HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.0 Correspondence•
;NOV 3 C 1994 ? i
November 29, 1994
David Levy Forestry Services
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City, CA 95959
Dear Mr. Levy,
FOREST
SERVICE
State Services Building
222 S. 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone (303) 248-7325
Kelly Rogers and I enjoyed touring the Hi Sierra Corp. property
with you on the 18th. To summarize our recommendations:
-Leave tree marking for the Englemann spruce should
concentrate on leaving groups of trees rather than
isolated individuals. As we discussed, this will lessen
the chance of windthrow.
-Be sure to include fire hazard reduction measures in
your plan because this property is outside fire
protection district boundaries. There were two fires on
this property last summer that involved considerable
suppression costs for the county and USFS.
-As we discussed for removal of trees in the riparian zones:
- No removal of trees or equipment allowed within 25ft.
of the high water mark on either side of a stream.
- From 25ft. to 75ft. of the high water mark on either
side of a stream, felling and tree removal will be
allowed, by directional felling and winching the trees
up from (not across) the riparian zone. Equipment is
excluded from this zone as well.
- There will be no skidding of trees or logs across
riparian zones except at designated stream crossings
with culverts or a bridge.
Thank you for the opportunity for input on this plan; I have
included an invoice for our on-site time.
Sincerely,
John W. Denison
District Forester
l/cc: Mark Bean, Garfield Co. Planner
August 22, 1994
Daniel M. & Sharon L. Tucker
David P. Frase
Clay R. Tucker
Timothy D. & Stacey D. Frase
1805 Hilltop Drive #201
Redding, California 96002
Ladies and Gentlemen:
GARFIELD COUNTY
BUILDING AND PLANNING •
Recently, an application for a Special Use Permit for a commercial timber harvesting permit
was submitted in your behalf by Tim Frase. While Mr. Frase is listed as one of the owners, it
is not evident that he has your permission to act on your behalf. On that basis and other issues
to be described, this office cannot accept the Impact Statement and other supporting
documents as a complete application for a Special Use permit.
The previous statement noted that there are other deficiencies in the application. The following
comments are intended to identify deficiencies, but should not be considered a comprehensive
list:
(1) Proof of ownership (i.e., deed) and a complete legal description;
(2) A map with a legend defining what various lines are intended to delineate;
(3) The intended months, days and hours of operation; the estimated work force;
the number of truck trips per day, month and year; size and weight of trucks;
size and width of haul roads;
(4) Haul routes shown all the way to the interstate or if intended, the mill in
Garfield County that the logs will be processed;
(5) A timber management plan in sufficient detail to allow the Colorado State
Forest Service to review it and make recommendations that would benefit the
operation and protect the public;
(6) Supporting documents that will not only address the previous comment, but
demonstrate the means by which the Rifle municipal watershed will be protected
from drinking water supply degradation due to any of your operation;
(7) Evaluation of wildlife impacts based on Colorado Division of Wildlife
evaluation of the timber management plan;
(8) Road improvement proposals need to include County roads and proposed
mitigation where necessary;
109 8TH STREET, SUITE 303 • 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 • GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
Tucker, et. all
August 22,1994
Page 2
(9)
• •
Fire suppression plan.
This list is general at this time, but an application with this type of documentation and that
required on the enclosed application form should be sufficient to initiate the review of the
application.
As you are probably aware at this time, this proposed operation has generated a lot of concern
on the part of various parties. It is in everyone's best interest that your application be of
sufficient detail to alleviate these concerns. If you have any questions about this letter, I will
try to answer them as expediently as possible.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building and Planning
MLB/sa
Enclosures
AUG -1 f=IIJ6 • f 9 1- ns CJEAM LERVENWORTH2CALOI R1
•
P. 1
post-,It'M brand fa
smittal memo
7671 s of ppages/. '
Tto., "0:
//
1.4wiciiL
Frort.41;m1 C / rbLr
��
Co.
Co.
Dept.
Phone*
Fax #
Fax d
DISTRICT COURT, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
LAWRENCE KESTERSON, ANDREW SIGMLND, and INTERNATIONAL
COMMODITIES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DAVID PRASE. i.udividually; DANIEL M. TUCKER, SHARON L TUCKER, as Trustees of
the Tucker 1988 Revocable Trust; THE TUCKER REVOCABLE TRUST; CLAY TUCKER,
individually; TIMOTHY FRASE, individually; and STACEY FRASE, individually,
Defendants,
COMES NOW, the above-named Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Gerald B.
Feather of Feather Legal Services, P.C., and state their claims against Defendants herein as
follows;
.nMIsDUZunx
1. Plaintiffs are residents of and conduct business principally from Rockaway
Beach, Oregon.
2. Although certain contracts which underlie in part Plaintiffs' claims herein were
made in the name of Plaintiff International Commodities, Inc., Plaintiffs Lawrence Kesterson and
Andrew Sigmund are the real parties in interest herein,
3, Defendants reside at and/or conduct business principally at 1805 Hilltop Drive,
Suite 201, Redding, California 96002,
4. The transactions which underlie Plaintiffs' claims heroin occurred principally in
and around the State of Colorado.
5. The real property which is the subject of Plaintiffs' Complaint is located in
Garfield County, Colorado,
6. The Defendants have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court by
virtue of their conduct of business in the State of Colorado.
AUG-15UG 1r' 94^ 109: O3i=iM LEAVENWURTH«CRLOIA
•
•
72 03
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Page 2
7. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action.
BAC$GR UND
8. In about October 1993, Plaintiffs, by and through Plaintiff international
Commodities, Inc., contracted with Union Oil Company of California d/b/a Unocal and with
Virginia - Colorado Development Corporation for purchase of real property in Garfield County,
Colorado.
9. The properties in Garfield County, Colorado. which were the subject of the two
said contracts are described as follows:
MICELI
The Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 7 South,
Range 94 West of the 6th P.M., Garfield County, Colorado.
PARC L
The South Half of the South Half of Section 15, Township 7
South, Range 94 West of the 6th P.M., Grarfield County,
Colorado,
?AR C121.3
The following oil shale placer alining claims in Sections 24
and 25 and the unsurvayed portion of Township 7 South,
Range 94 West of the 6th P.M. in Garfield County, Colorado,
as described in the United States Patent to Arlington C. Harvey
in Book 164 at Page 486 of the Garfield County records to -wit:
Parrs of Drake Numbers 3, 4, and 5
Parts of Alberta Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
Pars of P.C. Junior Numbers 1, 2, and 3
Parts of Virginia Number 1
Alice
Alice Number 1, 2, and 3
Little Maud Number 1, 3, 4, 7, 9,11,13, and 15
AUG -1 i 1 /94� E18:a3AM LEAVEMWORTH&CALOIA
• •
F ..n3 04
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Page 3
All that real property situate, lying and being in Garfield County,
Colorado, consisting of the following Placer Mining Claims, to
wit:
PARCEL A:
MT. MAMM NO. 1
MT. MAMM NO, 2
MT. MAMM N0.3
MT. MAMM NO. 4
MT. MAMM NO. 5
MT. MAMM NO. 6
MT. MAMM NO, 8
MT, MAMM NO. 9
As described in United States Patent Number 1051431 recorded
December 16, 1931, in Book 168 at Page 254 as Reception
Number 111666 of the Garfield County Records.
PARCEL B:
MT. MAMM NO. 10
MT, MAMM NO. 11
As described in United States Patent Number 1051425 recorded
December 16, 1931, in Book 168 at Page 255 as Reception
Number 111667 of the Garfield County records.
PARCEL C:
MT. MAMM NO, 12
MT, MAIM NO. 13
MT. MAMM NO. 14
MT. MAMM NO. 15
As described in United States Patent Number 1119490 recorded
May 21, 1945, in Book 209 at Page 447 as Reception No. 154101
of the Garfield County records_
r nA Unit erne
A "1 AUG 19 '94 po:O AM LEHVEMWURTH'«CHLOIA
•
P "4 l)�J
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Page 4
lam: Parcel A above is also described as:
Tract 42 in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8. Township 8 South.
Range 93 West of the 6th P.M„ Garfield County, Colorado,
and
Tract 65 in Sections 30 and 31, Township 7 South, Range
93 West of the 6th P.Mt, Garfield County, Colorado.
_CLAIMS
The following placer mining claims to wit:
Name of Claim
Mt, Marum No. 1
Mt, Mamtn No. 2
Mt, Mamm No. 3
Mt. Mamm No. 4
Mt, Martini No. 7
Mt. Marnm No, 8
Mt. Marnm No, 16
Mt. Marnm No. 17
Colorado Location
5LM Serial No, DocJ o,
CMC 114007
CMC 114008
CMC 114009
CMC 114010
CMC 114011
CMC 114012
CMC 114013
CMC 114014
57423
57424
57425
57426
574429
574430
57897
57899
Certificate Date of
B.ck Eivito, Location
104 187 6-6-17
104 188 6-6-17
104 188 6-6-17
104 189 6-6-17
104 190 6-6-17
104 191 6-6-17
104 283 7-26-17
104 284 7-26-17
of the records of said Garfield County, Colorado, State of Colorado, situate in Mt.
Mamrn Mining District in saki County and State;
Excepting those portions of said claims as described above included in the
description of the Properly on Exhibit A of this Agreement.
10. The subject real property interests in Garfield County, Colorado, are contiguous
and essentially comprise one tract of land,
11. Plaintiffs' purpose in contracting for purchase of the subject property interests was
to profit from marketing the timber thereon and from sale or development of the land atter it was
CUL
AUG -1;11;1j--;94- be:04AM LEAVENWORTHaCALOIA
•
P.506
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Page 5
12. Plaintiff Lawrence Kesterson is an expert in determining the value of timber and
timberland and the profitability of a prospective tract of timberland.
13. Plaintiffs had engaged in extensive research of the nature and extent of
marketable timber of the subject land by way of inspection and research and had prepared the
research data and conclusions into a written form which was proprietary to Plaintiffs and which
represented substantial work product of Plaintiffs relating to the subject property.
14. The research data, reports, and conclusions of Plaintiff relating to the subject
property were private and confidential to Plaintiffs.
15. In about January 1994. Plaintiffs were contacted by Defendant Clay Tucker on
behalf of himself and others believed by Plaintiffs to be some or all of the others named as
Defendants herein, who expressed an interest in providing funds to finance the closing of the two
contracts which were then pending and in otherwise making an arrangement for a joint venture or
otherwise for the joint benefit of Plaintiffs and Defendants,
16. As a result of the contract by Defendants or one or more of them, Plaintiff
Kesterson met with Defendant Clay Tucker in Salt Lake City, Utah; and said Plaintiff and
Defendant Tucker and others on behalf of Defendants travelled to Rifle, Colorado, to view the
subject property interests.
17. Plaintiff Kesterson lacer provided Defendant Clay Tucker all of the confidential
research materials on the subject property in exchange for Defendant Clay Tucker's express
agreement that he and his associates would hold the information in confidence and that he and/or
they would not in any way circumvent the Plaintiffs by dealing directly with the two oil company
vendors under contact and would deal in the matter only by and through Plaintiffs.
1$. At the time of the exchange of information by Plaintiffs with Defendants and the
agreements as to confidentiality and noncircumvention, Plaintiffs were buyers under contracts
with the two named oil company vendors, the closing of which contracts had been extended
indefinitely by said vendors, and which extensions had not been revoked or terminated.
19. Subsequent to obtaining the confidential research materials from Plaintiffs,
Defendants violated the confidence placed in there by Plaintiffs and breached the
noncircumvention agreement with Plaintiffs by going direedy to the two named vendors and by
subsequently purchasing all the subject property interest for their own account to the total
exclusion of Plaintiffs.
AUG -1 AUG• 1 '"• S4r DP: 05AM LEAVENWORTH&CALOIA
• • •
P F.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Page 6
20. Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendants convey their interest in the subject
properties to Plaintiffs, and Defendants have failed and refused to do so.
FIRST CLA?nr OR_RELTEF
21. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained above in Paragraphs 1 through 20.
22. Defendants, by their conduct as hereinabove described, now hold the subject
interests in real properly in constructive trust for Plaintiffs.
23. Defendants, by their failure and refusal to convey the subject real property
interests to Plaintiffs, have violated the constructive trust in favor Plaintiffs.
24. Plaintiffs are entitled to an order from the Court compelling the Defendants to
convey the subject properties to Plaintiffs.
SEC_O.W CLJID FAR R .LTF
25. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 20 herein.
26. Plaintiffs had expected to profit from the sale of timber on the subject land and
ultimata sale or disposition of the land in an amount up to or in excess of $15,000,000.
27. As a result of the violation of confidentiality and breach of agreement as to
noncircumvention, if the subject property is not conveyed to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs will be
damaged in an amount up to or in excess of $15,000,000, which amount they are entitled to
recover as damages from Defendants.
28. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs I trough 20 herein.
29, The conduct of Defendants as hereinabove described constitutes the tortious
interference with contract rights of Plaintiffs.
30. Plaintiffs are . entitled to recover damages from Defendants for tortious
interference with Plaintiffs' contract rights in an amount to be determined at trial.
AUG-1 TAu� is ' 94 : 05AM LEAV'ENWiORTH CALOIA
,.
• •
F. 08
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Page 7
EOCRTI AT11r EI . ;LtF
31, Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 20 herein,
32, Defendants' conduct as hereinabove described was done by Defendants. or one or
more of them, against the rights and feelings of Plaintiffs intentionally with willful and wanton
disregard for the rights and feelings of Plaintiffs, for which the Defendants are liable, in addition
to any other damages, for exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
PRAYER FQR.R>~ t.rFF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief herein as follows,
1. For an order declaring the existence of a constructive trust and requiring
Defendants to convey the subject property and property interest to Plaintiffs upon payment by
Plaintiffs of an appropriate amount under the circumstances.
2. Judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs for damages for breach of
confidentiality and breach of contract in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for their
losses.
3. Judgment for damages for tortious interference with Plaintiffs' contract rights in
an amount sufficient to compensate for losses.
4. Judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs for exemplary damages.
S. For interest, costs, and attorney fees according to law.
6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the
premises,
JURY DEMAND
PIaintiffs request that the issues herein be tried to a jury.
AUG -1 68: 05AM LEHVENNORTH&CPLOIH
1. o.
• •
P:'e09
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Page 8
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this .Z1SYs
day of July, 1994.
Plaintiffs' Address:
P.O. Box 47
Rockaway Beach, OR 97136
WhIPWAIIPAthealicesiene
FEATHER LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
Gerald B. Feather, Na. 5996
Attorney for Plaintiffs
225 N. 5th Street, Suite 301
P.O. Box 1704
Grand Junction, CO $1502
•
/-GrPr 7-e ,---10n i6 -
ea c,cv, c�C ; �rcc�g� -C C 7`-‘
m�
u,s.Fs. f If &
cf.c. (PS_ e,t1
6 -Ar 4,0
6/d
� M
0,zi 0-f E{//
vow
•
1--772
�z�-z37(
/// E.n`2
F� 9f'S-o Q 3 �-
6
99S--
(3°) '145- 8245
a.S.s . Cxos) --7a ZS
56
)6 egtorkti,2 a�
014-) - S�
Ail AVed States t White River Rifl nger District
tment of Service National 0094 Uounty Rd 244
'culture Forest Rifle. CO 81650
Reply to: 2730
Date: July 29, 1994
High Sierra
1805 Hilltop Drive
Suite 201
Redding, California 96002
ATTENTION: Clay Tucker & Tim Frase
Gentlemen:
This is a follow-up to several telephone conversations and in person meetings
with Gary Osier of my Staff, and Acting Deputy Forest Supervisor, Kevin
Riordan, regarding access to your property located within the White River
National Forest. Based upon these conversations, I feel it is important for me
to describe the procedure and applicable laws and regulations governing access
across National Forest System Lands.
The first law that provides for access is the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980. The portion of this act that has bearing in this
case, is sec. 1323, as follows: "(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of
law, and subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture
may prescribe, the Secretary shall provide such access to nonfederally owned
land within the boundaries of the National Forest System as the Secretary deems
adequate to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment thereof:
Provided, That such owner comply with rules and regulations applicable to
ingress and egress to or from the National Forest System."
This act clearly states that it is up to the Secretary of Agriculture to
determine what is adequate access, and under what terms and conditions. The
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 gives specific direction, on how
access and right-of-ways across the National Forest System will be handled
(Title V - Rights -of Way, Sec. 501- Sec. 511, copy enclosed). The Regulations
governing the use of National Forest System Lands is contained in 36 CFR
251.50-251.65 (copy enclosed). In addition, I must refer to the Land and
Resource Management Plan for The White River National Forest. This document
provides for specifics regarding activities on the White River National Forest
and is on file at the Rifle Ranger District for your review.
Garfield County, the Glenwood Springs Resource Area (BLM), and the White River
National Forest (Rifle Ranger District) have agreed to review jointly, all
projects involving lands adjacent to or having impact on lands under each
others jurisdiction. I therefore am requesting that you prepare a plan in
accordance with Garfield County Special Use regulations that details your
Caring for the Land and Serving People
FS -6200-28 (7-82)
1
• •
project, not only on your private lands, but also on National Forest, and
Public Lands. This will then provide all three entities with the opportunity
to review your project jointly, and provide for reasonable and environmentally
sound access to your property.
One other item that needs addressing is the responsibility of private land
owners, adjacent to National Forest System Lands, to know where their boundary
line is located on the ground. The White River N.F. Supervisor's Office and
the Glenwood Springs Resource Area Office of the Bureau of Land Management have
corner records available for public review, that can assist you in determining
where your property boundary is located. Both offices are located in Glenwood
Springs, Colorado.
Know where your boundary is located is extremely important, because trespass
upon, or damage to National Forest System Lands, could be treated as a criminal
act. If you are unsure of your boundaries, I encourage you to survey before
you begin any earth moving activities, such as road building, road maintenance
or any kind of construction work.
I can appreciate your desire to gain access to your property for commercial use
and development as soon as possible. However, before I can continue to provide
Rifle District Staff time to meet your desires, you need to submit a detailed
written proposal to Garfield County as outlined above so a comprehensive review
of your proposal can be initiated.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
A'n7(
TERRY K. OOD
Distric_ Ranger
cc: Mike Mottice, Glenwood Springs Resource Area
cc: Mark Bean, Garfield County
cc Sonny LaSalle, White River N.F.
Enclosures (2)
go:gto
Caring for the Land and Serving People
FS -6200-28 (7-82)
1
IMPACT STATEMENT
Garfield County Planning Office
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
AUG U 2. 1994
GARFiELD COUNTY
This impact statement is filed with the Garfield County for the purpose of removal of burned
timber, dead and dying diseased timber and a selective thinning of timber within the boundaries
of Garfield County owned by Daniel M. & Sharon L. Tucker, David P. Frase, Clay K. Tucker,
and Timothy D. & Stacey D. Frase with main business office at 1805 Hilltop Drive, #201
Redding, California 96002 916-223-6715.
Per sections 5.03.07 and 5.03.08 of the Garfield County Land Use Codes, subtitled
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS, Tucker and Frase will harvest timber to be delivered to Lousiana
Pacific.
Portions of Sections 13,15,22,25,26,27,35, & 36, T7S R94W; Part of S31 T7S R93W; and
Portions of Sections 5,6,7, & 8, T8S R93W, totalling about 4500 acres, known historically as
the Unocal property and the Virginia Colorado property.
See Attached legal and maps.
Total acreage of this property is approximately 4,500+ acres, however, the timber harvest area
will consist of approximately 2,000+ acres.
Tucker and Frase intends to contract out timber harvesting. Most likely two different
contractors. Most of the harvesting will be yarded by cat. The steeper areas will be yarded by
cable. Work will commence upon acquiring the necessary permits and will continue as weather
and ground conditions dictate for a period of approximately two years.
The following then is the conditional and special use requirements for Garfield County as
governed by the Land Use Codes where applicable to this operation:
Industrial Operations
(1) The scope of this operation is to remove the dead and dying, burned, and mature timber
in a selective harvesting fashion. Further this will improve access for oil and gas exploration
and improve domestic and wildlife feed.
Design of the harvesting areas are approximately shown on the attached maps.
•
(A) Existing lawful Use of Water - Areas to be harvested and road locations have
been situated so as to avoid existing water courses, streams, riparian areas and wetlands so as
to cause no adverse effects regarding surface run-off, stream flow or ground water. Water bars,
culverts and grass seeding shall be placed so as to reduce and control water flow from spring
thaws.
i. Watershed Protection by Reducing Fire Hazard: The timber on the
Tucker & Frase property contains a significant population of old and over -mature timber.
Such timber stands are vulnerable to insect infestation, and subsequently to fire.
About the worst thing that could happen to the Rifle water supply from Beaver Creek
would be a forest fire at the headwaters, which would lead to massive uncontrolled
erosion and contamination of the Creek. Thinning the Spruce by removing the old, over -
mature, and dying timber will significantly reduce the long term fire hazard in that forest.
ii. Cableway Logging: On the steepest slopes, the timber will be skidded
using overhead cableways rather than tractors on the ground. By reducing surface
disturbance on steep slopes, the work will diminish erosion of the topsoil, and little
sediment will be carried into the creeks
iii. Water Quantity for Irrigation: The timber thinning operation will
increase the amount of water available in the Mamm, Beaver, Porcupine, and Spruce
Creek drainages, because fewer trees will be using water upstream of the agricultural
interests. This should benefit ranchers who depend upon water from these watersheds.
iv. Water Quality Concerns: If needed, fuel storage areas will be kept at
least 200' from any stream. Stationary fuel tanks larger than 200 gallons will be kept
in bermed areas to contain any inadvertent fuel spill. Maintenance operations will be
kept at least 200' from any stream. Open trash dumps will not be permitted. Any open
fires will be carefully controlled. Toxic chemicals are not used in logging operations,
and will not be present in the work areas.
(B) Magnesium Chloride and watering of all the dirt and gravel roads to the property
will eliminate dust problems. Noise from equipment used on the logging operation will be
minimal if any to neighboring properties due to the remoteness of this property. No vapors,
smoke, glare or vibration are known to occur due to logging operations.
(C) Wildlife and domestic animal impact shall be kept to a minimum with a selective
timber harvest. Existing native vegetation shall remain the same. No introduction of noxious
weeds will occur. Migratory routes for wildlife will not be effected. Harvest operations have
been designed to enhance existing feed and cover for domestic animals and wildlife. One of the
intents of the owner to improve his grazing potential and wildlife habitat in this area.
(D) Impacts of Truck & Automobile Traffic:
i. Traffic: There will be additional traffic on the County roads leading to
the work areas. Trucking is expected to average 12 loads per day during the working
season, Logging operations will likely generate another 12 vehicle trips daily. This
traffic will likely be going out to Rifle. All trucks will have CBs to insure good
communication between drivers,
ii. Hard Surfaced Roads: All county load limits will be followed. A bond
of $100,000 in favor of the county will be issued, the largest for Garfield County to
charge for the use of a county road.
iii. Gravel Roads and Dust: Traffic on the Beaver Creek gravel road leading
to the project will not generate dust. The Partnership will apply dust control agents
(such as magnesium chloride) to County gravel roads where dust from log hauling is an
issue for adjoining owners. The roads will also be watered to completely reduce any
dust. Truck warning signs will be placed every 1/2 mile and appropriate turnouts will
be made available every mile.
iv. Road Damage: It is the Partnership's basic policy to ensure that the haul
roads they use are at least as good, if not better when the project is complete as they
were before the it started.
v. Road Closures in the Spring: The Partners understand that Garfield
County closes County roads to heavy traffic during spring breakup, which can occur any
time between January and May. This should not have a significant impact upon logging
operations, because it is usually not possible to work in the high country because of snow
and mud during that period.
vi. Road Improvements: The Partnership will improve the road from the
Beaver Creek parking lot, across Forest Service land to our property, The road will be
improved to be 12 feet wide with turnouts. The road base will have a four inch base
with 3/4 topcoat double pin layer of chip and seal. To increase erosion control the
Partnership will mitigate by constructing silt traps to catch run-off.
(E) No known impacts to adjacent property owners exist.
(2) (A) Site Rehabilitation: Tucker & Frase proposes to close out the work areas by;
1. Closing skid trails and building waterbars.
2. Piling & burning slash in landing areas.
3. Seeding grasses and native plants for erosion control as needed if natural
ground cover is slow to return.
Limbs, stumps, and tops will be left in the woods to naturally degrade and build the soil.
Tree replanting will be by natural means by the standing timber left in the work areas, unless
regeneration is determined inadequate by property owner and then the land owner will most
likely do some replanting.
Industrial Performance Standards
(1) As previously stated, noise levels from machinery used in logging operations meet
existing state and federal laws regarding mufflers and spark arresters. Remoteness of the
property shall also keep any noise to a minimum to adjacent owners.
(2) Vibration generated from this operation shall not be detectable.
(3) Smoke and particulate matter emitted from machinery shall be controlled as per state and
federal laws regarding mufflers and spark arresters. All equipment to be used in this operation
has been previously inspected and approved by the United States Forest Service.
Tim Frase
6_)tyy).).J7te)
igos— zx) (
92z-
FRASE FRASE,NVES?MENTS
1805 Hilltop Drive, Suite 207
Redding, California 96002
(916) 223-2900
FAX 223-6556
December 12, 1996
Chris Locker
Lucky 13 Ranch
P.O. Box 2567
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
RE: Tepee Park Property
Dear Mr. Locker:
I just wanted to let you know that nobody has access to cross our property. We do not want
anyone on our property for liability reasons. If we do give permission to cross the property, it
will be in writing. However, at this time, we do not want anyone on the property for any reason.
I know that you have the adjacent Forest Service grazing rights, but that does not allow you to
herd your cattle across our land. If this happens, it will be treated as a trespass.
Gary Osier with the Rifle Ranger District, told me that nobody has the right to cross our property.
If you have a question about it, I am sure he could help you out.
Sincerely,
•
Tim Frase
David Levy RPF # 1976
Phone (916) 265 - 4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265 - 1976
Email candoco@oro.net
L'Y
DEC 1 6 1996
GAFFiELD 1
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite 7
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City CA 95959
Dec. 13, 1996
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Dept.
109 8th Street Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601
RE: Special Use Application:
Teepee Park Timber Harvest and Road use
I am enclosing the additional information that I referred to in our telephone
conversations this week.
The report prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, !nc. indicates that an
additional overlayment of 1.5 inches of new asphalt would be necessary.
am enclosing the report prepared by Steven Pawlak P.E. If additional
clarification is necessary you can contact either myself or Mr. Pawlak directly at
telephone 945-7988.
Again, I appreciate your continuing co-operation in this matter.
Please let me know if there are any additional matters of concern.
Sincerely,
David . Levy
Consultant for Tucker and Frase-
• •
This document has been revised since its original submittal in March of 1995. The
following is a summary of concerns expressed by participants at the review of this
plan on March 20, 1995.
REVIEW TEAM:
Mark Bean, Planning -Garfield County
Tim Moore, Engineer -City of Rifle
Kelly Rogers, Colorado State Forest Service
Gary Osier, USFS,-White River NF
Cindy Hockelberg, USFS, White River NF
1. A soils engineering/geotechnical feasibility needs to done... excessive erosion
and mass sliding on the property which could have a negative effect on Beaver
Creek water quality.
2. The entire property within the Beaver Creek drainage should be addressed in
the city application.
3. The Forest Service needs to examine the site.
4. Colorado Division of Wildlife should be contacted prior to any resubmittal to
receive input.
5. No man -camp.
6. Expand discussion of the impacts to the County road. There are a number of
issues relating to conflicts with existing traffic that are not addressed.
7. Better definition of the proposed days and hours of operation
Following the meeting of March 20 we received letters from Scott Fifer and John
Denison with specific concerns they had with the FMP. Those concerns are
summarized:
Scott Fifer, hydrologist for the City of Rifle
1. The Forest Management Plan should extend its soil inventory and erosion
hazard rating north of the Applicant's property to include the proposed road to
be constructed on National Forest land.
2. Additional information along proposed road corridors:
a. Soils and geologic analysis addressing potential hazards and slope
stability concerns.
b. Typical roadway design at key locations through varying terrain;
including elevations, dimensions, typical x -sections, locations and extent
of proposed cut and fill slopes.
• •
c. A revegetation plan, including a list of plant species, application rates
and mulching requirements.
d. A map outlining wetland vegetation and plans to avoid and/or mitigate
road construction impacts.
3. Discussion of reclamation of existing Beaver Creek road.
4. Surface roads within WPZ extend 35 feet either side of culvert.
5. Discuss road closure during Spring.
6. Basis for Culvert sizing.
7. EEZ should be expanded from 50 to 100 feet (page 29).
8. Winter harvesting within EEZ could be considered on case by case basis. _
9. Water Quality Plan:
a. address existing stream quality
b. provide for periodic monitoring
c. develop and action plan
d. describe best management practices
e. contain and inventory of materials to be maintained on site.
John Denison, Colorado State Forester
1. No trees to be removed within 25 feet of perennial watercourses.
2. No more than 40% of basal area to be removed in multi -storied stands and 30%
within single story stands.
3. Measurements for EEZ and WLPZ to be Horizontal not slope.
4. Maximum slash depth to be 18 inches.
5. Time span of project.
6. Pumper capacity and length of hose required.
Additional comments were received by the USFS from Cindy Hockelberg, Gary
Osier, and Tony Svatos. As a result, the route of the new road construction on
USFS land was relocated and engineering of the road was required.
The concerns listed above have been addressed and answered in the body of the
Forest Management Plan. Some issues, such as hours of operation and traffic
schedules require additional information from the general public. Certain county
officials have chosen to wait until the project is further along before giving their
recommendations.
•
• •
Please note that Tucker & Frase has considered an option of conducting a land
exchange with the U.S.F.S. This would transfer the ownership of the entire
property to the U.S. Forest Service in return for land of equal value elsewhere.
There has been preliminary talks with the Rifle Ranger District of the White River
National Forest. This would leave the property in its present condition to be
managed by the Forest Service. It should be noted that due to budget restraints
and manpower considerations, this option is considered very tentative.
During the summer of 1996 two engineering firms, High Country Engineering,
Inc. and Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. both of Glenwood Springs were
retained by Tucker and Frase to produce technical support for the resubmittal of
the Tepee Park Forest Management Plan. The engineered drawings and the
reports are included Additionally, this package contains a Water Quality Plan
and the Biological Evaluation produced by Kim Potter of Rifle.
We feel that all concerns have been adequately addressed and that certain details
can be refined during and after the public comment period. We look forward to
working with all agencies and individuals concerned with this project. If there
are any questions or comments please contact us at your earliest convenience.
Please note that although we have sent you only 1 copy with this application, we
would be very able to supply you with as many copies of any of the enclosed
documents that you need. Please advise us as to which documents and how
many copies you will need to circulate for review purposes.
Sincerely,
avid E. Levy
Professional Forester
2 4<s S SS;1: 3D cuA �2-
Larry Stites, 04:41 PM 12/4/96, Re: Teepee Park 1
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:41:53 -0800
To: garcopin@rof.net
From: candoco@oro.net (Larry Stites)
Subject: Re: Teepee Park
Hi David, we recieved your email and I will forward it to David.
Thanks
>David,
>As of this time there is no additional information regarding the
Teepee
>Park logging operation impacts. Subsequent to the last e-mail, I
was
>made aware of the collapse of the Beaver Creek road as a result of
water
>truck getting to close to the shoulder. I will have pictures
available
>fairly soon. This whole project seems to be coming to a standstill
and I
>am inclined to suggest that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of
>the application due to lack of adequate access to the site. If I do
not
>hear anything from you soon, that will be my recommendation next
week.
>Mark Bean
>garcopin@rof.net
Larry Stites
candoco@oro.net
http://www.oro.net/candoco
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite #7
Nevada City Ca
9 5 9 5 9
ph. (916) 265-4891
fax (916) 265-1976
Printed for garcopin@rof.net (Garfield Co Planning Dept) 1
USA COUNTIES 1994
Geographic Area:
Table:
1
Garfield, CO (045)
GENERAL PROFILE
POPULATION AND HOUSING (Census)
Total resident population:
1992 31,231
Per square mile 10.6
1990 29,974
Percent under 18 ears ✓ 27.6
Percent 65 yearand over 9.9
1980 22,514
Housing, 1990:
Total units , 12,517
Occupie► units/households 11,266
Persons per household 2.60
57.9
90,400
Percent owner occupied
Median value (dollars)/
EDUCATION (Census)
Elementary and high schooTi enrollment, 1990 5,424
Percent in public schgols 94.2
19,299
Persons 25 years and dyer, 1990
Percent high school graduates
Percent college graduates
85.2
21.6
MONEY INCOME AND POVERTY (Census) '
Money income, 1989: ,
Median household (dollars) 29,176
Per capita (dollars) 13,086
Percent below poverty level, 1989:
Persons 9.3
Families 7.3
HEPWORTH-PAWL., h GEOTECHNICAL, INC. '020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
December 6, 1996
David Levy Forestry Services
Attn: David Levy
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City, California 95959
Fax 970 945-8454
('hone 970 945-7988
Job No. 195 392
Subject: Evaluation of Asphalt Pavement Overlay, Road 320, Garfield County,
Colorado
Dear Mr. Levy:
As requested, we have evaluated the paved portion of the existing road for an asphalt
pavement overlay to support the additional logging truck traffic. We previously
conducted an evaluation of the existing pavement and subgrade conditions of the road
and presented our findings in a report dated October 10, 1996, Job No. 195 392.
Logging Truck Loading: Logging trucks are proposed to travel the road between June
and October for two years. Twelve trips per day for five days per week are proposed
(total of 1200 trips per year). The trucks will be highway legal and we have assumed
that each loaded truck has an 18 kip EDLA of 1. For an annual loading condition
(CDOT Design Nomograph), the 18 kip EDLA of the logging trucks would be 8
(1200/150 days) .
Subgrade Strength: The Hveem stabilometer 'R' value of the clay subgrade was
previously determined to be 15. This represents saturated (spring time) conditions. We
have assumed an 'R' value of 25 for summer time drier subgrade conditions.
Existing Pavement Support: The load capacity of the existing pavement section was
calculated based on structural coefficients of 0.25 for chip seal and 0.12 for road base,
and a Regional Factor of 1.0. For the typical 3 inches of chip seal on 6 inches of road
base and a subgrade 'R' value of 25, the existing pavement will support an 18 kip
EDLA of 2.
Overlay Thickness: The asphalt pavement overlay thickness was calculated for the
same conditions as the existing pavement capacity with the 18 kip EDLA traffic loading
increased to 10 (8 plus 2). Under the additional loading and structural coefficient of
0.44 for new asphalt pavement, the overlay thickness calculated to support the
additional logging truck traffic is 1.5 inches. The overlay is designed to support the
logging truck loading and the pavement could still be overloaded and fail as a result of
existing truck traffic. Existing pavement failures should be repaired prior to placing the
overlay. A civil engineer should specify the treatment of the existing pavement surface
prior to the overlay and any other design considerations (such as improving drainage).
Of)
David Levy Forestry Services
December 6, 1996.
Page 2
If you have questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEQTEGHIyIAL, INC.
'"/i Q r,
1 5222
•
j .,a F2 tiG� a
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
Rev. by: DEH
SLP/kmk
D,"•T-31-9 99F, 17:27 FROM GARF I ELD CO POW) 2, BRIDGE TO
111111
Glenwood
GARFIELD COUNTY
ROAD AND BRIDGE
P.O. BOX 2254
Springs. Colorado 81602-22S4
Phone 945-6111
9457785 P.22
DATE: DECEMBER 31, 1996
TO: MARK BEAN
FROM: KING
RE: BEAVER CREEK L GGING UTILIZING COUNTY ROADS
In response to the i. formation passed on toe�tene bY impacts
Neowor th/Pa.wlack Engineorx addressing
to county Road 320, they have recommended after doing a
general analysis of the existing road structure, an inch and
one half (1 1/2") asphalt overlay to the exls.tino conditions.
The inch and a, half overlay should be considered as a minimum
approach tu the mitigation of the logging wheel loan impact.
In real life when a paving company would
pose toord do tharti.Y
inch and a half overlay in a lot of o.rea.�c
of the surface there will have to be a 1veli.ng course that
will preempt the indh and half structural coursed uSobin insome
areas the new paved surface c;ou1d potentially
three inches thick.
IN addition, the anulys1s that was done Gould
�b sviewed
d the
generalization of wC'at actually exists.
potential that them are a few isolated structurally
deficient portions of the roadway that could fail, even with
the inch and a half 'minimum overlay. With that in mind I
think that there still needs to be a road bond aodui.red to
adddr e':i.s the potential of that problem in this event that it
should occur.
The second concern ,s County Road 317, otherwise known as
Beaver Creek, It had been relayed to me through the planning
department that Lee � Engineering has made several_
recommendations to address safety conoerris. 1 feel that the
one that need: a. minimum turm criteria. is the standard of inter_
�
visibl turnouts where its not appropriate for there to be
two lanes of traffic;. The C;un ept of inter-diwi,3ibl0
accommodation is ono that the forest service uses on their
logging roads though 1 am not familiar with the minimum
standards, 1 think ':.hat the forest service standards might bo
acceptable.
TOTAL P. n2
D �-31-1996 17:02
FROM GARFIELD CO ROAD & BRIDGE TO 9457785 P.01
Additionally on the Beaver Creek Road, there is the concern
for the road to remain passable during wet weather
conditions. The upper portion of the road now has the status
of a primitive seas nab, access road. Therefore the road
receives no regular gravel maintenance and the natural gas
industry addresses he maintenance needs when the road
becomes heavily rut ed due to their drilling activities.
80 u ny times durinr the wet season the natural gas industry
utilizes dozers to mobilize drilling eauloment in the upper
regions of the road)
The tires when the r
conditions could be
have no regulations
participation by th
County does not hav
The gas company doe
cooperative equipme
conflict between th
during the wet seas
Should the logging
snowed out on too,
dealing with practi
]ower portions of B
information or prop
situation.
hove this is of s
of the proposed log
have any further qu
oad becomes impassable due to these
as early as October. Unfortunately we
in place to reauire any financial
gas industry to upgrade the rod. ThGN
adequate resources to upgrade the road.
try to mitigate their impact with
t efforts. So there is a. potential for a
gas industry and the logging industry
n on this roadway.
ndustry choose to continue until they are
t. wild mAan a prolangiad poriod r�F
ally impassable road conditions on the
aver Creek. To date 1 have seen on
cad mitigativca meaaurow to deal with this
me assistance to you on your cv,a.luati,on
:inch proposal. Contact me if you should
stions.
NUI. -04-1986 14;31
FROM GARFIELD CO ROAD u BRIDGE
Memo
To: MARK BEAN
gym: KING LLOYD
Danko: November 996
Roc TEE -PEE PARK TIMBER ROAD IMPACTS
TO
9457785 P.81
GARFIELD COUNTY
ROAD BRIOGE
HAVE RECEIVED THE HP GEOTECH EVALUATION OF COUNTY ROAD 320. MY INITIAL
RESPONSE TO NE REPORT 18 ONE OF NOT BEING
ABLE
BETWEEN WHAT I ASKED FOR AND WHAT WAS PROVIDED. TQ MAKE ANY Ct)RRtiATION
I HAVE ATTACHED A COPY OF WHAT i ASKED FOR, AT A IVIINIMUM THERE SHOULD OF
BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ON THE AXEL WEIGHTS FOR THE LOGGING TRUCKS RELATIVE
TO WHAT THE ROAD HAS THE STRENGTH TO SUPPORT. INSTEAD THERE WAS ONLY THE
GENERAL STATEMENT -THE EXISTING PAVEMENT.SECTION IS ISR
ADEQUATE". WE ALREADY KNEW THIS, THAT IS WHYI ASKED FOR SPECIIFFIIC
RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAVEMENT DESIGN, THE CidL Y DEPENATI E INFORMATION
THAT WAS GAINED IS THE R -VALUE BEING ESTABLISHED, I HAVE ATTACHED A SHEET
THAT WILL HELP TO ILLISTRATE JUST HOW BAD AN R-15 IS.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL.
err
/3. -•
TOTAL P.01
The proposal as presented provides not enough detail to determine
the feasibility of making County Road 317 safe for all involved. If that
is not adequately addressed, the potential of a fuel truck overturning
into the creek, being the town's water supply as well as a few other
people bwithQut, the safety of any filtration, could be a catastrophe of
great proportions. Because of property rights and irrigation structures,
there is the potential that safety concerns will be impossible to meet or
to determine all of the impacts without a detailed plan.
---4-. The anticipated surfaced road damage can only be mitigated
through advance engineering studies. The types of studies needed to
mention one, would be a falling weigh deflectometer test that would
simulate the loading of the trucks relative to the structural capacity of
the roadway. The result of this test would be a recommendation as to
the thickness of asphalt overlay that would be needed to counter the
effect of the wheel loads associated with all their proposed traffic, not
just logging, but construction as well.
Depending on the duration of the operation, this type of study would
also recommend the needed maintenance necessary to mitigate the
effects over a planned time period. Since the impacts of the traffic
and the need for the study can be directly attributed to this operation,
the costs should all be theirs.
4. With respect to the unsurfaced roads, the suggestion of
magnesium chloride being used to mitigate dust might not be
compatible to the City of Rifle's water quality standards, or the people
without filtration. The County has used this product for several years
and we feel that the Realistically there might have to be as many as
three applications made to satisfy air quality standards. Because of
vehicles traveling in convoy, the potential exists for the full length of
the public road to be treated, otherwise opposing traffic could be
blinded.
The mention of water trucks is confusing if chemical stabilizers are
proposed. What is the need for water trucks? The use of water
trucks for dust control is not an option on public roads maintained by
the County. Watering of County roads washes the fines out of the
roadbase creating a maintenance problem that cannot be addressed
• Page 2
/S-
1170 9E 16:21 a 916 - 1976
David Levy RPF Lic.#1976
Phone(916)265-4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265 - 1976
E - MAIL candoco@oro.net
{::
NOV 1.2
i
ray
Y
UHVIG LE.)? FORES P.01
••
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite 7
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City CA 95959
THE CAN DO COMPANY
Davit Levy Forestry
DATE: November 8, 1996
FAX #:970-945-7785
TO: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planing Department
MESSAGE:
As per our conversation earlier this week, I would like to request a
continuation of the public hearing on the Special Use application by
Tucker and Frase for their property referred to as Teepee Park
We are still trying to satisfactorily complete the engineering details
concerning the road and maintenance or overlayment requirements as
per the requests of the Garfield County Road & Bridge department.
We feel that we are making progress and again hope to have complete
results for your review in time for the meeting next month.
I will be in contact with you as soon as we get additional information.
Thank you for your assistance
Sincerely
David Le
Consultant for Tucker
and Frase
/47‘
• 0 •!
DAVID LEVY FORESTRY SERVICES
fuuliiyk 1Ec1Q
piy,,f4,.
Creete41 C.0 oy
David Levy RPF lie. # 1976
Phone (916) 265-4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265-1976
305 RAILROAD AVE
SUITE 7
P.O. BOX 1797
NEVADA CITY, CA 95959
Oft v AA*
100061 1 (XI t"o Pf/Us4 4r CoM%Mataw
hP., 44040 Pa(.(c 14 tor 45 e" AO SfOgisad Cys t
PM' wi is
ioftip +,4h R +6• To 4ktr 0,1 Fay...,
rvJ
+'0 Aw t
ANA +ti ..L.L ;'�'.J ''dr 044. 'NI MI(,
like els 3;,,+..r l+) veP•r45 'Eu° #41 M
oft (0 Pt
46) e•wwie 666 4Lw a114ic 4ta 604 siseW be
£111141kz4 .4 d)w3.h1• seer+I/.
• vN1orAla,0 rviJ Of0•S4
x .,P�r'c..►t. your S�
V„'
W. b. r r
mt►eiv661 ^e tow ws fa) siatio.
11Nobvih )44 1600 w Co„ *pop 4 Mho.
e„,„,......440 do pro
A I-0.7
2A':4 1. t�ti / c�aw,�•f#«�� Ape, 70414.0,f fp4s
David Levy Forestry
September 5, 1996
David Levy RPF # 1976
Phone (916) 265 - 4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265 - 1976
Email candoco@oro.net
<;=N TY
Mr. Mark Bean,
Planning Director Garfield County
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
RE: Special Use Permit Tepee Park Project
Request for CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite 7
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City CA 95959
I would like to request a continuation of our hearing scheduled for September
11, 1996 so that we can provide the additional information that has been
requested by Mr. King Lloyd concerning roads and traffic. He has asked for
engineering studies dealing with determination and evaluation of road surface,
damage and protection, and also traffic safety and impact.
At this time we are completing our arrangements with engineering companies to
provide the required information.
We ask that the hearing be continued until the October 9th meeting.
Please let us know if there is any problem with this request and confirm that we
are scheduled.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
avid 'Levy
September 5, 1996
David Levy RPF # 1976
Phone (916) 265 - 4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265 - 1976
Email candoco@oro.net
Mr. Mark Bean,
Planning Director Garfield County
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
RE: Special Use Permit Tepee Park Project
Request for CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite 7
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City CA 95959
I would like to request a continuation of our hearing scheduled for September
11, 1996 so that we can provide the additional information that has been
requested by Mr. King Lloyd concerning roads and traffic. He has asked for
engineering studies dealing with determination and evaluation of road surface,
damage and protection, and also traffic safety and impact.
At this time we are completing our arrangements with engineering companies to
provide the required information.
We ask that the hearing be continued until the October 9th meeting.
Please let us know if there is any problem with this request and confirm that we
are scheduled.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
• •
United States Forest White River Rifle Ranger District
Department of Service National 0094 County Road 244
Agriculture Forest Rifle, CO 81650
Reply to: 1950/2730
Date: September 9, 1996
Dear Interested Party:
The Rifle Ranger District, White River National Forest is beginning scoping and environmental
analysis on a proposal from Tucker and Frase to obtain a right-of-way to their private inholding
via Beaver Creek. The 4600 acre inholding,- comprised of the headwaters to Porcupine, Beaver
and West Mamm Creeks, is surrounded by National Forest and Bureau of Land Management
lands.
As part of the right-of-way application, Tucker and Frase have proposed reconstructng portions
of the existing road and new road construction in areas where the current road is near Beaver
Creek. The construction would re-route portions of the road pulling the route away from Beaver
Creek. The old road bed would be ripped and seeded. Total right-of-way length across National
Forest lands would be approximately 6000 feet.
Under a law passed on December 2, 1980, (P.L 96-487), private landowners within the boundaries
of National Forest lands are entitled to secure reasonable ingress and egress. The questions in
the environmental analysis will therefore be where and what type of right-of-way must be provided
to Tucker and Frase, not whether or not they will receive a right-of-way. The Forest Service is
working closely with the City of Rifle and Garfield County as Beaver Creek is a municipal watershed.
In addition, Tucker and Frase have proposed logging operations on the private lands located in
Garfield County. While the logging approval is a County permitting process, they have proposed
hauling the logs across National Forest lands via the right-of-way.
If you have comments or concerns on this proposal please send them to: Rifle Ranger District,
attn: Cindy Hockelberg, 094 County Road 244, Rifle, CO 81650. Comments should be submitted
by October 21, 1996. The City of Rifle will be hosting an open house on October 2, 1996 at the
Rifle City Hall. The open house will begin at 7:00 P.M. As part of the open house, Forest Service
personnel will be on hand to answer any questions.
If you have any questions on this proposal and are unable to make the open house please contact
Cindy Hockelberg or Gary Osier at 625-2371.
Sincerely
BE i Y L. SCHMITT
District Ranger
Caring for the Land and Serving the People
•
GARFIELD CO UNT Y
Building and Planning
MEMORANDUM
TO: GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: MARK BEAN
DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
RE: TUCKER-FRASE LOGGING SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Enclosed for your review is a letter from David Levy and a letter from the White River National
Forest, Veto Lasalle, regarding the legal right-of-way access to the subject property.
Please feel free to contact this office with any questions you may have.
109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
David Levy Forestry 1
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
David Levy RPF # 1976
Phone (916) 265 - 4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265 - 1976
Email candoco@oro.net
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite 7
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City CA 95959
August 26, 1996
Dear Mark,
As per the discussion following the August 14, 1996 Planning Commission meeting
regarding the Special Use Permit for the "Commercial Harvest of Timber and Use of
Haul Route" I have enclosed ten copies of the Forest Management Plan
for Tepee Park for you to distribute as needed to the members of the
planning commission. This will give all of the commission members an
opportunity to go over this before the next meeting and be more acquainted with the
project request.
have also included other supporting documents provided for the
U.S.F.S. and the City of Rifle that contain other pertinent information
which indicates the protective measures that will be required.
In addition, you will recall that Paui Bussoni, of Resource Engineering, Inc. the
consultant for the City of.Rifie made some comments to the County in which he stated
that there alight need to be additional information concerning the relationship between
cutting trees and snowpack accumulation and change in peak flows. He later stated at
the public hearing that Scott Fifer, the hydrologist for Resource Engineering later felt
that any impacts would be non-significant. We had prepared a paper discussing this
subject with the same conclusion which we referred to at the public meeting. I am
including a copy of that paper in the information supplied.
I have also received documents from the U.S.F.S. showing the public easement
through Mike Bishop's property that indicate that there is in fact a legitimate access.
am still awaiting some additional documents from Gary Osier of the USFS that trace
the easement back to the original owner who gave the easement to the Division of
Wildlife. I will provide you all documents when the file is complete.
We are still attempting to contact Mr. King Lloyd to discuss the road issues that he
listed, however, we have started to answer his concerns and believe that we can
adequately address the his concerns and provide satisfactory public safety.
• 1
If there are any new comments that are received concerning the project, please
contact my office as quickly as possible or send a fax copy.
Again, if you have any questions, please feel free to call us anytime.
Sincerely,
David E. Levy
David Levy Forestry Services
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning
August 28, 1996
David P. Frase
1789 Gold Hills Drive
Redding, California 96003
RE: Teepee Park Forest Management Plan
Special Use Permit
Dear Mr. Frase;
This is intended to be a short note based on a number of conversations that I have had with you
and other people concerned about your groups application for a Special Use permit for the
Teepee Park timber management program. Some of the conversations with the neighbors indicate
the potential for confrontations that could be avoided, as long as everyone is aware of what is
occurring.
Yesterday, Mike Bishop, called my office to indicate in no uncertain terms that he would not
allow any logging trucks cross over his property. He also made similar statements to a U.S.
Forest Service representative. It has been suggested that you be advised of the comments in the
hope of avoiding any confrontations on this property.
After our conversation on the phone earlier this week, you were asking what you needed to do to
get your permit approved. One of the issues that is not well defined is the impact of the traffic of
your contractors on the Beaver Creek road. At the Planning Commission meeting in August, the
County Road and Bridge Supervisor, King Lloyd, submitted a letter identifying a number of
concerns about the road and the need for additional analysis of the road. He suggested a falling
weight deflectometer test to evaluate the structural capacity of the road. We would also suggest
that a traffic engineer be hired to evaluate the capacity the entire haul route to accommodate the
various types of traffic utilizing the roadways and the impact of adding all of the vehicles needed
for this project.
The road issue has always been a concern of the County staff. As your consultants noted in the
new application, the County Road and Bridge Supervisor said he would respond to the new
application. His response indicates that a number of issues are still unresolved due to a lack of
information regarding the road impacts of your operation and the existing roads capability of
handling the traffic. This is not a new issue and your consultants do not seem to understand that
109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
1 •
the County has virtually no control over the oil and gas industry traffic due to State statutes
preempting them from any local control. As a result there appears to be a misunderstanding
regarding how the County can require you to do certain things, yet not control the oil and gas
traffic.
You asked me how the permit could be moved along in the process? The answer is that you need
to provide more detailed information regarding your proposed haul route, all the way into the City
of Rifle, with suggested methods of mitigating those impacts. At the next Planning Commission
meeting, as a staff we will be making a recommendation that the Commission not recommend
approval of the application at this time due to a lack definition of the road impacts and any
substantial mitigation.
As I noted in the opening of this letter, we have had communication from a property owner in the
area that has indicated that he will not allow access across his property. We also know that the
Forest Service will not issue approval of their permit until the County has approved their permit.
In the interest of avoiding unnecessary conflicts, we want you to know about the neighbors point
of view. The other issue of additional information, is something that we can talk about further, if
you are still unclear about the issues.
Sincerely,
Mark L. 1-:;ean, Director
Building & Planning Department
• •
Mark Bean
From: Mark Bean[SMTP:garcopin@rof.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 1997 7:50 AM
To: 'Clay Tucker'
Subject: Legal Description
After reviewing the new information you submitted regarding the legal for the Beaver Creek Special Use permit
with the County Attorney, he agrees with me. It is his position that to change the legal on the permit, we will have
to reopen the public hearings with the Board and consider all evidence anyone would like to submit. We would
have to treat it as if there had not been a previous hearing, in the sense that all of the previous evidence would
have to be readmitted and any new evidence could be considered by the Board. If you want to proceed, you need
to let me know in writting, with an application for the new legal.
Mark Bean. Director
Garfield County Building & Planning Dept.
Page 1
00 10
July 19, 1996
White River National Forest
Supervisor's Office
9th & Grand
P.O. Box 948
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
David Levy RPF # 1976
Phone (916) 265 - 4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265 - 1976
Email candoco@oro.net
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite 7
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City CA 95959
RE: Natural Resource Extraction Special Use Permit
We have enclosed a public notice advising of a Planning Commission public
hearing at 7:00 p.m. on August 14, 1996.
The legal description for the logging operation is enclosed also.
If you need anything further, please feel free to contact us at the above number.
Sincerely,
DLevyices
,�id Forestry
00 00
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Tucker and Frase have applied to the Garfield County Planning
Commission, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a Special Use Pell'it for a
commercial logging operation on private property in connection with the following described
property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit:
Legal Description: See attached
Practical Description: Located eight (8) miles south of Rifle, off of County Road 317, in Tepee
Park
Said Special Use Permit is to allow the Petitioners operate a commercial logging operation on
the above described property.
All persons affected by the proposed Special Use Permit are invited to appear and state their
views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are
urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections to such Special Use
Permit request, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of
surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the
request for the Special Use Permit. This Special Use Permit application may be reviewed at the
office of the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County
Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
That public hearing on the application for the above Special Use Permit has been set for the
14th day of August, 1996, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the office of the Board of County
Commissioners, Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
01 00
EXHIBIT A
All of that certain real property, together with but without warranty any and all
water rights appurtenant thereto, if any, described as follows:
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1/4) OF SECTION THIRTEEN (13),
TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-FOUR (94) WEST OF THE
SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.
THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF SECTION FIFTEEN
(15), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-FOUR (94) WEST OF
THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN.
PART OF DRAKE NO. 3
PART OF DRAKE NO. 4
PART OF DRAKE NO. 5
PART OF ALBERTA NO. 1
PART OF ALBERTA NO. 2
PART OF ALBERTA NO. 3
PART OF ALBERTA NO. 4
PART OF ALBERTA NO. 5
PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO. 1
PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO. 2
PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO. 3
PART OF VIRGINIA NO. 1
ALICE
ALICE NO. 1
ALICE NO. 2
ALICE NO. 3
LITTLE MAUD NO. 1
LITTLE MAUD NO. 3
LITTLE MAUD NO. 5
LITTLE MAUD NO. 7
LITTLE MAUD NO. 9
LITTLE MAUD NO. 11
LITTLE MAUD NO. 13
AND LITTLE MAUD NO. 15
OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIMS DESIGNATED AS SURVEY
NO. 20096, EMBRACING A PORTION OF SECTIONS TWENTY-FOUR AND
TWENTY-FIVE AND THE UNSURVEYED PORTION OF TOWNSHIP SEVEN
SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-FOUR, WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED
DECEMBER 17, 1932 IN BOOK 164 AT PAGE 486.
ALL IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO.
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning
Tucker & Frase
5221 Mica Ct.
Redding, California 96003
RE: Natural Resource Extraction Special Use Permit
Gentlemen,
June 18, 1996
On Monday, June 17, 1995, the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners officially
accepted your Special Use Permit application for the commercial harvest of timber and the use of
a haul route for the Tepee Park area, south of Rifle. At that same meeting the Board referred the
application to the Garfield County Planning Commission for their review and recommendation per
Section 9.03.03 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. The Planning
Commission review will be conducted as a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on August 14, 1996, in the
Commissioner's Hearing Room, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Copies of the enclosed public notice form must be mailed by certified return -receipt to all
property owners, public or private, adjacent to your property at least 15 days prior to the
hearing. In addition, the enclosed notice must be published one time, at least 15 days prior to the
hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the County. The certificates of mailing and
return -receipts from these mailings and the proof of publication must be presented at the time of
the meeting or submitted to the Planning Department prior to the meeting. It is your
responsibility to verify the accuracy of all enclosures, including the legal descriptions.
Subsequent to the public hearing before the Planning Commission, there will have to be a public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. This hearing will be set after the hearing
before the Planning Commission.
If you have any questions about this letter or the process noted, feel free to call or write to this
office at your convenience.
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building & Planning Department
enclosures
xc: David Levy
109 8th Street, Suite 303
945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
• •
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Tucker and Frase have applied to the Garfield County Planning
Commission, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a Special Use Permit for a
commercial logging operation on private property in connection with the following described
property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit:
Legal Description: See attached
Practical Description: Located eight (8) miles south of Rifle, off of County Road 317, in Tepee
Park
Said Special Use Permit is to allow the Petitioners operate a commercial logging operation on
the above described property.
All persons affected by the proposed Special Use Permit are invited to appear and state their
views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are
urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections to such Special Use
Permit request, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of
surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the
request for the Special Use Permit. This Special Use Permit application may be reviewed at the
office of the Planning Department located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County
Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
That public hearing on the application for the above Special Use Permit has been set for the
14th day of August, 1996, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the office of the Board of County
Commissioners, Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
A
.All did that certain real progsrty, to5ather with but without
warranty any and all water rights appurtenant thereto, if any,
denaribed as fol laws i
THE SOUTHWEST QQ 9.TTI3 (8 f J 4) or =MN TRIRTt l (13) ,
TOWNBEIp SEVEN (7) sou {, RA2dcE RINNTYNFOUR (94) 1.(1'3T of 7'HE
Or= PRINCIPAL kI'RIUYAz .
Tim sOoTH HAT, (51(2) of TH4 MouTH T7Lr ((91 a) 07,sSCTroN
�'XPTEEN (zs) , 'i'OWNsHxp s$vtiN (7) soUTgt XIAN'zE NINE'T'Y-po
uR
(94) ) sT Or THE SIXTH FRINciP.*y.t NERIDIRM,
khatx or DRA41 NO. 3
PART OF RRA NO. 4
PART o1 =AXE No, 5
WRT or AL5ERTA 104 1
phRT or AnaTA No. 2
PART DV AL . ' 3
P7i.R ' of AZUERTA $0. 4
PART OF ALURTA NO e y
PART oP p.d. ,3•txUXAR HYi. 1
kitT or P.c. JUNXbf O. 2
PART OP P.C. JUNIOR N¢. 3
PAW OP VIACINTA Ro. 1
ALIG4 NO. 2
ALXcE NO. 1
ALICE NO. 3
LITZLZ TMJ No. 1'
L. T''L 7 X of No.
LITTLE MAIID No. 5
U 'i'Y, NA NO. 7
LITTLE tun No. 9
LICE MAIM No. 11
LITTLE MAUD NC, 13'
AzrO LIT+rx.X XAU0 »a. 15
QXL saatz PLAMO rit zu C.zxs DM/ZONATED A3 scam
110..22096, EMRAOING A PoRTIou OP SP4TIONS TiaNTY-POUR AND
'T'WENT'Y-VIV$ AND 'Witt Uu5tTimvxn p4ltTIo I OP TGWNSHIP SEVEN
50Y1' 13' OV RANGE laNS7'Y-YOUR ,WRST oli' THE SIXTH Pit NCI1AL
Mg zpXAN, AS DE=NIPtD IN UNITED iSi'ATEs PATENT RE.CQRD.Fz
OncEMBzr 17, Iiia; IN ;144K 164 AT »AGS 408,
ALL IN !'H COUNTY O1 G ARFIELD
STAT4 or COL o
THE CAN DO COMPANY
David Levy RPF # 1976
Phone (916) 265 - 4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265 - 1976
Email candoco@oro.net
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th St., Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
Dear Mr. Bean,
JUN p 3 1996
GARFIELD OXY
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite 7
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City CA 95959
May 28, 1996
David Levy Forestry Services is pleased to re -submit to the Garfield Planning
Department a Forest Management Plan (FMP) for Tucker and Frase, a legal
partnership. This FMP is for land in the Beaver Creek, West Mamm Creek,
Spruce Creek and Porcupine Creek drainages south of the City of Rifle.
The FMP is the principle document that provides the information that is
requested by Garfield County building and planning for a Special Use Permit for
a commercial timber harvesting permit. and complies with the County codes for
conditional and Special Uses Paragraph 5.03.07 Industrial Operations and
5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards.
The FMP is also the supporting document for the City of Rifle Land Use
Application Form and the United States Forest Service Special Use Application
and Report.
We have also included a list of names, addresses and phone numbers of all the
individuals and agencies who will receive copies of both this Tepee Park Forest
Management Plan and U.S. Forest Service Special Use Application and any of
the other relevant supporting documents of Tepee Park Forest Management
Plan. This list may be helpful in any communication between the various
individuals participating in the review.
I have enclosed the special Use Permit application with the base fee of $525.
In addition, I am enclosing a copy of the Warranty Deed and a copy of the
Assessors map showing the property involved. Map #'s 034 and 033 on page 2405
(parcel numbers 133-00028: 160 acres and 261-00073: 2687.92 acres) and map #005
on pages 2403 and 2453 (parcel number 2453-061-00005: 1664.123 acres).
The adjacent landowners are the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management.
United States 40 Forest White River •fle Ranger District
Department of Service National 0094 County Rd 244
Agriculture Forest Rifle, CO 81650
Reply to: 2730
Date: June 19, 1995
Mr. David Levy
David A. Levy Forestry Services
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City, CA 95959
Dear Mr. Levy:
On June 7, 1995 Cindy Hockelberg of my staff and Tony Svatos, the Forest soil
scientist visited the proposed upland route flagged across National Forest
lands in Beaver Creek. The area was fairly wet and muddy however there is no
snow on the National Forest.
During the site visit the following items needing attention were noted. At the
switchback where the flagging turns to the south, the proposed route crosses
through a 1.4 acre wetland. Crossing the wetland is not recommended and would
have to be mitigated by creation of an acceptable new wetland.
The field review indicated that the road is located in unstable landslide
terrain. One recent landslide, approximately 1/2 acre in size was observed
above station 13 + 00. This slide is estimated to be 2-5 years old.
Deposits of unconsolidated clayey colluvium containing basalt fragments mantle
the slopes. This colluvium covers claystones, shales and siltstones of the
Tertiary Wasatch and Green River Formations. The combination of the colluvium
overlying the relatively impervious bedrock makes it highly susceptible to
sliding.
Slopes on the proposed route ranged from 15-50 percent, the steepr slopes being
most common. The proposed 12-14 foot wide road will result in large cuts and
fills increasing the risk of slope failure.
Based on the factors described above the risk of reactivating landsliding from
constructing a road on this flagged route warrants a geotechnical
investigation. This study should include analysis of more than one possible
upland route location. It should also evaluate the existing bottomland route
against the upland route. This route would have to be modified to eliminate
steep grades. It would also have to be relocated away from the creek to
eliminate the existing direct connectivity of the road drainage to the creek.
Levy
• •
Page 2
As previously mentioned, any location on National Forest will be designed to
tie into the roads on the private property in a manner consistent with the
approval of the land use permit from Garfield County.
If you have any questions please contact Cindy Hockelberg at (970) 625-2371.
Sincerely,
TERRY K. WOOD
District Ranger
cc: Tucker and Frase
cc: Garfield County
cc7 Colorado State Forest Service
cc: City of Rifle
• • • •
SUMMARY REPORT
Northern Goshawk
3 June 1995
On June 3, 1995 between 08:30 and 16:30 1 conducted a survey for Northern Goshawks
(Accipiter gentilis) along Deaver Creek nt the following locations: T7S. R94W., sections 19, 24,
25 & 30. The areas surveyed included the 3/4 anile road construction on the White River National
Forest, Garfield County, Colorado and the areas 1/2 mile beyond the proposed project.
The foundation for inventory protocol followed in this survey was established by Dr. Richard
Reynolds for Arizona and New Mexico in the USDA Forest Service publication: Southwestern
: Region Goshawk Inventory Protocol for 1992. Transects were established about 300 meters
apart and calling stations were located along these transects at about 150 to 200 meter intervals.
Thirty three stations were established. The "adult alarm" call was broadcast at each calling station.
Winds were calm and the weather was fair. No Goshawks were observed or heard during the
survey. A pair of Red-tailed hawks were observed throughout the day and aggressive behavior
and vocalizations noted. A Sharp -shinned hawk was observed and a roost site of this bird was
located. Golden -crowned kinglets were observed in the conifer component of this area. Prime
Purple Martin habitat was noted about 2000 feet east of the project site but none were observed.
Respectfully su in'ticd
Kim M. Potter, Biologist
440 East 7th Street
Rifle, Colorado 81650
(970) 625-3713
..®jt..� R E SPJU R
.
r1.■■■
■.■.■ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C.
Mr. Tim Moore
City of Rifle
PO Box 1908
Rifle CO 81650
1)
MAR 2 3 1995
GARFIELD D "Y
March 21, 1995
RE: Teepee Park Forest Management Plan/Beaver Creek Municipal Watershed
Dear Tim:
Mr. David Levy of David Levy Forestry Services has provided our office with a copy of
their report entitled, Teepee Park Forest Management Plan. The report describes the
proposed Tucker and Frase timber sale operation located, in part, within the City's
Beaver Creek municipal watershed. We have completed a preliminary review of the
report and provide the following comments for your consideration.
GENERAL
The proposed Forest Management Plan (FMP) can provide benefit to the Beaver Creek
municipal watershed if properly implemented. Accumulation of over -mature timber
stands create risk of disease and subsequent fire. The Applicant's plan could increase
the health and vigor of the forest thereby reducing the risk of major fire within the
municipal watershed.
If not properly implemented however, the timber management plan could itself cause
adverse impacts to the watershed. The plan proposes extensive land disturbing
activities that will require careful construction and mitigation techniques. Due to the
extensive activities, we believe that there is a significant risk of disrupting the integrity
of the watershed. Consequently, we recommend that the proposal be evaluated under
the City's Municipal Watershed Ordinance (Ordinance No. 22) and that a permit be
issued or denied based upon a full analysis of potential impacts.
The FMP represents a significant improvement in content and descriptions compared
to the preliminary plan that was submitted to the City and County last fall. It is
u Na Urcil that the Applicants have made a concerted effort to address many of
the
concerns raised by the various reviewing entities. The FMP, however, falls short of
meeting the submission requirements outlined in the City's Municipal Watershed
District Ordinance. Additional information will be necessary to adequately access the
potential impacts and mitigation associated with the Applicant's proposal. This
additional information and other general comments concerning the submitted are
outlined below.
ROADS
1. The Forest Management Plan should extend its soil inventory and erosion hazard
rating north of the Applicant's property to include the proposed road to be
constructed on National Forest land. This road crosses steep terrain and has
potential to adversely impact the watershed.
Consulting Engineer's and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 91 601 • (303) 945-6777 • Fax (303) 945-1137
• •
Mr. Tim Moore
City of Rifle
Page 2
March 21, 1995
2. Additional information along the proposed road corridors is necessary to
evaluate potential impacts. The additional information that should be provided
includes:
a. Accurate contours establishing the topography of the existing ground at
a minimum of 10 foot intervals.
b. A soils and geologic analysis of the road corridor addressing potential
hazards and slope stability concerns.
c. Typical roadway design at key locations through the varying terrain
including; elevations, dimensions, typical cross-sections, location and
extent of proposed cut and fill slopes.
d. A revegetation plan including a list of plant species, application rates and
mulching requirements.
e. A map outlining wetland vegetation and plans to avoid and/or mitigate
road construction impacts.
3. The FMP on pages 9 and 11 discusses the benefit of relocating the Beaver
Creek road away from the creek. However, there is no discussion or
submission of plans on how the existing road will be reclaimed by the
Applicant.
4. Page 23 of the FMP states that the new road system will be unsurfaced. We
believe the main roads within watercourse protection zones should be surfaced
with a gravel road base to prevent continued erosion and subsequent stream
sedimentation. Also, the Forest Service should close the proposed haul road to
traffic during the spring snowmelt period.
5. The FMP should provide a basis for the selected culvert sizing at the various
stream crossing c (sec Watercourse Crocsing Map, page 17)
WATERCOURSE PROTECTION ZONE (WPZ)
The equipment exclusion zones (EEZ) proposed on page 29 of the FMP should be
increased from 50 feet to 100 feet. The requested change is made to ensure
protection of the municipal water source.
Winter harvesting within the EEZ could be considered on a case by case basis
depending upon site characteristics. The Applicant should submit site specific that
would be reviewed and approved prior to entry.
RESOURCE
N i- 1 N E E FING
• •
Mr. Tim Moore
City of Rifle
Page 3
March 21, 1995
WATER QUALITY PLAN AND BEST MANAGEMENT PROTECTION
A water quality plan should be developed as part of the FMP. The plan would address
existing stream quality and provide for periodic monitoring through the duration of the
timber sales activity. An action plan should be developed in the event monitoring
indicates that problems are originating from within the study area.
The water quality plan would also describe best management practices expected with
road construction and timber removal activities. It would contain an inventory of
materials to be maintained on site in the event that additional temporary erosion control
measures become necessary. Such materials might include straw bales, plastic liner,
filter fence, culverts and bank stabilization materials such as rock rip -rap.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the Teepee Park Forest Management Plan.
If you or members of City council have questions concerning our findings, please do
not hesitate to call. Also, we would be willing to meet with responsibilities of the
David Levy Forestry Company to discuss our recommendations in greater detail.
Sincerely,
RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC.
j G
R. Scott Fifer
Hydrologist
RSF/mmm
341-1.2 i .s: timoer.345
CC: Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County
RESOURCE
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning
March 21, 1995
David Levy
David A. Levy Forestry Services
P.O.Box 1797
Nevada City, CA 95959
Dear Mr. Levy :
On Monday, March 20, 1995, I met with Tim Moore, Rifle City Engineer; Kelly Rogers,
Colorado State Forest Service; Gary Osier and Cindy Hockelberg, White River National
Forest to discuss the Teepee Park Forest Management Plan submitted in support of the
Special Use permit application made by the Tucker and Frase Partnership. The purpose of
the meeting was to assist me in determining whether or not the application is complete and
addresses all issues required by the Garfield County Zoning Resolution in Section 5.03.07.
It was the general consensus of the group that the application is not complete at this time
and additional information needs to be developed prior to submittal to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration.
As we have noted in previous conversations and correspondence, one of the primary
concerns about this application is the impact to the Beaver Creek water supply owned by
the City of Rifle. One of the requirements of the Zoning Resolution is in Section 5.03.07
(1)(A), which states that the impact statement shall address,"existing lawful use of water
through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, stream flow or ground water." John
Denison, in his March 16, 1995 letter notes that roads are proposed in areas with soils
having "severe- slope and load bearing strength" for improved unsurfaced roads. Based on
your 1/9/95 letter, the County Attorney does not feel that your requested lot line
adjustment is consistent with the subdivision regulations. The affidavit signed by persons
making such an adjustment states that no lot will created that does not meet the zoning
resolution requirements. The proposed exchange would create a new lot that does not meet
the minimum lot size requirements. The existing lot appears to be a nonconforming lot, but
the only records submitted the transfer of the property to you in 1975. Based on the
County Attorneys determination, it would be necessary for you to increase the size of the
by the readjustment of the property lines for all three lots shown on the plat, so that each
parcel is 2.0 acres in size. Other members of the review team agreed with Mr. Denison's
recommendation that a soils engineering /geotechinical feasibility needs to be done prior to
proceeding. This is based on the concern that there may be excessive erosion or mass
109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/625-5571/285-7972
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
• •
sliding on the property, which could have a negative impact on the Beaver Creek water
quality.
The City of Rifle has adopted a watershed protection ordinance that requires the issuance
of a permit by them. They recognize that only about a quarter of a mile of your property
falls within their direct jurisdiction, we all agree that the proposed logging activity in the
area above their jurisdiction could impact the City's water supply. We will be concerned
about the entire area in the Beaver Creek drainage as a part of the Special Use permit
process and would suggest that you address all of your property in your application to the
City for their permit.
Another point of general concern is the timing of the application and the ability of various
parties to be able to actually go on site to review various parts of the management plan.
The U.S. Forest Service has stated that they will not be in a position to review or approve
the road permit until they can physically go on the site and walk the proposed route. The
City's hydrologist will want to go on site to review the proposed culvert locations. The
State Forest Service has expressed concerns about being able to review the forest
management plan without being able to physically access the site. It was generally agreed
that the site was not going to be accessible until mid to late June, at the earliest.
Other issues of concern that were noted either in the meeting or in correspondence are the
following:
The Colorado Division of Wildlife should be contacted prior to any resubmittal to
receive their input into the proposed plan.
It appears that you may be proposing a man camp for the workers on the site. There
are no provisions for this type of use in the A/R/RD zone district.
The discussion of the impacts to the County roads is very weak in that there are a
number of issue related to conflicts with existing traffic that are not addressed.
additionally, you should be aware that the City and County have already expressed
concerns about the capacity of County Road 320 to accommodate much more
traffic.
Better definition of the proposed days and hours of operation need to be included in
any additional information submitted.
These issues are those identified in the initial review and should not be considered an all
inclusive list of issues that may come up as a part of the formal review of the application
and is intended to be a completeness review, not an adequacy review of the information.
•
Based on the the prior comments, you should consider this letter to be notice of the need for
additional information in the application made by the Tucker/Frase Partnership for a
Special Use permit for a natural resource extraction operation. If you have any further
questions about this issue, feel free to call or write to this office.
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building and Planning Department
MLB/mb
cc: Tim Moore, City of Rifle
Kelly Rogers, Colorado State Forest Service
Cindy Hockelberg, White River National Forest
1 •
OOinM p i *3 C -n /ee_io ee 4r1/
Zff5iL9l Sys Jteo i..\__-
i) J ee Q Tluc ke map lir (Patric -e /. 11010,4,17/
P GNCe e 1-6-cifS"/
��s IS u �hPr�lZ c./ G pf:r� f
04 +hQ kni//s/cpe C(0sc- fcs /k ricrye Am -
04 _e 6rec Leiwee/I incecaty- . got -of; O/oerctC/e_
romod aid f retold 7Lz)v S /-esep 7rr i�-eic /C1^ • V -e,..,
f ( s -1� c r Cu);',lin (di
:e �e. , r-, u � rC�� h� l -U
c7€+ 5 .-e-epe,--, Info Pa rcc4 p,,,, Or < 6iCo4 vet
Gic.v.c_ , i p co 6/err► 15 00141au ��clezi b ce
r�
/ h e✓uSiu- hozcvci- Spav1 1s c�'�so (/ery /o
l a,ocru') LGc-l� o der Lec 'it vv pit S4 /,y "e
rUucPS 004CO 06(Gts-e. /c te,k c) / flay/vue/ Pv)Uuyh
0 Coc43e._ Ass / on e- efra Sc,t5,0eri: /a/-1 Gt/4/e -A
,j/// rc& /1- /0 Seuere_ IVeIic!9rL✓j 1 a.c! -Qv ,5,u,- , is
nU'- VkcJ lis vo deQ11/e,- , 6c4 /- 0- i' a rrd rIc .
Core_ mu bf be -u kev 4-0 00-e (,c.11 lei ou l y, rbc r
G JAAitof vcti c., il,k, toys t)c lc r r Consfrucho,i
6A on S )'ci L oacds- v opt el tal 4S Aaf-
wl 11 1101 ac -k(46 6,e QZ/-e I-0 /c; Ai va, o/ d/ku JC -
7r csUi( I L. S s/ew• wCi "CJrtif Sidw%�0 /Vlor
10 cwt. CoaC1rt.t,c. - lvfr. or UJ.e c) Pi(4/71 5,&4n IC("tial r
Fin
&WM) tiL 77
4fl1
-fir (3 r oud S y5 l cvv
1)10,
pG'l /C/o
�oy ftlS
s hof t0;y45/.c
rc
wi l/ 6-e_
�GGi r /Wu Io 4,a i-Pr etc, r /Au/ #e
rU ash c3 o k1 - 5p ch// / MI i%.
u us(4- (d- Lev 04 fahone 2_ dic-wfa(
WP Z EE Z 5Ac),4 /I c hove OPAfr p lltG S k'nL- 1WOU/CC
A-e l p „ a 9 Cl n A,,,, // a ✓il YJ / 5 `' S ,s-A-0u 1r.1
€ 46 p ,.JO/-erh Yeo d. /20 /2'5t
i sct 11 1 ! Cspec<« 8 [Sall 6c fowl
4--ev (4 , as i' heC -eSSa
TCL v'� o r -e w f 0 0 v1 l se 4 vt
T S �� vS prod J
b 1 6k L61164," awl, SO 11.1 5 ue-lv
VVI (,tsJ- 6e. r rot littio w - ( a y 11% na /
1 IC 004- do 61-€ &e---
A
H
Boundary
Property / THP
Boundary: —
Yarding Methods
Cable:
426 Acres
(29%)
Helicopter:
356 Acres
(24%)
Tractor:
672 Acres
(4690)
C
H H H
Existing Roads
Seasonal: u — — — —
Seasonal
Reconstruction: • • • • 1
Road to be
Abandoned:
Proposed Roads
Seasonal: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Temporary: — — — —
ENLARGED MAP OF
HARVEST AREA AND
YARDING SYSTEMS
\ JO AMM
A RULISON 7.5 MIN.
USGS EUAUUANGtES
Sections 31, 30, 25, 24,15,
8, 7, 6 & 5 • T7S, T8S,
R93W, R94W, 6PM
Garfield County
4,464 Acre THP
Contour Interval 40'
2050'
APPAo%IMATE SCALE....
1
GARFPELD COUNTY
March 16, 1995
Mr. Jeff Calvert
David A. Levy Forestry Services
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City, CA 95959
FOREST
SERVICE
State Services Building
222 S. 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone (303) 248-7325
Dear Mr. Calvert,
Thank you for sending us copies of your forest management plan for the Tucker
and Frase Property. Overall, this plan is well done with good maps, however we
do have concerns particularly about the volume determinations and road
construction planned.
Volume
The primary concern about the volume information supplied in this plan is that
there is no quantitative data or statement in the plan that will enable an
evaluation of the harvest planned or in progress. We feel that the plan should
state the level of harvest planned, so that this level could be approved and
used as the guideline for the proposed harvest. In other words, the harvest is
either following the approved plan or not.
Specifically, the plan should identify a percentage of basal area per acre
that is to be harvested. Please reference Shepperd and Alexander's
Silviculture of Spruce -Fir Forests in the Central Rocky Mountains, which we
gave you, p. 33 "remove up to 40% of the basal area." This maximum removal of
40% of the basal area (in below-average windrisk stands) is the standard for
spruce -fir management in this area, whether you are talking about shelterwood
or group -selection harvesting. If more than 40% of the BA is removed it is
likely there will be excessive windthrow, excessive damage of advanced
reproduction, and/or excessive erosion on steep slopes. Quantification of the
harvest based on basal area will simultaneously take into account diameter and
stems per acre.
On page 18 of your plan it is stated that "The majority of the conifer stands
proposed for harvest were cruised in 1993...," yet there is none of this data
in the plan. The only specific volume information supplied is for one acre of
the property in the bottom of Beaver Creek. Total harvest volumes for the S -F
are given as 12-15 MMBF which would equate to 8,200-10,300 bd. ft./acre (over
1454 acres), page 4 of the plan. This would mean there is 20,500 - 25,750 bd.
ft./a. gross, unless the plan is to take more than 40% of the volume. This
gross volume/acre is not supported by USFS Stage II data for surrounding
stands which show an average gross vol./acre of 18,000 bd. ft./acre.
On page 22 of the plan it says "Groups of Englemann spruce will be the primary
species selected as "leave." The graph data supplied for the 1 acre
demonstration plot shows (on page 25) just the opposite. Additionally, the
tabular data on page 24 shows 75% of the spruce will be cut and only 49% of
the fir.
• •
Other Comments
The wildlife section of this plan was well done. The only addition might be to
contact the local Colorado Division of Wildlife District Wildlife Manager,
Perry Will, for his comments. Perry's phone number is 303/876-2120.
Page 16: The LP mill in Walden is closed.
Page 40: #6 Ground based yarding equipment will not be allowed within 25 ft.
of the high water mark on either side of a stream regardless of snow depth.
See John Denison Nov. 29, 1994 correspondence to David Levy.
Page 42: See above 11/29/94 correspondence. The middle illustration is
accurate; the top illustration is not.
All measurements will be horizontal, not slope as depicted.
Page 45: There are no public roads or railroads on the property.
Pages 46-48: This wildfire section is good. Please specify pump capacity in
gallons/minute and size and length of hose to be maintained on the truck or
pumper (page 48, #11).
Page 49: Maximum slash height recommendation in this area is 18".
Page 54: Endangered species appear to be well covered.
Page 55:
-Extend the spring breakup period through June for this altitude.
- i would recommend to Garfield Co. that they assess a 3/ton/mile rock &
pavement replacement fee and a road/bridge damage performance bond for use of
county roads.
- Dust control measures may be needed mere than once a year.
-What is the expected time span of this project?
-Will weekend hauling be allowed? Less impact on residents with no weekend
hauling, but would lengthen time span of project.
I think this harvest could be a good example of proper spruce -fir management,
and I hope that the road/soils concerns can be successfully addressed.
Sincerely,
John W. Denison
District Forester
C/ fc`iMark Bean, Garfield County Planner
• •
TUCKER & FRASE
The California Building
1805 Hilltop Drive, Suite 201
Redding, California 96002
March 6, 1995
Mark Bean
Garfield Planning Agency
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 91601-3303
RE: Teepee Park Management Plan
Dear Mr. Bean:
This letter is to confirm that Tucker & Frase has entered into
an agreement with David Levy Forestry Services to prepare and
submit a Timber Management Plan for us. There are two
representatives from David Levy Forestry Services authorized by us
to act on our behalf. These two representatives, David Levy and
Jeff Calvert can act either jointly on individually regarding this
management plan.
We also acknowledge and agree that David Levy Forestry
Services can act on our behalf, and attend any public or special
meetings in obtaining a Special Use Permit and any other necessary
documents or permits pertaining to the timber management and
harvesting of our property known as Teepee Park.
Signatures:
Clay Tucker
Daniel M. Tucker
David P. Frase
Timothy D. Fr se
kw.
Sharon L. Tucker Stacey D. F 'ase
• •
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL, of the proposed commercial logging
operations as a natural resource extraction operation, with the following conditions of
approval
1. That all verbal and written proposals of the applicant shall be considered condition of
approval, unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That prior to issuance of a County Special Use permit, the applicant receive a Special
Use from the U.S. Forest Service for a haul route and the appropriate land use permit
from the City of Rifle for watershed protection. Any additional conditions of
approval attached to those permits shall be considered conditions of approval for this
permit.
3. That all timber hauling on County Roads be on Monday through Friday, between the
hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. That any helicopter hauling will only occur between the
hours of 7 a. m. to 5 p. m., Monday through Friday.
4. The haul route for timber and other overweight service vehicles will be approved by
the County Road & Bridge Supervisor. Additionally, an overweight vehicle permit
will be acquired for each vehicle needing such permit.
5. That the forest management practices will be monitored for compliance with the
proposed Teepee Park Forest Management plan by a consultant agreed upon by the
Board of County Commissioners and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant.
6. Approval of this application is based on the representations of the Forest Supervisor
of the White River National Forest that Forest Service Road No. 824 is a legal right-
of-way for the proposed Special Use permit. It is the responsibility of the applicant
to obtain a declaration of the status of the road from a court with the appropriate
jurisdiction
7. That prior to the issuance of a Special Use permit, the applicant submit engineered
plans for the construction of intervisible turnouts on CR 317 meeting the Forest
Service standards for sizing and spacing. Additionally, the applicant will be
responsible for the acquisition any additional right-of-way necessary for the placement
of the turnouts, without the County's use of the power of eminent domain.
8. That prior to the issuance of a Special Use permit, the applicant shall pay for an
overlay of at least 1 1/2 inches asphalt overlay of County Road 320 from the City
Limits of Rifle to the intersection of CR 317 and 320, that is acceptable to the Board
of County Commissioners. A road bond of $100,00 will be placed with the Road and
9
• •
Bridge Department to be used for the repair of CR 320 due to damage attributable to
the applicant's activities. The bond shall be valid for the period of time that the
applicant is actively logging on their property.
9. This Special Use Permit is subject to review for compliance or noncompliance with
performance requirements associated with the issuance of the permit. The applicant
will be required to submit a report one year from the date of approval of a resolution
of approval indicating the measures taken to comply with the performance
requirements of the permit. The Board of County Commissioners will review the
report in a public meeting within 30 days of receipt of the report and may determine
that a public hearing is necessary to consider suspension of the permit or that
conditions of approval must be met before additional activities can occur on the
property.
10
716 Vantage Ln.
Las Vegas, NV 89128
February 3, 1997
Garfield County
Board of Commissioners
Glenwood Springs, CO
•
• (ti
RE: Proposed widening of County Road 317
I somehow overlooked the notice of this meeting in the Rifle Citizen Telegram and have an
unbreakable commitment which will not allow me to attend this meeting. I would like to express
my opinion nonetheless.
As a landowner of property bordering County Road 317, I wish to strongly express my objection
to the proposed widening and use by logging trucks of this road. The one and one quarter mile
of my land that borders the county road does not need to be widened for the following reasons.
1. The cost to Garfield County to build and maintain the road would be significant and I am
sure necessitate and increase in property taxes. The widening of the road would entail the
purchase of miles of easement land. Building of wider bridges and construction on land of
heavily foliaged land along hillsides, would be a major expense compared to widening most
roads. I am certainly not in favor of increasing my taxes of those of Garfield County citizens to
build and particularly properly maintain a wider road, which is providing no additional benefit to
any of us.
2. I am not interested in selling any portion of my land for widening the road or for any
proposed turnouts to widen the road. The amount of traffic on this road and trespassing on my
property has increased significantly in the past years. Any major road improvements would
certainly bring an increase in traffic and trespassing. It could possibly lead to the lack of
access to the road to my cabin, established by my grandfather in 1906.
3. The environmental impact of increased traffic and trespassing will ensure the quick
deterioration of the road during wet weather. The hillside erosion will effect not only the road
and land but also Beaver Creek. The dust from vehicle traffic is already a concern for the
plants and trees and over time will effect Beaver Creek. These environmental concerns %Alin
ultimately effect the wildlife of the area if deterioration continues. I am sure the County does
not intend to build a paved road so it is inevitable that environmental deterioration will occur
with a widened and unpaved road.
I fervently hope you will carefully consider and address my concerns. I do not believe I am
being a selfish landowner and against progress. I do believe in the pristine beauty of this area
of Garfield County and sincerely wish it to remain so.
Lee Rinehart
• •
Petition
To the Garfield County Commissioners
February 9, 1997
The residents and landowners of Taughenbaugh Mesa who's
signatures appear below adamently oppose commercial logging
operations proposed to be conducted at and around Teepee
Park at the headwaters of Beaver Creek. We request that
the County Special Use permit be denied.
We oppose said logging for the following reasons.
1) We are dependant on the waters of Beaver Creek for our
irrigation and in most cases our domestic water.
2) Deforestation of our steep and narrow watershed will
without doubt greatly increase the turbidity of our water.
3) IT will cause much more rapid smow melt thus shortening
our already limited irrigation season.
4) The introduction of heavy machinery and personnel will
introduce a strong potential for polution of our water.
5)County Road 320 is our only reasonable access to our
properties. It is narrow and winding with tight switch-
backs which will not accomodate log trucks without
endangering other motorists.
Address:
P- 4-7
/1,4,4v1(2
it3'J- .3.-1 Z /a ad
U . ei2 6_04.4L14t i.G+L- f i
/41,0o? eoz4e-x,4:V20_, 11"--6
20'x' _Ty _Pv11 :5_,L1.14_11_4 C,= SY
913 coik,,1c2 Cc) 1/,‘s�
g 15 2,€ r 1e o giZ6".
12601-- z_Za V1" cO t / /- v
Dame:
• •
Address:
.3�C- 3�
'64,-,c, 11 ��� 77 V I 6 r 3 a 0 -✓
illit
alzie
sip / � 8/Ace
air - Toad 3.2/ iSk_e_a_sil (50
9IJJ _3,2/ Al iF� A5.0
o 71 (c)6eD
c'/6c
7-jCiZOr
3�-L
0,51- e4 32-1
� £S 54 ('!2 -�).- c P, t kL _81 S
detuyo-- :.201
f; — 3 1 1PD _LYLE,z
9 /x - 2.2o kee 1 4-f r/46-0
%'y/ s a v P,1 P l6 sz
,w8 32.0 /2.0 ,�, vs-) a
/re/4?L' 5O ij /0'6S -D
1�
V‘27 Pd 33-D
_44/5e/ e/� 5v
//J_. .3a/ fed 8/65)
CITY or RIFLE
202 RAIL r )AD AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1908 • RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 • (970) 625-2121 • FAX (970) 625-3210
February 7, 1997
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Commissioners:
RECE VED
FEB 1997
GARFIELD
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The City of Rifle appreciates the great diligence the County Planning Commission and staff
exercised in reviewing this issue and acknowledging our concerns. As you know, we will be
conducting our own analysis and Public Hearing process in Rifle which will focus on the water
quality and quantity issues. In reviewing the list of conditions the Planning Commission placed on
the application for your consideration, I would like to offer the following amendments to them:
Change Recommendation #2 to read as follows:
That prior to issuance of a County Special Use permit, the applicant receive a Special Use
from the U.S. Forest Service for a haul route and approval from the City of Rifle for
watershed protection measures for all of the project area tributary to Beaver Creek.
In Recommendation #5, allow the City of Rifle to participate in the selection of the
consultant hired to monitor compliance.
In Recommendation #8, add the inch and one half overlay to South 7th Street from the
intersection of Taughenbaugh Blvd /Highway 13 to County Road 320.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
'''-‘^\
avid M. Ling
Mayor
FEB -10-1997 100:51
CITY OF RIFLE
97n 625 7210 P . 01
ILIFLE
CI of
202 RAILROAD AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1908 • RIFLE, COLC,RADO 81G50 • (970) 625-2121 • FAX (970) 625-3210
February 7, 1997
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Commissioners:
The City of Rifle appreciates the great diligence the County Planning Commission and staff'
exercised in reviewing this issue and acknowledging our concerns. As you know, we will be
conducting our own analysis and Public Hearing process in Rifle which will focus on the water
quality and quantity issues. In reviewing the list of conditions the Planning Commission_ placed on
the application for your consideration, I would like to offer the following amendments to them:
1. Change Recommendation 42 to read as follows:
That prior to issuance
from the U.S. Forest
watershed protection
of a County Special Use permit, the applicant receive a Special Use
ervice for a haul route and approval from the City of Rifle for
neasures for all of the project area tributary to Beaver Creek.
2. In Recommendation ", allow the City of Rifle to participate in the selection of the
consultant hired to monitor compliance.
3. In Recommendation 8, add the inch and one half overlay to South 7th Street from the
intersection of Taughenbaugh Blvd./Kigghway 13 to County Road 320.
Thank you for your consider-
Sincerely,
avid M. Lin
Mayor
tion in this matter.
T0TPL P.01
FE2-1E1-199 10:51 CITY OF RIFLE
CI
of Fe,I LE
97n EDF 3210 P.01
202 RAILROAD AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1908 • RIFLE, COLCRADO 81650 • (970) 625-2121 * FAX (970) 625-3210
February 7, 1997
Garfield County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Commissioners:
The City of Rifle appreciates the great diligence the County Planning Commission and staff
exercised in reviewing this issue and acknowledging our concerns. As you know, we will be
conducting our own analysis Public Hearing process in Rifle which will focus on the water
quality and quantity issues. reviewing the list of conditions the Planning Commission placed on
the application for your consi4eration, I would like to offer the following amendments to them:
1. Change Recommendathon #2 to read as follows:
That prior to issuance
from the U.S. Forest
watershed protection
of a County Special Use permit, the applicant receive a Special Use
ervice for a haul route and approval from the City of Rifle for
neasures for all of the project area tributary to Beaver Creek.
In Recommendation i5, allow the City of Rifle to participate in the selection of the
consultant hired to monitor compliance.
In Recommendation 4-8, add the inch and one half overlay to South 7th Street from the
intersection of laugh nbaugh B1vdJFFghway 13 to County Road 320.
Thank you for your consider tion in this matter.
Sincerely,
r
vid M. Lin
Mayor
Post -it- Fax Nota
7671
Phone
Fax
TOTHL F' . 01
LUCKY 13 RANCH
SUSANNA & CHRIS LOCHER
2309 317 RD.
RIFLE, CO 81650
P.O.BOX 2567
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MARIAN
JOHN
LARRY
109 8 STREET
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
RIFLE 1.15.97
RE: TUCKER AND FRASE PROPOSED TIMBER "MANAGEMENT PLAN"
CASE: 1950/2730
HEARING 2.10.97
DEAR MARIAlN, JOHN, LARRY
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. STUDYING THIS CASE. A SIMILAR LETTER HAS BEEN SENT TO
THE P&Z BOARD, THE CITY OF RIFLE AND THE FOREST SERVICE DURING OCTOBER 96. IN
THE MEANTIME THE P&Z BOARD HAVE APPROVED OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL LOGGING
WITH 9 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.
LET ME INTRODUCE OURSELVES FIRST. WE OWN THE LUCKY 13 RANCH, 2309 317 RD, THE
LAST RANCH ON BEAVER CREEK IN SECTION 36. WITH THE RANCH GOES A BLM PERMIT AND
A FOREST SERVICE PERMIT. THE BLM PERMIT (BEAVER -MAIM) HAS BOUNDARIES SOUTH OF
RIFLE, BEHIND MC DONALDS, TO THE EAST GRASS MESA, THE FOREST SERVICE LINE ON
THE SOUTHERN SIDE AND THE BEAVER CREEK VALLEY MORE OR LESS. THE ENTIRE
FLATIRON IS PART OF THIS PERMIT. OUR FOREST SERVICE PERMIT ENCOMPASSES
PROPERTY WITHIN THE BEAVER CREEK WATERSHED UP TO SOUTH XAY PEAK. FURTHERMORE
WE OPERATE A BLM PERMIT TOGETHER WITH ROY SAVAGE AND THE MEAD'S IN PORCUPINE.
ALL TOGETHER APPROX. 23'000 ACRES CO`^_BINED. THE RANCH TOGETHER WITH THE CITY
AND THE SAVAGES HAS WATER RIGHTS DATING BACK TO 1872. WE ARE IN 3 PRIORITY.
240 BASIS ACRES ARE DRY PASTURE, 80 ACRES ARE ALFALFA IRRIGATED FIELDS. DURING
THE PAST YEARS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (SOIL CONSERVATION) IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
US, HAVE INVESTED SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS TO IMPROVE THE OUTDATED IRRIGATION
SYSTEM AND PREVENT SOIL EROSION.
SOME HISTORY.... LESS THAN 2 YEARS AGO, FINALLY A LONG LASTING EXPENSIVE LEGAL
BATTLE OVER 1/10 FOOT OF WATER IN BEAVER CREEK BETWEEN THE CITY OF RIFLE AND
THE STOCKWATERERS CAME TO AN END. AT LEAST FOR NOW. THE LEGAL BILLS EXCEEDED
$ 70'000.- IN STOCKWATERERS- AND THE CITIZEN OF RILE'S FUNDS.
CONSIDERING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (COUNTY) OR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO TRANSPORT
TIMBER ON PUBLIC LAND AND OR PUBLIC ROADS, THE FOLLOWING 5 MAYOR ISSUES SHOULD
BE CAREFULLY ADDRESSED:
- WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
- ROAD SYSTEM, SUITABILITY
- EXISTING HISTORICAL USES
- FUTURE USE OF DEFORESTED LANDS
- IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD
1. WATER
OUR WATER RIGHTS WERE ADJUDICATED DURING THE LATER PART OF THE LAST CENTURY
AND DURING THE FIRST 2 DECADES DURING THIS CENTURY. PRESIDENT T. ROOSEVELT BY
HIS SECRETARY MADE OUR DITCH (DAME DITCH) PATENT IN 1916. TUCKER / FRASE'S
PROPOSAL TO LOG (DEFOREST) 4000 +/- ACRES IN A VERY FRAGILE AND SENSITIVE
ECOSYSTEM SEEMS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY. I'M SURPRISED HOW "EXPERTS" HAVE
THE COURAGE TO DECLARE PUBLICLY, THAT LOGGING WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE WATER
SHED. OPERATING MOST OF BEAVER CREEK'S WATER SHED WITH CATTLE FROM SPRING TILL
FALL GIVES US AN INDEPTH PICTURE ON HOW THIS VERY COMPLEX SYSTEM WORKS. DURING
THE RUN-OFF MONTHS APRIL; /MAY AND JUNE, SNOW MELTS - THE MAJORITY SHOWS UP AS
SPRING RLN -OFF. DURING JULY TILL OCTOBER, THE CREEK IS FED BY THOUSANDS OF
LITTLE SPRINGS. THIS TREMENDOUS STORAGE SYSTEM COMPRISES OF A RICH MOISTURE
RETAINING SOIL SYSTEM, HELD TOGETHER BY TREES AND SHRUBS. ONCE DESTROYED OR
ALTERED, IT WILL LOOSE IT'S FUNCTION. ONCE THE TOP SOIL HAS ERODED THE
ECOSYSTEM WILL NEVER BE RESTORED EVER AGAIN. HAVEN'T T.E LEARNED FROM THE PAST?
I SINCERELY HOPE, WE CAN DO BETTER.
2. ROAD SYSTEM`_
THE FOLLOWING USE ON 320 AND 317 ROAD REACH A LEVEL, SOMETIMES COMPARABLE WITH
TRAFFIC IN A MAJOR CITY: LOCAL RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC, AGRICULTURE, GAS WELL
(MAINTENANCE) GAS WELL (NEW DRILL RIGGS) TOURISTS AND HUNTERS. THE FIRST 3
MILES ON 317 RD. ARE OF SUCH SIZE, THAT 2 CARS CAN CROSS AT REDUCED SPEED. A
TRUCK AND A PASSENGER CAR HAVE PROBLEMS IN SOME AREAS, PARTICULARLY WHEN WET.
2 TRUCKS CAN NOT CROSS SAFELY. PAST OUR RANCH (SOUTH OF SECTION 36) 80 o OF
THE COUNTY RD. IS BUILT FOR SINGLE LANE ONLY. IT IS BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION
HOW ADDITIONAL 20 TRUCK .MOTIONS/DAY PLUS 40 EMPLOYEES WITH THEIR CARS PLUS
SUPPORT TRAFFIC (FUEL. REPAIRS. PARTS, HELICOPTER SUPPORT, GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS, PORTER POTTY SERVICE, FOOD, BUILDING MATERIAL, ETC.) SHOULD BE
ABSORBED ON A SINGLE LANE ROAD. RECENT EXPERIENCES WITH BARRETT DURING THIS
SUMMER HAVE SHOWN MAJOR DISRUPTION OF OUR CATTLE OPERATION. AN ACCIDENT
WAITING TO HAPPEN.
3. EXISTING AND HISTORICAL USES
RE: WATER
THE APPLICANTS EXPERT CLAIM (SEE ORIGINAL APPLICATION TU'CKER,'FRASE FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN) THAT WATER WOULD SHOW UP IN THE SPRING EARLIER THAN
HISTORICAL. THIS WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL FOR RANCHING: IF WATER IS APPLIED
T00 EARLY IN THE SEASON, ALFALFA PLANTS ARE DESTROYED. AS LONG AS TEMPS
ARE DROPPING BELOW FREEZING, OUR IRRIGATION SYSTEM (BIG GUNS, SIDE
ROLLERS) IS FREEZING UP .AND RENDERS ITSELF WORTHLESS. THERE IS A WELL
BALANCED SYSTEM BETWEEN SNOW MELTING AND IRRIGATION, THAT SHOULD NOT BE
CHALLENGED. A SOLUTION TO MITIGATE THIS PROBLEM WOULD BE A HOLDING POND,
(MAJOR DAM).
EARLY RUN-OFF RESULTS IN LESS WATER DURING THE SUMMER FALL MONTHS, ASSUM-
ING SAME AMOUNTS OF SNOW.
LESS TREES MEANS LESS SHADE - THEREFORE MORE SUN EXPOSURE OF EXISTING SNOW
PACK. SINCE 60 - 80 o OF SNOW EVAPORATES IN COLORADO, THESE NUMBERS WILL
BE PUSHED UPWARDS - DEFINITELY LESS RUN-OFF.
ONCE THE TREES ARE CUT DOWN, THE ROOT SYSTEM WILL NOT RETAIN THE TOP SOIL.
NOT ONLY WILL WATER APPEAR ALL AT ONCE, IT'S TURBIDITY WILL BE VERY HIGH.
OUR NOZZLES ARE NOT DESIGNED TO HANDLE SUCH QUALITY OF WATER. THE TAX
PAYERS INVESTMENT ON TAUGENBOUGH MESA (WATER TREATMENT PLANT) WILL RENDER
ITSELF USELESS, SINCE IT CAN NOT HANDLE MUD WATER EITHER.
RE: GRAZING/HUNTING
MOST OF THESE VALLEYS HAVE BEEN GRAZED BY CATTLE FOR CENTURIES. WITHOUT
THE TREES, LESS MOISTURE IN THE SOIL, GRASSES WILL DRY UP EARLIER IN THE
SEASON. WE DEPEND ON GRAZING AT THAT ALTITUDE AFTER MID OF JULY, OTHERWISE
LARKSPUR WILL KILL EVEN MORE COWS. ONCE GRAZING BECOMES EXTINCT THE DEER
AND ELK WILL CHANGE THEIR HABITS T00. CONSIDERING HUNTING BEING THE MOST
IMPORTANT "INDUSTRY" IN COLORADO (3 BILLION DOLLARS,YEAR) IT SEEMS SHORT
SIGHTED TO TAKE THE RISK TO LOOSE THIS VITAL SOURCE OF INCOME AND TOURIST
ATTRACTION.
4. FUTURE USE OF DEFORESTED LAND
THE FOLLOWING FUTURE USES COULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE PRESENT LAND OWNERS:
130 35 ACRE TRACTS, PROPERTY OFFERED TO FOREST SERVICE IN EXCHANGE, SKI AREA,
AS PROPOSED BY MR. TUCKER SENIOR TO MARK BEAN DURING A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
IN OCT.96.
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PRESENT TIMBER PRICES, LABOR COSTS, INSUR9:NCE, WATER
RETAINING DAMS, MAJOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES, STUDIES, ENGINEERING AND
LEGAL FEES, THE SALE OF TIMBER ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT TO RECOVER THE ORIGINAL
INVESTMENT OF TUCKER/ERASE. THEY ARE MOST LIKELY INVOLVED IN ANY OF THE ABOVE
EXPLOITATION OF THE PROPERTY. ALL DISCUSSION SHOULD INCORPORATE THE STRICT
LIMITATION OF ANY SUCH USES, UNLESS DETAILED PLANS ARE PRESENTED AT THIS TIME,
FOLLOWED BY SUBDIVISIONjPUD APPROVAL PROCESS. WE ARE AFRAID, ONCE LOGGING IS
DONE, THE PROPERTY IS LEFT WITHOUT ATTENTION - THE PUBLIC IS HOLDING THE BAG,
FACED WITH A MAJOR CLEAN-UP OR A VALLEY STRIPPED OF IT'S VALUES AND IT'S
BEAUTY. WE HAVE EXAMPLES IN MARBLE, REDSTONE, PARACHUTE AND NEW CASTLE.
5. IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD
HARVESTING OF ANY KIND IS BASICALLY NATURAL TO THE HUMAN BEING. WE ARE NOT
AGAINST SUCH USE OF LAND. HOWEVER, TIMES HAVE CHANGED. MORE AND MORE PEOPLE
ARE LIVING IN THIS AREA. THE DAYS OF "IT IS MY LAND I CAN DO AS I PLEASE" ARE
OVER. CITIZEN WITH A LITTLE BIT OF FORESIGHT, A CERTAIN DOSES OF
RESPONSIBILITY AND COMMON SENSE, UNDERSTAND THAT HARVESTING AT ANY COST HAS
BECOME A BEHAVIOR OF THE PAST. IF WE HAVE SOME COMPASSION, SOME CONSIDERATION
FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, WE CAN'T JUST EXPLOIT NATURE AND TREAT A VERY
SENSITIVE ECO SYSTEM. WITH DISREGARD. MORE AND MORE SUBDIVISIONS ARE BEING
BUILT ALONG THE ROARING FORK AND THE GRAND RIVER. THE WATER CONSUXPTION WILL
INEVITABLY GO UP. WE SHOULD SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT JEOPARDIZING ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT WATER SHEDS FOR THE CITY OF RIFLE. PRESENTLY A THIRD OF RIFLES WATER
IS DIVERTED FROM BEAVER CREEK. DURING THE PAST 3 MONTHS (JULY-SEPT.96) THE
TREATMENT PLANT ON TAUGENBOUGH MESA HAD TO SHUT DOWN EVERY OTHER DAY DUE TO
LACK OF WATER. THAT PICTURE COULD SIGJIFICANTLY CHANGE FOR THE WORSE, IF WE
DON'T PROTECT THE BEAVER CREEK DRAINAGE. ONCE GONE, WE CAN'T BRING IT BACK. IT
WAS NOT IN THE TAX PAYERS ORIGINAL INTENTION TO SPEND HARD EARNED MONEY ON A
WATER TREATMENT PLANT, TO WATCH IT RENDERED USELESS, DUE TO PROFIT Y_VKING OF
AN INEXPERIENCED GROUP OF PEOPLE. TIM ERASE, ACTING AS THE CHIEF OF OPERATION
HAS NEVER DURING HIS LIFETIME BEEN IN CHARGE OF SUCH AN UNDERTAKING. IT IS
SCARY TO THINK HE AND HIS PARTNERS COULD RUIN THE BEAVER CREEK VALLEY.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES MOST PRESSING IN OUR OPINION. ONCE YOU CONSIDER
THE IMPACT, THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. EPA REGULATIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STUDIES, NOISE FACTORS, TAX ISSUES, SAFETY CONCERNS, COMPREHENSIVE PLANING,
NET GAIN COMPUTATION, LIABILITY, PERFORMANCE BOND, ACCOUNTABILITY, OVERSIGHT
ORGANIZATION, EXPERT DEFINITION, EXPERT RELATIVITY, LEGAL, CONDEMNATION, ETC.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, TAKING OUR OPINION IN CONSIDERATION. THIS IS NOT A
"NOT IN MY BACKYARD" TYPE LETTER, BUT A COMPILED LIST OF CONCERNS, THAT SHOULD
BE STUDIED AND ANSWERED BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO "WHERE AND WHAT
TYPE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST BE PROVIDED TO TUCKER AND FRASE.
SINCERELY YOURS
LUCKY 13 RANCH
SUSANNA AND CHRIS LOCHER
i
The following is the results of our investigation of each possible company and this
information was collected during the period 4-18-97 through 4-23-97.
Business known as:
Tucker & Frase
5221 Mica St
Redding, Ca
According to the city clerk of Redding CA, there never has been a company licensed
under the name of Tucker & Frase.
Business known as:
High Sierra Property
1805 Hilltop
Redding, Ca
Was owned by Dan Tucker and David Frase and licensed from June of 1993 to
December of 1996. The city clerk best determined that this business was moved to 5000
Bachelli St. in Redding and changed their business name to First Affiliated Properties and
records show that the owners were Clay Tucker and Tim Frase. (Not Dan Tucker and
David Frase) Records show that Dan Tucker died in March of 1996.
First Affiliated Properties applied for a business license in December of 1996. The
application was never submitted back to the city of Redding so the city closed the request
for the business license in January of 1997. Therefore, First Affiliated Properties has never
been a licensed business in the City of Redding California. (Per the city clerk.)
The only businesses (relating to this situation) registered and/or licensed through the city
of Redding Ca is Frase and Frase Investments. Their address is 1801 Hilltop Redding Ca
and is owned by Tim and David Frase.
The California Public Utilities Commission requires any business that will be
transporting goods by truck/semi type vehicles to obtain a license to transport in the state.
According to California PUC, Tucker and Frase due not currently possess such a license.
According to the City of Redding California, no business is registered under the name of
Tucker and Frase. According to the city clerk no business is registered, with the city, at
the address known as 5221 Mica Ct, Redding Ca. The original telephone number given to
the City of Rifle (916 223-6715) has been changed to 916 246-1558 which is a Redding
telephone number, however, when you call that number you get a recording or answering
machine which leads you to believe it is a business but it is difficult to understand the name
or the information stated.
Page 2
It is unknown at this time whether or not any of the individuals or companies mentioned
earlier are registered with Garfield County or the State of Colorado. It is not known if any
license(s) is issued to any of the same or if any license(s) have been applied for by any of
the above combination of name(s) or address(s).
It seems questionable if the City of Rifle, Garfield County or the State of Colorado
would issue such a license under the existing situation due to the confusion and lack of
proper information. However, it is possible they may have been issued licenses for the
purpose of doing business within the state of Colorado.
The following phone numbers are provided for reference:
City of Redding California
City Clerk
(916) 225-4055
Redding Ca Chamber of Commerce
(916) 225-4433
Shasta County Clerk, California
(916) 225-5378
California Public Utilities Commission
(800) 877-8867
California Contractor Licenses
(916) 255-3900
The Department of Consumer Affairs
(is located in Sacramento but we do not have a valid number for them)
As best can be determined, we cannot confirm any companies owned under the
following names: Tucker & Tucker, Frase & Tucker or Tucker & Frase in the city of
Redding CA.
page 3
See attached for any supporting documents or for additional information. All
information was obtained either through the internet or by telephone calls to the indicated
agencies.
Note: It is possible that some proper names may be mis-spelled. It is possible that any or
possibly all the combination of names may be registered somewhere as legal businesses.
However, why is it so difficult to verify the validity of any of these claimed businesses?
Why did the City of Rifle not check on these individuals to verify the authenticity of their
business(es)? If this entire situation is so questionable, do we want this company dealing
with our forests, roads, water shed area or our communities? It seems there are a lot of
unanswered questions.
CLAY TUCKER
200 ARCO PLACE, SUITE 11
INDEPENDENCE, KS 67301
316-332-1460/316-332-1459 FAX
October 2, 1997
Mark Bean
Garfield County
Director of Building and Planning
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Mark Bean:
j .:,,,
.1 ! a
OCT 1 4 1997;
ClOvhf7FELD COuNTY
In regards to Resolution No. 97-70 , #6: All commercial roads within forest service boundaries other
than on Tucker/Frase property will be built to forest service specs, specifically the roads starting at the
north line of section 24. This is per the conversations with King Lloyd and Don DeFord.
Cray Tucker
CT/skm
11/07/97 16:49 IT
All Atrornayc Admtlmd In cdnrud,
Anthony W. Williams
Berndt C. Holmes
J. D. Snodgrass
William D. Prakkon
David J. Turnor'
Mark A. Hermundstad'
Susan M. Corte
Mark E. Hamilton
Kirsten M. Kuralh
'Also Admitted In Ulah
WILLIAMS, TURNER & HOLMES, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
COURTHOUSE PLACE BUILDING
200 N. 6th Street — PO Box 338
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502.0338
Phono 970/242.6262
Per 970/2a1-3026
MOAB OFFICE
94 East Grand Avenue
Moab, Utah 94532-2890
Phone 801/259-4381
November 7, 1997
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs, CO
Dear Commissioners:
Lj002/002
Mr. Mark Bean indicated that I should send this letter directly to you. I
have taken the liberty of sending a copy of this letter to Mr. DeFord and to Mr,
Bean. The undersigned and this firm represent Intermountain Ranches, LLC, the
purchaser of what I believe is known as the Teepee Park property in Garfield
County. I met with Mr. Chris Meyers of Intermountain on Wednesday evening
regarding his meeting with you that I understand is scheduled for Monday,
November 10. Chris asked that I contact you to ask that the meeting be
rescheduled as a result of a conflict that has developed.
Chris' home in Oregon was burglarized a short while ago. The culprits
were arrested and Chris was asked to meet with the law enforcement authorities on
Monday the 10th, the same time he was to meet with you. He hopes that you will
understand that while he realizes the importance of keeping his appointment with
you, he very much wants to assist the authorities in Oregon to prosecute the people
that he believes committed the crime against his property. Chris indicated to me
that he would be available to meet on Monday, November 17th if that is available
to you or at such other time as you may request- If this is acceptable, I will contact
your offices to set a new time for Chris to meet with you. We appreciate your
consideration.
JDS/csc
pc: Don DeFord, Esq.
Mark Bean
Mr- Chris Meyers
Very truly yours,
S, Tri)RNER & HOLMES, P.C.