mtn. Ecol. Svcs. P.O. 833, Glenwood Spgs., CO 81602 e work will occur.Check http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Assessor or call the Pitkin County Assessofs Office at 970-920-5160 for the parcel ID number, 8, Property also known as: (Provide a detailed map showing the location at legible scale) See Attachment B 9. Land use approval number(s) 10 Typeofwork Berm{s)Trench(es)Trail(s)Undergrounding Utilities Ponds (s) or other water diversion(s)Clearing/Grubbing Site Grading X Other·Restore Irrigation/Stream Channel for 5cfcs of water and maintenance of fringe of wetland vegetation 11 Type of material to be excavated or placed on property: 118. Material will be brought from· on-site 11 b. Is the material possibly contaminated? Yes No X 11 c Excavated material will be taken to: on-site Approved 12 Description of work·See Attachment C, Nationwide Permit 27 Appli-cation Total acreage or square footage of disturbance:732 Linear feet U 1,056 : '4, 15 14Total cubic yards of material moved· ' Max cut depth·4.5 ft Max fill depth: N,/A 13. Will the project result in disturbance of 2 1 acre of land? Yes No X 13a If you answered "Yes", submit a copy of your state Construction Stormwater Permit or R-Factor waiver Information on this permit is available at, http://www.cdphe state.co us/wq/Permitsuniustormwater/construction html 14. Is any portion of the project already complete?NO If yes, give reason and date(s) of prior construction activity, 15. Will the project disturb/result in removal of any vegetation? Yes X No 15a If you answered "Yes" submita revegetation plan, including a plant list with scientific names of species, planting schedule and method of irrigation. The County's Revegetation Guidelines are available at: http.//www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Public-Works/Land- Management.See Attachment C, page 18 15b. How will you prevent the establishment of noxious weeds at the project?See Construction Management Plan 16 Will the project result in disturbance of any wetlands or riparian areas? Yes X No 16a I f you answered "Yes", submit a description of your revegetation/mitigation plan, including a plant list with scientific names of species, planting schedule and method of irrigation. Also submit a copy of your U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sec. 404 permit in connection witt· any disturbance of "jurisdictional waters" of the U.S. Contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Grand Junction (970-243-1199) for information on Sec. 404 permit requirements. See Attachment C, pp. 16-18 Earthmoving Permit 2011 xls 8.1.11 17. V.•1 the p,cl,cl invoKe work in tho Pitkin County Rtght of Way? Yes No X 171 If you answered -Yes- a County Righl of Way V.brk Permil rlost be obtained pdor :o com=¥ingwon. Inio,rna*or, 0,9 U is pernit h mlable at: htip:e v,-aspenpitch.rantaipartments/Pubk·Works/Eagineeng-Road-81[* or hy calq Pubic Works•1 970-920- 4-On 18- WI] the pcc ectdisluibholvework in the 100·year Mood plain? Yes No X 181 11 you answered -Yer a Courly Floodplaim Development Permit must be obtained 9*orto commering work. Irlormaten on #ds permit is available it Imp:Avww.aspe<,pialn.con,DepalmenWCor™nunRy-Deveropment-Pmin-Courl¥/I=ning-and-Zoninwl,ndll* Engineeang/. Having califully read the requkiminti, I (Applicant) hiriby :grie to the teerm and condldon, desclibld withial Thls folrn lia pirm. only whin vandated by Coulty staM. Work *lan•d withoet a permit will be sublect to ritkli Coully enlercement •cllon 1,1,1 ch•,ged double permilt fees. 11. Snaturl of Appicant:117. Dalk. t u v U jwr i d p 17,4 i|0 ili 9 / 1- l 2-- 20. Slgnrreo,P"Per'yOw™fisl:20. o.teflittlk, 1418/#F'<kify p Al Lif # 4 /1.-1 -ll FOR SfAFF USE ONLY (00 NOTWRITE BELOWTHIS ONE): 21. Akilional Temis and Con¢i[Icns of Permit {died[ 811 thai appM: At the One of issuance of this pe,mil you ale required lo post S as fhancial sean# 43 eimm successhil comple<on of your revegatallon plan. These Inontes wil be held for two growing seasons fram the date of crmpleflon ofthe proiect and will onty be released at 11·at liGia if a :Re visit by P*kin County Zoning conf,ms thitsucce=U re,regetalon lus been accomplished. Appicant is obligated to contact P:idn County Zoning (970·429-2799) to scheduls N required k,o·yewaile visit. The monies wil De forfeited, successru] levegetation is not colemed alter two growing seasons. ori,Appicant fails to lime!, schedule Ule mquirid :Me Visit. Documentatjon of decreed water rfghts is requiked. Documentation of State Ell glneer appm,al of a jundotional sized dam, or documenlauan 01 Mag of a Notice of Inle,lt » Construct a Non-Jurlsdictioiral Water Impoundment Skuchire On the cass of run*Nisckional size dan) ts required. Other Minor Clewirig, Grading, Crubbing and Earthmoving Permit Application (less than 100 cy): (Flat *c duc M .ubmiltal] S415.00 Major Clearing, Grading, Grubbing and Emrth moving Permit Application (more than 100 cy): (Flot Ike due a[ st,bmittal) The followk,gadditional referral fees may be required to be paid prior to lisuance of this permit for major projects: Colmly lingiaeer Refer,al Fe:cS221 Addili D»al Flit Fcc foi Appticaions Involvingli.argc Scnte UndcrgroInding of Ulilifies & Ea,lim,oving Projec 313.00 You wgi alsa be irwgiced by PitkIn Coung Stan Ibr any coview and follow up Inspection IN·ne excee{Ing 3 1,ous al a late 01 3150#f. Peemit Flai Fcc (duc ;11 3 ubmit(al):aieck NDak Permit Applkalig Received Addilional Fees (dule st issua,Ee):Cheek# Dan Permit [sstled TOTAL. FEE (no refi,tdi). .012100 21 St,ITComments:1\ A JUS, 23. Approved by Pltkln County Engin,231. Date: 24. Approved by Pitkin Counly4eiation specianst: 25. Approved by Pilkin County Pianning/Zoning: 240. Da/i..' 25a Date: Earllunoving Permit 2011.xls 8.1.11 (ti) MIr DCList. rpt 7/12015 9:08:58AM Inspection Check List PITKIN COUNTY Page: 24 Inspection Line:920-5532 Inspection Scnedule for susanpe Scheduled for July 01. 2015Permit No: 0059.2012 PAEM '(i431.-Gr c.J<.1.- of- *SAv<c.vv--lot-c a.-c-La#.1 ·v.>,UPU-qx| Type:502 PLANNING ENGINEER INSPECTION Time: 12.00 Notes: Inspection Results: 1 -Accepted \2 - Accepted as Noted 3 - Rejected 4 - Partial/Not Complete Reinspection Fee $ Comments: kE-,1- [ced « orecdld Cor« noN- l,Of0.14 cu-pal X 4-01 gat «awp(dit The applicant acknowledges that he/she has been informed by Pitkin County of environmental hazard areas that might affect the property any improvements and the use and occupancy thereof. The provisions of the Pitkin County regulations do not in any way assure or imply that the property will be free from hazards or that approved mitigation will guarantee the safety of anyone using the property. This inspection report is accepted with the understanding that the inspection does not, in any way, constitute a guarantee, warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, express or implied warranty of habitability, or assurance in any way of the safety of the structures and appurtenances inspected, nor shall this inspection be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of the person(s) responsible for performing the work. Additionally, neitheilhis inspection nor this inspectjon report is a substitutefor a complete inspection by the owner or subse,luent buxer>G occupa¢t /ursuant to state law the owner is responsible forinspection and maintenance of the structu;e®10 sy*.fis./k A\/ Date Signature of Applicant Print Name .VLi-5*IA jod (EA*-1 8212>3440 - Date Bignature of Inspector litti}Ut >l41/3/.-Print Name 32·€A« 2:2(51/9(·flVAddaContact Name:Steven Meyer Contact #(970) 618-2091 6855 CAPITOL CREEK RD Contractor:KARL SCHINDLER PROJECT MANAGE Owner:ANDLINGER PROP CAPID Page. 24 APPLICATON MATERIAL It PITKIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Permit Receipt RECEIPT NUMBER 00032953 Name:Karl Schindler Project Managem Date:9/18/2012 Project Address: 6855 CAPITOL CREEK RD Type:check #3856 Permit Number Fee Description Amount 0059.2012.PAEM 0059.2012.PAEM PB- Engineering Earthmoving P- Zoning Earthmoving 780.00 175.00 Total:955.00 ..... .......... FIESOUACE ..... III11 ENGINEERING INC Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Attention· Susan Pearson 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 September 6, 2012 Via E-mail and First Class Mail RE:RT Ranch -Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities To Whom It May Concern: Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) was asked to review a Nationwide Permit 27 permit application and Pitkin County submittal for proposed aquatic habitat restoration, establishment, and enhancement activities for PT Ranch, As you are aware, the project is necessary to correct an incised drainage channel that bisects a wetland complex. If left alone, the channel will continue to erode and produce a large amount of sediment that will be displaced in to a series of onsite ponds located on the Ranch. In addition, a wetland complex that formerly received water from the drainage channel may ultimately disappear. To restore the area back to its original condition, a stream stabilization project is proposed. The project includes the placement of stacked sand bags and rock control structures to stabilize the channel, In between the stacked structures, backfill consisting of native materials and imported rock will be placed and compacted to restore the drainage channel elevation. An erosion control blanket will then be installed on top of the channel to protect against further erosion and allow additional plantings to become established. This concept was developea by Rocky Mountain Ecological Ser·vices (RMES). On June 6, 2012, RESOURCE met with an owner's representative and Eric Petterson of RMES to discuss the proposed restoration and design concept. The proposed work concept, now presented in a series of figures in the Pitkin County submittal and Nationwide 27 permit application reflect the proposed remedy. Due to the nature of the proposed work, much of the work needs to be "field fit." In other words, a more formal or detailed set of plans will not be useful as these plans would likely not reflect field conditions once construction occurs and not be able to adequately portray the work. To help ensure the project's success, it is my understanding the RMES personnel will be supervising critical aspects of the work. Based on the June 6, 2012 site visit, knowledge, and review of the RMES plans, RESOURCE agrees with the proposed design and means and methods documented in the Pitkin County submittal and Nationwide 27 permit application. CERTIFICATION This memorandum was prepared by Eric F. Mangeot, P.E., a Colorado Registered Professional Civil Engineer. The proposed work, constructed in close conformity with the plans and detai's, will prevent the continued erosion of the drainage channel by stabilizing it and allow for the channel to provide water to the existing wetland complex as it historically had. Consulting Engineers end Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avanue .1 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 0 [9701 945-6777 1 Fax (9701 945-11 37 RT Ranch September 6,2012 Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities Page 2 I trust that this is the information you require. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Regards, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. By c ---2=»=7 Eric F. Mangeot, P.E. Water Resources Engineer (Seal) CC:Karl Schindler, Custom Builders of Aspen (Email Only) Eric Petterson, RMES (Email Only) 862-1.0/EFM K.\Clients\862 ANDLINGER\1 0\Silt Issue\FT Ranch Destgn Review doc HERESOURCE V&476.=04 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF August 27,2012 Regulatory Division (SPK-2012-00891) Andlinger Properties Capital Corporation C/O Karl Schindler 6855 Capital Creek Road Snowmass. Colorado 81654 Dear Mr. Schindler: We are responding to your request for a Depamnent ofthe Army permit for the RT Ranch Stream Restoration project. This project involves activities in waters of the United States to restore approximately 732 linear feet of a down-cut channel utilizing check structures and placement of fill The project is located at an unnamed tributary to East Sopris Creek. approximately 8 miles northwest of Snowmass Village. within the SE % NW % Section 23. Township 9 South. Range 87 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Latitude 39.25477°, Longitude -107.08028°, Pitkin County, Colorado. Based on the information you provided, the proposed activity, resulting in the permanent impact of approximately 0.18 acre of stream channel and temporary impacts to approximately 0.1 acre of wetlands. is authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 27. Your work must comply with the general terms and conditions listed on the enclosed NWP information sheets and regional conditions. and the following special conditions: 1. In order to ensure that the project has a net benefit to the aquatic environment you shall implement the "Mitigation Plan" contained in your permit application package in Section 5. 2. You shall submit an annual monitoring plan describing the project success for a minimum of two years or until project success criteria have been met, whichever is longer. 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 NWP is modified, reissued. or revoked. whichever comes first. Failure to comply with the General and Regional Conditions of this NWP. or the project-specific Special Conditions of this authorization, may result iii the suspension or revocation of your authorization. Please refer to identification number SPK-2012-00891 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Nathan Green at the Colorado West Regulatory Branch, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 224, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563, email Nathan.J.Green@usuce.army.mil, or telephone 970-243-1199 x 12. For more information regarding our program, please visit our website at www..wk.i,sace.armv.mil/Missions/Regulatorv.aspx·. We would 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, Original Signed Susan Bachini Nail Chief, Colorado West Regulatory Branch Enclosures: 1. NWP 27 Information Sheets 2. Compliance Certificate Copy Furnished without enclosures: Mr. Eric S. Petterson, Principal Ecologist, Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Incorporated, Post Office Box 833, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Mr. Karl Schindler, Custom Builders of Aspen, Post Office Box 2071, Basalt, Colorado 81621 /Mr. Thomas Fenton Smith, Austin, Pierce, and Smith P.C., 600 East Hopkins, Suite 205, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ms. Cindy Houben, Community Development Director, Pitkin County, 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, Colorado 81611 4 -2- Nationwide Permit 27 Request for Approval for RT Ranch Stream Stabilization Project Pitkin County, Colorado August 2012 Btl i."46£.7 J. L M.t:G lm•· . -*1•EFf,#6 TY-6441 r./ *-7, 4.' i-"*4 76/f i.*4 "' . 70*37 411*40*821*I;, ;1342«*,r.,Al, .. .„1 1 -44 **i , 4../i-" 9 ....1 ' I 4.1 (r . "< ,m*6023•u,499 4:I,3, I, + .40>24'7° -:,104- 1 JA t. 4 . diF . 27. 9 *.1.. I»>rai.' *. .1% - . . I , ./.'.'-/.... Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colorado/Gunnison Regulatory Office Sacramento District, Regulatory Division 400 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Prepared by: =,- 21=4 1 ROCKY MOUNTAIN / ECOLOGICAL SERVICES po box 833 glenwood storings co 81602 i epettereonernnes inccom RT Ranch Andlinger Properties Capital Corp. 6855 Capital Creek Road Snowmass, Colorado 81654 4,- .-, > :7* ,: 'fi.5:!: *im::.22.Uirwaw.zigIR£'e. *4,71#/2*f ·· --Ift. 1 RT Ranch N\FP 27 Kiquestfor Appmpal J.*31,2012 Nationwide Permit 27 Request for Approval for RT Ranch Stream Stabilization Project Pitkin County, Colorado Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Colorado/Gunnison Regulatory Office Sacramento District, Regulatory Division 400 Rood Avenue, Room 142 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Prepared by: Eric S. Petterson Principal Ecologist Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. Approved by: RT Ranch Andlinger Properties Capital Corp. 6855 Capital Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654 Nathan Greene US Army Corps of Engineers-Sacramento District, Regulatory Division F ROCKY MOUNTAIN ECOIDGICAL SERVICES, INC. 2 RT Ram·b I«i> 27 Request for Appmld 1,431,2012 Table of Contents 1. APPLICANT & SITE INFORMATION 4 1.1. Figure l:General Area Loratinn 6 1.2. Figure 2: Vicinitv Map 7 1.3. Figure 3: Existing Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. 8 2. REQUEST FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT 27 9 2.1. Information and Background 9 2.2. Project Description 9 2.2.1. Table 1: Proposed Surface Disturbance (acres).10 2.3. Purpose and Merri .10 2.4. Other Agency Consultations/Certifications/Permits... .11 2.5. Adjacent Landowner Information 11 2.1. Figure 4: Reclamation Area and Plan 12 2.2. Figure 5: Checkdam Cross Section Typical 13 2.3. Figure 6: Checkdam Cross Section Typical- Plan View..14 3. WETLAND DELINEATION 15 3.1. Description of Wetland Resources 16 3.2. Waters of the U.S. 16 4. IMPACTS ASSESSMENT .17 4.1. Impacts to Non-Wetland (WoUS) Features .17 4.2. Impacts to Wetlands .17 4.3. Impacts to Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species.. 17 4.4. Impacts to Indian I,ands .17 5. MITIGATION P].AN ..18 6. CONCLUSION .18 7. APPENDIX A: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS..,.19 F ROCK)' MALIFT.·\IN Eal[.oGIOW.SURVIC:lis, INC. 3 Ri' Ram·b ,\11-P 27 Request.fbi·:1ppinw/Juy 31,2012 Request for Approval: Nationwide Permit 27 Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities for the RT Ranch 1. APPLICANT & SITE INFORMATION In the summer of 2012, RT Ranch contracted Rocky Mountain Ecological Sen·ices Inc. (RMES) to delineate wetlands and Waters ofthe U.S. (waters) (collectively, WoUS) on the ranch to address a stream bank stabilization issue and wetland restoration project, and in anticipation of submitting a permit application for Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27, for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This report includes project areas description, the wetland delineation report, details of the proposed work, and addition·al information necessan- to support the request for issuance of N\VP 27 to address the issue. To summarize the project, an incised stream channel bisects a wetland complex and is producing large amounts of sediment, and RT Ranch is requesting a permit to rectify the situation. Applicant RT Ranch Andlinger Properties Capital Corp 6855 Capital Creek Road Snou·mass, CO 81654 Authorized Agent Thomas Fenton Smith Austin, Pierce, and Smith P.C. 600 E. Hopkins, Ste 205 Aspen, CO 81611 97()-925-2600 Phone ismith@aps-pc.com Contractor Custom Builders ot-Aspen Karl Schindler PO Box 2071 Basalt, CO 81621 970-618-6396 Phone karl@custombuildersofaspen.com Proiect Address 6855 Capital Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654 Authorized Agent Eric Petterson Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc. PO Box 833 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 97()-945-9558 Phone epetterson(@rnies-inc.com Project Area Description The project is locared at an elevation of 8,430 to 8,490 feet in unincorporated Pitkin County, Colorado (Section 23, Township 9 South, Range 87 W'est, 6th Principal Meridimi), east of Snowmass Village. The project area is within the Basalt USGS Topographic Quadrangles. UTXI Coordinates R{)(KY NIC)LINTAIN ECOU)GICAI. S[:RV](:ES, INC. 4 RT K,incb N\UP 27 Request for Approval Ddy 31,2012 For the project area are Easting: 320637.22/Northing: 4347081.43. I.atitudc and I.ongitude coordinates for the project area are Eat: 39.25452/Long: -107.07874. The project is within the Roaring Fork River watershed (HUC 14010004). Average annual precipitation in the project area is approximately 32 inches/year. Refer to Figures 1 and 2 for a vicinity map and specific prolect location map with existing wetlands. Field sun,eys occurred on June 6 and 20, 2012. Approximatel\' 0.67 acres of € jurisdictional wetlands were identified within and adjacent to the project area, including a large spring complex above the incised channel, as well as adjacent fringe wed:inds, the 0.18 acreincised channel, and 9..4,* j #9947*6» * ,'1 , ' :'41<>,rjr, 7. -4 2..9.-0.6 1,! u .€$.:r..7,1.1 11.EN'. ..,1!D!,MIK) the fringe of the down-gradient irrigation pond. The pond itselfdoes not support wetlands. but is considered a WoUS. The wetland and waters investigations were conducted ftillowing technical guidelines set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Al;inual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Gatt Region (USAGE 2010) and the guidance document "Information Needed for jurisdictional Determinations- US Army Corps of Engineers" by RMES in June 2(112. Photo ot wetlands around channel 372%19*3'44*i " rf oir'N- · The surface lands in the area are privately owned; however, the water that feeds this unrlamed drainage originates on National Forest Svstem (NFS) lands administered br 3 -@P* the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District of the White River National Forest. Upland areas W. U., ; ./ ./are dominated by northern mule's ears 10£1 9 "L (W'yelbia amplexican/is), Black medic (Medicago Photo ot-incised channel h,pulind), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and common dandelion (I'araxactim ofjirinale).\Vetlands areas are dominated by beaked sedge (Carex u/riculata) and clustered field sedge (Carexpraegracil®. The results of these investigations reveal that there would be indirect impacts to -0.1 acres o f jurisdictional wetlands from temporary access to the incised channel, and 732 linear feet (or approximately 0.18 acres) ofthe incised channel as well as up to 100 square feet ofthe fringe wetlands around the pond from dredging activities. The incised unnamed drainage and the adjacent and abutting wetlands appear to be a Waters of the U.S. (as defined by the EPA and the U.S. Army corps of Engineers [RGI. 05-05, Lichrar et al. 2006, USACE 2008,1(PA 2008]). Sce additional descriptions below. / R< )(.K) NIC)UNT.\IN Ecoux;ICAL. SRRI]CES, INC. RT 14„.b \Ul> 27 Request for,·lpprond 11*31.2012 1.1.Figure 1: General Area Location 10; SO"W J 1 1 1 1- 9« 9-4 Pitkin County -6 + -1 1.7 /11 - U>fr 9 7 126? 1 1 1 1 · · 1 1 ' i ! RT Ranch Stream Stabilization Project FIGURE 01 Location Map 1i,li.... O RTRanch fi -1 Municipal Boundary 1..'---1 j" State Highway Private Londs State Lands BLM Londs USES Lands t; Ib l, 1. 250 10 U .3 S * tK 82 61 fj 7-L In U '133 i.. SNOWM, | VILLAG 1 Pitkin County Gunnison County 6 Arl,um X11- P 27 Request lor ·*pnwid pily .11.2012 1.2.Figure 2: Vicinity Map 107 0 .•.!1·7 6'10 W 107·10'W 1,7 il V.117 i 107 111 A Il, RT Ranch } Stream Stabilization Project FIGURE 02 Vicinity Map - 1:24k 11i·.I.'i„>· O RT Ranch Project 07 Private lands RT Ranch Porce!L-r BLM landis -J'• Improved Road Lrr USFS lands Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream L f 't. C jt' t Itt, 4/0 7 PON. J fax )--) 4<9 3) ,2 1. 7 RT Ram·b NWP 27 Requestfor Approral Jut 31,2012 1.3. Figure 3: Existing Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. !07 450'W 10. 4'43'W 1074'40'*107 4 35 W i f . 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 ij i \tra- / , 1% --3 /1--1 / / / //- 2- -\ X ..1 i l --r. -· f ·0 ....Aff 8 4 4 M 1 -9// - ·r,·itt', : ·. G':J<..- + -- -2-10- ./. · I. h \''.4.- r. ---* - 52>55 5 93-2.. C -1 \33313ii«- --Ii- ft 9// // /-' t r. -r---- \\1111( / \\\\\t/ /--- 410-12<10- * .% + -- 4#>-«//# 55',5'15/ 5-* -cu 3\6. 7 -- AA<#2: 3--no 11\\1\\i\1\\111/ , It-9-30 0 0,#tolfin//i,„,,/2 0„+1>>,--- ---,/ll,1,1,1,dir.1 lI1,,I1,I1II,I,1 107 450'U 07 4.13 W )0/ 4 49 W 107 4 35 £V t'll ..Xh, 'h, ).RT Ranch Stream Stabilization Project Su,6 - 1 im;i .100 2"1 FIGURE 03 Par,· 0- .4 '01.1 t. I.W.: ·; 1 Wetlands Irc•,h/,1,11&¢ridirigicd/n,h,m,qi.Ir¢,na.cpluil/d,Id I.i: repl.*/ti....:,i,r.,2 J.,ixi, /'..il.ini. Wetland...i..............0.68 AL. 1»,:1-m'r.· Lil Waters of the U.S........0. 18 Ac. * Doto Point - Wettond C, p.'d,J •7· 1.-·4•k.'·6 3..4• 1·li. 4'14 ..' i la ,·f, 4 1 .... 1,41· ........ ,%.'U•.-I' I......' ril l-./. 1.d.i .in. 1.-4..11.-i",1.1,i."All"OR.'h.'*tri•.ty. d 9 14, 4.9, . .0.4+1„*ts rAt A,„14-,1,1.„A·,flyi.d A. ..r, d... •ria i...aU, 6, .-2 „,ii:3 6. --Cu..: „i.4·a. i., - Data Point - Uplanci 1 / ttill'/ 8 Er Ranch NWP 27 Request jbr..*prorat July 31,2012 2. REQUEST FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT 27- AQUATIC HABITAT RESTORATION, ESTABLISHMENT, AND ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES Nationu·ide Permit 27 (authorized in March 2012) allows for the removal of accumulated sediments; the installation, removal, and maintenance of small water control structures, dikes, and berms, as u·eli as discharges of dredged or fill material to restore appropriate stream channel configurations after sma!1 water control structures; the installation of current deflectors; the enhancement, restoration, or establishment of riffle and pool stream structure; the placement of in-stream habitat structures; modificarions of the stream bed and/or banks to restore or establish stream meanders; the backfilling of artificial channels; the installation of structures or fills necessary to establish or re- establish wetland or stream hydrologr; activities needed to reestablish vegetation and the planting of appropriate wetland species. c MY_imtive plant species-®ould be-planrnd-aubasite. The project involves an unnamed drainage that does not have critical or occupied habitat for fish species protected by tile Endangered Species .Act, nor is it a stream designated as "(Jold Medal Waters." 2.1. Information and Background I her the past few years, RT Ranch has worked with the Forest Service to improve the stability of several of their permitted irrigation ditches above the project area (specifically, the Findler # 1 and Findley #3 ditches). These ditches feed the unnamed drainage for which we are requesting a permit. Tile improved conditions of the ditches combined with record snow fall in the 2010-2011 winter resulted in a large amount ofwater coursing through the unnamed drainage, downcutting and earn·ing sediment out of the drainage into a flat area near the end ofit and all the way to their irrigation water holding pond. Despite less snowin 2011-12, there is anissue of stream bank stabilization that needs to be addressed u·ith this channel. In May 2012, RT Ranch diverted most of the water out of the channel to initiate the drying our process and to prevent additional downcutting and sidecutting of the unnamed drainage. 2.2. Project Description The proposed project includes a number o f steps to enhance stream stabiiity to allow the drainage m carry Lip to 5cfs of water and mintain a healthv fringe ot- wetland vegetation. First, waters would continue to be diverted out of the channel to continue drying out the drainage and the area Feeding the pond. This is accomplished the use of existing head- gates for directing of irrigation waters (no neu· fill or u·ater management would be needed). The sediment mobilized from the downcutting of the drainage and deposited into the pond would be dredged with an excavator/backhoe and placed on a flat, 0.06-acre staging area on the south side ofthe channel to dry out for subsequent use. In addition, any Area of deposition from incised channel Il R( )(.KYMOUNT,AINECOI.(®;ICAL SERVICES, INC. 9 RT Rant·L NWP 27 Keque.st for Appro:wl 1•431,2012 wetland vegetation which has slumped into the channel would be removed and stockpiled for revegetation purposes. To achieve stream stabilization, drop structures (also known as trench breakers or check dams) would be installed at varying distances averaging 25 fuet apart up the incised section of the drainage. Depending on the depth of the channel and the adjacent topography, the trench breakers would be comprised of sand bags (towards the lower portions of the trench) and rock (towards the upper portion of the trench). The check dams would be placed at an elevation approximating the original depth of the channel. There u·ill not likely be enough soil salvaged from the pond to adequately re-fill the trench, so the trench breakers will also be designed to help capture and allow sediments to stockpile behind the check dams, raising the depth of the channel over time. In some ot- the larger sections of the downcut channel, some larger rock may be placed in the bottom of tlie channel to help reduce downcutting and raise the bed of the channel. Raising the channel would also help re-wet the currently perched wetlands on either side of the channel. A skid-steer and mini-excavator would be used along the channel to shuttle tile dried-out dredged tnud, and place the material around the check-dams. It is anticipated th·,it there would be some temp()ran· surface disturbance (through trampling of wetland vegetation) to accomplish this work and would require approximately 16 feet of workspace along either side ofthe drainage, depending on access and ability to avoid wetlands (to the extent practicable). The original contours would need to be adjusted to further tie the new structures into the banks, Again, depending on site-specifics, the sides would be graded and smoothed depending on the amount of work needed to stabilize and re-vegetate the banks. Prosion control blanko would be installed along the disturbed area along the stabilized channel. Salvaged dumps of wetland plants from the trench would also be placed in the trench. In areas where side-casting may occur, the use of a visual barrier (certified weed-free straw) u·ould be used to demarcate native wetlands from side- cast material (per General Condition #13, removal of temporar)+ fills). Once the erosion control blankets are in place, some water would be allowed back into the channel to u·et the blankets and the soil beneath. Live plants (using 1 Oci plugs) would be Lised to t£1*e.Latc.the stream channel and any disturbed banks. The entirety of the project area would be fenced to keep grazing livestock out of the area until success criteria are met. It is anticipated that the stabilization project u·ould continue to adjust and settle over the course of the next few years. Additional seeding and/or plantings may be necessary during reclamation in order ro promote reveg52atign.in some areas. Any wetiands disturbed during the dredging of the pond would also be revegetated using local native wetland plant species. Treatment of noxious u·eeds would occur annually. Monitoring ancl reporting would occur as described belciw. 2.2.1. Table 1: Proposed Surface Disturbance (acres) Temporary Permanent Wetlands 0.1 0 W-OUS ().18 Totals 0.1 0.18 2.3. Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to improve streambank stability to ensure deliven· of sufficient water to the irrigation pond at the rancli without erosion and sedimentation issues. The project would also LikelY enhance wettand characteristics along the channel's edge, thereby improving the function and value of the wetland. The need is to comply with Pitkin County regulations as well as USAGE regulations in a timely manner. RACK)'Al{)t]Nit\INE(:{)1.C)(;1{::\I.SI.RVICES,INC 10 RT lanch NU-1> 27 Request for .*prozal 12* 3 1,2012 2.4. Other Agency Consultations/Certifications/Permits Agency Permit or Consultation Applicability Forest Service, Aspen-Sopris Ranger District As adjacent landowaer, they would be notified of the actions Pitkin County They have requested a description of the proposed actions to rectify the continued erosion of the channel and restore wetland function adjacent to the channel. The Counrv -he-,1„..J, Mi,U,uid an earth-moving permit fur this project.01 0 62 4r·anclb'V\.391/4314,4,1 2.5. Adjacent Landowner Information Adjacent landowners listed below will be notified of the applicant's intention via certified letter, Parcel to west - Parcel #264723200001 Ou·nec William & Nancv Hill Local Address: 6889 Capitol Creek Rd., Snowmass, CO 81654 NIailing Address: 29104 Canal Rd., Orange Beach, Af. 36561 Parcel to east - Parcel #264723100()01 Owner: Aston Ranch LLC Local Address: 6801 Capitol Creek Rd., Snowmass, CO 81654 Mailing Address: 6801 Capitol Creek Rd., Snowmass, CO 81654 Parcel to south - Parcel #264726200031 Owner: Capitol Creek Land 1.].C I,ocal Address: 8719 Capitol Creek Rd., Snowmass, CO 81654 Mailing Address: 33 Katonah Ave., Katonah, NY 10536 Parcels to north Aspen-Sopris R:znger District, \*'RNF 620 Main Street Carl)ondale, CO 81623 Maurin I .and 1.1£ c/o Dwight Maurin 1979 Capitol Creek Road Snou-mass, CO 81654 W''hite Tip Ranch,LLC 1222 Alderbaron Drive Mchean, VA 22101 Dr. William A. Hill 29104 Canal Road Capitol Creek Lane I.I.C c/o Frank L. Robin son 950 Seventeenth Street Ste. 160() Denver, CO 80202 Orange Beach, Al.36561 Rt)(:Kl NIC )Ii\.1.AINECOIX)(i](.Al. SI.R\'ICEN INC. 11 RI Ranch NWI> 27 Requestfor Appmval July 31,2012 2.1. Figure 4: Reclamation Are a and Plan 107+4'46-W 107'444- W 107·4'42 W 1074'40·V. 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I .-9T:. / 1.. P.+ 1 ''74'lk,tr f \lilli // \ 1 i ! f /i/ 11 / / I i \4 \ 1 / / , fi i , 1 1 1 / 1 1 i. ili - / / 1 1 i- 1 1 4 1 1%\ i ill' 1 1 1 1 2% \ L ·&4:4 4/' .11 \ 1 1 L \.1 1 1 /1 1 1 107 4·46-W 107·714 U 107-442·-V lilli ' 1 1.j limit 1 1 1f ...1 lti .t. !. i. 3 107 1'40-W 30 1(10 ./0/ C p¢" ' Si·.,tr: 1 lil, L = 100.*4 /12:,·. 07 118.1,112 t.r.-:02 RT Ranch Stream Stabilization Project FIGURE 03 Reclamation Plan Wetland..........0 68 Ac. IE Reclomotion Area.......................0.21 Ac. ' rred biliker, delikieC ;/ 11,x ;Mr anumi:Ft,i, ult·.1 mt r,pt€Knlilir, Ii}inul,le,ifte<uien. Dul,iii,im --*- *Trench Breaker Soil Staging.....O.06 Ac (No Wetiond Import! * Data Point - Wetland Av„-* Reclamation Area Disturbance...0.39 Ac. fWerlond Impact) C£g> Reclamation Area Disturbance...0.12 Ac, ;No Wettord 'mpact) i , i hi I bil• i¢I.1....:-' F'/· I. ·'ei.I ,i+·r· ,:I h.'. ;1.' i' :I·. jl- .•' 3.4,1•i. li' '•14. 2'e ur'm¢ 0 •I,n. "4 MI.' · -·, r, ill, f .K a wilii i...i i. / r i 1 ,·r,1. I·&....,4.1, ' ,·, m ph·,i i i. .fi,it ]· 41 ..: hurid D i . 2//i· 6% i.'ll.i·.L,4 L ., Doto Point - Uplond 99'14'1·17< 12 RT Randb N\EP 27 Request for Approral Jub 31,2012 3. WETLAND DELINEATION A u·etland delineation report is incorporated into this request for NWP 27. It was concluded that vegetation, soil, and hydrologic data were supportive of jurisdictional wetlands (waters) occurring in the project area, and that there is hydrological surface connectivity to Waters of the U.S. and Traditional Navigable Waterways (TNW). The wetlands adjacent to and abutting the unnamed drainage is approximately 0.67 acres in size, Other wetlands likely occur upstream and downstream of tile project area, and other areas in the meadow complex appeared to support wetland vegetation; however, as these areas would not be impacted, they were not delineated. The unnamed, ephemeral gulch in the project area is hydrologically connected to [(ast Sopris Creek, which is tributary to the Roaring Fork River, and the Roaring Fork River is tributan- to the Colorado River (a TNW). The wetland and waters investigations were conducted following technical guidelines set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region @2) (USACE 2010) and the guidance document"Information Needed jhrjurisdidional Determinations- US Army Coips of Engineers". Pre-Fictd work included review of pertinent background information and discussions with individuals familiar with the Investigation Area and down gradient hydric resources. Additionally, maps, aerial photos, and soil map unit descriptions ofthe Investigation Area were obtained and reviewed by RMES. Upon completion of the pre-field work, the Investigation Area u·as tralversed on June 6 and 20, 2012. One (1) wetland data point and one (1) upland data point was used in the Investigation Area. Given the homogeneity of the wetlands and clear wetland/upland demarcation, additional data points were not justified. Ecosystem parameters (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) were characterized and recorded on field data forms (Appendix A) for the two wetland data points. The urtland boundaries and top-of-banks of the incised channels within the Investigation Area were logged with a Trimble GeoXT GPS unit, differentially corrected for sub-meter accuracy, and then exported as ArcGIS shapefiles. These features are shown in section 1.3 Figure 3: Existing Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. (above). The wetlands are hydrogeomorphically classed as Slope as well as Riverine Wetlands, with a Riverine Subclass designation of 2 (moderate gradient, low to middle order streams on coarse and fine- textured substrates). • Vegetation: Vegetation community composition was noted throughout the sites and in vicinity of the sample points. An attempt was made to identify all dominant species, and species were listed in order of dominance. A urtland indicator status for each species was determined using the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Intermountain (Region 8) (USFWS 1988), and if the species was not addressed in that report, then the National Hydric Plant I.ist (1996) was referenced. Cover for each species was estimated to the nearest percent to determine dominance. • Soils: Soil pits were dugin wetl·ands and non-wetlands and inspected for hydric characteristics. Hydric characteristics in the spring complex included redox depressions. Soils in the area unmapped, but they are most likely Jerry-Millerlake loams, which are described by the Soil Conservation Service (NRCS 1985): Jerry-Millerlake loams: This soil map unit is found on alluvial fans and valley sides at elevations ranging from 7,500 to 9,500 feet and on slopes of 6 to 25 percent, The Jern· soil is deep, well-drained and is derived from sandstone and shale allurium, Surface runoff is rapid and the water erosion hazard is severe. The Millerlake soil is deep, u·ell drained and is derived from sedimentary rock alluvium. Surface runoff is R<){:K\-MOUNTAIN Ec<}I.( 1(;IC·il. SliRVICF.S. INC. 15 Er Ranch NWP 27 Kequest.for,·lppro,g J.431,2012 medium and the water erosion hazard is moderate. Primary uses ft)r this soil map unit include rangeland, pasture, and wildlife habitat. The site exhibited conditions consistent with Jerry-Millertake [oams. • Hydrology: The investigation area was traversed to make obsen·ations for hydrologic characteristics. Surface water was present in the channel despite efforts to divert it, and the water table was evident in locations despite the fact that is has dropped due to the problematic downcutting. \Vetland and upland communities were classified based on dominant vegetation characteristics. A field copy of the \Vestern Mountains Retland Determination Data Form was completed for each sample point. This form recorded the vegetation, soil, and hydrologic measurements and observations. Latin plant names were used throughout. Based on the information recorded in the Dlita Forms, each community that mel all three wetland criteria was established as a wetland. Wetland vegetation, hydrology and soils all full out rapidly as one moved away from the wetland areas, given the constrained topography. 4 · £,4- The borders of the wetlands u·cre logged with : Trimble GeoNT GPS (sub-meter accuracy) and marked with pink wire flags and flagging with "Wetland Boundary" printed on them. These flags were numbered in the field and recorded. Base maps were drafted in AreMap 9.0 that indicated the project area, data collection locations, jurisdictional wetlands, and non- u·edands. Only the unnamed drainage is mapped as WoUS within the project area. lt Spring complex above project areahas a well-defined and down-cut channel, and is currently flou·ing (OH\VMs). This feature CDrlnects to East Sopris Creek and then the Roaring Fork River. There was evidence of trampling by livestock along the channel, also contributing to bank instabilin·. 3.1. Description of Wetland Resources if Vegetation was dominated by beaked sedge (Ca,·ex unh·u/ata-OBL) and clustered field sedge (Carexpnagrad/& -FACW). The site was saturated and had interrnittent surface waters, but not enough ilow to support fish use. Soils Unnamed drainage showing incised channel and fringe supported mottling and patchy sulphidic odors wetlands (please see Appendix A), 3.2.Waters of the U.S. The incised channel did not support hydric vegetation in excess of 5% cover. The site did support evidence of hydric soils and wedand hydrology. Because o fa lack of wetland vegetation, the channel was not considered to be a wetland, but it did show indicators of Ordinan- High U.ater RACKY MOUNTAIN ECOI.(AG]C.US[.R\ICES, INC. 16 RT Ranch NUrP 27 Request forApproral J#4 31,2012 5. MITIGATION PLAN Work Plan Material from the pond would be dredged and stored in upland areas to the southwest of the pond, behind silt fence to allow the material to dry out. The trench breakers would be installed and stabilized with dredged material from the pond. Stream bank sides would be recontoured, salvaging as much of the existing vegetation as possible, as needed. Topsoils and subsoils would be stored outside of wetland areas to minimize further indirect impacts to wetlands. lirosion control fabric (using non-plastic netting blankets) would be used in the entire channel to help with erosion control. After construction, the site would be wetted to allow for incidental settling so that problem areas can be identified, and to moisten the soil for planting. Local native wetland plants species would be used to revegetate the impacted wetland areas. It is anticipated that other graminoids, forbs and shrubs would reclaim the wetlands based on the small u·idth of the disturbance corridor. These impacts are also accounted for in the total acreage calculations. The construction area would then be fenced to keep livestock out during the reclamation and plant estal,lishment process. Reclamation species would include: 1. Carex Mticulata beaked sedge 1. Carex pr,ratilis clustered field sedge 3. Jimius baltions Baltic rush 4. Im missounen.gis western blue iris 5. Juncus ensifolins swordleaf rush Maintenance Plan The project area and wetland mitigation site would be protected from livestock by electric fencing. The site would be rcrieu·ed yearly to identify issues by RMES, or another qualified u·etland consultant. Performance Standards & Monitoring Requirements After the first growing season, photo documentation of the conditions of hydrology, wetland plant persistence, noxious weeds, and siltation issues would be provided to the USAGE. The USACE is invited to verify the construction and reclamation process. Monitoring would continue for likely 2 growing seasons, or until vegetation is well established and reclamation is functioning properly. Success would be defined as desirable native wetland vegetation (i.e., no noxious weeds) occupying at least 80% of the aerial cover of the reclaimed area, with noxious weeds occupying less than 5% of the vegetation. Native u·etland vegetation could include the planted and sceded species, as well as local native plants that colonize the reclamation area. Undesirable or non-native ruderal species would not count towards the 80% threshold. No dowlicutting or sidecutting greater than 6-inches would be allowed. 6. CONCLUSION RT Ranch requests to perform work authorized by NWP 27 to stabilize an unnamed drainage and improve wetlands function and value in the project area. The project would result in temporan- impacts to approximately 0.1 acres of wetlands and 732 linear feet (or ().18 acres) ola Water of the l'S. The project would be revegetated and could be expected to have a net increase in wetlands upon achieving stream stabilization. The project does not require consultation with the USFWS under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act given No Effect determinations for listed species. The project does not occur on Indian lands. # Rock)·1[0[INTAIN Ea)11*nc·\LSI:Rvici·*,INC:. 18 IC]' Rumb NWP 27 Requestjbr ·lpproral D,6342012 Marks (OHWMs). These indicators included banks, flowing water, sediment deposits, reorganization of sediments, and the obvious signs of the recent downcutting events. At the pond, a large alluvial fan of this material has been deposited where the gradient allows the material to fall out of suspension. 4. IMPACTS ASSESSMENT 4.1. Impacts to Non-Wetland (WoUS) Features The project involves stabilizing an unnamed drainage for approximately 723 linear feet before it enters a small holding pond (approximately % acres in size), Impacts to this drainage would also include the banks being re-contoured to match the trench breakers and then stabilized with erosion control blankets and revegetated with site-specific native wetland plant species, as weU as clumps of vegetation that was removed prior to initiating construction. Additionally, the project would include dredging soils from tlie pond, which is considered a WoUS to provide fill for the trench breakers. 4.2. Impacts to Wetlands There would be no long- term loss of adjacent wetlands; the majority of the impacts would be along the ed,ges of the channel, where wetlands vegetation u·ould be tempor:irily trampled; other impacts would include re-contouring of the incised channel banks, which would entail topsoils being salvaged (to approximately 4 txo 6-inches deep), and sidecast outside of wetlands areas, or i f necessary, a layer of straw would be lised to demarcate the sidecast material from wetlands beneath them (per regional conditions). Approximately 0.1 acres of- jurisdictional wetlands may be temporarily impacted by the construction process. i\dditionally, up to 100 square feet of wetlands along the fringe of the irrigation pond, down gradient of the channel, could be impacted by dredging activities. After dredging operations are complete, any disturbed wetland margins would be re- planted using native wetland plant species, as described below 4.3. Impacts to Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species I isted or candidate wildlife, fish and plant species that were considered and evaluated for this project include those identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potentially occurring in Pitkin County (USFWS list accessed June 2012). Whilc all ofthe listed species were initially considered, all were dropped from detailed consideration because their range distributions are outside the project area or because habitats necessary for their life requirements are not found within the project area and this project would have no additional water depictions from the Colorado River basin. There would be No Effect u,listed species, and therefore no need for section 7 consultation between the USACE and USFWS. 4.4. Impacts to Indian Lands The project area is entirely on privately owned lands. The project is not located on Indian lands. Adjacent landowners were notified o f the proposed project. 11(}CKY Moll\-r.UN Ecol.(,GR\I. St.RUC ES, ING. 17 11'1' Rancb NWP 27 Request RY,lpproral Juh 31,2012 7. APPENDIX A: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS 19 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Project/Site: RT Ranch off East Sopris Creek City/County: Pitkin Sampling Date: 6/20/2012 ApplicanVOwner RT Ranch do Tom Smith State:CO Sampling Point.DP-1 Investigator(s): Tasker/Petterson Section, Township, Range: S23, T9S, R87W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 4 Subregion (LRR).D - Interior Deserts Lat see GPS data Long· see GPS data Datum:WGS 1984 Soil Map Unit Name: unniapped. most likely Jerry-Millerlake loams NWI classification: fresh water emergent Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes /No g ([f no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation m Soil El or Hydrology U significantly disturbed?Are"Normal Circumstances" present? Yes C No @ Are Vegetation m Soil El or Hydrology U naturally problematic?(lf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes g No C Hydric Soil Present?Yes (2 No O Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes (2 No r within a Wetland?Yes O No O Remarks: Severe drought conditions. Recent reworking of local ditches to carry more water has caused the immediate drainage to downcut. dropping the water table at this site. VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) %Cover Species? Status 1. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2 3. 4. 5. Herb Stratum 1. Iris missourie/isis 2. Carex p aegracilis 3. Corex Wriculato 4.Juncus ensi/blihs 5-Veronica americana 5. Epilobium ciliatum 7.Glyceria stricita 8.Vet·alrum tenuipefalum Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover: %That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC:100.050 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:Multiply by: OBL species 82 x1= 82 FACW species 18 x2= 36 FAC species x 3= O Total Cover: % x4= OFACU Species UPL species x 5= 0 2 No 1 \('114 118Column Totals 100 (A) (B) 12 Yes F./CW 80 Yes ()Ill Prevalence Index = B/A =1.18 2 No FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 1 No 08[.X Dominance Test is >50% 1 No bAC'W X Prevalence Index is 53.01 1 No ()H[ Morphological Adaptationsl (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)1 No r \CW U Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl (Explain)Total Cover: 100°: 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, Total Cover: o Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum I go % Cover of Blotic Crum 0 no Present?Yes @ No O Remarks: Wetland area may be dewatered due to recent downcutting by adjacent drainage area. US Amiy Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 1 1-1-2006 SOIL Sampling Point DP- 1 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrjx Redox Features (inches)Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Tvpe l Loc2 Texture3 Remarks 0-2 2.5YR 2.5/1 99 siItyclay loam 2-12+2.5YR2.5/2 15 2.5YR 4/8 10 C M Clay loam Type: C=Concentration, D=Depiction. RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel. M=Matrix. 3Oil Textures: Clay Silly Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silly Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, Histosol (Al ) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) = 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) = Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Redox(S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) = Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) == Redox Dark Surface (F6) = Depicted Dark Surface (F7) X Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F 9) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soil 4: 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) = 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertie (F 18) = Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 41ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydric Soil Present? Yes C No O Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator Ts sufficient)U Water Marks (Bl) (Riverine) ® Surface Water (Al)El Salt Crust (Bll)U Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) El High Water Table (A2) Blotic Crust (812) Drift Deposits (83) (Riverine) El Saturation (AU)El Aquatic Invertebrates (B 13)U Drainage Patterns (810) m Water Marks (81) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry-Season Water Table ((2) U Sediment Deposits (32) (Nonriverine)El Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots {(3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) U Drift Deposits (83) (Nonriverine)El Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)] Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6)El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) El Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) El Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (03) El Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes f No C Depth (inches): 1 Water Table Present?Yes (i'No O Depth (inches): 6 Saturation Present?Yes C No W Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) -Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes @ No O Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections) if available· Remarks: US Army C'orps o f Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006 SAMPLING POINT PHOTOS Sampling Point: DP-1 mage Field image Field Soil Test Pit Photo Soil Matrix Photo Sample Area Photo t 411,4,.?6 a.r t 9 ah 2 , 4%6 4 G 7. image Field WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Projecusite: RT Ranch near E. Sopris Creek City/County: Pitkin Sampling Date: 6/20/2012 ApplicanUOwner: RT Ranch 0/0 Toni Smith State:CO Sampling Point:DP 2 Investigator(s): Tasker/Petterson Section, Township, Range:S23, T9S, R87W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hills[ope Local relief (concave, convex. none): Concave Slope (%):4 Subregion (LRR):D - Interior Deserts Lat: see GPS data Long-see GPS data Datum: WGS 1984 Soil Map Unit Name: uninapped, most likely Jerry-Millerlake learns NWI classification. fresh water emergent Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes C No (i (lf no, explain in Remarks ) Are Vegetation m Soil or Hydrology U significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes O No C Are Vegetation gl Soil El or Hydrology El naturally problematic?(1 f needed. explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes (i'No C Hydric Soil Present?Yes C No C Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes C No g within a Wetland?Yes C No i Remarks: Severe short term drought for this area. VEGETATION Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) %Cover Species? Status 1. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 2. 3 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 Herb Stratum 1. h·is missouriensis 2. 18'ethia ample.ricaulis 3.Medicago luptilina 4. Bromus ine,·mis 5.Ta]·axactim officinale 6.Dactylis glomerata 7. Poa pratensi.s 8. Feratrum te,wipetalum Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: 2 (B) Percent of Dominant Species Total Cover: 06 That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC 100.00.6 (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:Multiply bv: OBL species x 1= 0 FACW species 2 x 2= 4 FAC species 55 x3=t 65 Total Cover: % 28 x41=112FACU species UPL species x 5= 0 1 No [ACW Column Totals: 85 (A) 281 (B) 25 Yes EA( 25 Yes FAC Prevalence Index = B/A =3.31 15 NO FACL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 10 No FA(·11 X Dominance Test is >50% 3 No FACC Prevalence Index is 63.0' 5 No FAE U Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 No 1AC W Cl Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetationl (Explain)Total Cover:85 o. Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Total Cover: o o Hydrophytic Vegetation % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 15 % %Cover of Biotic Crust Present?Yes (5 No O Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 1 1-1-2006 SOIL Sampling Point. DP 2 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches)Color (moist) % . Color (moist)-1_ Type'Loc2 Texturei Remarks 0-12 2.5YR 2.5/2 99 SilLy loarn 'Type: C.Concentration, D=Depiction, RM=Reduced Matrix. 'Location PL=Pore Lining.,RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. 3Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, Histosol (Al ) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) = Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) = Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depicted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Thick Dark Surface (A 12) = Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: unless otherwise noted.) Sandy Redox(S5) = Stripped Matrix (S6) = Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) =Redox Dark Surface (FO) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) = Vernal Pools (=9) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soi14 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertie (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present. Hydric Soil Present?Yes C No g Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient)U Water Marks (81) (Riverine) El Surface Water (Al)El Salt Crust(Bll)U Sediment Deposits (82) (Riverine) [] High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)U Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) El Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (813) Drainage Patterns (810) U Water Marks (Bl) (Nonriverine)U Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl ) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) El Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)U Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) E Thin Muoi Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (83) (Nonriverine)U Presence of Reduced Iron ((4)(3 Crayfish Burrows ((8) U Surface Soil Cracks (86)El Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (co)El Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) El Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) U Other (Explain in Remarks)2 Shallow Aquitard (D3) El Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (05) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Yes C No (E Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Yes O No (E Depth (inches): Saturation Present?Yes C No (2 Deplh (inches): (includes capillary fringe)Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes O No (W Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Anny Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 1 1-1-2006 SAMPLING POINT PHOTOS Sampling Point: DP 2 227 =42.; 1,10l 3!.*?'DE4*ki€*t*162iblti . -I'-, 9.1:141'4':F 9'.1-'. 1ft..54*»it-- t z ·:·.0,.....-4-41.Aft91#,6*,SE&'Le ILWYi. Ap-Dig,«,». ¢ :47.-'.t:Yiky,N difirth#Atift/..,-'* tril31114f,1,1.211'.fil,\il:....1,4 :23- 1.+147-1/21,12*<&-#4':.3-41.;fi<F·<. '·.4 pgrfAffifieilE62-4 *343»-4t»102**3942721 5 Image Field Image Field U.\14, Soil Test Pit Photo Soil Matrix Photo :' t./ip .3 A ,€ I r f. 2 · «,¢ 9.. t· 511,»Jig· 7, - --1031/u< /L ,: . 1% ..--.46 chij,04¥4#..,3'198r Al/'t-Vel\'»4 1 3*',iL ,..f.b« : I q-02-** 0 i.#4%21.k.-87#54*·- .4'3 rf le, - ,<5<-i le. >.24)*t·i 5.i, 4*'.'·f. i r.iwbu,4 *b&44,9„13·. . Mir/:1% ir.. 4 '. r lk'V' ' :J.51rO-.1.FEA& 4<8,36.....'::.1- A-ks /29 fil.'7'.tt...f.'Slit#LE'ks:ji,IdIEI '.u#:fil/,i:,Ciaspewdl.lidild:lidilip)*eT. ai..,uw,67;L.i*-48;.ir*0*6.24·47£-:2·· -·&94/ff,24,43791*. :-./Uns//1/Fli/,2595/57&39*Se. aw· PHE/21//3/%"224,2/914620 .. 'mage Field Sample Area Photo ba./.pi-4-0 1Lph/A:.59'evhift 2.- ...4.,4.L. 41, Rl' Rmich NW-1> 27 liequest for.,\ppro·,il ]•b 31,2012 8. ApPENDIX B: PERMIT APPLICATION FORM 26 APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT {33 CFR 325) OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003 EXPIRES: 31 August 2012 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completjng and reviewing the collection of information, Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters, Executjve Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Omce of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (07·10-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses Comp[eted applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10,33 USC 403: Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 US C 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413; Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers: Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332 Principal Purpose· Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This Information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this applicaron (see sample I drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An applicaoon that is not completed in full will be returned. (ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPsj 1. APPLICATION NO 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE (ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT) 5. APPLICANTS NAME: First - Thomas Middle - Fenton COmparly - do RT Ranch, Andlinger Properties Capital Corp E-mail Address - tsmith@aps-pc corn last- smim 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required) First - Eric Middle -Last- pe•.con Company - Rocky Mountain Ecological Ser,rices, Inc E-mail Address - epetterson@nnes-Inc com 6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS Address -6855 Capitol Creek Road 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS Address -P.O. Box 833 City - snowmass State - CO *-81654 Country- USA City - Glenwood Sprngs State - CO Z]p- 81602 Country - usA 7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOs. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENTS PHONE NOs W/AREA CODE a. Residence b Business c. Fax 8. Residence b. Business c. Fax 970-945-9558 970-945-9558 ) STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION 11. I hereby awmorigd, Enc Pe,pn,;61 ESlf- / to €01'lin my behalf as my agent in the processing of this applicmion and to furnish, upon request, supplemeryalinf*atiogin,{ippA¢6ttl·,10parmitaqhlication. (k j tx' 1 4 1 p€>0/ '9-12-/21 *PP*ANT'5SIGN*'PURE DATE ' I t NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY 12 PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions) RT Ranch Wetland Rehabilitation Project 13 NAME OF WATERBODY, F KNOWN Of applicable) East Sopris Creek, Sopns Creek, Roaring Fork River, Colorado River 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable) Address 6855 Capitol Creek Road I15. LOCATION OF PROJECT Latitude: 'N 39 25452 City - Snowmass State -Longitude:'W .107.07874 CO LP- 81654 16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instrucoons) State Tax Parcel ID see atlached Municipality Unl oo-d P#in County Section - :23 Township - TGS RanC]e - Ra7w 17 DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE Take Highway 82 past Basalt to Capitol Creek Road/CR 1 1/Snowmass Creek Road. Turn Right onto Capitol Creek Rd /CR 9 and go 2 miles. Gate is on Mght. ENG FORM 4345, SEPT 2009 EDITION OF OCT 2004 IS OBSOLETE Proponent· CECW.OR 18. ' Neture 01'Advity (Descr,pbon of project hclude al features) Dredge stock pond, and re-use dredged material to fill in downcut stream. Use check-dams and rocks, associated with erosion control and native plant materials, see attached for more information... 19 Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the pro,ect, see instructions) Improve streambank stability to ensure delivery of sufficient water to the inigation pond at the ranch without erosion and sedimentation issues The prOJGct would also likely enhance wetland characteristics along the channel's edge, thereby improving the function and value of the wetland. The need is to comply with Pitkin County regulations as well as USACE regulations in a timely manner. USE BLOCKS 20-23 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20. Reason(s) for Discharge In order to repair large downcut in ephemeral drainage, and clear out washed-out material that wentinto stock pond. 21, Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards: Type Type Type Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards See attached 22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instctions) Acres 0.2 acres of WoUS, with minor temporary impacts to adjacent wetlands. Or Liner Feet 23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions} 24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes O No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK 25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (11 more than can be entered hem. please atiach a supplemental list). Address - see attached City -State-Zip- 26. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application. AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL·IDENPFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED see attached • Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits 27 3 thework described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is Col 'to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the Applicalign is hereby mide for a permit or permits to authorizf -nplete andhccurate. 1 fudher certify that I possess the authorit, plicant / YIGNAkE OF APPLICANT DATE< epplication must be signed by the person who desires to undi It&ment in block 1 ·1 has been filled out and sioned SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE Th Ditake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the 18 U.S C. Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fichtious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. ENG FORM 4345, SEPT 2009 BALCOM H & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNE¥S AT LAW EDWARD MULHALL,JR. CHRISTOPHER L COYLE t SCOTT BALCOMB LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THu LSON DAVID C HALLFORD THOMAS J HARTERT CHRISTOPHER L. GEIGER SARA M DUNN SCOTT GROSSCup P. O. DRAWER 7 90 818 COLORADO AVENVE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORAI)0 81602 TEI.EPHoNE: 970.94.5.654(; F.H·SnfILE: 970.94.5.8902 www.balcombgreen.com KENNETH BALCOMS C 1920-2005) OF COUNSEL: JOIN A THULSON tALSO UCENSED IN OKLAHOMA 'ALSO LICENSED IN WYOMING CHAD J LEE*September 6,2012 LUCAS F. VAN ARS[ALE Mr. Lance Clarke Assistant Director Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, CO 81611 Re:Andlinger Properties Capital Corp. Water Rights Dear Lance: The Andlinger Properties Capital Corp. owns both senior and junior water rights adjudicated to the Finley No. 1 and 4 Ditches. These water rights are conveyed via a gravity- operated open-ditch system through the meadow above the Andlinger residence. Water is then delivered to laterals that can irrigate the meadow or directly to the ponds on the Andlinger Property. The Finley No. 1 and 4 Ditches were originally adjudicated in Civil Action 3082 on August 25, 1936, with a date of appropriation of May 1, 1901, to provide water for irrigation and stockwatering, The junior water rights that are conveyed through the same ditch system were decreed to the Andlinger Properties Capital Corp. in Case No. 01CW212 to fill two ponds located on the Andlinger Property for wildlife, piscatorial, fire protection and aesthetic uses. The Andlinger Properties Capital Corp. purchased the senior water rights from Edward Adelson by Quit Claim Deed recorded on May 17, 2000 (Reception No. 443434) in the records of the Piktin County Clerk and Recorder. The junior water rights were appropriated and adjudicated by the Andlinger Properties Capital Corp. Please do no. hesitate to call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. 0 01agua- L/1 L A-2,uu'By: Sara M. Dunn 4-rt-*s#M lu 4 )1 Quote Sales Order tt 1484 Job Name:Eric RMES, Inc. ,Date: 8/8/2012 Phone: 970-309-4454 Address:Old Snowmass Name: Eric Petterson Destinationof goods:Tax rate:Wholesale 4.>criptior Carex utriculata, Beaked Secge (Installed)10ci. Iris missoui iensis, Rocky Mountain Iris (Installed)10ci. Juncus baticus, Arctic Rush (Installed)1 Oci. Juncus ensifolius, Threestamen Rush (Installed) (275 available)10ci. , Include: Juncus tenuis. Slander Rush (Installed) (850)10ci. Juncus torreyi, Tcrrey's Rush (Installed) (175)10ci. Carex praeracills, Blackcreeper Sedge (None availaole)N/A SUB: C·' ex simulata, Analogue Sedge 1 Installed)10ci. ALL DISTURBED AREAS MiST ' I BE REVEGETATED WITH PITKIN COUNTY APPROVED SEED VIIX Salespersi,n:Blaine Krul·„pe Order Pie!.er: Delivery Person: Ship Date· Notes:Price includes plants and site instillation. 2825 $1.99'$5,621.75 100 $1.99 5199.00 975 $1.99 $1,940.25 275 $1.99 5547.25 850 $1.99 51,691.50 175 $1.99.$348.25I $0.003 $0.00 1300 , 1 50.00 1300 J 51.99 $2,587.00 SO.00 50.00 30.00soloo1 $0.00 SO.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 So.00 5000 Subtotal:$12,935.00 Tax 0%$0.00 Shipping & Handling: TOTAL:$12,935.00 Deposit $6,467.50 Quoted p®e..expires 10 days after date listed at the top of document unless otherwise noted. Pricing subject to availability. Conservation Seeding and Restoration (CSR, inc.) warrants all plant material to be free of insects, diseases, and to be of good quality. at the time of delivery to buyer. Buyer will notify CSR Inc within three (3) businiess days of any issues or problems with the product received. CSR, Inc further warrants all plants contained in the order to be true to type of the . pecles as ordered by the Buyer. No other warranties pertaining to this or any additional orders are offered, expressed, or implied. CSR, Inc. shall be held liable only to the val ie of the plant material M ordered All agreements are contingent upon strike. accidents, or delays beyond our control. In order to collect past due or delinquent inv oices, CSR, Inc. shall be ertitied to recover reasonable attorney's fees in addition to the deiin(went amount owing. Any proceedings will take place in the county and state of the CER, Inc. office Ic cated nearest to the proposal site or derivery destination. We very much appreciate the opportunity to serve you. Should you have further que5t,Ens or needs, pleBe contait our Corporate Office at (208) 423·4835 x 110. Manager Signature:Customer 5ignature: PLANS