HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.060.2003 (FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY)
RESOLUTION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Resolution No. ~ - ;2
Section I: In accordance with 39-1-113(1 5), C.R.S., the corem ssioners of Pitkin County authorize the assessor to
review petitions for abatement or refund and to settle by written mutual agreement any such petition for abatement
or refund in an amount of one thousand dollars or less per tract, parcel, or lot of land or per schedule of personal
property.
The assessor and petitioner mutually agree to an assessed value and tax abatement/refund of: Tax Year Tax Year
Value Tax Value · Tax
Original
Corrected
Abate/Refund
PLEASE NOTE: THE TOTAL TAX AMOUNT DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCRUED INTEREST, PENALTIES, AND
FEES ASSOCIATED WiTH LATE AND/OR DELINQUENT TAX PAYMENTS, IF APPLICABLE. PLEASE
CONTACT YOUR COUNTY TREASURER FOR FULL PAYMENT INFORMATION.
Petitioner's Signature Date
Assessor's or Deputy Assessor's Signature Date
Ill Section I is not complete and/or if petition is for more than $1,000, Section II must be completed. Submit an
original petition and a copy to the Division of Property Taxation.
Section Ih Assessor's recommendation:
E] Approved or E~ Approved in part $
No protest filed in or . (if a protest was filed, please attach a copy of NOD.)
Assess~'r's or D~uty'~sessor's Signature
Secti._.___on II1'. WHEREAS, The C~nty Commissioners of Pitkin County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully
called regular meeting held on C'~/-( / ~ / ~'~)~, at which meeting there were present the following
.~-no day yr
/
with notice of such meeting and an opp~!esent having been given to the taxpayer and the Assessor of
said County and Assessor Tom Isaac f~eing presen~l'not present) and
petitioner J~ ~ ¢ f...J4¢/$ ~pre_se~-It/~ot present), and WHEREAS, The said
Name
County Commissioners have carefully considered the within petition, and are fully advised in relation thereto,
NOW BE IT RESOLVED, Tb.~_t the Board (agree~witht~m_mendation of the assessor
and the petition be ~pprove~enlsd) and an abatement/refund be ((~pprove_cltdenied) for property tax year(s)
-~.t~O\ and ?.bO ~ . The taxes to be abated/refunded for property tax year ~.~,Ot are $
which represents an assessed value of $ ~'%. Obt%_ and the taxes to be abated/refunded for property tax
year '~.OO~, are $ I iz,¢[5, [,% which~
l~,assessed value of $ ~ , OOO .
/ ~ ~5~ airpe.on of the Board of Court, Commissions-- Signatu.
I, ~~ ~.~ S , Co~~ ~-officio Clerk of the Board of Coun~ Commissioners
in and for the aforementioned count, do nereb~ ~he above and foregoing order is truly copied from the
record of the proceedings of the Board of Coun~ ~' ssioners.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I~ave hereunto se py hand and affixed~he ~aid County ~
at /~;~ ,this ¢~ dayof~,~ ~ /
Time Date Month Year / // / I
Denver, Colorado,
Month Day Year
The action of the Board of Coun~ Commissioners, relative to the within petition, is hereby
~ Approved; 8 Approved in pa~ $ ; D Denied for the following reason(s):
Secretary's Signature Property Tax Administrator's Signature
.G:~USR~ ~ABATE\FORMREV2
PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES
Please submit in duplicate copies and answer all questions.
Pitkin County Date ReCeived
Use Assessor's or Commissioners' Date Stamp
PETITIONER: Complete Section I on this side only
.Section I:
Date: * January i5, 2003
Month Day Year
Petitioner's Name: D. Stone Davis
Petitioner's Mailing Address: PO Box 8904
Aspen, CO 81612
City or Town State Zip Code
SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
R017~1 19-11-84 Tract~ 39 7.32ac. Fatent Rec. 4/Ir5770
Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for property tax year(s). 2001 2002
are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect valise or tax.
Attach additional sheets if necessary. ~'he petitioner s est'mate of actua value must be includeLl.)
SEE ATTACHED
Peflti°ner'sestimateofactualvalue$.725,000.O0 (.. 2001 )and $ 725,000.00
(. 2002)
Value Year Value Year
Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes associated with a reduction in value.
~ declare, under penalty of perjury in the second degree, that this petition, together with any accompanying exhibits
or statements, has'been'examined by me, and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, is true, correct
and complete;'. .,,
"¢'. ~"~'~ /~//'~~~'/ Daytime Phone Number [970) 948 0611
Petitioner's ~lgnature
By
Agent's Signature* Daytime Phone Number [
*Letter of agency must be attached when petition is submitted.
Every petition for abatement or refund filed pursuant to section 39-10-114, C.R.S., shall be acted upon pursuant to
the provisions of this section by the board of county commissioners or the assessor, as appropriate, within six
months of the date of filing such petition. 39-1-113(1.7), C.R.S.
.S. ection I1: Assessor's Use Only
Tax Year Zh~ ) Tax Year ~7:,,
Assessed Value Tax Assessed Value Tax
Original ~t,rff.. %.~- ~ ~ -i'~ ~,. ~
, _, , , ,,....
Corrected ~_..'~Jt?;,h,~C~ ~...q~,$~(~.~0 ~ 5~t~bOb
Abate/Refund ¢~,000 t, ~5~.~ ~ ~1 0~
IN TIdE UN~ STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Ac.~iou No. 96-WM-1607
D. S~ DAVIS,
Pl~iutiff,
Vs
AMOS BOURQUIN, MARY, F_. ROGERS; THOMAS P. CRAIG; H~.~'~{ BOURQUIN; ANNE BOURQUIN; ROBERT
STEVENS;'ASPEN-WES~ M1NI~G, LTl)., a Color~,, coqxwalim; IVlCCUI-LOCH CONSOLIDATED MINING
COMPAI~C¥ aColCr~do~coqmoration; TH~ OKI~N, am ~ Tmasu~r of PiOJn County, Colorado; UNITED STATES OF
A~CA, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. Ul~i'i'P_a) STATES FOREST SERVICE4 and ,au'~lY AND ALL
UNKNOWN PERSONS who claim auy ~ in tl~ subj~:t mauer of ~i.~ ~
SE'I'~ -~ AGi~Pb'MENT
' ItisklkraU-,~!kltmestofilipl~tos~rdefi~Uni~$~Ils{rictCourllili~ Tl~,D. Stone
Davis (,Davis'r~ ', tl~ Bo~u~i of Cotmty Commissione~ of Pitkln County, Coio~ C~tkin Col{lily"), [lie Urlitp. li Slmtc'~l of
Aaprica, ac~ing ~ the Uniu~d S~a~-s Depmmment of Agriculture-Forest Service ("Uuited States"). by and through
themselves or theh' i~mm:senmive yes and their cotmseA of L,~_ord (herinafter collectively "{il~ Parties"), herSuy ~puta~ and
agree as follows:
1. Upon execution by all p~sons whor~ si/~mamre blocks appear at thc end of this Seuiemeni Agreement, tiffs
Setflemeilt Agreement shall be treated as final, conclusive and binding upon the Parties for all ~s identif'_~l herein.
The;~repms~ts thnt ail d~fendnnts have
disclaimed any int~a~t in ~e subject mat~er of this
2. This Settlement Agr~emen~ is intended Io resolve c~,~at disp,_,__,~_ involving Davi~, Pitkin County, and the United
Sta~es govzrnmenl ¢oncemuing title to certain lands, namely, tile Picayune, the Daisy, and the Case Lode mininR claims,
"Agreement to lnifiale, ! 1 ~hed hereto as Exhibit A; and to effect the land exchange described in the attached
~'Agreement to Initiate."
3. The Parties intend to engage in a land exchange which is identified in the a~r~,-.hed "Agreement to
Initiate." In uclc)ition to this land exchange, Davis will convey ' his intea~:~ in the Daisy Lode, M.S. ~0, Section
6 Towmhip 1 I$ Range 84W, to Pitkin County by special warranty deed.
4. The Parties acknowledge that the only unresolved issue is the equalization of valL~ concerning the
u0on land exchange, which is: The United States' transfer to Davis ofth~ fedm'ai 5 acre ~'aet known as the Castle
Creek Parcel (which is described in Exhibit B of the "Agreement to Lrtitiat~") for Davis' tram-let to the United
States or Pitidn County of the three (3) agreed upon parceis, the Daisy Lode, U.S.M.S. # 4~50, the Case Lode,
U.S.M.S. # 3811 and Uae Picayune Lode, U.S./VLS. ~t5743 (which are described in Exhibit A of the "Agreement ~o
Initiate" as Tr$~t t)~
4.1. Davis understands that, by federal law, tim United Smt~s mn~ follow certain rules in its land
exchanges, including the principle that the United Sta~$ must r_~ofive equal value for any lands which it
4.2. Purther, Davis acknowledges that the United States' will not trnn~fer vnlue, whether in cash or
~t. ionai lands (other than the Castle Creek parcel which is ,~cribed in Exhibit B of the "Agreement to
Initiate"), to him as part of this exchange, regardless of the ultimate outcome of any appraisals for Tract 1,
· 'e three (3) specified patented mining claims, the Daisy Lode, U.S.M.S. ff4050, theCase Lode, U.S.M.S.
'. · #38'1,1 and tim Picayune Lode, U.S.M.S, ~743.
4~3:' ~ The Patties agree that if the vaiue for the Castle Creek Parcel is greater than the value of tiae three
(3) agr__~d_ upon Davis, minlrlg ~Iaim~ d~bed as Tract 1, Davis will make up such deficiency by transf
erring the Forest City Lode, U.S.M.S. ~/~624 (Tract 2 as described in Exlu"oit A of the "Agreement to
L, fitial~). 'If file United States and Davis do not a~ree on a exchange value for the Forest City Lode,
' U.S.~I;S; # 6624, then the value for exchange pu/l~ses slmll be determined by binding arbitration as
provided below in par~ 6. If th~ valuation is such that the total exclmnge values result in a greater
value for Davis for the three (3) agreed upon claims (Tract 1) and the Forest City Lode, U.S.M.$. ~624
(Tract 2), than the Castle Creek parcel, then the United States may make up any deficiency in value with
cash ....
4;~:' The Parties further acknowledge that nothing in this Settlement A~: ~:ement shall be construed as
~on~avening any slatute, law, court order, or r~gulation of the Unir~cl States
G:kDAvisks~tl¢.oll Page 2 of 6
of America. The Parties also a~knowledge the authority of the Department of Justice.to compromise~
clnlms pursUnnt to federal statute, Executive order and United Sta~es Attorney M_a~_~l. ~
5. Davis and the United States acknowledge that values must be estimated for all pnt'cels m~olved in the
exchange. Davis and the United States agree that the Forest Service Regioual Apprais~ will. provide advice to the
U.S. Attorney regarding estimates of value for aH pat~.ls and the U.S. Attorney will use that valuation advice as
the basis for good faith negotiations with Davis concerning the eqnslizntion of Federal and non-~ values,
consid~ing, among other things, the prospective dlsmis_~al of Davis v. Boillylrnilin Case no. 96-WM-1607(D.
Colo.) agninst the United States and the Board of County Commissioners (including a damages claim against
Pilkin County) as pan of the land exchange and settlement..
6. In the event'that, after good faith negotiations, Davis and the United States are noi able to resolve the
eci~,nli=ntlon of value, 'they agree to submit to binding arbitration solely the issue of how much value' if any, must
be u-nns~ frOm Davis to the United States. Such arbitration will be conducted by a qualified arbitrator' who
bas a current MAI designation by the Appraisal Institute or has a RPRA desig~ntion fi'om the American Society of
Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers who will be selee~ by agre~nen! of Davis and th~ United Sta~, each to
pay equally the cost of arbitration.
7. - Pitidn County agrees to pay the costs of the procedures outlined in Exhibit F of tbe attached "Agreement
to Initia~e,:in the amount of $27,900.
8. Pttkin County agrees thnt if all of the commitments contained herein are fulfilled and the property is
exchanged to Davis from the United States, the property received by Davis will then be recognized as a legally
cr~,-d parcel having a growth management allocation or exemptions as provided bythe Pttbin County Code.
Davis agrees'that development of the exchanged property will be subject to Article 3 and Areas of Local and State
Inlerest/E'nvitonmemal Hazard 1041 review processes and building code regulations within the pitlrin County
Code a~l that .the;Uses and improvements allowed to occur on fl-ds property shall be consistent with the existing
surrounding, neighborhood and the maximum dwelling size s~nll riot exceed six thotliaud (6000) sqtlal-e fe~t. The
property exchanged from the United States will be prohibited f~om further subdivision. T'ne Pitkin County fees
for development r~view of the Castle Creek property will be paid by Davis to a maximum of $2,220.00. Any
Pitldn Coufit~ fees in excess of that amount shall be waived by Pitldn County. The development application will
be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, as required by the
Pitldn County Code, at the first regular meeting of the respective boards -- -
G: ~DAVISKSettle.. O11 Page 3 of 6
following the submission of a complete application and the receipt of required referrals and completion of public
notice as req~ by ~ Pitkin County Code.
9. In consideration of' the agreements made herein, and except as otherwise specificaily reserved herein,
Davis, his heirs, assigns, employees, agents, and representatives, upon delivem'y of the deeds necessary to
accomplish the Iransfer of I/fie to the lands to be exchanged pursuant to {he 'Agreement to initiate," fully and
forever waive, relin~ish, release and discharge the United States and Pitldn County from any and all past, present
or future claims, demands, coutrovei~ies, liabilities, obligations, actions, ~,,~es of action, fights, damages, costs,
expenses and compensation of any nature whatsoever, whether based on a toa, contraa or other theory of
recovei~y, and whether arisia{ under federal, sram. or local constitutions, laws, roles or regoiat/ons or common
law, which Davis now has, known or u.known (regardless of whether Davis did not kaow ur suspect to exist.
whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence, or otherwise), arising, occurring or existing from the
beginning 0f l/me to the date of ~ais Settlement Agreement. Davis ~ agrees to dismi~ ail pending lawsuits.in
which he is a party involvinE {he land identified in the "Agreement to Initiate" with the exception of the federal
suit, Davis v. Bourau/n, No. 96-WM-1607 (D. Colo.), as to which the parties agree they will file a motion to stay
further proueedings a.d m hold the case in abeyance (or to administratively close the case) pending resolution 'of
Ihe/asue ofuqualizafion of values and time final exchange of good and sufficient deeds lrausferr/ng the titles' in
10. The property exchange hetween Davis and the United States inv°lving the Castle Creek pr°perry will
occur promptly after all cond/I/ons precedent have been s~i_~fied. The United States agrees to make a 'uest
efforW'i We,rapt With reasonable diligonce to complete the exchange contemplated by this Se~ement Agreement
on or before 31 March 2000.
11 Each of'the individuals signing th/s Settlement A~reement warrants and regresents that he or she has been
authorized ~to execute this Setl/ement Agreement, and that all necessary private, corporate or governmental action
has been taken to authorize the execution of this Settlement Ai~mnent.
12~. No~hin~g, iu this or asy other agreement shall be construed so as to deprive a _fed_~ral offidal of the authority to
revise; amend or lYromulgate re~,ulafions. Nor shall anyth/n8 in the Settlement Agreement be conslrued to commit
a federal official W expend funds not approprimed by Codgress.
13, ~ A~l]5arties.stipu~aieandagreethatthisSet~ementAgreementrepresentsac~m~r~m/sesett~ement~fa
legal~dispu~e, and by
O:LDAvisk~tle.oll Palze 4 of 6
entering into this Settlement Agreement the pm'ties do not admit to any wrongdoing, nor that any pm'ty is
otherwise entitled to the agreements that have been made l~rein. This Settlement Agreement shall not be relied
upon by either party as support for or in opposition to any claim for attorney's fees arid costs; each party shall be
responsible for their own costs and attorney's fees.
14. Each party agrees to execute whatever ~_d_~tional documents may be nec~__sary to implement the terms of
this Settlement Agreement.
15. The remedy of specific performance shall be available to compel the exchange of d_ _,,~,'ts as provided in
Ii'ils Settlement Agreement.
16. This Settlement Agreement and the attached "Agreement to Initiate" constitute the entire agreement
between the parties hereto and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings of the pardes in connection
herewith. Tbere.are no other representations, warranties, covenants, condtlions, t~',~s, agreements, promises,
tmder~nndings; commitments, or other arrangements other than those expressly set forth herein, reia6.ug to the
resolution of this lawsuit.
17. 'l~'tis Settlement Agreement expressly includes the Agreement to Iulllate including all its attachments and
Exhibits and should {~ot be considered complete without the Alp~ement to Initiate.
Dated:
The Plaintiff: oln
D. Stbife DaVis
The Plaintiff's Counsel:
Frederick B. Skillern, Esq,
ISAACSON, ROSENBAUM, WOODS & ! .~.'VY, PC
633 - l'/th St., Suite 2200
Denver, Colorado 80202
WRIGHT & ADGER, LLP
' ' 201 North Mill St., Suite 106
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 970-925-5625
By Gary ^: Wright, Esq.
GADAVIS~e~tle. O i 1 Page 5 of 6
By:
The Defendant UniL~d Stat~ of America:
Lyle La,~erty, Regional Fores~er
USDA-Foi~st Service
Rocky Mountain Region
Denver, Color'~lo 80225
The Defendant United Sta~es' Counsel:
THOMAS L STRIC/~r AND
United Slattm Auo.rn~y
By: Michael E. Hegarty. F. sq.
196I S~out Slree~ Suite 1100
Drawe~ 3608 -
D~nv~, Colorado- 80294
'Telephone: 303-8~.~. 3885
G:~DAVlSkSettie. 011 Page 6 of 6
entering into this Sett!emant A~reement the parties do nc5 admi~
to any'wrongdoing, nor that any party is otherwise enaitled tc -he
agreements that have been made herein. This Setzlement Agree~=nt
shall not be relied upon by either party as support for cr in
opposition to any claim for attorney's fees and costs; eack party
shall be responsible for their own ccsts and attorney's fees.
14. Each party agrees to execute whatever additional documents may
be: necessary to implement the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
15. The remedy of specific performance shall be available to
compel the exchange of deeds as provided in tkis Settlement
Agreement.
16.. This Settlement Agreement and the attached "Agreement to
Initiate" constitute the entire agreement between the parties
hereto and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings 0f
the parties in connection ~herewith. There are no other
representations, warranties' covenants, conditions, terms,
agreements., promises, understandings, commitments, or other
arrangements other than those expressly set forth herein, relating
to the resolution of this lawsuit.
17.. This Settlement Agreement expressly includes the Agreement to
Init. iate including all its attachments and Exhibits and should not
be considered complete without the Agreement to Initiate.
Dated:
The Plaintiff:
aViS
' · The Plaintiff.s Counsel:
Frederick B. Skillern, Esq.
ISAACSON, ROSENBAUM, WOODS & LEV"f, PC
'~' 633 17th St., Suite 2200
'~ Denver, Colorado 80202
and
WRIGHT & ADGER, LLP
201 North Mill St., Suite 106
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 970-925-5625
y~ Gary A. Wright, Esq.
The Defendant Pitkin County:
Board of County Commissioner,s
for Pitkin Co~ty, Colorado
~eslle J~jLa~ont, Ch~i~rson
The Defendant Pitkin County,s Counsel:
John M. Ely, Esq.
Pitkin County Attorney's Office
530 East Main Street, Suite 302
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone: 970-920-9190
By:John M. Ely, ~ _
Dated: ~
The Defendant United States of America:
Lyle Laverty, Regional Forester
USDA-Forest Service
Rocky Mountain Region
Denver, Colorado 80225
The Defendant United States' Counsel:
THOMAS L. STRICKLAND
United States A=torney .
By: Michael E. Hegarty, Ese..
Assistant United States AttOrney ~-
1961 Stout Street, Suite 1!00
Drawer 3608
Denver, Colorado 80294
Telephone: 303~844-3885
Attachment to Petition for Abatement for D. Stone Davis
I acquired this property through a trade with the USFS on August 3, 2000. I traded five
(5) separate parcels (Case Lode, Daisy Lode, Picayune Lode, Forest City Lode, and 30+
acres near Redstone, Co) for this one (1) parcel. The value of Tract 39 at closing was
$725,000.00 per attached closing statement. Pitkin County was a party in this trade.
Your actual value of $297,100 was probably based on this figure because I only owned
t, he property for 5 months (5/12) of 2000.
I see that the appraisal data used to establish my value for the year 2001 was from the 18
months period ending June 30, 2000. Since my individual parcel did not even exist until
August of that year, I feel an accurate and fair value may be a little haphazard to
determine.
On 2-23-2000 (before your June 30, 2000 date) Don Delise sold three mining claims of
approximately 25 acres (total) approximately 4.5 mile up Castle Creek Road for
$1,450,000. The property had a 1041 approval with an approximately 5 acre bt~ilding
envelope. The reception number for the Delise sale is 440764. My property is 9 miles up
Castle Creek, is 7.32ac, and its building envelope is approx, lac. So I feel my property
should be quite a bit less than Delise's property. ~[,}1,~
On.9 August 2002 the Cora May Lode #6817 was sold by Lucy Hibberd for $895,000.00.
ThC reception number is 470817 and parcel number is 290918300017. This is a
comparable parcel with a 1041 approval; except it is 1.5 miles closer to Aspen than my
property and has a road and driveway to the building envelope. I realize that this sale is
after your 6-30-2000 date, but it gives an indication of prices in the area. ~'~l[~.o( {. ~'
On Noyember 1, 2001 Walter Birk sold approx. 4 ac on Conundrum Creek Rd for
$955,000.00 with a residence and infrastructure on the property. The reception number
for this sale is 460387. I feel that this parcel sold as a lot even though it had a house on
it. But there is still some value in the infrastructure. This is another indication of where
the sales prices are.
I feel the Delise sale with its much closer proximity to Aspen and much higher FAR
carries a considerable higher value.
//
' 'o Independence Title & Escrow Company, LLC
' 214 8Om Street, Suite 204
Olmwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 384-2023
BUYERS CLOSING STATEMF.,NT
FINAL
~wyer: D. Stone DlnY~// /"? Escxow No: 00001204-001 F, JA
" Close Date: 08/03/2000
Proration Date:
Date Prc~ccl: 08/03/2000
~ropetty: Tract 39, T.115., B.84 W.
, CO
~..~. =-------~ ~{
TOTAL CONSIDEI~WTION:
Total Consideration 725,000.00
CLOSING CHARGE(S)
Closing F:e~, to IndePendence Title & Escrow Company, tLC 250.0~
RECORDING FEES:
Recording Fees'td PitkJn County Clerk & Recorder 25.0{
Deed: 5 pages ~ $25.00
Mortgage: pages ~}
Release: pages ~
PRORATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS:
Value 6f Exchan0e Property 725,000.00
TITLE CHARGES:
Title InsUrance to'ln~lependence Title & Escrow Company, LLC 1,8i2.00
· View Listings Page 1 of 2
Listing Detail F' Selected
MIs # 40067 Lot Size Refer To Acre
Status Reinstate Acreage 6-10 Acres
Type Single Family Lot Improved W/Home No
Address 0 FALL CREEK ROAD
City ASPEN
State CO
Zip 81611
Area West Aspen
Class Land
Asking Price $1,825,000
Sale/Rent For Sale
IDX Include Yes
General
Number Of 7.32 Price Per Acre $23,900
Acres
Listing Office MASON & MORSE REAL ESTATE A- Main
Agent JOHN THORPE ~ Home (970) 925- 1 (970) 925-7000
2682 Sub/Loc Castle Creek
Realtor. Corn Y Meting Data 12/15/2000
Legal TRACT39,T11S,R84,6TH Lot Sq Ft 7.32
Expiration Date 6/30/2003 Zoning AFR-10
County Pitkin Far Y
Owner DAVIS Survey Y
AIIowfar LISTOR Offer 3%BB,3%TB
Ofr Suba N Days On
Original Price $1,750,000 Market 809
Features
ACCESS SANITATION EXTRAS LOT DESCRIPTION
Private Septic Borders Public Land Borders National Forest
ELECTRIC MINERAL RIGHTS DOCUMENTS ON FILE View
Holy Cross None 1041 TERMS OFFERED
GAS IRRIGATION Survey Cash
Propane None POSSIBLE USE AGENCY
WATER Single Family Exc Right To Sell
Well To Drill
Financial
Taxes N/A Tax Year N/A
Assn Fee N/A Spc Asmt N/A
Remarks
SCENIC,PRIVATE VIEW LOT.PANORAMIC VIEWS OF CASTLECREEK & THE ELK MTNS. THIS LOT HAS FAR OF
6000 SQFT. ABOVE & 4000 SQFT. BELOW GRADE. 1041 COMPLETED
Additional Pictures
http://aspen~fnism~s~c~m/Parag~n/Search/ListingDetai~Init~asp?view=22&ListingID=4~~67 3/4/03
United States Forest White River Aspen Ranger District
Department of Service National 806 West Hallam
Agriculture Forest Aspen CO 81611
(970) 925-3445
TTY (970) 945-3255
FAX ~970) 925-5277
Reply to: 5430/1950
Date: June 22, 2000
D. Stone. Davis
P~O. Box 8904
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Reviewer:
Anne Keys, Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment, U. S. Dept. of
Agriculture, has decided to proceed with the land exchange proposed in Alternative I of the
Davis Land Exchange Environmental Assessment. The Forest Service will convey ap-
proximately 7.32 acres of land to D. Stone Davis and pay him $172,781 in cash equalization.
Mr. Davislwill convey approximately 61 acres of land to the United States of America. All of
the lands involved in this exchange are located in the White River National Forest and within Pit-
kin County, Colorado.
The land exchange proposal was analyzed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Public scoping was conducted in July and August of 1999. A draft Environmental Assessment
(EA) was sent to interested parties in April 2000. Comments received on the draft document are
addressed in Appendix G of the final EA.
Enclosed for information is a copy of the Decision Notice that was signed by Ms. Keys.
I believe that most of the parties who will receive this letter are not interested in receiving the
final EA. 'rherefore, I am not enclosing a copy. Please calI Allan Grimshaw at this office
(970 / 925 - 3445) if you have questions or if you desire to receive a copy of the final EA.
Sincerely,
~. UPCHUR~
~Ct Ranger
Enclosu~'e (1)
Caring for the Land and Serving People
06/15/2000 08:55 FAX 202 205 1604 WO FS L^NI)S STAFF ~u,Jz
DECISION NOTICE
AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
for the
DAVIS LAND EXCHANGE
Pitkln County, Colorado
USDA Forest Service
White River National Forest
Aspen and Sopris Ranger Districts
May 2000
The U.S. Oepar[ment of Agrioulture (USDA) prohibits dlsarimination In all
its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,
gender, religion, age, disability, politloal be~lefs, sexual orlenta'don, and
marital or family status. (Not ail prohibited bases apply to ail programs).
Pemons with dlsabllrdes who require altematNe means for
communication of progre, m Information (Braille. large print, audio tape.
ere.) should cont;~ct USDA's TARGET Center at 202-720-26(X) (Voice and
'mD).
To file a c~mplaint of discrimination write USDA. Director, Office of Civil
Rights. Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th end Independence Avenue,
SW Washington DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-6964 (voice or TDD).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider end employer.
Devts Land Exchange DN and FONSI /~'~ I
06/15/2000 THU 07:49 [TX/RX NO 5219] ~]002
The Davis Land Exchange was initiated in an effort to resolve a title claim by Mr. D, Stone Davis
against the United States, Pitkin County, Colorado, and others. Properties claimed by both the'
United States and Mr. Davt~ were conveyed to the United States by Pitkin County in 1994 as part
of the Implementation of the Colorado Land Exchange Act of May 19, 1994 (P.L 103-~$$). The
United States has entered Into a settlement agreement with Davis and Pitkln County whereby the
United States would consider exchange of certain National Forest System lands for Davis' interest
in disputed lands and others.
This~ D'e01sion Notice (DN) documents my decision regarding the proposed Davis Land Exchange.
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act for this proposal and discloses the environmental effects. This EA is
available for review at the Forest Service Offices in Aspen and Glenwood Springs, Colorado. A
biological assessment (BA) / biological evaluation (BE) was prepared in compliance with process
reqLdrerfients under the Endangered Species Act and related Forest Service Policy. Floodplain
ar~l wetlands evaluations were prepared. A heritage resources Inventory and report 'were
completad: I referred to and have retied heavily upon these documents in my decision
documented, here.
Purpose and Need
The Colorado Land Exchange Act of.May 19, 1994 (Public Law 103-255) directed lyre
Forest service tO exchange approximately one hundred thirty two acres of land at the
former ML Sopds' Tree Nursery (MSTN), in Eagle County, Colorado, for approximately one
thousand thre'e.~hUndred acres of patented mining claims whose ownership was claimed by
PitkJYi a.r~l E~gle'cOuntles. PIUdn county Issued a quit claim deed to the United States for
148 patetited claims on August 16, 1994 and an additional quit claim deed for 4 patented
parcels On September 30, 1994. Eagle County Issued a quit claim deed to United States
for 4.patented claims on July 26, 1994.
The A~t alSO p~;ovided that any party who claimed any right, title, or interest in or to any
lands conveyed to the Forest Service under that Act, would have to bring an action against
the United states pursuant to the Real Property Quiet 'rifle Act of October 25, 1972 (section
2409a of title'28,' U.S,C.), prior to September 15, 2000. Civil action No. 96-WM-1607 was
filed in' United States District Court for the District of Colorado, naming the United States of
America~ Pitkln' County, and a number of other parties as defendants. The purpose of the
adfl0n~was~to have the court quiet title to the Picayune Lode (U.S. Mineral Survey No.
5743) a.rid~the Daisy/Lode (U.S. Mineral Survey No. 4050).
SubseqUentlY, Mr. Davis, the United States and Pitkln County negotiated ~ settlement agreement
to resolve Mr. Davis' title claim. The settlement agreement was accepted by the U,S. District
Court on SepteVnber 10, 1999. The settlement agreement specifies that Mr. Davis, the United
States, and Pitidn County will exchange vadous interests in land.
: ' ; .: ~ ' ;' r D~vis Land Exchange DN and FONSI
:~/ ., , 2
06/;15/2000 THU 07:49 ITX/RZ NO 52191
06/15/2000 08:55 FAX 202 205 1604 W0 FS LANDS STAFF
I am well convinc~ that there is a valid pu~se a~ ne~ for this exchange. It is my decision to
pr~eed with ~e la~ exchange es pr~sed in Altema~ve 1 of the ~. ~e exchange will
~mpfeted under au~ori~ of ~nd In ecco~Ance with ~e General ~change Act of Mamh 20,
~ 9~ (P.L, 67-~ 73), ~e Federal ~nd Policy ~nd Ma~ment Act of October 21, 1976 (FLP~,
P.~ 94-579) as amended, and the Federal ~nd ~chenge Fa~li~on Act of August A0, ~ 988
(P.L ~ 00~9). Addi~onal autho~ for seffieme~ is pmvid~ ~rough ~e United S~tes A~omey
Manual, Cha~er 4-~ .300.
The'FOrest ~wi~ will convey epproximMely 7.32 acres ~ Federal land with an agency
approved'value of $725,000 to D. Stone Davis. Non-Federal pamels to~lling appmxima~ly 65
acres wEh an agen~ ~pr~ v~ue ~ ~97,781 ~11 ~come National Forest. Thts exchange will
require a ~sh equalization payment by ~e United S~tes to Mr. Davis In ~e amount ~ $172,781,
in order to meet the equal value requimmen~ of ~e Federal ~nd Polly and Management A~
The d~lsi~ also i~ludes the specified mEIga~on ou~ined In the environmental assessment.
~th raga[ds to Eem d. of Alternative 1, the MIDCON Real~ pmpe~ to be ~nveyed to ~e
UnEed S~tes is descHb~ ~ follows:
' To.ship 10 So~, Ran~ 89 West, 6~ PM, Coun~ of Pitkln, State of Colorado
Sec. 10 N1/2 E1/2 SE1/4 NEll4 SE1/4;
· 'S~. 11 SWl/4 NWl/4 SWl/4;
S~. 14 N1/2 NWl/4 NWl/4, NWl/4 NE1/4 NWl/4,
'The ama described ~n~ins 42.5 acres, more or I~s.
A~r revi~Wlng ~e ~ and ~ public ~mment ~ived ~mugh the p~, I
this la~d exchange se~ the public in~r~t, implemen~on of Alternate 1 not only resolves
the ~le. claim fairy and ex~dEiously, it provides for ~e acquisiaon of non-Federal land valuable
for Na~on~ Forest pu~oses.
Acquisition of ~e non-Federal ~mels assist in Achieving the objectives of the ~ite River
NAtional For~t ~nd ~d Resoume Management Plan (~ ~ge 2). ~e non-Fermi patois
which.~c~e Na~onal Forest will be protected from ~e ~le, resale, and ~her development
~ich C0~l~ occur ~sent this exchange. Development would likely take place on most of the non-
FederAl lands in~ this exchange. This development would have a negative affect on ~e
surrounding National Forest and would ~reaten the values for which those lands are being
managed in ~e br~der public Interest. This is pa~icularly tree for the Case Lode and the
MIDCON. parcels. This exchange ~ers the oppo~n~ to secure ~ese I~ds Eom such intrusion.
Davis Land Exchange DN and FONSI //~
06/15/2000 THU 07:49 [TX/RX NO 52191 ~]004
The Forest Service's jurisdiction over the proposed land exchange Is limited to the transfer of land
ownership. While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Forest Service to
evaluate and disclose the Impacts that can be expected as a result of the exchange, The use and
management of the land that becomes private as a result of this exchange will be subject to the
zoning authority which is Piti<in County. Pitkin County is a party to the Settlement Agreement.
The agreement, as well as their past actions, demonstrate a strong desire to insure controlled
development within the County. They support this exchange. This indicates to me that they are
reasonably comfortable with their jurisdictional authority to regulate and mitigate development
which results from the land exchange,
The Federal parcel is located in an area of considerable pdvate land with ongoing development,
The conveyance of this parcel will affect its use and enjoyment by owners of the adjacent
property. However, it is my responsibility to Insure that decisions involving National Forest reflect
the greater public interest. Ii is acknowledged that wildlife habitat quality, which is already Iow,
would decline'further when the parcel is inevitably developed. In addition, the limited recreation
resou~c~g associated with the parcel would be loss. I believe fl3at both of these Impacts are more
than.offSet~bY [he values associated with the non-Federal parcels to be acquired.
The administrative obligations of the Forest Service would be reducedthrough reduction of 6000
feet of boiJi~darY line to be located, posted and maintained and 12 comers to locate and maintain.
Boundary location cost in this area is estimated at $11,000/mile. Maintenance costs are
estimatecf at $2,500/rnile every five years. There would be no change in road maintenance costs.
there will be do'net change in road miles the Forest Service would maintain.
Per the requirements of 36 CFR 2.54.3(2). t have reviewed this decision against l~e criteria for
dete,-,inlr~g publiC. Interest.
The'resource values and the public objectives served by the non-Federal lands and interests to be
acquired~eXCeed the resource values and public object, yes served by the by the Federal land to
be conveyed. Aisc considered here was the time and expense of prolonged litigation tn resolving
the ti~e claim.
The"!~te~de, d'~e of the Federal land will not substantially conflict with established management
objectiv~ ~on adjacent Federal land. '
The consideration of all physical and biological resources and the public Interests associated with
both Fede'ra[and non-Federal properties, demonstrates a net gain in the public interest with the
selection of Alternative 1.
Davis Land Exchange ON and FONSI
06/[5/2000 THU 07:49 {TX/RZ NO 5219J [~005
06/15/2000 08:55 FA~ 202 205 1604 ~U PS LA~U~ bt^~ ~uvo
~e proposed action was analyz~ In detail in the Environmen~l Assessment, alo~ w~h the No
Action alternative, ~er a~rnafives were co~ider~ b~ dismissed from fu~her analysis. The
alternatives ana~z~ in de~il In ~e Envimnment~ Assessment are summagz~ below.
AIt~native 1, Exc~nue Lands with D. Stone Davis. Proposal Aetlo~
Complete a land exch~ge under the current laws and regulations and De~ent of Justice
Seffiement Author~.
· The Forest Sewice would convey approximately 7.~ acres of Federal land into pr~ate
, ownemhip.
~ D. ~ne Davis would ~nvey approxima~ly 65 acres of non-Federal land to ~e United
States .
Alte~aEve 2, No A~ion
No lands would ~ exchanged be~een the Forest Sewice and D. ~tone Davis.
,~ Lapd owned entirely by Dav~ would be available for resale or development. L~igation
wo.u d c,o,~nue over ~e prope~es with disp~ed ~le.
- The Federal land would remain .under the curre~ management proscription of ~e ~ite
River ~fional Forest ~ ~nd and Resource Management Plan. It would remain available for
potential .disp~al. in futura exchanges.
~d ReStri~i°ns
I wish to ~her expound on ~ Imp~itions of deed mstd~ons, an a~emaflve ~at was in~ially
considered but.dlsmi~ed. It has been suggested ~at the use of de~ mst~ctlons on ~e
Federal pamel may ~ a~mpdate.
Forest Sewic6' direc~on for ~e of de~ restrictions is found at several Io~tiOns, including:
a) ~REST SERVICE MANUAL 6474 DEED RESTRICTIONS AND ~NDITIONS
In'~nveya~es of National Forest System lands, in addition to msewafions, it may ~
ne~s~ to ~ply specific lim~ing cond~ions to manage effe~ve~ or to protein
National Forest System ~nds and resoumes.
b) FEDE~L REGISTER NOTICE OF ~RCH 8, 1994, PART II, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICUL~RE, FOREST SERVICE. 36 CFR 254 ~ND EXCHANGES; FINAL
RULE,
A m~ew of the spec~c commen~ for 36 CFR 254.3 (h) Rese~agons or restdctions in
~e ~ublig interest provide ~ indication of ~e Intent of this regula~on. It con,ins
references to 'prote~lng critical Interests" ~d restrictions to protect 'any federal
i~erests" ~e regulation itself s~tes that "(t)he use or development of lands
Davis Land Exchange DN and FONSI /L,~
06/15/2000 THU 07:49 [TX/RX NO 5219] ~006
conveyed out of federal ownership are subject to....aJl laws, regulations and zoning
authorities of State and local governing bodies".
c) FOREST SERVICE POLICY STATEMENTS.
October 14, 1999 memo from Deputy Chief James Furnish to Regional Foresters: 'Do
not propose or agree to restrictive covenants on the Federal lands unless they are
required to comply with legal, regulatory requlrements, executive orders, (i.e.,
wetlands or floodplains, cultural) or to meet land and resource management
objectives, Do not agree to reservations by either party as a means of equalizin~
values. The potential de-valuing effect of covenants on the Federal lands need to be
considered when developing proposals."
Forest Se~ice direction indicates that deed restrictions are to be imposed in on/y those
occasions When necessaQ/ to protect critical Federal interests. Neither scoplng nor evaluation
~of the Federal land by specialists identified any critical resources or National Forest lands in
need of P~tectlon.through deed restrictions. In addition, the use of deed restrictions is not
consistent wlth the Forest Sen/ice goal of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of its
management, 'Fha Forest has Identified these properties for disposal because of their
Intermingled status with pdvate land, which makes management complicated and costly.
Administration of deed restrictions can be extremely complicated, time consuming and
expensive, resulting in a potential decrease in management efficiency, instead of the intended
increase.
FinallY, d~ed restrictions are not imposed to protect property interests on adjacent private
property;:' T~ Forest Service has long taken the position that zoning and regulation of uses
on privateland.are within the responsibility of state and local governments. Local authorities
are in the best posit, ion to detei~-~tne appropriate uses of private land. 'The Forest Service has
neither th6'legal~ authority nor responsibility to substitute deed restrictiOns for local zoning
contrOls.' Local gavemments have traditionally agreed and insisted that such decisions be left
to them;
Based On the fact that conveyance of the property with deed restrictions is inconsistent with
policy, direction and regulation, and is beyond the scope of Forest Sen/ice responslblllty, this
alternative was dismissed from further consideration. It Is 'unlikely to be Implemented" and
thu~;~mei~e~d :no further consideration.
Davis Land Exchange DN and FONSI ,/~ ~
o6/7.5/2000 TflU O7:49 [T,~/RX NO 527.9] [~007
)6/15¢2000 08:56 FAX 202 205 1804 {¥0 FS LANDS STAFF
A scoping effort to soliait issues and concerns related to the proposed action was
accomplished through:
· The publication of the exchange proposal in the Aspen Times (July 31, August 7, 14 and 21,
1999)
· A mailing addressing the proposed action to potentially interested or affected organizations
and indiv!duals across the White River National Forest (July 30, 1999)
· A mailin~g to local officials, PEkin County Commissioners, State of Colorado agencies, and
the Colorado Congressional Delegation (March 23, 1999)
Four comment letters were received as a result of the scoplng effort, All comments made or
submitted were considered in thls analysis and are available for review In the project file.
A notice ~.of the avai!nbllity of the completed EA was mailed to four parties on April 6, 2000.
Both a notice of the availability of the EA and a copy of the EA were mailed or hand delivered
to 18 paYdes" between; Aprli 5th and April 7th. Those 18 parties were those who had
commented, .those who had previously requested copies, and those who we believed were
ve~ ir~terested in the proposal. Legal notices of the availability of the EA were published April
3, 2000 in the Federal Register and April 8, 2000 in the Aspen Times.
Four written comments on the Envlronmental Assessment were received within the 30 day
comment period. 'These comments have been documented and responses are provided in
Appendix G of the EA.
ChangeS]n the Environmental Assessment in Response to Public Comment
and since F~bruary 2000,
The .Sc0Pi~g section (EA page 4) was amended to include public review of the Environmental
AsseSSmentJAPpendix G was also added. Appendix G is identification of the public comments on
the Environmental Assessment and the Forest Service Response to those comments.
The EA, under mitigation measures for Alternative 1, called for reserving a right-of-way across the
Federal parcel for a driveway to access land to the north. It was determined that this reservation
is not needed because land to the north adjoins Castle Creek Road. This mitigation has been
deleted from the EA. ~
Three ~ames have been added to Exhibit 3 of Appendix B (parties who were mailed the 7/30/99
scoping letter). These names were overlooked when the EA was prepared.
Davis Land Exchange DN and FONSI ~" I
?
06/[5/2000 TtlU 07:49 [TX/EX NO 52[9] ~]008
Appendix E (BA & BE) has been supplemented with documentation of 'No Effectu on Canada
Lynx.
B~ed on my review of ~e Environmental Assessment, including a~ndices ~d supposing
d~uments, ff is my conclusion'~at Alternative 1 is hot a majo~ Federal ~cflon ~at would
slgnifi~tly effect ~e qual~ of ~e human e~imnment as defined at 40 CFR 1508.27. ~emfore,
~n en~ronmen~l impact s~tement will not be prepared. ~is finding is based on ~e foll~ing
factors: ..~ ·
Consideration for context of the project. The context is local to Pitkin County, Colorado with
· !mpli~ .ca.~ons for the immediate area only.
Consideration of both beneficial and adverse impacts. Impacts from the selected action are
not unique to this project. I conclude that the beneficial and adverse effects of the selected
action are not significant to the context of the proposed and cumulative effects.
Consideration of the effects on public health and safety. This exchange will not affect public.
'health Or safety. There are no hazardous materials or substances present on either the federal
or hon-Federal lands to be exchanged,
cons'ideYab'On of, unique characteristics of the geographic area. Them are no 'unique
chara{:teristiCs of the geographic area" as defined at 40 CFR 1508.27(3).
C°~s£derati°n of the degree to which the effects are likely to be highly controversial. This land
exchange'ls consistent with many other land exchanges. There are no scientific disputes over
the likely effects of this project. Therefore, I conclude that the environmental effects of the
de.ciston W!II not be highly controversial.
Coi~ld~e~'ation of the degree to which effects are uncertain or unknown. This exchange is not
I~ely to' result in effects on the human environment which are highly uncertain or involve
unique risk,. It is similar to many past actions which have occurred on the White River National
ForeSt, The. probable effects and risks are well understood.
Consideration o.f the degree to which this action will set a precedent for future actions with
signifidant effects. Neither the land exchange nor this decision are precedent setting. Similar
land exchanges have occurred in the past, nationally and locally. They are completed by
Forest Sen/ice and by other public land management agencies with the objective of
consolidating public land ownership. I conclude that this action does not establish precedence
for future actions as each project must be evaluated on its individual merits.
06/15/2000 THU 07:49 [TX/RX NO 5219] [~009
* Consideration of the action in relation to other actions with individually Insignificant but
-- cumulatively significant Impacts. This land exchange would not Ilkely have cumulatively
significant Impacts on the environment.
Consideration of the degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites,
highwayS, structures, or objects listed or eligible for listing in the National Register Of
Historic Places, or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural or historic
resources. Cultural resource surveys have been conducted onall Federal lands to be
exchanged. The selected action will not affect any site, structure or object. No sites that
are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or that may be scientifically,
culturally or historically significant will be affected. Based on this information, I conclude
that 'the' selected action will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural or
~hist0ric resourCes. (EA, page 4)
Consideration for the degree to which the action may affect threatened or endangered
spe~s,:or its' critical habitat. No threatened, endangered species is known to exist In the
area~*c0nsidered under thls land exchange. There is no habitat within the project area
that is viewed as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species, as documented in
~he biol'dgical assessmenL There is the potential for sensitive species to benefit from the
Protection of acres of potenlJal habitat. (EA, Page 4)
· Consideration of whether the action violates or threatens to violate federal, state, or local
laws' or'reqUirements Imposed for the protection of the environment. This land exchange
does not violate nor threaten to violate any federal, state or local laws, regulations or
requirements for protection of the environment.
Executive Orders 11988 and 11990
The FOrest Service has evaluated the proposed exchange in accordance with EO 11988
Floodplains end EO 11990 Wetlands and is in compliar~e. There are no floodplains or
wetlands Involved.
Endangered SPecies Act
The BiologfCal AsseSSment/Biological Evaluation concluded the land exchange would have
"No Effect" on any threatened, endangered or sensitive species.
NJti~na 'l ~iStorlc i PreServation Act
Heritage resource inventories have been completed on the federal parcels and the Colorado
State Flistoric preservation Officer has concurred with a finding of No Effect.
White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
The land exchange is in compliance with the White River National Forest l.~nd and Resource
Management Plan as described on pages 2-3 of the EA.
Davis Land Exchange DN and FONSI ~
08/15/2000 THO 07:49 [TX/RZ NO $219! ~010
CERCLA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensadon, and Liability Act
Field examinations of ~he Federal and non-Federal parcels considered for exchange have been
completed.. No evidence was found that hazardous or potentially hazardous substances or
petroleum products have been used, stored, released or disposed on any parcel.
· /. .,.~,, . , .~ ...'~ ., . ,=,~ .:' ~ ~,,. ,. ~ , II
Implementation o! this decision may o~ur immediately.
I ! ..
-'. ,i.' "'f~~.~.~.'~i;~.~'' ~' '~, ,' '. ~.' ,~ ~ ,~ I
Si~e ~ d~Ision no~ w~ ~pmv~ by ~ S~ret~ ~ Agdcul~re pumuant to ~e
p~isio~ ~ 36 CFR 215.2, ~is decision is not s~je~ to ~e overall mquimmen~ ~ 36
.CFR':~235 ahd'thUs, cannot ~ ~pealed. ~e requirements of ~ CFR 215 a~ly only ~
forest Se~ line offi~m.
add~bna~'.inf0~a~on ~nceming ~ls ~clslen, ~n~ct:
For
AII~ GdmShaw
: ~ ~n R~nger Dis~
~ ' ~lt~"R~e~ National Fom~
- ~ ~n; COlOrado 81611
. 970/9~- ~5.
~NNE ~ /~ / / /Date
Dep~der
Na~! '~rces and ~vironment
Davis Land Exchange DN and FONSI
06/15/2000 THU 07:49 [TX/RZ NO 5219] I~01!