The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.18 Wetlands Pre-Construction Notification Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Aspen Polo Partners, LLP Colorado West Regulatory Office 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Albuquerque District, Regulatory Division Aspen, CO 81611 400 Rood Avenue, Room 224 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Prepared by: Red Mountain Environmental, LLC 802 Palmer Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 September 4, 2024 Nationwide Permit 29 Application & Pre-Construction Notification McClure River Ranch SPK-2008-00253 Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch i Aquatic Resources Delineation Report & Pre-Construction Notification/Nationwide Permit 29 Application SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch Garfield County, Colorado Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Aspen Polo Partners, LLP Colorado West Regulatory Office 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Albuquerque District, Regulatory Division Aspen, CO 81611 400 Rood Avenue, Room 224 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501-2563 Prepared by: Red Mountain Environmental, LLC 802 Palmer Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch ii Table of Contents 1. +APPLICANT AND SITE INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 1 Project and Applicant Information ...................................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION/PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................... 2 3. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................................... 4 4. WETLAND & WATERS DELINEATION ............................................................................................................ 9 Description of Desktop Review and Preliminary Area Evaluation ....................................................... 9 Results within Investigation Area ...................................................................................................... 12 Emergent Wetland (PEM/PSS) ............................................................................................ 12 Water of the U.S. (R3USC, R5UBH) ..................................................................................... 13 Summary Table of Wetlands and WoUS Delineation ......................................................... 13 5. REQUEST FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT 29 .................................................................................................... 15 Project Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 15 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 15 Pre-Construction Civil Surveys ............................................................................................ 15 Project Cleanup ................................................................................................................... 16 6. IMPACTS ASSESSMENT .............................................................................................................................. 18 Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters (WoUS) ............................................................................ 18 Wetlands Impact Summary ................................................................................................ 19 7. MITIGATION PLAN ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Site Selection ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Site Protection Instrument ................................................................................................................ 21 Current Conditions of Mitigation Site ............................................................................................... 21 Mitigation Work Plan ......................................................................................................................... 22 Planting Plan ....................................................................................................................... 22 Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Weed Management ........................................................................................................................... 24 Erosion ............................................................................................................................................... 24 Damage from Human or Wildlife Use ............................................................................................... 25 Annual Monitoring Reports ............................................................................................................... 25 Success Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 25 Long-term Management ................................................................................................................... 26 8. IMPACTS TO FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................ 27 USFWS Guidance ............................................................................................................................... 27 9. CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 30 10. IMPACTS TO INDIAN LANDS ..................................................................................................................... 30 11. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 30 12. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 31 1.1. 4 .1 . 4 .2 . 4 .2 .1 . 4 .2 .2 . 4 .2 .3 . 5 .1. 5 .2 . 5.2 .1. 5.2 .2. 6.1. 6.1.1. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7 .5 . 7 .5 .1 . 7 .6 . 7 .10. 7 .11. 7 .12. 7 .13. 7 .14. 7 .15. 8.1. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch iii List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location ................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2: Site Detail Map .................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Topographic Map ............................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: National Wetland Indicator Map ..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5: SSURGO Soils Map ........................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 6: Delineated Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 7: Illustrative Development Plan ......................................................................................................... 17 Figure 8: Impacts to Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. .................................................................................. 20 List of Tables Table 1. Property Owners in Project Area ....................................................................................................... 4 Table 2. Summary of Wetlands and Nexus in Investigation Area .................................................................. 13 Table 3. Proposed Impacts to Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. ......................................................... 19 Table 4. Containerized Graminoids for Wetland Mitigation Area .................................................................. 23 Table 5. Containerized Graminoids for Restoration of Temporarily Disturbed Wetlands ............................. 23 Appendix APPENDIX A: 2012 NWP-29 PERMIT ............................................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX B: USFWS 2010 BIOLOGICAL OPINION .......................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX C: 2010 USFWS RECOVERY AGREEMENT....................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX D: HISTORICAL CONSERVATION REPORT & CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................. 35 APPENDIX E: WETLAND DATA FORMS ............................................................................................................ 36 Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 1 1. +APPLICANT AND SITE INFORMATION Aspen Polo Partners, LLP and their planning consultant, LANDWEST requested that Red Mountain Environmental, LLC (RME) delineate all potential wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. (WoUS) associated with the Roaring Fork River and the Middle Ditch (aka Blue Creek) as part of a proposed residential development project consisting of 12 residential lots. The project is called McClure River Ranch and is located within the McClure River Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD). The residential development project is located on 48.96 acres within the 98.19-acre PUD. The residential development would include 12 single-family homesites and one agricultural property designed for a greenhouse and more intensive garden use. The project would include associated roads, infrastructure, utilities, trails, and small amenities (Figure 7). Potable water for the project would come from two wells, and raw water would be distributed via pipelines buried under roadways. Each lot would have an individual on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS). Project and Applicant Information • Project Name: McClure River Ranch • Army Corps Action ID: SPK-2008-00253 • Project Sponsor: Peter Rizzo Aspen Polo Partners, LLP 715 West Main Street, Suite 201 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 561-777-6448 Email: rizzo@poloworks@gmail.com • Agent: Red Mountain Environmental, LLC c/o Eric Petterson 802 Palmer Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: 970-309-5190 Email: eric@redmtnenv.com • Project Description: Development of a 14-lot subdivision. • Nature of Activity: Development and construction of a new residential subdevelopment, including home sites, roads, utilities, and parking areas. • Regulatory Action: Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination, verification of Nationwide Permit 29. • ESA Coordination: Section 7 consultation with USFWS needed. • Historic Properties: No potential to cause effect. • Tribal Consultations: None required. • Wild & Scenic Rivers: None. • Water Quality Certification: Pursuant to section 25-8-302(1)(f) of the Colorado Revised Statues, Nationwide Permits are Section 401 certified. • Legal Description of Project Area: Section 31 & 32, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, 6th Principal Meridian. • Latitude/Longitude of Wetlands: 39.402877° Latitude, -107.146467° Longitude • Aquatic Resources: 8.73 acres of jurisdictional features delineated 0.25 acres of permanent wetland impact 0.19 acres of temporary wetland impact • Local Waterway Name: Roaring Fork River • Hydrologic Unit Code: CO 140100040802, Blue Creek-Roaring Fork River. This report was developed to meet the requirements of a permit application for Nationwide Permit 29 – Residential Developments (NWP-29), for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 1.1. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 2 This report includes the wetland delineation report for the project area and a Pre-Construction Notification for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) review. 2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION/PROJECT LOCATION The project is located approximately 3 miles east of the Town of Carbondale and is adjacent to, and north of, the Roaring Fork River, in Garfield County. The project area is within the Carbondale U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and is shown on the Vicinity and USGS Topographic Maps (Figures 1, 2, and 3). The wetlands on the property were first delineated by Rocky Mountain Ecological Services (RMES) in 2007 and 2008, as part of a proposal for the development of an 89-unit housing subdivision for the property (called TCI Lane), and at that time the USACE issued the project number SPK-2008- 00253. • In November 2008, the project sponsors (Noble Design Studio, c/o: Jon Fredericks) and their consultants (Rocky Mountain Ecological Services, Inc, c/o: Eric Petterson) requested an approved jurisdictional determination for the TCI Lane Project. o In response, the USACE issued an approved jurisdictional determination on April 20, 2009, concurring that the property supported approximately 9.4 acres of Waters of the U.S., including the Middle Ditch (aka Blue Creek), the Roaring Fork River, and adjacent/abutting wetlands. Wetlands associated with irrigation canals and ditches located in the northern half of the area (now termed Zone District 1, and where the polo fields are located) were determined to be non-jurisdictional. At that time, the USACE issued identification number SPK-2008-00253-CW. • In April 2010, the project sponsors (TCI Lane Ranch, and LANDWEST Colorado, LLC (LANDWEST)) and their consultants (RMES) submitted a PCN and NWP-29 application to the USACE, for development of the TCI Lane Ranch, a planned unit development anticipating development of 89 residential housing units. Approximately 0.35 acres of permanent wetland impacts would occur. o The Permit was granted on July 2, 2012 (Appendix A). o As documented in the 2010 PCN, the federally threatened Ute ladies-tresses’ orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) was documented as occurring on the property. An Environmental Evaluation (EE) was developed on behalf of the USACE to assist with section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (a copy of this is available upon request). o On July 8, 2010, the USACE initiated formal consultation with the USFWS for impacts associated with the project. The USACE determined that the project would “not effect” the Colorado hookless cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), and the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) or their critical habitats due to apparent absence of suitable habitat within the project area. The USFWS concurred with determinations of “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” for the bonytail chub (Gila elegans), humpback chub (G. cypha), Colorado Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 3 pikeminnow (Ptyocheilus lucius), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) and their critical habitats, due to small depletions which are covered by the programmatic biological opinion. A determination of “may affect and is likely to adversely affect” was reached for the Ute ladies-tresses was reached due to the potential for direct take. For the DeBeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica), Pararchute beardtongue (Penstemon debilis), and yellow-billed cuckcoo (Coccyzus americanus), the project was determined to “not likely to jeopardize” these Candidate species. The USFWS responded with a Biological Opinion, on October 27, 2010 (Appendix B), with a number of conservation measures, and the applicant signed a Recovery Agreement to mitigate impacts to endangered fish species and agreed to the conservation measures to protect and minimize impacts to the Ute-ladies’ tresses (Appendix C). o On July 8, 2010, the USACE requested review of the project by the Colorado Historical Society in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, to determine eligibility and the effects of issuing a Department of the Army Permit for the project. The Area of Potential Effects was 0.35 acres of the 100-acre property. One known historical site was within the APE, and nine new sites were found within the APE, which included seven structures and two ditch alignments. The USACE determined that their issuance of a DoA permit would have an adverse effect on historic properties. As part of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) consultation, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the USACE and the SHPO was enjoined to mitigate the adverse impacts (Appendix D). o On July 6, 2017, the USACE issued a memo documenting the termination of the SHPO MOA, as the TCI Lane Ranch project had not been completed (Appendix D). • TCI Lane Ranch was sold in May 2017 to Aspen Polo Partners, LLP (APP). In late 2017 APP amended the PUD to develop polo fields in Zone District 1, instead of residential housing. Construction of the polo fields and a few homes and horse barns occurred in 2018 and into 2019, and additional facilities are still being constructed in Zone District 1. As mentioned, there were no jurisdictional wetlands in Zone District 1. o In 2020, residential development was reduced to a maximum of 14 dwelling units in Zone District 1, and a maximum of 40 dwelling units in Zone District 2. • In the summer of 2023, LANDWEST hired Red Mountain Environmental, LLC to delineate all wetlands and other waters in anticipation of submitting an application under NWP-29 for the revised residential development in Zone District 2, within which 12 residential lots, one agricultural lot, and one open space parcel are proposed. This report covers the wetland delineation and NWP-29 application, but tiers to the original 2009 Approved Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE. Based on the 2023 delineation, there are no potentially non-jurisdictional (or non-adjacent) wetlands within the project area. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 4 Table 1. Property Owners in Project Area Parcel Owner Parcel ID Parcel Legal Description ASPEN POLO PARTNERS LLP 101 S Mill Street Suite 200 Aspen, CO 81611 239131123010 Section: 31 Township: 7 Range: 87 Subdivision: MCCLURE RIVER RANCH Tract: C AS PER FINAL PLAT RECEPTION NO. 982205 48.96 ACRES 3. PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The 49-acre Project area (Zone District 2) is characterized as a mid-elevation riparian corridor along the Roaring Fork River. The middle portion of the parcel supports extensive emergent and scrub- shrub wetlands. Middle Ditch, also known as Blue Creek, crosses the property along the northern edge, flowing from east to west. Beavers (Castor canadensis) have moved into the area and have built dams along Middle Ditch, causing ponding and water retention in the area. This ponding and water retention has further developed the wetland complex on the property since 2007-2008 but has also inundated large areas that were previously wetlands and has also inundated areas that used to support Ute ladies’-tresses. Irrigation return-flows from the polo fields enter the Middle Ditch in two main locations, via PVC pipes. Nearer the Roaring Fork River, an alluvial terrace supports riparian and upland habitat and vegetation, and immediately adjacent to the river, there is a narrow fringe wetland along the banks. Wetland vegetation within the Project area is dominated by narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia – FACW), boxelder (Acer negundo - FACW), coyote willow (Salix exigua – FACW), water birch (Betula occidentalis – FACW), silver buffaloberry (Shepherdia argentea – FACU), water sedge (Carex aquatilis – OBL), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia - OBL), soft stem bullrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani - OBL), redtop (Agrostis gigantea – FACW), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea - FACW), arctic rush (Juncus arcticus - FACW), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis - FACW), false Solomon’s seal (Maianthemum racemosum – FAC), and other hydric species. Upland vegetation is dominated by pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa), mountain sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata subsp. vaseyana), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsii - FACU), skunkbrush sumac (Rhus trilobata - NI), showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa – FAC) and other upland grasses and forbs. The area is located within three soil types: Unit 92-Redrob loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes, which consists of gravely sandy loam alluvium derived from sandstone and shale, located along floodplains, terraces, valley floors. Unit 42-Fluvaquents, 0 to 10 percent slope, which consists of variable sandy-clay to gravely loam, derived from mixed alluvium, located along floodplains and valley floors. Unit 13-Atencio-Azeltine complex, 3 to 6 percent slopes, which consists of gravely sandy loam alluvium, derived from sandstone and shale, located along terraces and fans. Using data from the nearest weather station (Basalt, CO), recorded temperatures for the reporting period (1971 to 2000) range from an average low of 8.7 degrees Fahrenheit (˚F) in January to an average high of 86.7 ˚F in July. Average annual precipitation of 13.54 inches consists primarily of winter snows, and summertime rain precipitation events (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC] 2024). Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 5 Roaring Fork River within the Project area. PEM/PSS Wetland Complex within Project Area. Beaver ponding occurring along Middle Ditch. Meadow systems transitioning to wetlands. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 6 Figure 1: Project Location 6S90W 6588W I I 6S87W j ~0S87.W 5S86W LJr u LJ ~) ,-------,_5_S SSW l Gy~~~_] /,, ,,.) /i;;;(J y c , 9S 8 ['::;_r I .~ a .., I l VICINITY MAP McClure River Ranch LE~ • .....,.-Area of Investigation r_.,----1 [_'--1 1 Municipal Boundary D Township/Range /Section LJ Private Land LJ BLM Land 11111 USFS Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 7 Figure 2: Site Detail Map SITE DETAIL MAP McClure Ri ver Ranch LEGb D --..r Area of Investigation Parcel Boundary D Tow nship/Range/Section Land Ownership L] Pri vate Land Ll BLM Land SCALE: 1:4 ,000 Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 8 Figure 3: Topographic Map 31 ·1 36 ,:,. 'i-C' 06 "'o 05 04 09 10 TY 16 15 7S88W 21 21 RedH1/l 30 3 1 06 26 Shoshone 1---2s 35 36 01 11 <'0 14 IID aJ 3 .,~ ~ & Carbondale u:: ... ~ {j 23 24 s ~ 25 I - > 30 •.9 •M '" 01, __ !1_,._os _,j ___ o~9...,....;.,i-~i,,,,.:..~..;;p~~,...._~,1:_:1 __ ... ! __ _:,1:_1 __ !_1 Stony Ridge 00 ' i ~~ 04 •w !-- ' 1s·s1w-~-t----+--~ ! 20 •"Leo ~ 2,i ' 4' ! ' i i Basalt .,3 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP McClure River Ranch LEGE 0 ....,... Area of Investigation r_;-1 Municipal Boundary L,__,' USGS Quadrangle □ Township/Range/Section LJ Pri vate Land LJ BLM Land 1111 USFS LJ State Land Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 9 4. WETLAND & WATERS DELINEATION LANDWEST and Aspen Polo Partners, LLP contracted with RME for the delineation of all potential jurisdictional wetlands and WoUS within the Project location. All wetland areas and Waters that could potentially be impacted by development construction activities were delineated on October 24, 2023, and October 25, 2023, during normal growing season conditions for the region, by Rachel Kattnig, RME Geospatial Ecologist, and James Sunkel, RME Biologist. The wetlands and waters investigations were conducted using the Routine Determination Method set forth in the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987); the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West (USACE 2010); and the guidance document “Information Needed for Jurisdictional Determinations - US Army Corps of Engineers.” Description of Desktop Review and Preliminary Area Evaluation RME obtained and reviewed maps, aerial photos, and soil map unit descriptions of the project area. Upon completion of the pre-field work, the investigation area was traversed on foot. The goal was to evaluate all WoUS and wetlands that could be affected by construction. RME reviewed the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) which indicated the presence of two riverine types, and two wetland types within the Investigation Area: R3USC (Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Seasonally Flooded), R3UBH (Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded), PSS1C (Palustrine, Scrub-Shrub, Broad-Leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded), and PEM1C (Palustrine, Emergent, Persistent, Seasonally Flooded). NWI wetland types were confirmed based on field investigations (Figure 4 and Figure 6). In evaluating potential wetlands, RME (a) assessed vegetation, soil, and hydrologic characteristics to identify areas meeting the wetland identification criteria and (b) marked the wetland boundaries. The boundary of each wetland was GPS collected where indicators of wetland vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology were present. Adjacent uplands are distinguished from wetlands by lack of soil saturation, lack of hydric soil indicators and/or the presence of upland plant species. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology data were recorded as wetland data sheet points established on both sides of the wetland boundary. 4.1. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 10 Figure 4: National Wetland Indicator Map NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY McClure River Ranch .....,... Area of Investigation D Township /Range /Section NWIAreas ~ Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland [::? Freshwater Pond/Lake ~ Ri verine Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 11 Figure 5: SSURGO Soils Map SSURGO SOIL TYPES McClure River Ranch L~GE .....,-Area of Investigation D Town ship/Range/Secti o n Soil Type c::J 120-Water -13 -At encio-Az eltine complex, 3-696 slopes D 25 -Cushool-Rentsac complex, 15-65% slopes 1111 38 -Evanston l oam , 1-6% slopes C=:J 39 -Evanston loam, 6-25% slopes -42 -Fluvaquents, 0-1 096 slopes -54 -Grotte gra vel ly loam, 25-65 96 slopes - Gypsum land-Gypsicrthids ccmplex, 12-6596 es -Morval-Tridell comp lex, 12-50% s opes SCALE : 1:5,000 Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 12 Results within Investigation Area Based on the field investigation, a total of 8.73 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands and Waters were delineated within the Investigation Area. A wetland delineation map (Figure 6) depicts the Investigation Area, the wetland boundaries, and the location of all aquatic resources noted during the survey. Six (6) Wetland Determination Data Form (DP) points were established during the survey to clarify and support the wetland boundary delineations; data forms are included in Appendix E. Emergent Wetland (PEM/PSS) Approximately 8.73 acres of emergent wetland (PEM/PSS) within the Investigation Area are associated with the Roaring Fork River and Middle Ditch (Blue Creek), which are supported by surface water and shallow ground water (Figure 6). DP-1 describes conditions within Wetland A (Appendix E). Vegetation: The vegetation associated with these wetlands is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacae – FACW), arctic rush (Juncus arcticus – FACW), broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia – OBL), water sedge (Carex aquatilis – OBL), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis - FACW), climbing nightshade (Solanum dulcamara – FAC), coyote willow (Salix exigua – FACW), water birch (Betula occidentalis – FACW), narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia – FACW), and boxelder (Acer negundo – FACW). Soils: Soil pits DP-1, DP-3, and DP-5 had a significant presence of redox and met the requirement for redox dark surface (F6). Additional soil test pits were used to verify and determine the wetland boundary throughout the property. Hydrology: At the time of the investigation, DP-1, DP-3, and DP-5 showed soil saturation (A3) near the surface (approximately 0-6 inches in depth). PEM/PSS wetlands in the investigation area. 4.2. 4.2.1. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 13 Water of the U.S. (R3USC, R5UBH) The substrate of the Roaring Fork is dominated by cobbles and gravel, with sands and clay embedded between cobbles (R3USC). The open waters of Blue Creek/Middle Ditch (R5UBH) were not separately delineated, as the channel of the ditch is frequently braided and heavily integrated with the wetland complex across the property. Summary Table of Wetlands and WoUS Delineation Table 2. Summary of Wetlands and Nexus in Investigation Area Wetland Name Size (acres) Flow Frequency Receiving Waters PEM/PSS Wetland A 0.18 Perennial Roaring Fork River PEM/PSS Wetland B 0.016 Perennial Roaring Fork River PEM/PSS Wetland C 0.08 Perennial Roaring Fork River PEM/PSS Wetland D 6.4 Perennial Roaring Fork River PEM/PSS Wetland E 0.45 Perennial Roaring Fork River PEM/PSS Wetland F 1.6 Perennial Roaring Fork River Total 8.73 4.2.2. 4.2.3. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 14 Figure 6: Delineated Wetlands AQUATIC RESOURCES McClure River Ranch L.GEi 0 0 Wetland Data Points ....,-Area of Investigation D Township/Range /Section cJ Pri vate Land c] BLM Land Delineated Wetlands/WoUS ~ PSS /PEM Wetlands Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 15 5. REQUEST FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT 29 NWP 29 allows for discharges of dredged or fill material into non-tidal waters of the United States for the construction or expansion of a single residence, a multiple unit residential development, or a residential subdivision. This NWP authorizes the construction of building foundations and building pads and attendant features that are necessary for the use of the residence or residential development. Attendant features may include but are not limited to roads, parking lots, garages, yards, utility lines, storm water management facilities, septic fields, and recreation facilities such as playgrounds, playing fields, and golf courses (provided the golf course is an integral part of the residential development). Project Purpose and Need Garfield County and the Roaring Fork Valley have seen consistent pressure in the demand for single family residential homes and living spaces within the last 20 years. This project would provide an additional 12 home sites and agricultural facilities within the area. This project is supported by the 2013 Garfield County Land Use & Development Code, and the Comprehensive Plan of 2030). Project Description McClure River Ranch (Zone District 2) would consist of 12 residential Lots ranging from 1.07 acres to 2.07 acres, one 1.60-acre Tract for a common Community Center and greenhouse, and one 28.92-acre Open Space Tract, which comprises 59% of the land in Zone District 2. The development would include all associated facilities, structures, roads, and utilities necessary to support the subdivision. Additional amenities, including a pond and wetland mitigation site are also included. Domestic water collected from two water wells on the property would be treated at a water treatment facility on location. Finished water would then be delivered to each homesite via pipelines buried within the roadways. Sewer would be handled by individual OWTS on each of the 12 residential lots. There would also be one OWTS at the community center (barn). OWTS setbacks from waterbodies and water wells are in compliance with CDPHE standards. The residential lot layout was partially dictated by the required setbacks to ensure that each owner had sufficient space to construct their system. Details on OWTS are available upon request. As the development would impact more than 1 surface acre, a Construction Stormwater Permit is required by the CDPHE. Therefore, appropriate erosion and sediment controls would be utilized in accordance with General Condition #12 to properly stabilize the site and prevent erosion and siltation into other downgradient waters and wetlands. These appropriate erosion and sediment controls would be installed around the project area prior to beginning activities. Prior to work in wetlands, an on-site compensatory wetland mitigation site would be constructed; please see section 7. Mitigation Plan for details. Pre-Construction Civil Surveys Surveys would be performed before construction activities commence to identify the boundaries of approved workspace. Flagged or painted lath would be set at the edges of the work limits at intervals required to maintain line of sight. All staging areas would be marked in a similar fashion 5.1. 5.2. 5.2.1. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN SPK-2008-00253 McClure River Ranch 16 and all four corners of each staging area would be marked by flagged or painted lath. Inspectors would be responsible for verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas are staked prior to construction. Project Cleanup Cleanup and any needed area restoration would occur after project construction completion, timber matting has been removed and activities are finalized. 5.2.2. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 17 Figure 7: Illustrative Development Plan ·-· i _:~-:-~:~:.-~:::· 1 r-;:· : LOT 2 : J 1.32 ACRES : 1 (154 : : CHUKKA ! j mm) ! zone district 2 illustrative plan McClure River Ranch • ---'Lor .. __ I Res f june 18, 2024 I I I I I I I I I I I 0 so 100 LIi Ill 200 f ii PU D Zone District Map Plan Summary Tract or Lot Acres Tract A (Community Center)........ 1.60 Tract B (Open Space)................... 28 .92 Lot 1............................................. 1 .92 Lot 2............................................. 1.59 Lot 3............................................. 1.22 Lot 4............................................. 1.25 Lo t 5............................................. 1.07 Lot 6............................................. 1.28 Lot 7............................................. 2.03 Lot 8............................................. 2.07 Lot 9............................................. 1.50 Lot 10........................................... 1.51 Lot 11 ........................................... 1.50 Lot 12 ........................................... 1.51 Zone District 2 Total................... 48.96 Legend E3 Wetlands ~ 100-Year Floodpl ai n ~ ~ McCLURE RIVER RANCH Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 18 6. IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters (WoUS) Permanent Wetland Impacts – The Project would have 0.22 acres of permanent wetland impact from construction of access roads and the need to install culverts across Middle Ditch (Blue Creek). Additional construction space next to roads would be needed for grading and fill material, and where possible these areas would be reclaimed to support wetlands after construction. In addition to road impacts, permanent wetland impacts would occur from development of one homesite (Lot 12, Figure 8). Fill into wetlands from road construction is anticipated to be approximately 50 cubic yards of material, consisting of coarser rock, and capped with roadbase and asphalt to provide year-round reliable access to homesites. All permanent wetland impacts would be mitigated (see section 7. Mitigation Plan, below). Culverts have been engineered to accommodate flows in Middle Ditch as well as to accommodate anticipated traffic along residential streets. Two (2) side-by-side, 4-foot square concrete box culverts are proposed. There are two existing culverts in the Middle Ditch, which are quite old and are incompatible with anticipated residential use. These culverts would be removed, and edges of the creek would be laid back to approximately 3:1 slopes to mimic adjacent stream profiles. These areas would be revegetated using local native wetland plant species (see 7. Mitigation Plan). The installation of culverts across Middle Ditch and the removal of obsolete culverts would mobilize fine sediments in the channel of Middle Ditch. These fine sediments would flow downstream in the creek, and would likely fill interstitial spaces in the streambed, and could also temporarily cover or infill downstream wetlands. With beaver ponds downstream, as well as very dense emergent vegetation, most sediments would likely settle out within 100 yards of the culverts. Mobilized sediments could still be around 0.5 cuyds of material at each culvert location, based on realistic estimates from other projects. Two in-channel diversion structures/head gates would be constructed within the channel of Middle Ditch. The upstream structure is needed to manage water flows in Middle Ditch, per water right agreements. The lower diversion structure in Middle Ditch is needed to divert water flows into the wetland mitigation area (7. Mitigation Plan). Temporary Wetland Impacts – The Project would have 0.2 acres of temporary wetland impact from crushing and trampling of vegetation within the roadway workspaces, installation of culverts in Middle Ditch, and removal of an existing set of culverts on Middle Ditch (Figure 8). Some willows and shrubs may be trimmed or cut to assist with equipment access. Forbs and grasses not removed or buried are anticipated to begin growing within a year and would take one to two growing seasons to return to pre-construction conditions. Willows and shrubs are anticipated to take three to four years to return to pre-construction conditions. 6.1. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 19 All temporarily impacted wetlands would be replanted using local native wetland plant species (see section 7. Mitigation Plan, below). Wetlands Impact Summary Table 3. Proposed Impacts to Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. Type Name Size of Impact (acres) Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 1 0.03 Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 2 0.08 Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 3 0.03 Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 4 0.04 Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 5 0.004 Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 6 0.007 Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 7 0.03 Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 8 0.02 Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 9 0.008 Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 15 0.004 Total Permanent Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS 0.253 Temporary Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 10 0.03 Temporary Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 11 0.03 Temporary Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 12 0.06 Temporary Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 13 0.04 Temporary Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS Impact 14 0.03 Total Temporary Wetland Impacts PEM/PSS 0.19 6.1.1. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 20 Figure 8: Impacts to Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. WETLAND/WOUS IMPACTS McClure River Ranch LEoENO --..r Area of Investigation r Parcel Boundary D Township/Range/Section Delineated Wetlands/WoUS ~ PSS/PEM Wetlands Permanent Wetland Impacts (!? Temporary Wetland Impacts Land Ownership [J Private Land [J BLM Land 600 E==c==c===============Feet SCALE: 1:4 ,000 N A Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 21 7. MITIGATION PLAN Objectives The objective of the mitigation plan is to replace the PEM/PSS wetlands permanently impacted by construction of the development through the establishment of created wetlands. Additionally, the created wetlands would also help offset the loss of functionality of wetlands temporarily impacted by construction. Created wetlands would be developed to support PEM wetlands, which further can provide habitat for the Ute ladies-tresses. Wetland Conservation and Protection Aside from areas where roadways, water diversion structures, and on one parcel of land, wetlands were buffered by a 35-foot setback, per Garfield County land use code. Building envelopes were designed to adhere to this 35-foot setback, aside from on one parcel. Within the Open Space parcel, approximately 0.5-acres of wetlands would be protected through the PUD guidelines and deed restrictions. Site Selection The mitigation area was selected for an area within upland habitats (there are no wetlands within the mitigation area) that is close to source water (Middle Ditch), is relatively level to minimize cut and fill needs, and would be located within an area relatively far from development to reduce indirect impacts to wetlands. The site is located on the property, very close to impacted wetlands. Site Protection Instrument The site would be protected using a deed restriction, protecting the mitigation area from future impacts. The mitigation area would be owned by the McClure River Ranch Homeowners Association. Current Conditions of Mitigation Site The area planned to support the mitigation area is currently dominated by a narrowleaf cottonwood overstory. The understory is dominated by deadfall cottonwood trees, litter, and upland shrub species, including three-leaf sumac, hairy goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa – NL), alfalfa (Medicago sativa – NL), mullein (Verbascum thapsus – FACU), scarlet gilia (Ipomopsis Mitigation Site. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 22 agregata – NL), black medic (Medicago lupulina – FAC), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis – FAC), bastard toadflax (Comandra umbellata – NL), and Utah juniper (Sabina osteosperma – NL). There is quite a bit of bare ground and cobble at the site. Mitigation Work Plan The objective of the mitigation site is to develop 0.5 acres of PEM wetlands, to offset the impacts of 0.25 acres of permanent wetland impacts, and to help offset the temporal loss of functionality of 0.19 acres of temporary wetland impacts while temporarily impacted wetlands are revegetating. The mitigation site is depicted on Figures 7 and 8. A path would be constructed to the mitigation site through upland woodlands, by clearing deadfall and larger shrubs. No grading is anticipated to create the access path. From the path, an approximately 0.5-acre, oval-shaped depression would be excavated, to a depth of approximately 1.5 feet. The edges of the depression would be mounded and compacted to help retain water. Due to porous soils and cobble, a clay layer (e.g., bentonite) would be placed within the excavated area to keep waters from rapidly infiltrating. From the mitigation area, a shallow, 65-foot long channel would be dug using smaller heavy equipment (a mini-excavator) back to Middle Ditch and the diversion headgate. Impacts to wetlands from the construction of the diversion headgate are tracked as permanent impacts. If the substrate of the mitigation site is excessively cobbly, topsoil would be imported to help provide a growth medium for planted wetland plants. Once the dirt-work is completed, water would be diverted from Middle Ditch to the mitigation site, and would be allowed to pond to ensure hydrology is functioning correctly. At a low point of the mitigation area on the east side, a small weir will be installed to allow overflow of waters in a controlled manner. The level of the water in the pond would also be controlled by the weir. Any excess or discharged waters would be directed approximately 20- feet back to a channel discharging to a perennial tributary of the Roaring Fork River. Planting Plan Prior to planting, the mitigation area would be flooded/inundated to fine-tune water levels and repair any deficiencies in water delivery or water storage. Additional soil may be added to also provide appropriate levels of wetness in soils and growth medium. Once water levels are finalized and stabilized, live plants would be installed in the inundated mitigation area, at a density of one plant per 20-inches. Plant sizes would be based on availability, but 10-cubic inch containerized stock would be the target size. Final planting would likely take place within two weeks of water management preparation, if plant materials are available. 7.6. 7.6.1. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 23 Table 4 details the approximate number of containerized stock needed for planting. Table 4. Containerized Graminoids for Wetland Mitigation Area Common Name Scientific Name % of Materials Count Beaked sedge Carex utriculata 15 720 Water Sedge Carex aquatilis 35 1680 Creeping spikerush Eleocharis palustris 10 480 Swordleaf rush Juncus ensifolius 20 960 Colorado rush Juncus confuses 20 960 Totals 100% 4,800 The same species mix would be used in temporarily disturbed areas, and would also be live- planted. In addition, some local native wetland shrub species (such as willows) may also be planted, based on site aesthetics. Table 5. Containerized Graminoids for Restoration of Temporarily Disturbed Wetlands Common Name Scientific Name % of Materials Count Beaked sedge Carex utriculata 15% 350 Water Sedge Carex aquatilis 35% 816 Creeping spikerush Eleocharis palustris 10% 233 Swordleaf rush Juncus ensifolius 20% 466 Colorado rush Juncus confuses 20% 466 Totals 100% 2,330 Of note, willows and other shrubby species are not prescribed, as Ute ladies’ tresses prefers more open habitats, and as willows and other shrubby species commonly dominate the wetlands across the property given the cessation of cattle grazing. No planting is planned along the water delivery canal, but seeding with a similar mix of wetland species would occur for site stabilization. Monitoring During the reclamation process, a qualified ecologist or wetland scientist shall be on site to ensure crews properly plant in the appropriate moisture zones. If plants are not planted in the correct area, they could die, and additional planting would then be necessary. Ecologists shall document that topsoil replacement; mitigation site preparation and planting were employed correctly. As-Built Assessment A qualified ecologist or wetland scientist shall submit a brief as-built assessment to document that wetland revegetation has been completed after construction of the compensatory mitigation area and after revegetation of temporarily impacted wetlands. The report will identify any changes to the original plan, document final plant materials, and will include photographs. 7.7. 7.8. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 24 Graphics of the final mitigation area will be provided to regulatory agencies as map products and as GIS shapefiles. Post-construction Monitoring and Maintenance Post-construction monitoring of the wetland mitigation and restoration areas would be initiated following final reclamation and would continue until the Restoration Success Criteria are achieved. During the monitoring period, qualified ecologists or wetland scientists will periodically visit the wetland restoration areas to observe vegetation establishment, locate populations of noxious or undesirable weeds, identify any areas of detrimental erosion, and provide recommendations for corrective actions. Seed Germination and Vegetation Establishment Qualified ecologists or wetland scientists will evaluate the revegetated wetland areas to determine if the planted materials and seed mixes are establishing and germinating adequately and producing a uniform cover, and if plants are thriving. Any areas with inadequate seed germination, or dead plants, will be identified. Recommendations will be provided to adequately revegetate these areas (if needed), which may include reseeding, overseeding, or replanting. In addition, plant species lists will be compiled during monitoring visits to document the species diversity of the restoration area more thoroughly. These species lists will be used to augment the species richness data gathered during quantitative vegetation monitoring and would be included in the evaluation of Restoration Success Criteria described below. Weed Management Qualified ecologists or wetland scientists will identify and map any populations of introduced plants including Colorado noxious weeds and other undesirable plants within the wetland restoration areas. Appropriate control procedures will be recommended based on the ecology of the problematic species. Control procedures may include hand pulling or eradication with hand tools, mowing, or the use of herbicides. The landowners and regulatory agencies will coordinate and oversee herbicide application in the restoration areas, but APP would be responsible for providing weed management contractors. Erosion Erosion has the potential to alter the success of restoration, and any BMPs or planted areas may need repair. Therefore, qualified ecologists or wetland scientists will thoroughly inspect the restoration to identify any areas of erosion and present a plan to regulatory agencies to repair any damage. Hand tools would be used to restore small areas of erosion and to repair BMPs. Any erosion damage beyond the scope of hand tools will be coordinated with APP and regulatory agencies and could require re-contouring and reseeding or replanting. APP would be responsible for completing any repairs at the direction of the agencies and environmental consultants. 7.9. 7.10. 7.11. 7.12. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 25 Damage from Human or Wildlife Use Qualified ecologists or wetland scientists will determine if human or animal use is negatively impacting the restoration. If impacts are occurring, recommendations will be provided for procedures to eliminate or mitigate these impacts. Such procedures could include signage to keep pedestrians, construction crews, and vehicles out of the restoration areas, and/or temporary fencing. Wildlife fencing is not practicable for this restoration, and heavy wildlife damage may require reseeding of impacted areas. APP would be responsible for completing any repairs. Annual Monitoring Reports At the end of each growing season, until the Restoration Success Criteria are achieved, qualified ecologists or wetland scientists will prepare a Restoration Monitoring Report to document conditions in the wetland mitigation area and temporarily impacted wetland restoration areas with regard to erosion and site stability, vegetation establishment, and the presence of noxious weeds and other undesirable species. In addition, the report will evaluate the progress of the restoration toward achieving the Restoration Success Criteria. It will identify whether corrective actions are necessary and will provide recommendations. Monitoring will be in accordance with the methods described below. Quantitative Vegetation Monitoring Quantitative vegetation monitoring data will be collected annually to document the progress of the restoration in wetland areas. Vegetation data will be collected in the late summer or early fall of each year and will be incorporated into the annual monitoring reports. Permanent vegetation monitoring transects will be established for the collection of quantitative vegetation cover, and species richness in the restoration areas. One permanent transect will be established in the wetland mitigation site. The transect will be 50-meter long, with 2-meter-wide quadrats centered on the transect for collection of species richness. Species richness is the total number of species observed in a given area. Species richness data will be collected along the transect area by recording all vascular plant species present within a 2-meter-wide band centered on the 50 meter long transect. Thus, the total area inventoried for species richness is 100 square meters for the transect. Photo Points A series of fixed photo points will be established for visual comparison of revegetation success. Photos will be taken from each photo point on an annual basis and will be included in the annual monitoring reports. Success Criteria The goal of the following reclamation standards and Success Criteria is to mitigate anticipated impacts to vegetation, soil and water resources from ground-disturbing activities by re- establishing a self-sustaining, diverse wetland community composed of species native to the 7.13. 7.14. 7.14.1. 7.14.2. 7.15. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 26 region in sufficient density and diversity to approximate a natural, undisturbed community type. Achievement of these Success Criteria will be required to fulfill requirements of the USACE nationwide permit. The wetland plant establishment of the wetland mitigation site and in temporarily impacted areas will be considered successful when the following criteria are achieved: 1. Temporarily impacted areas have been re-graded to the approximate pre-disturbance topography, allowing for wetland establishment, and blends with the adjacent landscape. 2. The disturbed soil surface has been stabilized to reduce erosion and runoff to natural background levels. Flow pattern development will not have resulted in rills deeper than three inches or spaced closer than on adjacent undisturbed slopes. 3. No slumping or subsidence has occurred along fill slopes. 4. The site is dominated by plants of the seed mix, planted species, and/or by desirable native colonizers common to wetland and riparian habitats in this area. 5. The plant species diversity includes at least 6 desirable native plants common to wetlands and riparian areas along the Middle Ditch and the Roaring Fork River. Species richness will include plant inventories compiled during regular monitoring visits, and data collected during year-end quantitative vegetation monitoring. This method will more accurately capture the species diversity of the site, since many early-blooming forbs are not evident late in the growing season. 6. The plant species diversity shall include at least 4 desirable native graminoids, and 2 desirable native forbs. 7. The absolute vegetation cover totals at least 80%. 8. The combined absolute cover of all State of Colorado A, B, or C listed noxious weeds and undesirable plant species (such as kochia (Kochia spp.) or Russian thistle (Salsola iberica)) shall be less than 5%, with no areas larger than 10 square feet in which noxious weeds are the dominant plants. Long-term Management The McClure River Ranch homeowners association (HOA) will be responsible for monitoring of the wetland mitigation site and revegetated wetland areas after success criteria have been met. The HOA will be responsible for ensuring that water delivery and water levels in the wetland mitigation area continue to support wetlands, and will be responsible for managing noxious weeds. The HOA will be required to produce funding as needed to fund water management, repairs, maintenance, and weed control within the wetland mitigation area. Assurances of available funds shall be made available to the USACE upon request. 7.16. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 27 8. IMPACTS TO FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES Eleven federally listed species were evaluated for potential impacts resulting from this project, per the USFWS Threatened and Endangered species list for the project area (IPaC, August 2024). Based on this analysis, the USFWS identified the Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis), gray wolf (Canis lupus) (which includes both the native and the non-essential experimental population), yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), bonytail chub (Gila elegans), Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius), humpback chub (Gila cypha), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), monarch butterfly (Danaus Plexippus), silverspot (Speyeria nokomis nokomis), and Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) as being potentially impacted by this project. USFWS Guidance The USFWS has provided guidance on consultation between the USACE and USFWS (Jay Rubens, USFWS, 8/19/2024 email). As previously discussed, this project underwent formal consultation with USFWS in 2010 for take of the Ute ladies’ tresses (ULT). As the project modifications are not expected to cause any added effects to ULT that were not considered in the Biological Opinion (Appendix B); therefore, reinitiation of formal consultation is not required. A letter detailing the current MRR plan has been provided to USFWS and USACE (Appendix F). The following information summarizes potential impacts to listed species. Canada lynx. The project area is not located within suitable habitat for this species, would not impact suitable habitat or individuals. This project would have No Effect to the Canada lynx and/or their habitats. Gray wolf. The project would not impact suitable habitat or individuals as it occurs within developed areas along the Roaring Fork corridor. The project does not involve a predator control program. This project would have No Effect to the gray wolf and/or their habitats and would not impact the availability of prey species. The project would have no impact on the non-essential, experimental population of gray wolves recently released into Colorado by CPW, or their potential habitats. Yellow-billed cuckoo. The project area occurs outside of critical habitat and is not located within suitable, closed canopy cottonwood stands greater than 5 acres in size, however, the property does support smaller areas of suitable habitats for YBC. The project is not proximal to larger areas of suitable habitats, nor is the project proximal to known occupied habitats. The project would have no anticipated direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to suitable habitats or cuckoos. This project May Affect, is Not Likely to Adversely Affect the yellow-billed cuckoo and would have No Effect on their Critical Habitat(s). Mexican spotted owl. The Mexican spotted owl occurs in a variety of habitats in southern Colorado, including in deep, shaded canyons with a closed canopy of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and other understory shrubby species. They can also occur in old growth mixed conifer stands, usually on north-facing slopes and in canyons. They also occur in deep, well shaded sandstone canyons with ledges for roosting and nesting. 8.1. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 28 The project area does not support habitat for Mexican spotted owl and is not proximal to potential habitats. This project would therefore have No Effect on Mexican spotted owl and No Effect to Critical Habitats. Colorado River Endangered Fish. The USFWS identified the bonytail chub, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub and the razorback sucker for potential impacts from this project. These species occur in lower elevation, larger rivers. The construction process would mobilize fine sediments within the Roaring Fork River, which is tributary to the Colorado River. Increased sediments and turbidity could impact down-river fish and habitats; however, given the expected minor amounts of sediments mobilized, and the distance to occupied habitats, the project is not anticipated to result in any measurable or meaningful impacts to occupied habitats downstream. A Recovery Agreement has been signed for this project (Appendix B and C), and development of this project would have no additional impacts to waters which are tributary to habitats. Given there would be no direct or meaningful indirect impacts to occupied habitats or these species, and as a Recovery Agreement has been signed, mitigating any potential impacts of water depletions, this project would have No Effect on these species, and No Effect to Critical Habitats. Monarch butterfly. The USFWS identified the monarch butterfly for potential impacts from this project. Monarch butterfly adults have been observed in the project area utilizing the large areas of showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa) occurring. As the project area supports large areas of showy milkweed, there is a potential that larvae or chrysalis may be impacted by road or homesite construction, weed management, landscaping, or other associated activities. Given the potential impacts to larvae, chrysalis, and habitats for the monarch, a determination of Not Likely to Jeopardize the Monarch butterfly is warranted. Silverspot. The silverspot requires an abundance of their larval foodplant, the bog violet (Viola nephrophylla and V. sororia var. affinis). Surveys in the summer of 2024 did not reveal the presence of bog violet, though the project does have areas of potential habitat, and surveys occurred later in the summer, outside of the prime blooming season for bog violets. No adult silverspots have been observed on the property, including during surveys in the summer of 2024, when adult silverspots are flying. At this time, it is not anticipated that widespread impacts to bog violet would occur. If silverspots do occur in the area, there is the potential for impacts to bog violets and their habitats, and also potential impacts to eggs, larvae, and even adults due to the construction processes. These impacts are anticipated to only occur to individuals of this species and are not anticipated to impact a larger colony. Therefore, a determination of Not Likely to Jeopardize the silverspot is warranted. Ute Ladies’-tresses. At the request of Garfield County, an updated “orchid management plan” was prepared in February 2024, as part of the county’s approval of an amendment to the PUD. A copy of the Orchid Management Plan is presented in Appendix G. The Ute Ladies’-tresses is a perennial herb with small white to ivory flowers arranged in a gradual spiral on a long spike. This species is known to occur in Colorado along the banks of the Roaring Fork River in wetland areas prone to seasonal flooding, and which are perennially saturated, with silty and clayey substrates. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 29 The property and project area supports several populations of Ute Ladies’-tresses, first identified in 2008. Four population areas were delineated and the occurrence of Ute Ladies’-tresses within the four populations totaled over 1,000 individuals from rope count surveys conducted from 2008-2011. In 2019-2023 these population areas were reassessed, and three of the four areas had a negative finding of Ute Ladies’-tresses during surveys conducted in late August. Individual counts of Ute Ladies’-tresses during 2019-2023 varied from 100-300. According to the 2010 Biological Opinion from USFWS, direct impacts to the orchid could include direct removal of orchid individuals through excavation and/ or trampling of the orchid. Portions of the historic orchid population are located within several proposed residential lots. Depending upon the building envelope and potential unknown orchid locations, it is possible that some individual orchids could be excavated and removed as construction progresses. Direct impacts could also result from trampling or localized soil compaction from construction activities, including either foot traffic or vehicle traffic. Approximately 0.01 acres (500 square feet) of potential habitat would have an elevated foot trail constructed on helical screws, and while direct impacts to orchids would not occur from the elevated boardwalk, there would be indirect impacts due to shading of occupied habitats which would likely result in orchids dying off underneath the foot-trail. The 2010 BO projects that this would likely result in the indirect demise of approximately 56 individual plants. In order to complete the build out of the water features of the development, ditches would be temporarily rerouted. This may result in a temporary drying up of some of the wet meadows that support the orchid populations. This may result in an adverse effect to orchid health and vigor, and possibly some orchid death Potential indirect impacts to the Ute Ladies' -tresses could include collection and/ or trampling of the orchid by the residents of the area. Additionally, since the residential lots are relatively proximal to occupied orchid habitats, landscaping activities of residents could have an indirect effect on the orchid. Lawn mowers, herbicide application and/ or fertilizer application would likely have a negative effect on the orchid, resulting in direct impacts or indirect impacts to habitats. It is projected that 0.25 acres, or approximately 1 percent of the potential orchid habitat in the action area would likely be adversely affected by the development of roads, trails, and indirect impacts. The USFWS has supplied conservation measures to help minimize impacts (Appendix B). Given the likelihood of direct and indirect impacts to previously (and possibly still occupied) habitats, a determination of May Affect, and is Likely to Adversely Affect Ute Ladies’-tresses is warranted. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 30 9. CULTURAL RESOURCES On July 2, 2012, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued Permit No. SPK-2008-00253 with an associated Memorandum of Agreement (the “Agreement”) and Historic Conservation Plan (Appendix D) between USACE, the State Historic Preservation Office and the previous landowner, TCI Lane Ranch, LLC. The Agreement was fully executed on June 25, 2012, and was based on the findings of the Cultural Resources Inventory performed by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. which identified three (3) historical structures to be preserved on the McClure Homestead: 1) the McClure Homestead Cabin, 2) the Feed Shed, and 3) the Log Barn. The property was then sold on May 31, 2017 to Aspen Polo Partners, LLP. Following the transfer of property ownership, USACE issued a notice of termination of the Agreement on July 6, 2017 (Appendix D). Although the Agreement had terminated, the new property owners chose to voluntarily comply with the prior Historic Conservation Plan, and they engaged in efforts to stabilize and improve all three historical structures on the property. Appendix G presents the background assessments, reports, and SHPO coordination. Based on APP’s successful compliance with the Historic Conservation Plan, the project would result in no historic properties affected. 10. IMPACTS TO INDIAN LANDS The project area is within land owned by the Aspen Polo Partners; the project is not located on Indian lands. 11. CONCLUSION Aspen Polo Partners, LLP request authorization under NWP-29 for activities associated with the construction and development of a 14-lot subdivision, the McClure River Ranch. The proposed Project would result in permanent wetland impacts of 0.25-acres with 0.19 acres of temporary impact. Impacts would be mitigated through the creation of a 0.5-acre wetland mitigation area, and revegetation of the 0.19 acres of temporarily impacted wetlands with local native wetland species. The project would result in determinations of No Effect to 10 species listed under the Endangered Species Act based on a project review of habitat within the project area. The project May Affect, is Not Likely to Adversely Affect the yellow billed cuckoo and would have No Effect on yellow- billed cuckoo Critical Habitats. The project is Not Likely to Jeopardize the monarch butterfly and silverspot. The project May Affect and is Likely to Adversely Affect the Ute Ladies’-tresses; Conservation Measures are required by the USFWS, and other mitigations are required by Garfield County. The project does not occur on Indian lands, and the project would result in No Historic Properties Affected, given the compliance with the previously approved MOA and completion of the Historic Conservation Plan. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 31 12. REFERENCES Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2017. SSUGO Database. NRCS. 2024. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627 United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Environmental Laboratory, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (V.2, ERDC/EL TR-08-28). US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05. Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. December 7, 2005. Western Regional Climate Center. 2024. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/. Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 32 APPENDIX A: 2012 NWP-29 PERMIT REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 July 2, 2012 Regulatory Division (SPK-2008-00253) Andrew Lane TCI Lane Ranch 401 Tree Farm Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Dear Mr. Lane: We are responding to your request for a Department of the Anny permit for the TCI Lane Ranch project. This project involves activities, including discharges of dredged or fill material, in waters of the United States to construct a residential development with associated infrastructure and amenities. The project is located along Old Highway 82 within Sections 31 and 32 of Township 7 South and Range 87 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Latitude 39.4036°, Longitude - I 07.144°, near Glenwood Springs, Garfield County, Colorado. Based on the information you provided, the proposed activity, resulting in the permanent loss of approximately 0.35 acres of wetland, is authorized by Nationwide Permit Number 29. Your work must comply with the general terms and conditions listed on the enclosed Nationwide Permit information sheets and regional conditions and the following special conditions: Special Conditions 1. Within sixty days prior to construction within waters of the U.S., you shall submit to the Corps, Grand Junction Office, a copy of your final construction plans to insure that the final project design is consistent. with your preconstruction notification and complies with the terms and conditions of this permit verification. 2. You shall implement the attached Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), entitled Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the TCI Lane Ranch Development, Garfield County, Colorado, in its entirety. The Corps has been designated the lead federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the Memorandum of Agreement as signed. If you fail to comply with the implementation and associated enforcement of the MOA the Corps may determine that you are out of compliance with the conditions of the Department of the Army verification and suspend the verification. Suspension may result in modification or revocation of the authorized work. Prior to construction within waters of the U.S., you must provide evidence that you have fully implemented your historic conservation plan. -2- 3. This Corps permit does not authorize you to take an endangered species, in particular the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, raz orback sucker, and the U te ladi_es' -tresses orchid, or designated critical habitat. In order to legally take a listed species, you must have separate authorization under the Endangered Species Act. The enclosed Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion (Number ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F- 033-CP109, dated October 27 , 2010), contains mandatory terms and conditions to implement the reasonable and prudent measures that are associated with "incidental take" that is also specified in the Biological Opinion. Your authorization under this Corps permit is conditional upon your compliance with all of the mandatory terms and conditions associated with "incidental take" of the attached Biological Opinion, which terms and conditions are incorporated by reference in this permit. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions associated with incidental take of the Biological Opinion, where a take of the listed species occurs, would constitute an unauthorized take, and it would also constitute non-compliance with your Corps permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with the terms and conditions of its Biological Opinion, and with the Endangered Species Act. You must comply with all conditions of this/these Biological Opinion, including those ascribed to the Corps. 4. You shall develop a final comprehensive mitigation and monitoring plan, which must be approved by the Corps Grand Junction Office prior to initiation of construction activities within waters of the U.S. You shall ensure the plan includes the mitigation location and design drawings, v egetation plans, including target spec ies to be planted, draft financial assurance, conservation easement, and final success criteria, and shall be presented in the format of the Sacramento District's Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Proposal Guidelines, dated December 30, 2004. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure replacement of functions of the aquatic environment that would be lost through project implementation. 5. To mitigate for the loss of 0.35 acre of waters of the United States, prior to construction within waters of the U.S., you shall implement your approved mitigation plan or provide evidence of the purchase of an approved quantity of credit from a Corps approved mitigation bank that services your project area. For on-site mitigation, your approved financial assurance and conservation easement must b e in place prior to construction within waters of the U.S. 6. 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 Nationwide Permit is modified, reissued , or revoked, whichever comes first. Failure to comply with the General and Regional C onditions of this Nationwide Permit, or the project-specific Special Conditions of this authorization, may result in the suspension or revocation of your authorization. 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 Custom er Service Survey. -3- Please refer to identification number SPK-2008-00253 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact Kara Hellige at the Durango Regulatory Office, 1970 E 3rd Ave., #109, Durango, Colorado 81301, email Kara.A.Hellige@usace.army.mil, or telephone 970-259-1604 or Mark Gilfillan at the Grand Junction Office, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 224 , Grand Junction, Colorado , 81501 Mark.A. Gilfillan@usace.army.mil, or tel ephone 970-243-1199, ext 15. For more information regarding our program, p lease visit our website at www.spk.us ace. army. mil/Missions/Regulatory. aspx. Enclosure 1) Map and Plans 2) MOA 3) BO 4) NWP 39 Summary 5) Compliance Certificate Copy Furnished with enclosures Sincerely, Kara Hellige Chief, Durango Office Sacramento District Mr. Jon Fredericks, LandWest Coloraao, LLC, 345 Colorado Ave, #106, Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Copy Furnished with map and plans Mr. Mark Tobias, History Colorado Center, 1200 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80203 Ms. Ellen Mayo, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 Garfield County, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION Permit File Number: SPK-2008-00253; TCI Lane Ranch Nationwide Permit Number: NWP 29 Permittee: County: Andrew Lane TCI Lane Ranch 401 Tree Farm Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Garfield Date of Verification: July 2, 2012 Within 30 days after completion of the activity authorized by this permit, sign this certification and return it to the following address: U.S. Army Corps of Engin eers Sacramento District 1970 E . 3rd Ave, #109 Durango; Colorado 81301 DLL-CESPK-RD-Compliance@ usace.army.mil Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representative. If you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit your authorization may be suspended, modified, or revoked. If you have any questions about this certification, please contact the Corps of Engineers. * * * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above-referenced permit, including all the required mitigation, was completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit verification. Signature of Permittee Date Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 33 APPENDIX B: USFWS 2010 BIOLOGICAL OPINION RMES' s BA and your letter requesting fonnal consultation were received by the Service on July 12, 2010 and the supplement to the BA was received by the Service on July 18, 2010. BIOLOGICAL OPINION Colorado River Endangered Fish A Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin was initiated on January 22, 1988. The Recovery Program was intended to be the reasonable and prudent alternative for individual projects to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy to the endangered fishes from depletions from the Upper Colorado River Basin. In order to fmiher define and clarify the process in the Recovery Program, a section 7 agreement was implemented on October 15, 1993, by the Recovery Program paiiicipants. Incorporated into this agreement is a Recovery Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) which identifies actions cmTently believed to be required to recover the endangered fishes in the most expeditious manner. On December 20, 1999, the Service issued a final programmatic biological opinion (PBO) for Bureau of Reclamation's Operations and Depletions, Other Depletions, and Funding and Implementation of Recovery Program Actions in the Upper Colorado River above the Confluence with the Gunnison River. The Service has determined that projects that fit under the umbrella of the Colorado River PBO would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat for depletion impacts. The Colorado River PBO states that in order for actions to fall within the umbrella of the PBO and rely on the RIPRAP to offset its depletion, the following criteria must be met. 1. A Recovery Agreement must be offered and signed prior to conclusion of section 7 consultation. 2. A fee to fund recovery actions will be submitted as described in the proposed action for new depletion projects greater than 100 acre-feet/year. The 2011 fee is $18.91 per acre-foot and is adjusted each year for inflation. 3. Reinitiation stipulations will be included in all individual consultations under the umbrella of this programmatic. 4. The Service and project proponents will request that discretionai·y Federal control be retained for all consultations under this programmatic. The Recovery Agreement was signed by the Service and the Water User. The depletions associated with this project are historic depletions which do not make contributions to fimd recovery actions. The Corps has agreed to condition its approval documents to retain jurisdiction should section 7 consultation need to be reinitiated. Therefore, the Service concludes that the subject project meets the criteria to rely on the RIPRAP to offset depletion impacts and is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. 2 The reinitiation criteria for the Colorado River PBO apply to all projects under the umbrella of the PBO. For your information the reinitiation notice from the Colorado River PBO is presented in Appendix A. Ute Ladies'-tresses Orchid This BO is based on information regarding the orchid, conditions fanning the environmental baseline, the imp01iance of the project area to the survival and recovery of the species, and other sources of information as described below. The data used in this BO constitute the best scientific and c01mnercial information cunently available. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Corps proposes to authorize the filling of O .3 5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands through the issuance of a 404 permit. This action would have interrelated and interdependent actions resulting in the development of the TCI Lane Ranch prope1iy, conve1iing the roughly 100 acre property ( currently used as a ranch), into an 89 tmit residential housing development with associated infrastructure and amenities. Conservation Measures Conservation measures are actions that the action agency and applicant agree to implement to frniher the recovery of the species m1der review. The beneficial effects of conservation measures were taken into consideration for detennining jeopardy, adverse modification of critical habitat and incidental take analyses. Therefore, if the conservation measures are not implemented, a new analysis of jeopardy, adverse modification of critical habitat and incidental take will be required. The applicant has committed to implement the following conservation to benefit the orchid: • 32.4 acres of the ranch will remain tmdeveloped, and placed into a Conservation Easement for protection of orchid habitat. The Conservation Easement will be held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy. • TCI Lane Ranch will maintain the existing hydrology in orchid habitat by implementing the following measures: o Maintain irrigation ditches that provide water to orchid habitats at the ctment rate and timing. o While some lateral ditches may be redirected/ rerouted, the delivery of water ammmts, timing, and delivery would remain to the same to the orchid populations. o During construction there could be temporary drying of occupied habitats while the ditches are shut-off for re-routing of inigation waters. o Excess vegetation will be removed to maintain orchid habitat through prescribed mowing, grazing, or fire as detailed in the BA. 3 o A weed control program will be implemented as detailed in the BA. o TCI Lane Ranch will construct the required wetland mitigation area with similar hydrology and plant community composition to the wetlands that are being impacted, to include the following measures: Preserve topsoil around orchids in construction areas and move it to the mitigation site, thus preserving the seed bank, propagules, and other biological materials such as mycon-hizal fungi that are needed for germination of orchid seeds. o Collect orchid seeds from some of the existing plants on site and transfer them to the newly constructed wetland mitigation area. o Modify the water depths of the constructed wetland in limited areas as necessary to provide suitable habitat for the colonization of new orchids. • Approximately 0.013 acres (566 square feet) of occupied habitats would be protected from direct impacts by construction of fill elevated foot trail constructed on helical screws • A fence would be constructed behind residential lots, to keep residents out of orchid habitat • Annual third-party plai1t monitoring of existing orchid sites will be conducted; monitoring results will be repmied to the Service. If the population decreases significantly in ai·ea, plai1t munbers, or quality of habitat, steps would be required to identify ai1d rectify the cause(s) and improve the habitat quality. Annual third-paiiy plai1t monitoring will also be conducted to dete1mine the status and habitat quality for orchids at the wetlai1d mitigation site, with the understanding that new orchid seedlings and young plai1ts may take several years to emerge and grow lai·ge enough to be recognized. Action Area Our regulations define the action ai·ea to be all areas directly or indirectly affected by the Federal action, and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CPR 402.02). The action ai·ea of the TCI Lai1e Ranch development is bounded to the south by the Roai·ing Fork River, to the nmih by the old Highway 82 (now a frontage road), to the east by the Waldorf School cainpus, and to the west by Blue Creek subdivision. The lower elevation of this ai·ea is at the southwestern end of property on the Roaring Fork River at 6,298 feet, and the upper elevation in the ai·ea is at 6,332 feet at the nmiheastern end of the prope1iy. This ai·ea is west of the Continental Divide, in the Colorado River Basin, in Garfield County, Colorado. Effects of the action (including the wetland mitigation) ai·e expected to be contained within this ai·ea. STATUS OF THE SPECIES The Ute ladies' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) was first described as a species in 1984 by Dr. Charles J. Sheviak from a population discovered neai· Golden, Colorado (Sheviak 1984). The Ute ladies' -tresses are perennial orchids from the fainily Orchidaceae. The orchid first appears above ground as a rosette of thickened grass-like leaves that is very difficult to distinguish from other vegetation. Its leaves ai·e up to 1.5 cm wide ai1d 28 cm long; the longest leaves ai·e neai· the base. The usually solitary flowering stem is 20 to 50 cm tall, te1minating in a spike of 3 to 15 4 white or ivory flowers. Prior to 1992, extant populations of the orchid in Colorado were known only in Jefferson and Boulder counties, within the Clear Creek and St. Vrain River watersheds. The largest populations in the region occur in the South Boulder Creek and St. Vrain River watersheds within the US 36 c01Tidor. Since that time, the orchids have also been fmmd in Garfield County along the Roaring Fork River, and in Moffat Cmmty along the Green River in Dinosaur National Monument Orchid habitats must consist of sufficient hydrology to keep soils moist at the surface throughout the growing season. Soils are generally silty-loam often underlain with cobble and gravel. The habitat settings are early to mid-successional riparian habitats (i.e., well established soils and vegetation) along perennial streams and rivers such as moist stream edges, high flow channels, old oxbows, vegetated point bars, and other fluvial features (USFWS 1992, Fe1iig 1994; USFWS 1995; Fertig 2000). The orchid may also occur in settings that mimic one of the above habitats, such as moist bonow pits, roadside ditches, reservoir edges, and berms (Ward and N arnnann 1998). Perennial graminoids and forbs and low vegetative cover dominate habitats occupied by orchid. A few populations in eastern Utah and Colorado are found in riparian woodlands, but generally the species seems intolerant of shade, prefen-ing open, grass, sedge, and forb-dominated sites. Where colonies occur in more wooded areas, plants are usually fmmd on the edges of small openings and along trails (Ward and Narnnann 1998). The orchid is intolerant of crowding and competition. The orchid may persist for some time in the grassy understory of woody riparian shrublands, but does not appear to thrive under these conditions (Ward and Naumann 1998). Life history and Population dynamics Flowering of orchid generally occurs from mid-July through August. This is when location, identification, and population size estimates are typically detennined. However, in some locations the plant may bloom in early July or may still be in flower as late as early October. Some individuals remain underground or do not flower each year (Arft 1995; Riedel 2002). Because of the unique anatomy of orchid flowers, only certain insects can accomplish pollination. Reproduction of the orchid is strictly sexual, with brnnblebees (Bombus spp.) and anthophorans (Anthophora spp.) (Sipes and Tepedino 1995; Sipes et. al. 1993) as the primary pollinators. These insects visit the orchids for the nectar and pollination is accomplished incidentally. The number of seeds of the orchid varies greatly between plants. Each orchid fruit can have several hrn1dred or up to 10,000 seeds but generally average arorn1d 2,000 (Sipes and Tepedino 1995). These seeds may be dispersed by water or wind (Wells 1981). Status and Distribution Ute ladies'-tresses were federally listed as threatened on January 17, 1992 (57 FR 2048) throughout its entire range. No critical habitat has been designated for the species. To date, no recovery plan has been approved for this species. However, a draft recove1y plan has been written (USFWS 1995). 5 Populations of orchids are lmown from three broad general areas of the interior western United States: near the base of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains in southeastern Wyoming and adjacent Nebraska and nmih-central and central Colorado; in the Upper Colorado River Basin, paiiicularly in the Uinta Basin; and in the Bonneville Basin along the Wasatch Front and westward in the eastern Great Basin, in north-central and western Utah, extreme eastern Nevada, and southeastern Idaho, and central Washington. At the time of its listing, the total lmown population size of Ute ladies' -tresses was fewer than 6,000 individuals from 11 populations occuning in Colorado, Utal1, and Nevada (57 FR 2048). Several populations on the Wasatch Front, Utah; Great Basin, Utal1 and Nevada; and the Front Range of Colorado were believed to be extirpated due to activities associated with frontier settlement (urbainzation, clearing land for agriculture, water diversion, etc.). Most lmown populations contained fewer than 1,000 pla11ts when counted in 1990 and 1991. Eastern Utal1 populations were typically small in size. Since 1993, S. diluvialis has been discovered in southeastern Wyoming, southwestern Montana, western Nebraska, southern Idaho, and central Waslnngton (Fe1iig et al. 2005). Populations me now lmown to occur in 38 watersheds at elevations ra11ging from 220 to 558 m (720 to 1,830 feet) in Waslnngton to 2,134 m (7,000 feet) in northern Utah (Fe1iig et al. 2005). Recovery driven inventory effmis indicate that the munber of existing a11d l1istorical populations is 61, of wlnch 53 ai·e considered extant. Of all exta11t populations, 60 percent contain over 100 plants and 21 percent have greater tha11 1,000 individuals. Population munbers, based on counts of flowering individuals, fluctuate greatly ranging from 23 percent to 79 percent (Wai·d and Na1unaim 1998). This is because a vai-ying propmiion of the population may either be dormant undergro1md or in a vegetative (non-flowering) state, thus not easily discerned during population monitoring. Therefore, the munber of flowering adults does not give an accurate population size or structure. Monitoring of both flowering and vegetative plants by Arft (1995) indicated that population size may be fairly stable even though the munber of flowering individuals demonstrates lngh vmiability. The life span of individuals is mtlmown, but pla11ts studied over a nine yeai· period were used to estimate a life expectancy of more than 50 years (USFWS 1995). ENVIRONMENT AL BASELINE The enviromnental baseline is defined as the past and present effects of all Federal, State, or private actions and other huma11 activities in the action mea, the anticipated effects of all proposed Federal actions in the action ai·ea that have already undergone formal or eai·ly section 7 consultation, and the effects of State or private actions that ai·e contempora11eous with the consultation in progress. Status of the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid within the action area According to the BA, well established, but generally "leaky" lateral i1Tigation ditches associated with Blue Creek, as well as Blue Creek itself provide for the year-ro1md hydrology a11d soil saturation required for the orchid. Because Blue Creek lacks head-gates and other control 6 mechanisms, its perennial flows keep soils saturated. The relatively level topography around Blue Creek on the property also minimizes draining of wetlands. Historic oxbows and gravel "b01Tow pits" on the prope1iy backfill with water, fmiher increasing the habitats suitable for this orchid. The BA states that management of grazing on the ranch has also benefitted the orchid. Winter and spring cattle grazing removed thatch and litter from wetland areas, and kept woody species establishment minimized. The winter and spring cattle grazing also occmTed on somewhat frozen soils, which mini1nized hoof action, soil compaction, and root shearing. Cattle have been removed from the prope1iy in the summer months, which allowed the orchids to grow and flower without being grazed or damaged. There are approximately 1,000 known orchid individuals on the prope1iy covering approximately 33 acres; however the BA concedes that this number is likely an underestimate. This population (which also extends onto adjacent BLM and private lands), could be considered to be a large population center for the orchid. The discovery of this population in 2007 constituted a significant range expansion for the orchid. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION Direct impacts to the orchid could include direct removal of orchid individuals through excavation and/ or trampling of the orchid. According to the BA, p01iions of the orchid population are located within several proposed residential lots. Depending upon the building envelope and potential unknown orchid locations, it is possible that some individual orchids could be excavated and removed as construction progresses. Direct impacts could also result from trampling or localized soil compaction from construction activities, including either foot traffic or vehicle traffic. Approximately 0.013 acres (566 square feet) of occupied habitat would have an elevated foot trail constructed on helical screws, and while direct impacts to orchids would not occur from the elevated boardwalk, there would be indirect impacts due to shading of occupied habitats which would likely result in orchids dying off underneath the foot-trail. The BA projects that this would likely result in the indirect demise of approximately 56 individual plants. In order to complete the build out of the water features of the development, ditches would be temporarily rerouted. This may result in a temporary drying up of some of the wet meadows that supp01i the orchid populations. This may result in an adverse effect to orchid health and vigor, and possibly some orchid death Potential indirect impacts to the Ute Ladies' -tresses could include collection and/ or trampling of the orchid by the residents of the area. Additionally, since the residential lots are relatively proximal to occupied orchid habitats, landscaping activities of residents could have an indirect effect on the orchid. Lawn mowers, herbicide application and/ or fe1iilizer application would likely have a negative effect on the orchid, resulting in direct impacts or indirect impacts to habitats. 7 The BA projects that approximately 0.36 acres, or 1.1 percent of the orchid habitat in the action area would likely be adversely affected by the development of roads, trails and indirect impacts. Proposed conservation measures will help to minimize impacts. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this BO. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Activities SU1Tounding the action area, such as the Crystal River trail project, trampling at the Cfil·bondale Nature Pfil·k, maintenance activities at the Ranch at Rofiling Fork subdivision, and general ranching and development activities on private lands in the area likely cause impacts to orchid populations (RMES 2010). The additional regional human growth in Garfield, Pitkin filld Eagle Cotmties and the impacts from the above listed projects would cumulatively continue to produce human and livestock activities within suitable habitats which may have detrimental impacts to individual plants through trfilnpling, burying, collecting, modifying habitats and spraying herbicides (RMES 2010). The cumulative impacts of the TCI Lane Rfil1ch project and the above listed activities would likely have negative direct and indirect impacts on individual plfil1ts, but may continue to maintain fillthropogenically subsidized habitats for S. diluvialis, allowing for the continued existence of this species in the area under c1ment population conditions (RMES 2010). No other State, Tribal, private or local projects which are reasonably foreseeable fil'e known to occur within the action area at this time, but other unknown activities may still occur. CONCLUSION After reviewing the current status of the orchid, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's BO that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the orchid. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the Act does not address the incidental take of listed plant species. Consequently, this BO does not include fill incidental take statement, reasonable and prudent measmes, or tenns and conditions for plfil1ts. However, protection of listed plants is provided in that the Act requires a Federal pennit for the removal or reduction to possession of endangered or threatened plfil1ts from Federal lands. Furthermore, it is unlawful for any person to remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy a listed plant species in knowing violation of any law or regulation of filly state or in the course of any violation of a state criminal trespass law [ section 9( a )(2 )(B) of the Act]. 8 REINITATION -CLOSING STATEMENT This concludes formal consultation on the action(s) outlined in the request. As provided in 50 CPR 402.16, reinitiation of fonnal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained ( or is authorized by law) and if: (I) new infonnation reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (2) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or clitical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amom1t or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. If the Service can be of fmiher assistance, please contact Ellen Mayo at the letterhead address or (970) 243-2778, extension 14. ~PitL- ~\ ~ Allan R. Pfister ~( Western Colorado Supervisor 9 REFERENCES Arft, A.M. 1995. The genetics, demography, and conservation management of the rare orchid Spiranthes diluvialis. PhD disse1iation. University of Colorado, Boulder, 94 CO. Fe1iig, W. 1994. Guide to Sensitive Wyoming Plants of US Forest Service Region 2 (with emphasis on plants of Bighorn, Medicine Bow, and Shoshone National Forests). Unpublished repmi prepared as a handout for the T &E species identification workshop conducted for US Forest Service Region 2 in Laramie, WY, 11 May 1994. Fertig, W. 2000. Rare vascular plant species in the Wyoming pmiion of the Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mountains Eco-region. Prepared for the Wyoming Nature Conservancy by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, WY. Fe1iig, W., R. Black and P. Wolken. 2005. Range-wide Status Review of Ute Ladies'-Tresses. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Riedel, L. 2002. Spiranthes diluvialis update: habitat, conservation issues, and monitoring. City of Boulder Open Space and Motmtain Parks, Boulder, Colorado. Sheviak, C. J. 1984. Spiranthes diluvialis (Orchidaceae), a new species from the western United States. Brittonia. 36:8-14. Sipes, S. D. and V. J. Tepedino. 1995. Reproductive biology of the rare orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis: breeding system, pollination, and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 9(4):929-938. Sipes, S.D., V.J. Tepedino, and W.R. Bowlin. 1993. The pollination and reproductive ecology of Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak (Orchidaceae). Pp 320-333 in R. Sivinski and K. Lightfoot, eds. Proceedings of the Southwest Rare and Endangered Plant Conference. Miscellaneous publication No. 2. New Mexico Forestry and Conservation Division. Santa Fe, New Mexico. Rocky Motmtain Ecological Services, Inc. (RMES). 2010. Enviromnental Evaluation TCI Lane Ranch. April 2010. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to list the plant Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies'-tresses) as a threatened species. Federal Register 57: 2048-2054. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) agency review draft recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6, Denver, CO. Ward, J. and T. Naumann. 1998. Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak) Inventory, Dinosaur NationalMomunent and Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge. Repmi prepared for the National Park Service by Dinosaur National Momunent. 10 Wells, T.C.E. 1981. Population ecology often-estrial orchids. Pages 281-195 in H. Synge, ed. The Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Coi1servation. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. London. 11 Appendix A REINITIATION NOTICE This concludes formal consultation on the subject action. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of fonnal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained ( or is authorized by law) and m1der the following conditions. a. The amount or extent of take specified in the incidental take statement for the Colorado River PBO is exceeded. The Service has determined that no incidental take, including harm, is anticipated to occur as a result of the depletions contemplated in this opinion because of the implementation of recovery actions. The implementation of the recovery actions contained in the Colorado River PBO will fmiher decrease the likelihood of any take caused by depletion impacts. b. New infmmation reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the Colorado River PBO. In preparing the Colorado River PBO, the Service describes the positive and negative effects of the action it anticipates and considered in the section of the opinion entitled "Effects of the Action." New infonnation would include, but is not limited to, not achieving a "positive response" or a significant decline in population, as described in Appendix D of the Colorado River PBO. Significant decline shall mean a decline in excess of normal variations in population (Appendix D). The cunent population estimate of adult Colorado pikeminnow in the Colorado River is 600 individuals, with a confidence interval of± 250. Therefore, with the criteria established in Appendix D, a negative population response would trigger reinitiation if the population declined to 350 adults. The Recovery Program has developed recovery goals for the four endangered fishes. If a population meets or exceeds the nmneric goal for that species, it will be considered to exhibit a positive response. The Service retains the authority to determine whether a significant decline in population has occurred, but will consult with the Recovery Program's Biology Committee prior to making its detennination. In the event of a significant population decline, the Service is to first rely on the Recovery Program to take actions to conect the decline. If nonflow recovery actions have not been implemented, the Service will assess the impacts of not completing these actions prior to reexamining any flow related issues. New infonnation would also include the lack of a positive population response by the year 2015 or when new depletions reach 50,000 acre-feet/year. According to the criteria outlined in Appendix D of the Colorado River PBO, a positive response would require the adult Colorado pikeminnow population estimate to be 1,100 individuals (±250) in the Colorado River (Rifle, Colorado to the confluence with the Green River). When the population estimate increases above 1,100, a new population baseline is established at the higher population level. c. The Recovery Action Plan actions listed as paii of the proposed action in the Colorado River PBO ai·e not implemented within the required time fraines. This would be considered a cha11ge in the action subject to consultation; section 7 regulations ( 5 0 CFR 402.16 ( c)) state that reinitiation of consultation is required if the identified action is subsequently modified in a 12 manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the BO. The Recovery Action Plan is an adaptive management plan because additional infonnation, changing priorities, and the development of the States' entitlement may require modification of the Recovery Action Plan. Therefore, the Recovery Action Plan is reviewed annually and updated and changed when necessary and the required time frames include changes in timing approved by means of the nonnal procedures of the Recovery Program, as explained in the description of the proposed action. In 2003 and every 2 years thereafter, for the life of the Recovery Program, the Service and Recovery Program will review implementation of the Recovery Action Plan actions to determine timely compliance with applicable schedules. d. The Service lists new species or designates new or additional critical habitat, where the level or pattern of depletions covered under the Colorado River PBO may have an adverse impact on the newly listed species or habitat. If the species or habitat may be adversely affected by depletions, the Service will reinitiate consultation on the Colorado River PBO as required by its section 7 regulations. The Service will first determine whether the Recovery Program can avoid such impact or can be amended to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat for such depletion impacts. If the Recovery Program can avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat no additional recovery actions for individual projects would be required, if the avoidance actions are already included in the Recovery Action Plan. If the Recovery Program is not likely to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat then the Service will reinitiate consultation and develop reasonable and prndent alternatives. For purposes of any future reinitiation of consultation, depletions have been divided into two categories. Category 1: a) existing depletions, both Federal and non-Federal as described in the project description, from the Upper Colorado River Basin above the confluence with the Gunnison River that had actually occmTed on or before September 30, 1995 (average annual depletion of approximately 1 million acre-feet/year); b) depletions associated with the total 154,645 acre-feet/year volmne of Green Mountain Reservoir, including power pool (which includes but is not limited to all of the 20,000 acre-feet contract pool and historic user's pool), the Colorado Big-Thompson replacement pool; and c) depletions associated with Ruedi Reservoir including Round I sales of 7,850 acre-feet, Round II sales of 6,135 acre-feet/year as discussed in the Service's BO to Reclamation dated May 26, 1995, and as amended on January 6, 1999, and the Fryingpan Arkansas Project replacement pool as governed by the operating principles for Ruedi Reservoir but excluding 21,650 acre-feet of the marketable yield. 13 Category 1 depletions shall remain as Category 1 depletions regardless of any subsequent change, exchange, or abandonment of the water rights resulting in such depletions. Category 1 depletions associated with existing facilities may be transferred to other facilities and remain in Category 1 so long as there is no increase in the amount of total depletions attributable to existing depletions. However, section 7 consultation is still required for Category 1 depletion projects when a new Federal action occms which may affect endangered species except as provided by the criteria established for individual consultation under the umbrella of the Colorado River PBO. Reinitiation of this consultation will be required if the water users fail to provide 10,825 acre-feet/year on a permanent basis. Category 2: Category 2 is defined as all new depletions up to 120,000 acre-feet/year, this includes all depletions not included in Category 1 that occur after 1995 regardless of whether section 7 consultation has been completed. This category is fmiher divided into two 60,000 acre-feet/year blocks of depletions. The recovery actions are intended to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat and to result in a positive response as described in Appendix D of the Colorado River PBO for both 60,000 acre-feet blocks of depletions in Category 2. However, prior to depletions occurring in the second block, the Service will review the Recovery Program's progress and adequacy of the species response to the Recovery Action Plan actions. According to the criteria outlined in Appendix D, a positive response would require the adult Colorado pikeminnow population estimate to be maintained at approximately 1,100 individuals in the Colorado River (Rifle, Colorado to the confluence with the Green River), unless the criteria in Appendix D is changed because of new information. If the adult Colorado pikemim1ow population is maintained at approximately 1,100 adults or whatever is determined to be the recovery goal in the Colorado River, a new population baseline would be established to determine a positive or negative population response. When population estimates for wild adult hmnpback chub are finalized, they will also be used to determine population response. As outlined in Appendix D, Colorado pikeminnow and humpback chub population estimates will serve as s1mogates for razorback sucker and bonytail to assess the status of their populations for 10 years. Recovery goals for all fom species were completed August 1, 2002. If a population meets or exceeds the nmneric goal for that species, it will be considered to exhibit a positive response. However, short of reaching a specific recovery goal, trends in ce1iain population indices provide an interim assessment of a species' progress toward recovery. This review will begin when actual depletion levels from the first depletion block reach 50,000 acre-feet/year or the year 2015, whichever comes first. Calculation of actual depletions is to be accomplished using Cameo gage records and State Division of Water Resources data (Appendix B of the Colorado River PBO). The review will include a detennination if all the recovery actions have been satisfactorily completed, that all ongoing recovery actions are continuing, and the status of the endangered fish species. If it is determined that the recovery actions have all been completed and the status of all four 14 endangered fish species has improved (based on criteria in Appendix D), then the Service intends that the Colorado River PBO would remain in effect for new depletions up to 120,000 • acre-feet/year (total of both 60,000 acre-feet blocks of Category 2 depletions). Monitoring, as explained in Appendix D, will be ongoing to determine if a population estimate of 1,100 ( ± one confidence interval) adult Colorado pikeminnow is maintained. If it is not maintained, this would be considered new information and section 7 would have to be reinitiated. Population baselines will be adjusted as population estimates change. If the adult Colorado pikeminnow population estimates increase, a new population baseline will be established to determine a positive or negative population response. If the population estimate for Colorado pikeminnow in the year 2015 is greater than 1,100 adults, then the higher number will be used to establish a new population baseline. These numeric values may be revised as new information becomes available. Revisions will be made to Appendix D as needed. If the 50,000 acre-foot or 2015 review indicates that either the recovery actions have not been completed or the status of all four fish species has not sufficiently improved, the Service intends to reinitiate consultation on the Recovery Program to specify additional measures to be taken by the Recovery Program to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or adverse modification of critical habitat for depletions associated with the second 60,000 acre-feet/year block. Any additional measures will be evaluated every 5 years. If other measures are detennined by the Service or the Recovery Program to be needed for recovery prior to the review, they can be added to the Recovery Action Plan according to standard procedures, outlined in that plan. If the Recovery Program is unable to complete those actions which the Service has determined to be required for the second 60,000 acre-feet/year, consultation on projects with a Federal nexus may be reinitiated in accordance with Endangered Species Act regulations and this opinion's reinitiation requirements. The Service may also reinitiate consultation on the Recovery Program if fish populations do not improve according to the criteria in Appendix D or if any positive response achieved prior to the 50,000 acre-foot or the year 2015 is not maintained. Once a positive response is achieved, failure to maintain it will be considered a negative response. If the Service reinitiates consultation, it will first provide infonnation on the status of the species and rec01mnendations for improving population numbers to the Recovery Program. The Service will reinitiate consultation with individual projects only if the Recovery Program does not implement recovery actions to improve the status of the listed fish species. The Service will reinitiate consultation first on Category 2 projects and second on Category 1 projects. The Service will only reinitiate consultations on Category 1 depletions if Category 2 depletion impacts are offset to the full extent of the capability of the covered projects as determined by the Service, and the likelihood of jeopardy to the listed fishes and/or adverse modification of critical habitat still cannot be avoided. The Service intends to reinitiate consultations simultaneously on all depletions within the applicable category. 15 NOW THEREFORE, Water User and the Service agree as followsa: 1. The Service agrees that implementation of the Recovery Elements specified in the 1999 Opinion will avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and adverse modification under section 7 of the ESA, for depletion impacts caused by Water User's Water Project. Any consultations under section 7 regarding Water Project's depletions are to be governed by the provisions of the 1999 Opinion. The Service agrees that, except as provided in the 1999 Opinion, no other measure or action shall be required or imposed on Water Project to comply with section 7 or section 9 of the ESA with regard to Water Project's depletion impacts or other impacts covered by the 1999 Opinion. Water User is entitled to rely on this Agreement in making the commitment described in paragraph 2. 2. Water User agrees not to take any action which would probably prevent the implementation of the Recovery Elements. To the extent implementing the Recovery Elements requires active cooperation by Water User, Water User agrees to take reasonable actions required to implement those Recovery Elements. Water User will not be required to take any action that would violate its decrees or the statutory authorization for Water Project, or any applicable limits on Water User's legal authority. Water User wiffnot be precluded from undertaking good faith negotiations over terms and conditions applicable to implementation of the Recovery Elements. 3. If the Service believes that Water User has violated paragraph 2 of this Recovery Agreement, the Service shall notify both Water User and the Management Committee of the Recovery Program. Water User and the Management Committee shall have a reasonable opportunity to comment to the Service regarding the existence of a violation and to recommend remedies, if appropriate. The Service will consider the comments of Water User-and the comments and recommendations of the Management Committee, but retains the authority to determine the existence of a violation. If the Service reasonably determines that a violation has occurred and will not be remedied by Water User despite an opportunity to do so, the Service may request reinitiation of consultation on Water Project without reinitiating other consultations as would otherwise be required by the "Reinitiation Notice" section of the 1999 Opinion. In that event, the Water Project's depletions would be excluded from the depletions covered by J 999 Opinion and the protection provided by the Incidental Take Statement. 4. Nothing.in this Recovery Agreement shall be deemed to affect the authorized purposes of Water User's Water Project or The Service' statutory authority. 5. The signing of this Recovery Agreement does not constitute any admission by Water User regarding the application of the ESA to the depletions of Water User's Water Project. The signing of this Recovery Agreement does not constitute any agreement by either party as to whether the flow recommendations for the 15-mile reach described in the 1999 Opinion are biologically or hydrologically necessary to recover the endangered fish. 8lndividual Re.covery Agreement may be changed to fit specific circumstances. 5 Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 34 APPENDIX C: 2010 USFWS RECOVERY AGREEMENT RECOVERY AGREEMENT This RECOVERY AGREEMENT is entered into this _l day of ~ l pf , d-CJ I O, by and between the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and ' TCI Lane Ranch (Water User). WHEREAS, in 1988, the Secretary of Interior, the Governors of Wyoming, Colorado and Utah, and the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration signed a Cooperative Agreement to implement the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (Recovery Program); and WHEREAS, the Recovery Program is intended to recover the endangered fish while providing for water development in the Upper Basin to proceed in compliance with state law, interstate compacts and the Endangered Species Act; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Water Congress has passed a resolution supporting the Recovery Program; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 1999, the Service issued a programmatic biological opinion (1999 Opinion) concluding that implementation of specified elements of the Recovery Action Plan (Recovery Elements), along with existing and a specified amount of new depletions, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered fish or adversely modify their critical habitat in the Colorado River sub basin within Colorado, exclusive of the Gunnison River subbasin; and WHEREAS, the 1999 Opinion in the section entitled "Reinitiation Notice" divided depletions into Category 1 or Category 2 for reinitiation purposes; and WHEREAS, Water User is the operator of TCI Lane Ranch project (Water Project), which causes or will cause depletions to the Colorado River subbasin within Colorado, exclusive of the Gunnison River subbasin; and WHEREAS, Water User desires certainty that its depletions can occur consistent with section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA); and WHEREAS, the Service desires a commitment from Water User to the Recovery Program so that the Program can actually be implemented to recover the endangered fish and to carry out the Recovery Elements. 4 NOW THEREFORE, Water User and the Service agree as followsa: 1. The Service agrees that implementation of the Recovery Elements specified in the 1999 Opinion will avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and adverse modification under section 7 of the ESA, for depletion impacts caused by Water User's Water Project. Any consultations under section 7 regarding Water Project's depletions are to be governed by the provisions of the 1999 Opinion. The Service agrees that, except as provided in the 1999 Opinion, no other measure or action shall be required or imposed on Water Project to comply with section 7 or section 9 of the ESA with regard to Water Project's depletion impacts or other impacts covered by the 1999 Opinion. Water User is entitled to rely on this Agreement in making the commitment described in paragraph 2. 2. Water User agrees not to take any action which would probably prevent the implementation of the Recovery Elements. To the extent implementing the Recovery Elements requires active cooperation by Water User, Water User agrees to take reasonable actions required to implement those Recovery Elements. Water User will not be required to take any action that would violate its decrees or the statutory authorization for Water Project, or any applicable limits on Water User's legal authority. Water User will not be precluded from undertaking good faith negotiations over terms and conditions applicable to implementation of the Recovery Elements. 3. If the Service believes that Water User has violated paragraph 2 of this Recovery Agreement, the Service shall notify both Water User and the Management Committee of the Recovery Program. Water User and the Management Committee shall have a reasonable opportunity to comment to the Service regarding the existence of a violation and to recommend remedies, if appropriate. The Service will consider the comments of Water User and the comments and recommendations of the Management Committee, but retains the authority to determine the existence of a violation. If the Service reasonably determines that a violation has occurred and will not be remedied by Water User despite an opportunity to do so, the Service may request reinitiation of consultation on Water Project without reinitiating other consultations as would otherwise be required by the "Reinitiation Notice" section of the 1999 Opinion. In that event, the Water Project's depletions would be excluded from the depletions covered by 1999 Opinion and the protection provided by the Incidental Take Statement. 4. Nothing.in this Recovery Agreement shall be deemed to affect the authorized purposes of Water User's Water Project or The Service' statutory authority. 5. The signing of this Recovery Agreement does not constitute any admission by Water User regarding the application of the ESA to the depletions of Water User's Water Project. The signing of this Recovery Agreement does not constitute any agreement by either party as to whether the flow recommendations for the 15-mile reach described in the 1999 Opinion are biologically or hydrologically necessary to recover the endangered fish. alndividual Recovery Agreement may be changed to fit specific circumstances. 5 Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 35 APPENDIX D: HISTORICAL CONSERVATION REPORT & CULTURAL RESOURCES Historical Conservation Report AUGUST 2024 345 Colorado Ave. #106 Carbondale, CO 81623 www.landwestcolorado.com MCCLURE RIVER RANCH ■WEST McClure River Ranch 2 Historical Con servation Report – August 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT .................................................................................................. 3 2. PROJECT HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 3 3. HISTORICAL CONSERVATION WORK ON THE PROPERTY ..................................................... 3 3.1. MCCLURE HOMESTEAD LOG CABIN ................................................................................................................ 3 3.2. THE FEED SHED.......................................................................................................................................... 7 3.3. THE LOG BARN .......................................................................................................................................... 9 3.4. HISTORICAL STRUCTURE MAPS .................................................................................................................... 11 4. APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 12 McClure River Ranch 3 Historical Con servation Report – August 2024 1. Purpose of this Report This Historical Conservation Report is intended to document the preservation and improvement of historical structures on the property as identified in the Class III Cultural Resources Inventory and Historical Analysis of the McClure Homestead (5GF20), dated August 2011 and prepared by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. 2. Project History On July 2, 2012, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued Permit No. SPK-2008-00253 with an associated Memorandum of Agreement (the “Agreement”) and Historic Conservation Plan (Appendix A) between USACE, the State Historic Preservation Office and the previous landowner, TCI Lane Ranch, LLC. The Agreement was fully executed on June 25, 2012, and was based on the findings of the Cultural Resources Inventory performed by Metcalf Archaeological Consultants, Inc. which identified three (3) historical structures to be preserved on the McClure Homestead: 1) the McClure Homestead Cabin, 2) the Feed Shed, and 3) the Log Barn. The property was then sold on May 31, 2017 to Aspen Polo Partners, LLP. Following the transfer of property ownership, USACE issued a notice of termination of the Agreement on July 6, 2017 (Appendix B). Although the Agreement had terminated, the new property owners chose to voluntarily comply with the prior Historic Conservation Plan, and they engaged in efforts to stabilize and improve all three historical structures on the property. 3. Historical Conservation Work on the Property 3.1. McClure Homestead Log Cabin The McClure Homestead Log Cabin was constructed around 1885 by Thomas McClure and is 1.5 stories with hewn logs, dovetail corner notching and concrete chinking. In October of 2017, the property owner commenced work in shoring up the structure for relocation on the property. The structure was moved to its new permanent location, placed on a concrete foundation, and received a new roof, windows, doors, floor, and chinking. Several of the sill logs had been rotted from sitting on a dirt foundation, and those logs were replaced. McClure River Ranch 4 Historical Con servation Report – August 2024 McClure Homestead Cabin in original location (January, 2007) McClure Homestead Cabin being shored to relocate (October, 2017) McClure River Ranch 5 Historical Con servation Report – August 2024 McClure Homestead Cabin shored for relocation (October, 2017) McClure Homestead Cabin in transit (December, 2017) McClure River Ranch 6 Historical Con servation Report – August 2024 McClure Homestead Cabin restored in new location (November, 2019) McClure Homestead Cabin restored in new location (July, 2024) McClure River Ranch 7 Historical Con servation Report – August 2024 3.2. The Feed Shed The Feed Shed has a footprint of 12’ x 27’ and was constructed in the late 1930’s to house hay and grain harvested on site. The Feed Shed was constructed of milled D-shaped logs harvested from a sawmill on Basalt Mountain that were unhewn, stacked at corners with square notching and no chinking. The roof is side-gabled with exposed rafters on the ends and corrugated metal. In 2018 the Feed Shed was stabilized and moved to its new location on the property. The structure was placed on a permanent concrete foundation and received new windows, doors, and chinking, and now serves as a pumphouse for the property. Feed Shed in original location (January, 2007) McClure River Ranch 8 Historical Con servation Report – August 2024 Feed Shed relocated on new foundation (November, 2018) Feed Shed restored in new location (November, 2019) McClure River Ranch 9 Historical Con servation Report – August 2024 3.3. The Log Barn The Log Barn was constructed around 1948 and used as a dairy barn. The exterior walls are crafted out of milled D-logs with square corner notching and wood plank chinking. After interior improvements were made during the 1950’s, the barn was considered a Class A dairy barn, this classification demonstrated that the facilities exceeded health and cleanliness standards in the dairy industry. The Log Barn received a new concrete slab foundation in 2008 as well as new windows and doors made of natural wood planks. A structural engineer was hired to design a permanent interior system of bracing to shore up the bowing walls of the structure. The diagram of the log wall bracing design can be found below. This structure still stands in its original location, and future improvements will include the conversion of the barn into a community center while maintaining the historical integrity of the building. Log Barn: wall bracing design (September, 2009) DETAIL A HOTT05C,,1,1£ J (-4) IOd IWL.5 INTO EXISTIN$ RAFTERS• 2<t,• OJ;. (2} MSTI2 STAAPS EXISTIIIS 6' ~ l'W.L EXISTIIIS 1"6 GOUAA ----- lle e 24' Ot:,. IEIGIJP llEVB.Pl.AlES 1-E=aik----t 2><6 TOP Pl.ATE DETAIL B HOTT05C,,1,1£ 2><6 S"IW!l et&•ou. lffl2"6BR-'GE ' I /2}1.!leONID /-4/ IOw:I IWL.5 \ INTO l&I STlli> e:WOt:,. \. / 1'3) 16d IWL5 INTO '-. .___, 11,1,CH .J:IIST ----~ l!XIST111S 2x& JolST5 DETAILC HOTTOSG,l,LE !lelEl'l 1&12"6 """'11:R TO EAGIIEXISTlllSRN'TER -2>o} G<llJ.AA TIE AAILEP TO l!AGM l!JCISTlllS IW'T!R "' /4) IOc:I IWL5 ':£::_,.,------!lB!tierA!LA EXIS11162><6RN'TE'RS e:WOt:,. !OCJSTIIISIOOU6tt5Ai'N 2><6 .J:11515 • 16' Ot:,. laXISTIIIS 6" D-i..06 MU. lffl 2"6 SlW e :1-4' Ot:,. tel 2"6 eR-'GE e 24' Ot:,. 60' LOG WALL BRACING DETAIL NOT TO SC.ALE McClure River Ranch 10 Historical Conservation Report – August 2024 Log Barn prior to stabilization (February, 2008) Log Barn after stabilization (February, 2009) McClure River Ranch 11 Historical Conservation Report – August 2024 3.4. Historical Structure Maps The three historical structures in their original locations The three historical structures in their current locations McClure River Ranch 12 Historical Conservation Report – August 2024 4. Appendices A. June 25, 2012, Memorandum of Agreement, with Exhibits B. July 6, 2017, Memorandum of Agreement Termination Letter from USACE Appendix A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT AND THE COLORADO STATE IDSTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER REGARDING THE TCI LANE RANCH DEVELOPMENT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Permit App]ication Number SPK-2008-00253 WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District (USACE), proposes to issue a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Undertaking) to TCI Lane Ranch for the proposed TCI Lane Ranch Development (Project), in Garfield County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Project would include the development of the property for residential housing with associated roads, infrastructure, and amenities. Amenities include a community garden, a foot bridge over the Roaring Fork River to link with the Rio Grande Trail, a dog park, solar electricity array, and playgrounds; and WHEREAS, the USACE, as the lead Federal agency, in consultation with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), has determined that the McClure Homestead (5GF20) is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; and WHEREAS, the USACE has applied the criteria of adverse effect and determined that the Undertaking will have an adverse effect on Site 5GF20; and WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6(a)(l), the USACE has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) of its adverse effect determination with specified documentation and the ACHP in a letter dated March 27t 2012, has chosen not to participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 CPR§ 800.6(a)(l)(iii); and WHEREAS, the USACE has consulted with TCI Lane Ranch and in accordance with 36 CFR §800.6(c)(2), invited TCI Lane Ranch to be a signatory party to this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); and NOW, THEREFORE, the USACE, the SHPO, and TCI Lane Ranch agree that the Undertaking sha11 be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account its effect on historic properties, and further agree that these stipulations shall govern the Undertaking and all of its parts unti1 this MOA expires or is terminated. 1 STIPULATIONS I. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS USACE has defined the Undertaking's area of potent ial effect (APE) as the entire project area, approximately 101 acres and including all aspects of the project as described in Attachment I to this MOA. Attachment 1, as set forth herein, may be amended through consultation among the MOA signatories without need to amend the MOA itself. II. IDSTORICAL RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION TCI Lane Ranch will abide by their historic conservation plan as described in their December 14, 2011 letter, prepared by LandWest (Attachment 2). These actions will be done in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995). Specifically the plan outlines the following: A. STRUCTURES 1. The McClure Homestead cabin is to be preserved in its present condition and location w ithin a common open space parcel on the property. 2. The Log Feed Shed is to be preserved in its present condition and location within a common op en sp ace parcel on the property. 3 . The Log Barn is to be preserved in its present condition and location within a common open space parcel on the property. B. IDSTORIC INTERPRETATION 1. TCI Lane Ranch will produce an outdoor-grad e educational placard to be l ocated on the McClure Homestead cabin, which provides a general history of the site and the historic significance of Thomas McClure. TCI Lane Ranch shall provide USACE and SRPO an opportunity to comment on the content of the placard and provide documentation demonstrating that the feature has been constructed and placed. 2. TCI Lane Ranch will produce a pamphlet that provides detail of the historic significance of the site and Thomas McClure. The p amphlet will be available to all new residents and visitors to the property. TCI Lane Ranch shall provide USACE and SHPO an opportunity to comment on the content of the pamphlet. ID. ADMINISTRATIVE STIPULATIONS A. CONFIDENTIALITY The parties to this MOA acknowledge that Historic Properties covered by this MOA are subject to the provisions of Section 304 of the National H i storic Preservation Act (NHP A) (16 U.S.C. § 470w-3), relating to the di sclosure of archaeological si te information and, having so acknowledged, will ensure that all actions and documentation prescribed by this 2 MOA are consistent with Section 304 of the NHP A. B. MONITORING AND REPORTING Any signatory party may request the USA CE provide all parties to this agreement a final summary report detailing the work undertaken pursuant to its terms, following the completion of the treatment plan outlined in Attachment 2. Such report shall include any scheduling changes proposed, any problems encountered, and any disputes and objections received in the USA CE efforts to carry out the terms of this agreement. Failure to provide such summary report may be considered noncompliance with the terms and of this MOA. C. RESOLVING OBJECTIONS I. Should any party to this MOA object at any time in writing to the manner in which the terms of this MOA are implemented, to any action carried out or proposed with respect to the implementation of the MOA, or to any documentation prepared in accordance with and subject to the terms of this MOA, the USACE shall immediately notify the other parties to this MOA of the objection, and shall request their comments on the objection be provided within 15 days following receipt of the USACE' notification, and proceed to consult with the objecting party for no more than 30 days to resolve the objection. The USACE will honor the request of the other parties to participate in the consultation and will take any comments provided by those parties into account. 2. If the objection is resolved during the 30-day consultation period, the USACE may proceed with the disputed action in accordance with the terms of that resolution. 3. If after initiating such consultation, the USACE determines that the objection cannot be resolved through consultation, the USACE shall forward all documentation relevant to the objection, including the USACE's proposed response to the objection, to the Council, with the expectation that the Council will, within 30 days after receipt of such documentation, do one of the following: a. advise the USACE that the Council concurs in the USACE' proposed response to the objection, whereupon the USACE will respond to the objection accordingly. The objection shall thereby be resolved; or b. provide the USACE with recommendations, which the USACE will take into account in reaching a final decision regarding its response to the objection. The objection shall thereby be resolved; or c. notify the USACE that the objection w ill be referred for comment, pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.7(c), and proceed to refer the objection and comment. The USACE shall take the resulting comment into account in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.7(c)(4) and § 110(1) of the NHPA. The objection shall thereby be resolved. 4. Should the Council not exercise one of the foregoing options within 30 days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the USACB may assume the Council's concurrence in its 3 proposed response to the objection and proceed with implementation of that response. The objection shall thereby be resolved. 5. The USA CE shall take into account any Council recommendation or comment provided in accordance with Section JV.CJ of this stipulation, with reference only to the subject of the objection. The USACE' responsibility to ensure all actions are carried out under this MOA that are not the subject of the objection shall remain unchanged. 6. At any time during the implementation of the terms of this MOA, should an objection pertaining to such implementation be raised by a member of the public, the USACE shall immediately notify the other parties to this MOA in writing of the objection and take the objection into consideration. The USACE shall consult with the objecting party and, if the objecting party so requests, with the other parties to this MOA, for no more than fifteen (15) days. Within ten (10) days following closure of this consultation period, the USACE will render a decision regarding the objection and notify all parties to this MOA of its decision in writing. In reaching its decision, the USACE will take into account any comments from the consulting parties regarding the objection, including the objecting party. The USACE' decision regarding the resolution will be final. The objection will thereby be resolved. 7. The USACE may authorize any action subject to objection under this stipulation to proceed after the objection has been resolved in accordance with the terms of this stipulation. 8. The USACE shall provide all parties to this MOA and the Council, when the Council has issued comments hereunder, and any parties that have objected pursuant to Section C.6 of this stipulation, with a copy of its final written decision regarding any objection addressed pursuant to this stipulation. 9. USACE's responsibi lity to carry out all other actions subject to the terms of this MOA that are not the subject of the dispute remain unchanged. D . AMENDMENTS 1. If any signatory to this MOA determines that its terms will not or cannot be carried out, that party shall immediately consult with the other parties to attempt to develop an amendment. All parties to this MOA will consult for no more than thirty (30) days to consider such amendment. USACE may extend this consultation period at its discretion. The amendment process shall comply with 36 CPR § 800.6(c)(l) and§ 800.6(c)(7). This MOA may be amended only upon the written agreement of the signatory parties. If the signatories cannot reach agreement on such amendment, this MOA may be terminated in accordance with Stipulation VII. 4 2. This MOA may be amended when such an amendment is agreed to in writing by all signatories. The amendment will be effective on the date a copy signed by all of the signatories is filed with the SHPO. E. TERMINATION 1. If this MOA is not amended as provided for in Section D of this Stipulation, or if any signatory proposes termination of this MOA for other reasons, the signatory party proposing termination shall, in writing, notify the other parties to this MOA, explain the reasons for proposing termination, and consult with the other parties to this MOA for at least thirty (30) days to seek alternatives to termination. Should such consultation result in an agreement on an alternative to termination, then the parties shall proceed in accordance with the terms of that agreement. 2. Should such consultation fail, the signatory party proposing termination may terminate this MOA by promptly notifying the other parties to this MOA in writing. Termination hereunder shall render this MOA without further force or effect. Such consultation shall not be required if the Corps proposes termination because the Undertaking no longer meets the definition set forth at 36 CFR § 800.16(y). 3. If the signatories agree to terminate the MOA, and prior to work continuing on the undertaking, USACE must either (a) execute a new MOA pursuant to 36 CPR § 800.6(c)(l) or (b) request, take into account, and respond to the comments of the ACHP under 36 CFR § 800.7(a). USACE shall notify the signatories as to the course of action it will pursue. F. DURATION 1. Unless terminated pursuant to Section E of this Stipulation, or unless it is superseded by an amended MOA, this MOA will be in effect fo llowing execution 'by the signatory parties until the USACE, in consultation with the other parties to this MOA, determines that all the terms of this MOA have been satisfactorily fulfilled. Upon a determination by the USACE that all of the terms of this MOA have been sati sfactorily fulfilled, the USACE will immediately notify the other parties to this MOA in writing of its determination that all terms of this MOA have been satisfactorily fulfilled and of the termination of the MOA. Following provision of such notice, this MOA will have no further force or effect. 2. The terms of this MOA shalJ be satisfactorily fulfilled within five (5) years following the date of execution by the signatory parties. If the USACE determines that this requirement cannot be met, the parties to this MOA will consult to reconsider its terms. Reconsideration may include the continuation of the MOA as originally executed, amendment of the MOA, or termination. In the event of termination, the USACE will comply with Section E.4 of this stipulation, if it determines that the Undertaking will proceed notwithstanding termination of this MOA. 5 3. If the Undertaking has not been implemented within five (5) years following execution of this MOA by the signatory parties, this MOA shall automaticall) terminate and have no further force or effect. In such event, the USACE shall notify the other MOA parties in writing. G. EFFECTIVE DATE. This MOA will take effect immediately upon full execution by all signatory partjes. EXECUTION of thls MOA by the USACE, the SHPO, and TCI Lane Ranch, inclurung its transmittal by the USA CE to the ACHP, and subsequent implementation of its terms, shall evidence that the USACE has afforded the ACHP an opportunity to comment on the Undertiling and its effects on historic properties, and that the U SACE has taken into account the effects of this Undertaking on historic properties. 6 Attachment l Area of Potential Effect LAND WEST PLANNING I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 14, 2011 Kara Hellige US Army Corps of Engineers Durango Regulatory Field Office Sacramento District 1970 E. 3rd Ave , Suite 109 Durango, Colorado 81301 Via Email: Kara .A.Hellige@usace.army.mil RE: TCI Lane Ranch Dear Kara: I represent the TCI Lane Ranch project (SPK-2008-00253) near Carbondale, Colorado. Per your request, I am submitting the following conservation plan relative to the anticipated Memorandum of Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for site SGF20 {McClure Homestead). Our historic conservation plan is as follows: Structures 1. McClure Homestead cabin -to be preserved in its present condition (or better) and location, and placed within a common open space parcel on the property. 2. Log teed Shed -to be preserved in its present condition (or better) and location, and placed within a common open space parcel on the property. 3. Log Barn -to be preserved in its present condition (or better) and location, and placed within a common open space parcel on the property. Historic Interpretation 1. TCI lane Ranch will produce an outdoor-grade educational placard to be located on the McClure Homestead cabin, which provides a general history of the site and the historic significance of Thomas McClure. 2 . TCI Lane Ranch will produce a pamphlet that provides detail of the historic significance of the site and Thomas McClure . The pamphlet will be available to all new residents and visitors to the property. 345 COLORADO AVE. SUITE 106 I CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 1 970.963.1521 Page 1 of 2 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922 July 6, 2017 Regulatory Division (SPK-2008-00253) Mr. Steve Turner ATTN: Mr. Mark Tobias History Colorado 1200 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203-2109 Dear Mr. Turner: In accordance with Stipulation III.F.3 of the Memorandum of Agreement Between the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District and the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding the TCI Lake Ranch Development, Garfield County, Colorado (MOA), we are notifying you of the termination of the MOA as of June 25, 2017. The TCI Lane Ranch Development project has not been initiated within the stipulated timeframe and therefore the MOA has automatically terminated. The project is located between Old Highway 82 and the Roaring Fork River, within Sections 31 and 32, Township 7 South, Range 87 West, Latitude 39.4037°, Longitude -107.1448°, Town of Carbondale, Garfield County, Colorado. Your reference number is CHS #57614. In accordance with Stipulation III.F.3, we are copying Mr. Andrew Lane, TCI Lane Ranch, LLC, on this letter to provide notification of the MOA’s termination. Please refer to identification number SPK-2008-00253 in any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Colorado West Regulatory Branch, 400 Rood Avenue, Room 224, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501, by email at w.travis.morse@usace.army.mil, or telephone at (970) 243-1199 X 1014. Sincerely, Travis Morse Senior Project Manager CO West Section, Regulatory Division cc: Mr. Andrew Lane, TCI Lane Ranch, 401 Tree Farm Drive, Carbondale, CO 81623 Appendix B_I Nationwide Permit Application & PCN McClure River Ranch 9/4/2024 36 APPENDIX E: WETLAND DATA FORMS US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum % Cover Species? Status 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Total Cover: Herb Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total Cover: Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Total Cover: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Dominance Test is >50% % % Total Cover: 1. % % % % % Plot size: Plot size: Plot size: McClure River Ranch Garfield Oct 24, 2023 Aspen Polo Partners R. Kattnig 7S, 87W, Sec. 31 Terrace None 1 CO D - Interior Deserts 39.403142 -107.143763 WGS 84 13 PEM1C 3 3 100.0 30 70 Yes Yes Yes15 15 70 Phalaris arundinacea Juncus arcticus Carex nebrascensis 100 OBL FACW FACW 100 130 0 0 0 60 70 1.30 DP-1 □ □ I [ □ □ I I J □ □ (i' (i' (i' r r r ~ r. r (i' (i' r -- - X X □ □ (i' r Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 3 3 Thin Muck Surface (C7) 0-3 7.5 YR 3/2 100 Silty clay loam Silty clay loamMC52.5YR 4/8957.5 YR 3/23-14 2 DP-1 -------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ □ Fl □ □ r. r □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ [8] □ □ [8] □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ r r. r r. r. r r. r Sampling Point: SAMPLING POINT PHOTOS Test Pit Soil Profile Area Photo DP-1 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum % Cover Species? Status 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Total Cover: Herb Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total Cover: Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Total Cover: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Dominance Test is >50% % % Total Cover: 1. % % % % % Plot size: Plot size: Plot size: McClure River Ranch Garfield Oct 24, 2023 Aspen Polo Partners R. Kattnig 7S, 87W, Sec. 31 Terrace None 1 CO D - Interior Deserts 39.40302 -107.143813 WGS 84 13 PEM1C 1 3 33.3 25 75 No Yes Yes Yes20 55 15 10 Bromus inermis Dactylis glomerata Juncus arcticus Phalaris arundinacea 100 FACW FACW FACU FACU 100 350 0 300 0 50 0 3.50 DP-2 □ □ I [ □ □ I I J □ □ r r r (i' (i' (i' r. r (i' r (i' -- ~ - □ □ r (i' Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 3 3 Thin Muck Surface (C7) 0-2.5 7.5 YR 3/2 100 Silty clay loam Silty clay loam1007.5YR 4/62.5-13 DP-2 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Fl □ □ r r. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ r r. r r. r r. r r. Sampling Point: SAMPLING POINT PHOTOS Test Pit Soil Profile Area Photo DP-2 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum % Cover Species? Status 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Total Cover: Herb Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total Cover: Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Total Cover: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Dominance Test is >50% % % Total Cover: 1. % % % % % Plot size: Plot size: Plot size: McClure River Ranch Garfield Oct 24, 2023 Aspen Polo Partners R. Kattnig 7S, 87W, Sec. 31 Terrace Concave 2 CO D - Interior Deserts 39.402028 -107.145726 WGS 84 92 NA 5 5 100.0 120 15 10 Yes FACWPopulus angustifolia 10 Salix exigua Yes30 30 FACW Yes Yes Yes15 20 60 Equisetum arvense Agrostis gigantea Juncus ensifolius 95 FACW FACW FAC 135 285 0 0 45 240 0 2.11 DP-3 □ □ I [ □ □ I I J □ □ (i' (i' (i' r r r ~ r. r (i' (i' r -- - X X □ □ (i' r Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 3 3 Thin Muck Surface (C7) 0-15 10 YR 2/1 97 2.5YR 5/8 3 C M Silty clay loam with gravel and cobbles 0.5 DP-3 -------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ □ Fl □ □ r. r □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ [8] □ □ [8] □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ r r. r r. r. r r. r Sampling Point: SAMPLING POINT PHOTOS Test Pit Soil Profile Area Photo DP-3 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum % Cover Species? Status 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Total Cover: Herb Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total Cover: Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Total Cover: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Dominance Test is >50% % % Total Cover: 1. % % % % % Plot size: Plot size: Plot size: McClure River Ranch Garfield Oct 24, 2023 Aspen Polo Partners R. Kattnig 7S, 87W, Sec. 31 Terrace Concave 2 CO D - Interior Deserts 39.40195 -107.145724 WGS 84 92 NA 2 4 50.0 20 80 5 15 Yes FACWPopulus angustifolia 15 Salix exigua Yes5 5 FACW Yes Yes No5 25 55 Equisetum arvense Bromus inermis Dactylis glomerata 85 FACU FACU FAC 105 375 0 320 15 40 0 3.57 DP-4 □ □ I [ □ □ I I J □ □ r r r (i' (i' (i' r. r (i' r (i' -- ~ - □ □ r (i' Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 3 3 Thin Muck Surface (C7) 0-3 7.5 YR 3/2 100 Silty clay loam some sandSilty clay loam1007.5YR 3/33-15 DP-4 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Fl □ □ r r. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ r r. r r. r r. r r. Sampling Point: SAMPLING POINT PHOTOS Test Pit Soil Profile Area Photo DP-4 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum % Cover Species? Status 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Total Cover: Herb Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total Cover: Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Total Cover: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Dominance Test is >50% % % Total Cover: 1. % % % % % Plot size: Plot size: Plot size: McClure River Ranch Garfield Oct 24, 2023 Aspen Polo Partners R. Kattnig 7S, 87W, Sec. 32 Terrace Concave 3 CO D - Interior Deserts 39.40214 -107.142753 WGS 84 92 NA 6 6 100.0 113 10 Acer negundo 8 Yes FACWPopulus angustifolia Yes10 18 FACW Salix exigua Yes15 15 FACW Yes Yes Yes10 15 65 Equisetum arvense Agrostis gigantea Phalaris arundinacea 90 FACW FACW FAC 123 256 0 0 30 226 0 2.08 DP-5 □ □ I [ □ □ I I J □ □ (i' (i' (i' r r r ~ r. r (i' (i' r -- - X X □ □ (i' r Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 3 3 Thin Muck Surface (C7) 0-15 10 YR 3/2 94 2.5YR 5/8 6 C M Silty clay loam 1 DP-5 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ □ Fl □ □ r. r □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ [8] □ □ [8] □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ r r. r r. r. r r. r Sampling Point: SAMPLING POINT PHOTOS Test Pit Soil Profile Area Photo DP-5 US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum % Cover Species? Status 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Total Cover: Herb Stratum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Total Cover: Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Total Cover: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Dominance Test is >50% % % Total Cover: 1. % % % % % Plot size: Plot size: Plot size: McClure River Ranch Garfield Oct 24, 2023 Aspen Polo Partners R. Kattnig 7S, 87W, Sec. 32 Terrace None 5 CO D - Interior Deserts 39.40195 -107.145724 WGS 84 92 NA 2 4 50.0 15 70 20 15 Yes FACWPopulus angustifolia 15 Yes Yes No Yes15 5 25 45 Poa pratensis Equisetum arvense Bromus inermis Dactylis glomerata 90 FACU FACU FAC FAC 105 370 0 280 60 30 0 3.52 DP-6 □ □ I [ □ □ I I J □ □ r r r (i' (i' (i' r. r (i' r (i' -- ~ - □ □ r (i' Arid West - Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type 1 Loc 2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils4: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) 4 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Soil Textures: Clay, Silty Clay, Sandy Clay, Loam, Sandy Clay Loam, Sandy Loam, Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam, Silt Loam, Silt, Loamy Sand, Sand. 3 3 Thin Muck Surface (C7) 0-3 7.5 YR 3/2 100 Silty clay loam some sandSilty clay loam1007.5YR 4/33-15 DP-6 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Fl □ □ r r. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8] □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ r r. r r. r r. r r. Sampling Point: SAMPLING POINT PHOTOS Test Pit Soil Profile Area Photo DP-6