HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.0 PC Staff Report 08.14.1996REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
• •
PC 8/14/96
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Special Use Permit for a commercial logging
operation
Clay Tucker, Sharon Tucker, David Frase,
Timothy & Stacey Frase
A tract of land located in portions of Sections
30 & 32, T7S, R93W; Sections 15, 22-27,
35,36, T7S, R94W; and Sections 5-8 T8S,
R93W of the 6th PM; more practically
described as a tract of land located
approximately eight (8) miles south of Rifle,
off of Beaver Creek road (CR 317).
SITE DATA: 4464 acres
WATER: Drinking - hauled on site
Fire - pumper truck during fire season
SEWER: N/A
ACCESS: County Road 317
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: AIR/RD & O/S
L RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The parcel is located in "Unclassified Lands" of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan.
1
s •
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The site is located primarily in the Beaver Creek drainage and is
the headwaters for Porcupine Creek, Spruce Creek and West Manure Creek. (See
vicinity map pg. /0 ) The site contains topography that slopes generally to the
north, that varies from gentle slopes to vertical cliffs and elevations ranges from
8,700 to approximately 10,270 feet. The property contains a number of Engelmann
Spruce -Alpine Fir, Aspen and Gamble Oak stands mixed in with riparian and high
mountain meadows. There is a small cabin located in Teepee Park and another one
on the ridge north of Houston Mountain.
B. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a
commercial logging operation in Teepee Park area of Beaver Creek. The request to
allow the logging of 1454 acres of non-contiguous aspen, Engelmann Spruce and
Alpine Fir stands on the 4464 acre tract of land. The applicants propose to cut
between 8 to 11 million board feet of Engelmann spruce and Alpine Fir and 1090
cunits (cunit = 100 cubic ft.) of Aspen over a three (3) year period after all permits
are approved.
The applicants propose to harvest the timber using a variety of different
silvicultures:
Group Selection: Small groups of trees (less than 2 acres) are selected for
harvesting.
Shelterwood Removal: In Multistoried stands, selective cutting of either
theoverstory or understory or combination of both results in a healthier stand
of trees.
Single Tree Selection: In stands where windgall risk is low, individual trees
can be selected for removal
Commercial Thinning: In stands that are relatively even -aged, the leave
stands should have increased growth rates.
The application notes that the forest is advanced in age and, generally the stands
have deteriorated to different degrees and are not uniform. This will require the
applicants to use a variety of silviculture techniques in the harvest. These silviculture
techniques are intended to "create openings that will benefit wildlife and generate
new, healthy stands of Aspen, reduce fire danger, and improve forest health in the
Engelmann spruce/ Alpine Fir type by removing over mature, damaged and diseased
trees while promoting forest diversity."
The applicants propose to use three different yarding methods: tractor yarding, cable
yarding and helicopter yarding. The tractor yarding technique will be used in areas
with slopes less than 50% and the cable yarding technique will be used on steeper
slopes in the Beaver Creek and Porcupine Creek areas. Helicopter yarding will be
used on the steepest areas in which roads cannot be built. (See map pg. /1 )
2
• •
To harvest the timber it will be necessary to add approximately 8.3 miles of roads to
the existing 3.8 miles of road on the property today. An adequate road system is
necessary to remove timber, move equipment and to adequately protect the
watershed form fire. Roads will be private unsurfaced single lane roads with
turnouts at appropriate locations. Roads with water protection zones will be surfaced
with gravel a minimum of 35 ft. each side of culverts. (See map pg. /1) All
road cuts within 200 ft. of a perennial watercourse will be seeded with a mix already
tested on portions of the property and inspected by City of Rifle and Forest Service
representatives. The public will be allowed to travel through the property on the
historic access to the public lands located above the property, but all other roads will
be gated and or marked no trespassing.
It is estimated that there will be 10 - 12 loads per day during the working season.
Log trucks will be 5 axle, with a maximum weight limit of 70,000 lbs. The haul
route is proposed to be from the property through a portion of National Forest to
County Road 317, to County Road 320 to the Rifle I-70 Interchange. Worker access
and related trips is not identified in the application. The applicants note the potential
for conflicts with other traffic and have proposed to schedule truck hauling during
hours that will not conflict with children loading and unloading from school buses.
The applicant has proposed to do improvement work on roads prior to hauling, leave
roads in at least as good condition as they were initially and to apply dust retardant
to roads that pass within 500 ft. of occupied residences during the term of the permit.
The logging operation will employ between 32 to 44 people, depending upon the
time of year and the needs of the operation. There will be no man -camp on the
property. The working season is expected to be from late June or early July until
snows prevent normal winter operations, which is expected to be in early December.
Winter operations will not occur during periods that the soils are not saturated and
are defined as follows:
(a) Soil moisture conditions that result in loss of traction by equipment used
in ground skidding operations, as indicated by increased spinning or churning
of wheels or tracks when compared to normal dry season performance, or
adequate traction can not be achieved without blading wet soil off skid trails.
(b) Soil moisture conditions that result in loss of road surface, puddling of
fine materials on the road surface by trucks or other equipment, and which
could adversely effect the beneficial uses of water.
Fire safety will be the responsibility of the sub -contractors working on the property.
During the time that fire danger is high, each contractor will be required to have a
water truck or pumper of minimum capacity of 150 gallons, along with a fire plan
to be submitted to the Sheriff The requirements of the fire plan are specified in the
application.
• •
III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Zoning: Site for extraction, processing, storage or material handling of natural
resources are special uses in the A/R/RD zone district. As a special use, certain
requirements must be met:
5.03
(1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted
engineering standards and approved by the Environmental Health officer shall either
be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use;
Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the
proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place
or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use;
Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent
uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the
periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points,
lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character.
5.03.07
(1) An impact statement demonstrating that the application shall be designed and
operated in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of the County, State
and Federal governments, and will not have a significant adverse effect upon:
(A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off,
stream flow or ground water;
(B) Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or
vibration, or other emanations;
(C) Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions,
alteration or existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or
other disruptions.
(2) Truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses shall not create hazards or
nuisances to areas elsewhere in the County;
(3) Sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might
otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed uses;
4
• •
(4) Permits shall be granted for those uses only with the provisions that a satisfactory
rehabilitation plan for the affected land be submitted prior to commencement of such
use.
5.03.08
Industrial Performance Standards: All industrial operations in the County shall comply with
applicable County, State and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution
and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations
shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and
odor and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property
in which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards:
(1) Volume of the sound generated: every use shall be so operated that the volume
of sound inherently and recurrently generated does not exceed ninety (90) decibels,
with a maximum increase of five (5) decibels permitted for a maximum of fifteen
(15) minutes in any one (1) hour, at any point of any boundary line of the property
on which the use is located;
(2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration
inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any
point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located;
(3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to
comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and
standards;
(4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that
it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the
existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard.
Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or
other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control
measures shall be exempted from this provision;
(5) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary
to install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental
Protection Agency before operations of the facilities may begin.
5.03.12 Access Routes: All conditional uses and special uses must be provided with access
routes of adequate design to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and
to provide safe, convenient access for the use constructed in conjunction to the proposed use.
The minimum design standards shall be the Garfield County Road Specifications.
5
• •
The following are the staff and other agencies responses to the applicant's proposal:
5.03.
(1) The proposed operation has no need for fixed utilities; water will be hauled onto the
site for drinking purposes.
(2) The applicant has proposed to make improvements to the existing County roads and
to participate in a maintenance program that will result in the roads being in the
same or better condition as they are now, at the end of the logging operation. A
portion of these roads cross over National Forest lands and the Rifle Ranger District
office of the White River National Forest working with the applicant to get a special
use permit for a right-of-way across the National Forest lands.
The applicant has proposed two directions once CR 320 is reached from CR 317.
One would go to the Rulison I-70 interchange via CR 320 and the other would go
along CR 320 to the Rifle I-70 interchange. The first route is the longer use of
County roads to access I-70. The other route is the applicants' preferred route, but
it also puts the logging trucks in more conflicting situations with traffic in the Rifle
area. The routes are being reviewed by the Road and Bridge Department, but no
recommendation has been received at this time.
Overweight vehicles will be required to obtain a permit from the County Road and
Bridge Department prior to initiating any activity.
(3)
5.03.07
Adjacent uses are public lands and the Forest Service has reviewed the plan and will
be issuing their own Special Use permit for a portion of the proposed haul road that
will cross over public lands. Forest Service staff have reviewed the application and
noted some technical changes to the proposed road design, but only one copy of the
notes is available on a map format that is to large to copy for this report. The maps
will be available at the Planning Commission meeting.
(1)(a) Surface Water Impacts: Surface run-off and pollution will be controlled as a part
of the Teepee Park forest management plan through the use of various erosion
control methods and revegetation identified in the plan. Additionally, the Beaver
Creek watershed is a domestic water supply for the City of Rifle and is subject to
permitting requirements of the City regarding water quality protection. The City
staff and engineering consultants have reviewed the application and recognize that
the management plan could provide the water quality protection needed, provided
6
1 •
some additional details can be provided and verification of the practices is done
during the actual operation. (See letters pgs. /3 ` /S )
(b) Impacts on Adjacent Lands: Impacts on adjacent lands are projected to be from
engine exhaust, dust, smoke from slash burning and noise from equipment. Since the
adjacent lands are public, impacts should be negligible and temporary in terms of
times. Property adjacent to the proposed haul route may experience dust from
additional vehicles, but the applicant is proposing to mitigate those impacts through
the use of dust retardants in areas within 500 ft. of residential structure. While it is
not addressed in detail, it appears that the helicopter yarding could impact nearby
property, if it were to occur during early morning or late evening hours. Staff
suggests that any helicopter yarding only occur during the hours of 7 a. m. to 5 p. m.,
Monday through Friday.
(c) Wildlife Impacts: The applicants have met with DOW representatives, who agree
that much of the "dark timber" is to thick and harvesting would increase food
supplies. One of the management plan objectives is to enhance the wildlife habitat.
The landowner will discourage the use of ATVs on the property, to minimize
disruption to deer and elk populations. Harvesting will be restricted to avoid calving
areas.
(2) Truck and Automobile Impacts: In the previous comments on road issues is a
preferred haul route. As noted, there is not a recommendation available from the
Road and Bridge Department at this time, but the Road & Bridge Supervisor hoped
to have comments available for the Planning Commission meeting. A related issue
that needs to be addressed is the days and hours of hauling. The applicant has
proposed to operate between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through
Saturday and that hauling would not occur during the hours that children will be
getting on and off school buses. Staff would recommend that hauling only occur
Monday through Friday, rather than Monday through Saturday.
(3) Distance from adjacent property: No activity will occur on adjacent Forest Service
property without the permission of the Forest Service.
(4) Site Rehabilitation: The applicant proposes to have all timber haul roads and yards
reseeded and/or barred and stabilized to eliminate erosion. All streams will be left
with a buffer of undisturbed areas and slash will be windowed strategically to
eliminate erosion. The Colorado State Forest Service has reviewed the management
plan and stated that the harvesting and subsequent revegetation practices appear to
fine in the document, but it is only as good as it is carried out on the ground. The
State Forest Service has noted that they will remain available, on request, to inspect
timber marked prior to cutting, or to evaluate logged areas once work has begun.
(See letter pg. / )
7
• •
(5) Water Pollution: This issue was addressed in the previous comments on water use.
Section 5.03.12
A finding of a safe access route is tied to the access agreements with the U.S. Forest Service.
The issuance of a permit from the Forest Service should be required, before a Special Use
permit is issued and any recommendations made by the County Road and Bridge Supervisor.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. That the public hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
parties were heard at the meeting.
2. That the proposed special use conforms to the application requirements of the
Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses
in all directions if appropriate conditions are attached to the permit.
4. That the proposed use will comply with all applicable standards contained in the
Garfield County zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
5. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use is consistent
with the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission recommend 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.
8
1 •
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.
9
AUG -14-1996 15:02 FROM GARFIELD CO ROAD 2 BRIDGE TO
•.
Memo
Tag MARK
Rom KING
cc Lee Leavenworth, Leavenworth & Associates
Date! Accost 14, 1996
Rot TEE -PEE PARK TIMBER PLAN
94577 65 F.01
GARFIELD COUNTY
ROAD AND BRIDGE
DEPARTMENT
In reviewing the proposed plan, there are several items mentioned that
need further addressing in considerable detail.
1: Log trucks operating 6 days a week, 12 loads per day for 178 days
a season, will potentially be the equivalent of 2,136 loads.
The mention of 6 additional daily trips of supplies should be more
detailed to mention construction equipment needed to build roads and
fuel trucks, all of which could be large in size and affect road stability.
2: It is understanding that area gas exploration companies have plans
to do further development on federal lands, of which we have no
control, which will add more traffic impacts to the area in the near
future. The number of trips associated with the proposed logging,
greatly exceed the impacts currently being experienced with gas
operations, but the two together as conditions exist will make for an
unmanageable situation that will endanger a number of County
residents.
AUG -i4-1996 15:02 FROM GHRFIELD CO ROAD u FRIDGE TO 94 P5 P.02
Y N
The proposal as panted 7 ---vides 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 without 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.
3. 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 dellectometer 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 fittrativn. 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
-1.4-199E 15:03 FROM GHRF I ELD CO ROAD a ER I EDGE TO1C f F .X73
11 .10
without hauling addonal y a. el. tt might also create a turbidity
problem for the domestic water recipients that don't have filtration.
In conclusion, David Levy had contacted me about meeting for further
discussion of the issues. He made appointments but developed
health problems and I was never recontacted for continued
discussion.
• Page 3
/8-
T=lTHL F. 07
11/08/96 11:46 a 916 265 1976
David Levy RPFLic.#1976
Phone (916) 265 - 4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265 - 1976
E - MAIL candoco@oronet -
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite 7
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City CA 95959
DATE:
FAX #: 970-945-7785
TO: Tony Grand River Construction
MESSAGE:
Thank you for our brief conversation this afternoon.
c A
DRUID LEVY FOREE P.01
November 8, 1996
THE CAN DO COMPANY
David LeryForestry
Enclosed are a two maps that show the location of the road that we need
to use to conduct our commercial logging operation on Teepee Park
approximately 8 miles soutth of Rifle.
The Garfield County Road & Bridge had asked us to provide engineering
results to recommend the thickness of asphalt overlay that would be
needed to counter the effect of the wheel Toads associated with all of our
proposed truck traffic.
Steve Pawlak of H -P Geotechnical, Inc. has done the calculations that
indicate that an overlayment of 1.5 inches wou;d be necessary.
The road specifications are approximately:
3 miles long
18-22 feet wide (use 22 feet for estimate)
Could you provide a very rough estimate for purposes of feasibility only
of the approximate cost to do this work. Could you please provide cost
estimate for both 1.5 inches and 2 inches.
Tj�k yo�' r yQur ass stance
David Levy Forestry
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Tucker and Frase Road
June 9, 1997
U.S.D.A. - Forest Service
R2 - Rocky Mountain Region
White River National Forest
Rifle Ranger District
Garfield County, Colorado
Responsible Official:
For Further Information Contact:
Ben L. del Villar
Acting Forest Supervisor
White River National Forest
9th and Grand
P.O. Box 948
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Cindy Hockelberg
Rifle Ranger District
094 County Road 244
Rifle, CO 81650
(970) 625-2371
ABSTRACT: Tucker and Frase Partnership applied for a right-of-way across National Forest lands to access
their private inholding located in Beaver Creek. A road currently exists across National Forest into the
inholding, located along the creek. The applicant desires to realign the road to accomodate log hauling.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service is a diverse organization committed
to equal opportunity in employement and program delivery. USDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of
rac, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political affiliation, and familial status. Persons believing
they have been discriminated against should contact the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice), or (202) 720-1127 (TTY).
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
A. INTRODUCTION
This environmental assessment (EA), discloses the known direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of a
proposed action and alternatives. Tucker and Frase Partnership has submitted a special use application for
authorization to use existing portions of the Beaver Creek Road (Forest Development Road 824), and
construct new sections of road where the existing road is not adequate. The area of consideration is within
the Beaver Creek drainage, Sections 24, and 25, T.7 S., R.94 W., 6th P.M. The lands are administered by the
Rifle Ranger District, White River National Forest. A Vicinity and Project Area Map may be found on pp. 1-2,
1-3.
Tucker and Frase Partnerships own approximately 4400 acres surrounded entirely by National Forest and
Bureau of Land Management lands. While the private lands have existed since the mid -1920's, there has
never been a legal right-of-way to the property. Tucker and Frase Partnerships have submitted a forest
management plan to Garfield County and City of Rifle. The plan, entitled ''Tepee Park Management Plan," also
addresses access via the Beaver Creek Road on National Forest System lands. As part of their access, they
propose to haul privately owned timber across the Beaver Creek Road. The Tepee Park Management Plan
is located in the project file which is hereby incorporated by reference.
The Federal Land Policy Management Act of October 21, 1976 (FLPMA), [90 Stat. 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1715], is
the authority used for authorization of all rights-of-way grants outside of designated wilderness, except those
granted under the Forest Road and Trail Act (FRTA) of October 13, 1964 [78 Stat. 1089; 16 U.S.C. 533) and
except for those granted under the Highway Act of August 27, 1958 [72 Stat. 916, 23 U.S.C. 317], as
supplemented. Forest Service regulations for FLPMA grants are at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
251. FLPMA is the correct authority to use if a road authorization is to be issued to Tucker and Frase.
Section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 1980 (ANILCA) [16
U.S.C. 3210], provides for a qualified statutory right of access in some circumstances. Forest Service
regulations for ANILCA at 36 CFR Parts 251. Section 251.110(c) state in part "...landowners shall be authorized
such access as the authorized officer deems to be adequate to secure them the reasonable use and
enjoyment of their land."
Forest Service policy for review, denial, authorization and administration of special uses is addressed at
Forest Service Manual (FSM), 2703. Forest Service policy on road authorization grants is also addressed in
the FSM at 2703.3.
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended, (RPA) [16 U.S.C. 1604,
1613], requires forest plans. The plans provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services
from the National Forest System in a way that maximizes long term net public benefits in an environmentally
sound manner. The plan provides management goals and objectives and management direction for desig-
nated management areas.
B. PROPOSED ACTION
Tucker and Frase Partnership has applied for a road right-of-way across National Forest lands. The right-of-
way would be used to access the Partnership's private land. In addition, they have proposed hauling logs
across the right-of-way. This would be approximately 12-15 loads per day, five days a week, for six months
each year. Road construction and hauling timber would occur over two to three years. They have also
requested permanent legal access in the form of an easement.
The route would begin in the southeast portion of Section 24, and follow an existing road westerly approxi-
mately 700 feet. From that point a switch back would be installed and the road would head southerly for
Purpose and Need Chapter 1 - 1
-/0-
East Anvil Point
ter == West Anvil Point
VTI2
A 7 •\ • �
nvil Points 1 ..
Oil Shale Mines
Weather Water •
Stare . Tanks
8 •'; Bureau of Mines Oil Shah - Webster
i" 1 xperiment Station'"
Mesa
9�
•
\10
VICINITY MAP
RIF,E ,40 r�
�LFra r'ert �� Mesa
Re
l
I7
2
o7rC
1 so I 1
�j.Pre fontainel ti : tt
1" 'Mesal y „ .a ne C:„.;;"('.
subsr3u ,raveI l 1h ;4 Rifle x
P't u (BM 534510ne MrleGrav t t
r
= <. -Ganem Co.
Anport
Substation
ntteis
-r
Gra eC
\ Anvil - ''\Sharrard Park I i a
c `
Points z I n 53.
o a 7 3 n
F 7'19 23 Taughenbaugti r ,Aesa to ��
•� eoster _,' _s.-_. ' f _\\, VABM'• r\, --
- HIIII__`-----5-r' •_7Tf3 - e •
-�'"- `� _6168 p'r
�� Power Grave- i4 ' ��O ,�'��•
▪ 7`30 1 46 - `Plant P11 1 2 "126 _ .51 ;/`Z`•30 ,,, ' 29 ‘,7,.... 79
l'---- V. ---) V \
:-.
am8 / I I
•+'oil alert• I
.,i} _ J,,
't-;„ Gas Gas Weil .r' / - "� �'r
---;-,.._'-•-.--L-5-...1-'..13,I- 34 . �` ' ,/
;a-'. �,1 33 >Ja '575 (36 �� 71 32.• /.
Nefls
W 2ii)
12;
6
Holms Mesa '
VA
_ slaughennouat6754-
i Gas
2.
;head
Mtn;
9664'
5
:8 3 !6
G
s
.9
30'
20
29
_ = J1-= \I
41`
141;' '•
28
n
•)
•
tr1:25:'
n z
Its
-7
/
12
c 6 atiron Mesa
�.,I Gast444,
:8
1 16 11 1'
+4
•••• - \ �r questa'...
I n'
23
r ` S7•
• • 333/ t r
eIn rl ,�3..
, I 35
��m I A�r N 3 /;;' /r,
M!
27'
22
33 34
C
▪ N Mamm , -
._ Peak, :.
v..-- . VA-�
3 ^ 2 . 111.3 '3.''.2'
Hays tack c%1 •1°
S' 1073
-went
Reserv7rrs
13
18
10978
- 5 45
MC Curry lJ 15 ;.' ' 14 13
Res; f
7 7AiL 4'/
SPILL NAY ELEV v,l
V / � • - \ ; 70474 -- i A (3r r
11i
cyS O" j 22
7TLE I 25� i
v
a �
C \
:3
B
•/8 "T
GRAND=°
1 Brush Cre"K-e.-' •
'.a ( ESA owCao.
27 m'
'tij
.b
Z.
31
i7 r
Hells;
r 3a Hate 1 4a , q
4' ; Hawxnurst ,,;/
36
Cow Camp • `35
CITCH .1
Chapter 1 - 2
;
3
8 I -Y_ 9 10
t .,ki7
r •1i
n
-
vl
1v�\•
y1\•31
y
a-
Z
I`' o Gas •- Grave
Z,l X
— well
Il�w. [Cl . 'l2 ' • /.2'•7 ;T� ' 8 - I)
I
J J' .
l 7
7.
• -,31 1eZ30 1:\y \ iL A6.6
G1 Gravel. \ _ /
Prt\'•"
-
, 30-
mp
v1S
23 ''
24
2N 1`. 25
. 36
29
I ,
321
V,
t*
Q1TCN /6 ' .,� 5 t
fI 0 .. \r•
12
4
17
East �'--
.Hamm/
;' 14
I
711A IL
IV
p 20 /
I q I
7 8)
/ ()•
Gas
Sell
�9
•
\.' _•1017 -
• 17 i ce,/, l6
\ r/ r'(;1
,
7720
SMud Hill - 21
85•
99 1
30 Y
NATIONAL " _°
` E.k
3
I
! OSI
!Windy , : FOREST=S
-.j*Polnt -.._, '`
R ,, `... i;
i(-
ittle/ 1^- V`J'
TBaldny;LO.. , 1 335 •
. \ f °3933'' \I 0 56
36
Scale
O mile .5
fees
Mtn,
Purpose and Need
Cheney.:
- 1 ✓
/
•_77)19==ice 28
\or
N
X7•:00 �\
O
PRIVATE
f:
t
t•
•
<�
W H
PROJECT AREA MAP
•
l
{
!i
Int )r32 /
• 1
II
`, r
�,r 'P\RIVATE
,a
GOO
•i TreiIhead 0"\\
,<' NATIOMAL F
f \
25 , �/.
` PI9IuT }
A E� 3� ��
F'7 S
;,8'S
,
SCALE
0 1'MILE .5 MILE
Purpose and Need
-/Z -
i
i
N
•
o
N/A it,
i
Chapter 1 - 3
was published in the local newspaper. At the meetings the public was also invited to submit comments. A
list of those consulted may be found in Chapter 5.
Forest Service resource specialists formed an interdisciplinary team (IDT), to identify issues and perform the
necessary environmental analysis. An issue is not an activity; instead the projected effects of the activity
create the issue. The IDT identified two key issues and two tracking issues to be addressed.
1. Key Issues
Key issues are those that influence the decision, suggest alternatives or different actions/mitigations.
Indicators represent the units for which impacts/effects are measured.
a. Slope stability hazard associated with development of the new road.
* Risk of reactivating landsliding by cutting into inherently unstable slopes.
Indicator: Slope failure indications.
b. The landowners desire legal road access to their property.
* For landowner to share in use of road and road maintenance costs authorization must
be issued.
Indicator: Easement or permit issued to the landowner.
2. Tracking Issues
Tracking issues provide additional information for the analysis but do not drive the formulation of
alternatives.
a. Effects on range improvements
* The proposed road right-of-way may affect existing range improvements.
Indicator: Number of sites impacted
b. Effects on public access
* No public access through private land.
Indicator: Easement given to United States via the U.S. Forest Service for two trails.
3. Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis
Those issues determined not to be key or tracking issues were identified and eliminated from further study.
Rationale for eliminating these issues from detailed analysis is documented in Appendix A.
Purpose and Need Chapter 1 - 5
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
This chapter describes the alternatives including the proposed action. Alternatives were developed by the
interdisciplinary team (IDT), to be realistic and compatible with Forest Plan Management Direction and
respond in different ways to the key issues. Based on information presented in Chapter 3, Affected Environ-
ment / Environmental Consequences. A summary of the environmental effects of the alternatives is also
presented.
A. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL
1. No Action
Section 1323 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, provides that an inholder shall
be given access to secure the reasonable use and enjoyment of their land. An inholding is a parcel of
nonfederally owned land surrounded by federal land. Reasonable access is determined by what use of the
land is proposed. The No Action Alternative is not a viable alternative since access to an inholding may not
be denied. Therefore, the No Action Alternative in this case would be to leave Forest Development Road 824
as it currently is and authorize access across the existing road. The last 0.75 mile of the road, from the current
trailhead to private land, would remain a seasonal four-wheel drive road. It is likely the private landowners
would be unable to remove the timber as they have proposed due to extreme grades on the road, although
they would still obtain legal access. This alternative does not allow management of their land as proposed
in the Tepee Park Management Plan. A spur road crossing Beaver Creek on National Forest lands would not
be closed and the United States would not receive two trail rights-of-way.
Table 2-1. Summary of Management Actions and Outputs Under the No Action Alternative.
Miles of new road construction
Public trail rights-of-way
Spur roads and old road obliteration (miles)
Miles of existing road (system and non -system)
Miles of improved road
Easement issued
0
0
0
3
0
Yes
2. Proposed Action
This alternative would be to authorize construction of the road facility according to the design plans submitted
by Tucker and Frase Partnership. They have stated that the road would be built to Forest Service road
specifications, and be maintained at a Level 3. When a road is maintained at the Level 3 standard, low
clearance vehicles would be able to use the road. That is, a sedan would be able to use the road. It does
not mean however, that the road would be open all of the time. For example it does not indicate the road will
be plowed during the winter. Specifically, the road would be constructed with a ten mile per hour design
speed, be single lane with intervisible turnouts. Minimum lane width would be 10 feet with a maximum width
of 14 feet. Drainage would be permanent and culverts installed at perennial and intermittent stream crossings.
Topsoil from the proposed road construction would be removed and stockpiled for use in revegetation. All
disturbed areas would be seeded, fertilized and mulched. A Forest Development Road Easement would be
Alternatives Chapter 2 - 1
issued to Tucker and Frase Partnership in exchange for two reciprocal trail rights-of-way to the United States.
A centerline survey of the as -built road will be submitted to the Forest Service for preparing the easement.
Table 2-2. Summary of Actions and Outputs under the Proposed Action Alternative
Miles of New Road Construction
Public Trail rights-of-way
Spur roads and old road obliteration (miles)
Miles of existing roads (system and non -system)
Miles of improved road
Easement issued
.68
2
2
1.04
1.72
yes
3. Geotechnical Alternative
Similar to Alternative 2, the road would be built to Forest Service road design standards and construction
specifications. Road width would be a minimum of ten feet to a maximum of fourteen feet. Design speed would
be 10 miles per hour. Drainage would be permanent and culverts installed at perennial and intermittent stream
crossings. As in Alternative 2, the road would be maintained at a Level 3.
This alternative is designed to address the potential activation of the dormant landslide as stated in the
"Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Review in the Tepee Park Forest Management Area,"
prepared by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. During construction of approximately 3600 feet of new road,
a geotechnical engineer must be on-site. As road construction proceeds, the road cuts will be observed to
evaluate if conditions are similar to those discussed in the Hepworth-Pawlak report. If actual conditions they
address in the report vary, then some modifications may be warranted. If ground water seepage is encoun-
tered in cuts, then the potential for instability could be high. Ground water seepage is not expected in most
areas of deeper cut sections, but all seepage encountered during construction or which develops after
construction will be evaluated to assess the nature of the seepage and need for remedial drainage systems.
Right-of-way clearing and construction will be to Forest Service specifications, including revegetation, erosion
control, stump/slash disposal, timing, decking areas, and noxious weed control.
The following road cut slope guidelines will be followed:
1. Road cut slopes in colluuvium and weathered formation rock will not be steeper than 1.25:1
(horizontal to vertical) and no higher than 20 feet. In the dormant landslide complex, cuts should be
no higher than 10 feet.
2. Road cuts, in unweathered formation rock with bedding dips of less than 20 degrees, will be no
steeper than 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) and no higher than 15 feet.
3. If the cut slope guidelines present in Items 1 and 2 above cannot be achieved, then retaining walls
will be considered in soil and weathered rock cut areas. Rock bolting or other forms of.slope reinforce-
ment may be needed if bedding is steeper than 20 degrees. The design of retaining walls and rock
bolting systems will be evaluated on a site specific basis.
4. Cut slopes will have adequate surface drainage. Concentrations of surface runoff will not be allowed
to flow directly down unprotected cut slopes.
Chapter 2 - 2 Alternatives
.., A
5. Cut slopes will be protected from erosion by re -vegetation or other means.
The following road cut fill guidelines will be followed:
1. Most of the on-site colluvium and formation rock will be suitable for road enbankment fills. Exceptions
are highly organic topsoil, highly plastic clays and claystones. Rock larger than 12 inches, roots, tree
trunks and logs will not be placed in road fills.
2. Road fill slopes will be no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) and no higher than 25 feet. Fill
slopes in the dormant landslide complex will be no higher than 15 feet.
3. If the fill slope guidelines presented in Item 2 above can not be achieved, then retaining walls or
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) fills will be considered. The design of retaining walls and MSE fill
will be evaluated on a site-specific basis.
4. Before fill placement, the subgrade will be prepared by removing all vegetation and highly organic
topsoil.
5. Road fill placed on slopes steeper than 20 percent will be benched into the hillside.
6. The fill will be placed in lifts appropriate for fill material and compacted to at least 95 percent of its
maximum standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content.
7. Fill slopes will have adequate surface drainage. Concentrations of surface runoff will not be allowed
to flow directly down unprotected slopes.
8. Fill slopes will be protected from erosion by re -vegetation or other means.
Table 2-3. Summary of Actions and Outputs under the Geotechnical Alternative
Miles of New Road Construction
Public Trail rights-of-way
Spur roads and old road obliteration (miles)
Miles of existing roads (system and non -system)
Miles of improved road
Easement issued
.68
2
2
1.04
1.72
yes
B. MITIGATION MEASURES COMMON TO BOTH ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Mitigation measures are actions taken to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for an
adverse effect of implementing an alternative. The following mitigation measures were developed by the
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT).
1) All cultural heritage sites will be protected. Any archeological sites found during road construction will
be protected and the appropriate tribe notified for consultation.
Alternatives Chapter 2 - 3
2) In conjunction with Garfield County and the City of Rifle, an inspector must be hired by Tucker and
Frase Partnerships to ensure all operations are in compliance with the associated plans. Operations
supervised on National Forest System lands will include such things as road construction and road
improvements. The inspector will not be responsible for enforcing violations, rather he/she would file
inspection reports with agencies and notify when violations have taken place. Each agency will have
jurisdiction and be responsible for infractions.
3) Log hauling must comply with days designated by Garfield County. There will be no weekend hauling,
and hauling may not be done on holidays. There will be no hauling during spring break up, as defined
by Garfield County.
4) All equipment and construction debris (man-made debris and trash including old culverts) caused by
the road construction will be removed from the site at road completion by Tucker and Frase Partner-
ship.
5) Existing range improvements will be identified on maps as protected improvements. These improve-
ments must be protected, or rebuilt to Forest Service standards if damaged by Tucker and Frase
Partnership.
6) Goshawk nest survey will be completed prior to any type of road maintenance, construction or
reconstruction, dependent on alternative selected. In the event a nest is found, the project must be
delayed until August or mitigation measures acceptable to the wildlife biologist will be implemented.
C. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring is the means by which the Forest Service ensures that the mitigation measures are performed
on -the -ground and their effectiveness recorded. The inspector hired by Tucker and Frase Partnerships will
ensure all components of the selected alternative and all mitigation measures are implemented and docu-
ment effectiveness. The lands staff or lands forester on Rifle Ranger District will also inspect and ensure all
components of the selected alternative and mitigation measures are implemented and inspections are
fulfilled.
D. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS
The following alternatives were considered by the ID Team but were eliminated from detailed analysis for the
reasons stated:
1. Land Exchange
Under this alternative, the Forest Service would exchange equal value of land with Tucker and Frase
Partnerships (assuming they were willing to do so), to place the replacement private land on a public agency
road, for example a county road. This would eliminate the need to cross National Forest under a road
authorization. Access roads generally are not considered so burdensome of an encumbrance that a land
exchange is an attractive alternative. While there may be an access road authorized, the land is still available
to the public for recreation and available to the Forest Service for unforeseeable future management activities.
2. Access by a Lower Standard Facility
Under this alternative access by road would not be authorized, but a lower standard facility. (such as a foot
trail) would be authorized. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because road access is necessary for
the landowners to harvest and haul logs from their inholding.
Chapter 2 - 4 Alternatives
/fq•
3. West Mamm Road
There is an old road previously used for timber harvest located on the east side of the private land. The road,
located entirely on private land, begins and runs upslope in Section 6, T.8 S., R.93 W. It then enters Section
31, T.7 S., R.93 W., running across a bench prior to dropping into the Beaver Creek drainage. Under this
alternative a new section of road would be constructed on National Forest System down to the Mamm Creek
drainage, tying into the old logging road on private land. There are two possible routes out the Mamm Creek
drainage. The first route would be too steep to meet any type of road specifications. The second route passes
through a slump area, and road construction would cause the slump to become active. Both roads would
pass through big game winter range.
E. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Table 2-4 is a summary of the environmental consequences which are expected to result from the actions
associated with each alternative. These environmental effects are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
Table 2-4 Summary of Consequences
Issues and Indicators _ . _ Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
A. Slope stability hazard associated
with development of the new road.
Reactivating the dormant landslide
Indicator: Slope failure
may begin in
a wet year
low risk
high risk
low risk
B. Land Owners desire legal access.
Landowners share in use and cost
of road.
Indicator: Easement issued
yes
yes
yes
C. Effects on range improvements
Right of way may effect range
improvements.
Indicator: Number of range
improvements impacted
0
0
0
D. Effects on public access
No access through private land
Easements given to United States
2
2
2
Alternatives
Chapter 2 - 5
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT / ENVIRONMENTAL CONSE-
QUENCES
This chapter describes the existing environment likely to be affected by the decision described in Chapter
1 and environmental consequences (impacts / effects) of implementing the alternative.
The effects on each resource are described as quantitative and qualitative changes from the current situation
in terms of significance, magnitude, and duration. Where applicable, three types of effects are considered
in determining environmental consequences: 1. direct, 2. indirect, and 3. cumulative. Direct effects are
defined as caused by the action and occurring at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by
the action and are later in time and farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumula-
tive effects are impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Mitigation measures identified as a result of the environmental consequences and public issues are present-
ed in Chapter 2, and will not be repeated in this chapter unless they are associated with one of the key or
tracking issues.
A. GENERAL SETTING
National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands surround the private inholding held by Tucker
and Frase Partnerships. The private lands are comprised of three drainages, Porcupine Creek, Beaver Creek
and West Mamm Creek. The primary area of interest for this environmental assessment are the National
Forest System lands in the Beaver Creek drainage. Located in southwest Garfield County, approximately six
air -miles due south of the City of Rifle. The drainage from the Forest boundary to the private land boundary
is a narrow v -shaped valley, with Beaver Creek flowing through the valley bottom. The steep valley slopes are
broken occasionally by protruding flat benches.
Forest Development Road 824 in the Beaver Creek drainage crosses one-half mile of private land (via a
deeded easement), and just over one mile of National Forest lands. Grades on the first three-fourths mile of
road are moderate, ranging from 5% to 12%. Gravel and road base have been added to the road, providing
a firm surface even when wet. The last half of the road grades becomes significantly steeper, with some short
steep pitches of up to 40%. In one area the road edge is the side of Beaver Creek.
Aspects on National Forest System lands are generally north and easterly, and elevations average 8500 feet.
Vegetation consists aspen stands with scattered conifers. The understory vegetation is comprised of snow -
berry, chokecherry, serviceberry, cinquefoil, and various grasses and forbs.
Limited recreation use occurs in the Beaver Creek drainage. There are two trails on private land which may
not legally be used. The area is closed to off-road vehicular use. Limited hunting use of the area occurs as
the valley is narrow and there are limited National Forest System lands available for public use.
The area has been inventoried for the occurrence of wetland / flooplains, cultural resources, and Threatened,
Endangered, or Sensitive Species. The proposed alternatives will have no effect on cultural resources,
wetlands / floodplains, or T&E or sensitive species. The existing road does cross into portions of a riparian
area. These findings are documented in applicable specialists' reports in the project file.
There is one special use permit in the area, allowing operation and maintenance of a headgate and ditch on
National Forest System lands. The Beaver Creek area on National Forest comprises a portion of the Beaver
Creek Cattle and Horse grazing allotment.
Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences Chapter 3 - 1
20
B. SLOPE STABILITY
The existing road and proposed road alignments on National Forest System lands cross a dormant landslide
complex. Associated with past landslide displacements are features such as ground hummocks, crescent
shaped escarpments, and ponded drainages. Judging from the subdued character of these topographic
features the landslide areas have been dormant for a long period of time. However, due to the inherent low
stability of some parts of the dormant landslide complexes, a cycle of unseasonable wet years could lead to
local landslide reactivations.
Alternative 1 - No Action:
Direct / Indirect / Cumulative Effects - Erosion could continue on the upper section of road, where grades
exceed ten percent. The road near the side of the creek will also continue contributing to the sediment in
Beaver Creek. In a very wet year there is potential for failure of road cut and fill slopes or reactivation of the
dormant landslide complex.
Past activities within the analysis area include cattle and horse grazing, big game hunting, construction of
a ditch and two roads. Current activities include 57 pair of cattle grazing July 15 to October 15, and big game
hunting, in addition to operation of a special use ditch. Future foreseeable activities include low levels of big
game hunting, continued use of the ditch and possible construction of a gas well in Section 19, south of the
analysis area. Access to the gas well will likely be from private land, with no use of FDR 824. Given all of these
activities, no adverse cumulative effects are anticipated.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action:
Direct / Indirect / Cumulative Effects - If ground water seepage is encountered during construction of the new
section of road, the potential for instability could be high. There would also be possible failure of road cut and
fill slopes or the running surface facility and reactivation of the dormant landslide complex. Seepage encoun-
tered needs to be assessed immediately and the lack of geotechnical expertise on-site may cause some
delays to remediation.
Construction of the new road and rehabilitation of the old road would reduce sediment flowing into Beaver
Creek in the long term. Short term there would continue to be some sediment into the Creek while the old
road revegetates. In addition reconstruction of the old road would provide for better drainage of water,
dispersing the water before it channels causing severe erosion.
This proposal places gravel thirty-five feet prior to and after each culvert. Log trucks will eventually create ruts
in the remainder of the road due to lack of soil strength.
Cumulative effects are similar to those described in alternative 1.
Alternative 3 - Geotechnical Action:
Direct / indirect / Cumulative Effects - The possibility of local road instability and reactivation of the dormant
landslide complex also exists under this alternative. A geotechnical engineer on-site and adherence to the
geotechnical guidelines will reduce the potential for slope failure. If it were to occur, there should not be
extensive damage and should not result in environmental problems to the watershed which could not be
remediated.
As in Alternative 2, the sediment load into Beaver Creek would be reduced. An aggregate base course would
be applied to the entire surface of the road, thus providing necessary structural support to the road.
Forest Plan Consistency: All of the alternatives must be compatible with the White River National Forest Land
Management Plan, or the Forest Plan must be amended such that the alternatives are in compliance. Further,
standards and guidelines in the plan must be followed.
Chapter 3 - 2 Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences
- Z/'
All of the alternatives are located in a 2A Management Prescription Area. There is no direction for rights-of-way
management in the 2A Prescription. Direction for special use management (non -recreation) is to permit
special uses which are compatible with the kind and development level of the associated Forest Service
facilities within the area. There are no standards and guidelines to be followed.
General direction for rights-of-way is to allow only one access route across National Forest per subdivision
or tract of private land. The Beaver Creek Road will be the only legal access to the private inholding. The
Forest is also directed to acquire rights-of-way on existing forest system roads and trails that cross private
lands.
All of the alternatives are consistent with forest plan. They do not conflict with general direction, goals,
objectives, or the specific prescription. Cumulative effects are as described in Alternative 1.
C. LEGAL ROAD ACCESS
There is currently one Forest Development Road accessing the entire Tucker and Frase Partnership inhold-
ing. Forest Road 824 begins in Section 24, Township 7 South, Range 94 West. The first half of the existing
road is maintained to a Level 2 standard. The second half of the existing road contains steep pitches, up to
grades of 35% with little drainage. It is not maintained to any standard. Tucker and Frase Partnerships
currently have no easement or special use permit authorizing them to cross National Forest System lands
to access their inholding. Further, none of the past inholders have held legal road access.
Alternative 1 - No Action:
Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects - The inholder would be issued an easement on the existing alignment of
FDR 824. This would provide legal access to their property. The existing road alignment would not allow them
to use their land as proposed in the Tepee Park Management Plan. The cumulative effect in this case is that
the Forest Service may be violating ANILCA by not providing legal access which allows the inholder to use
their private property as they have proposed.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action and Alternative 3 - Geotechnical Action:
Direct/Indirect/Cumulative - As in Alternative 1, the inholder would be issued an easement. The easement
alignment would be changed in some areas to a new alignment, such that grades do not exceed twelve
percent and drainage is installed.
D. RANGE IMPROVEMENTS
The Beaver Creek watershed encompasses the Beaver Creek Cattle and Horse Allotment. There are several
stock water developments on National Forest System lands. These are ponds which were developed to catch
winter runoff, providing water to stock in areas where there is no running water.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3:
Direct / Indirect / Cumulative
Any of the alternatives selected should have no effect on the existing stock water developments. The existing
road is not close to any of the ponds. The proposed road is near development 802012, but will not affect the
drainage of snow melt to the stock pond. There should be no cumulative effects from the proposed or existing
road to the stock ponds.
E. PUBLIC ACCESS
There is currently a right-of-way across the private land in Section 24. The easement allows thirty feet each
side of the centerline of the road for public access. There are two trails located on the private lands in Sections
25 and 31, and 36. When the lands were patented, rights-of-way were not reserved to the government. As
a result, the trails may not be legally used without permission from the landowners. The Beaver Creek Cattle
Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences Chapter 3 - 3
422,
and Horse allotment may not be used to its capacity as the upper unit is difficult to access without crossing
private land. In addition, the Battlement Trail which is located along the divide is difficult to access.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3:
Direct / Indirect / Cumulative
Under each alternative a reciprocal easement will be given to the United States for trail rights-of-way across
the private land. The easements will be ten feet wide, allowing horse and foot travel. Vehicular access will not
be allowed, including motorcycles and ATV's. Two trails are likely to attract higher use by the public than in
the past when trail users had to request permission to cross private land. The largest increase would be in
the fall during hunting season. The Forest Service would post bulletin boards at the trail head, explaining the
rights-of-way and that they were only to be used to cross private lands. Use on the upper Battlement trail
would increase since access is easier, however it would not be a Targe increase.
Chapter 3 - 4 Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences
- 43-
CHAPTER 4 - COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
This chapter presents those individuals, organizations, and agencies who commented on the proposed
project or who were consulted during the analysis process.
1. Members of the public who commented on the proposed project during initial scoping.
Chris Locher
Cheryl Minter
Bob Hooker
Don Dorrell
2. Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT)
Member
Jack Walton
Tony Svatos
Julie Grode
Marsha Raus
Rowdy Wood
Barry Sheakley
Dennis Mouland
Bill Kight
Meg Lindsey
Hal Coombs
Cindy Hockelberg
3. Consultants, Agencies, Organizations
Kim Potter, Biologist
David Levy Forestry Services
Garfield County Planning Department
Colorado State Forest Service
Mountain Ute Tribe
Area of Responsibility
Engineering
Soils
Zone Wildlife Biologist
Fisheries
Range
Special Uses
Boundary Management, ROW
Heritage Resources
NEPA Coordination
Noxious Weeds
IDT leader
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechical
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Town of Rifle
Southern Ute Tribe
Northern Ute Tribe
Coordination
Chapter 4 - 1
APPENDIX A
Issues Eliminated from Detailed Analysis and Rationale
1) Comment: There is no minimum number of large (12"+) snags left per acre. Submitted by: Julie Grode,
Zone Wildlife Biologist
Response: Timber harves is occuring on private lands where the United States Forest Service has no
jurisdiction. The State Forest Service has reviewed Tucker and Frase Partnership's harvest plan.
2) Comment: Logging (deforesting) 4000+ acres will destroy the spring fed storage system. In addition
the topsoil will erode and ecosystem will not be restored. Submitted by: Chris Locher
Response: Tucker and Frase Partnerships has submitted the Tepee Park Management Plan to Garfield
County, City of Rifle. Colorado State Forest Service and U.S. Forest Service. The entire management
plan may be found inthe project file at Rifle Ranger District. The plan addresses use of private lands
for their proposed harvest of 12-15 mmbf. The private land impacts are analyzed by the Town of Rifle
and Garfield County are are beyond the scope of Forest Service analysis. As per policy letter of January
31, 1992 (also located in the project file), the U.S. Forest Service does not regulate uses of private
property. Rather the scope of the analysis should be to ensure responsible use of National Forest
System lands. In this case, analysis of the proposal to haul 12-15 mmbf over FDR 824 is within the
scope of the Forest Service's analysis and not timber harvest on private lands.
3) Comment: Use on Garfield County Road 320 and 317 reaches city level traffic. When we and two trucks
meet, they cannot pass each other. There will be disruption of cattle operation, an accident waiting
to happen. Submitted by: Chris Locher
Response: Offsite effects on Garfield County Road 320 and 317 are analyzed in the County permitting
process. This analysis may be found in the Forest Service project file or at the County planning
department. Analysis of FDR 824 and the associated log hauling was completed in the slope stability
section of the EA.
Issues Eliminated Appendix A - 1
HEPWORTH-PAAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
October 10, 1996
0020 Road 1 4 _ _
Glenwood rings, 81601
Fax 970 945- 54
Phone 970 9 `-7988OCT9
David Levy Forestry Services
LA, oritiLD CA..),_)14TY
Attn: David Levy
P.O. Box 1797 ..-
Nevada City, California 95959 Job No. 195 392
Subject: Evaluation of Pavement Section and Subgrade Conditions, Road 320,
Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Levy:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study for
evaluation of the pavement section and subgrade conditions at the subject site. The
study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering
services to you dated September 19, 1996. The data obtained and our findings based
on the traffic loading and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this
report.
Proposed Development: Logging trucks are proposed to haul timber out of the Tepee
Park Forest Management Area on (gravel surfaced) Beaver Creek Road and Road 320
that outlets to the I-70 access road. About three miles of Road 320 is surfaced with
asphalt and chip seal pavement between the I-70 access road and Beaver Creek Road.
The logging truck traffic is proposed to be 10 to 12 trips per day between June and
October for two years. Snow conditions at the project site will prevent hauling at other
times of the year.
If development conditions are significantly different from those described above, we
should be notified to reevaluate the findings of this study.
Subsurface Conditions: The pavement section and subgrade conditions were evaluated
by drilling fourteen exploratory borings on about 1,000 foot intervals. Samples of the
subsoils were taken with 13/8 and 2 inch I.D. drive samplers, similar to the standard
penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The logs of the borings and the
sample locations are presented on Figs. 1 and 2 and summarized in Table I. The
pavement materials typically encountered 3 inches of bitumen surfacing above 6 to 9
inches of aggregate base course. The subgrade soils consist mainly of low plasticity
sandy clay and clayey sand. A Hveem Stabilometer test performed on a sample of the
sand and clay soil indicates an 'R' value of 15, see Fig. 4. Results of natural moisture
content and density, gradation analysis, and Atterberg limits testing performed on
samples obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 5 and summarized in Table II.
Free water was encountered at a depth of about 5 feet in Borings 1, 2 and 11 and the
other borings were dry to the drilled depth of 6 feet at the time of drilling.
Traffic Conditions: The traffic volume and classification of vehicles information was
provided by High County Engineering and Lee Engineering. We understand that the
traffic count results indicate an ADT of 1,770 from I-70 access road to Rifle Village
South and 350 beyond there. The traffic counter at the entrance of Beaver Creek Road
identified traffic classification and only showed 6 vehicles with 4 axles or more. The
two other counters on Road 320 only identified volume of traffic.
.Y.s....,A. *..m.e.n;N:ry ykv.3*A0190(4041+1 B ` 000). •' ''**W1tet.. t'wv iirM�#f1iiAFx�inW+Mvr"•'•rwe+Mke aMm,•,'+1!
David Levy Forestry Services
October 10, 1996
Page 2
Pavement Support Findings: The logging truck traffic is proposed to be 10 to 12
trips per day between June and October or less than 1% of the traffic volume below
Rifle Village South. Based on the annual traffic, the additional loading is relatively
small and will occur during the drier subgrade time of the year. Standard pavement
design procedures indicate that the existing pavement section is probably not adequate
to support the current loading under saturated, spring melt subgrade conditions. After
the subgrade has dried, we expect the logging truck loading would be typical of the
current occasional truck loading and have limited impact. Regular maintenance
through the summer should be expected to repair distressed areas, similar to the
existing conditions. As a precaution, the pavement condition should be evaluated prior
to beginning the logging truck traffic as a baseline for maintenance during each year of
operation.
Limitations: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations
submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings
drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction, and our
experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the
subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the
subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If
conditions encountered during maintenance and repair of the roadway appear different
from those described in this report, we,should be notified at once so reevaluation of the
recommendations may be made.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK 6:� �''.,hICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak,
Reviewed By:
(
Daniel E. Hardin, P.
SLP/kmk
attachments
cc: High County Engineering - Attn: Roger Neal
Lee Engineering - Dave Hook
H -P GEOTECH
w
ca
N.)
SONI1:108 ,1N01V10-1dX3 3O S001
cn'
BORING 1
0.1 mile
0
5
10
BORING 2
0.2 mile
60/12
WC=13.8
-200=75
LL=25
PI=12 --
10/12
BORING 3
0.5 mile
24/12
WC -11.3
-200=51
24/12
BORING 4
0.8 mile
10/12
3/5,11/0
WC=12.1
-200=62
LL -32
Pf=19
20/12
10/12
BORING 5
1.1 mile
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3.
BORING 6
1.4 mile
10/12
WC=11.9
DD=122
-200=50
UC=1850
10/0
BORING 7
1.5 mile
9/12
WC=11.9
DD=119
-200=64
9/12
7/12
0
9/12
10
0
11
9
w
0
CD
CD
BORING 8
1.8 mile
0
5
10
BORING 9
2.0 mile
19/12
WC=11.3
-200=47
25/6,10/0
BORING 10
2.1 mile
18/12
10/6,15/0 --
WC=15.3 -
-200=75
LL=29
PI=15
15/12
28/12
BORING 11
2.3 mile
19/12
WC=15.5
DD=110
-200=88
LL=29
PI=13
26/12
BORING 12
2.5 mile
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3.
BORING 13
2.7 mile
16/12
32/12
WC=27.8
DD= --91
-200=83
LL=61
PI=29
BORING 14
2.9 mile
25/12
WC=22.9
DD=99
-200=74
22/6,40/3
0
27/12
WC=29.2
DD=86
-200=73
LL=48 m
PI=13 5 th
32/12 ?
T
m
10
CD
r4
LEGEND:
FLI1
BITUMEN PAVEMENT SURFACE
AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
MAN -PLACED FILL; clayey sand with gravel and scattered cobbles, medium dense, moist, brown.
CLAY(CL); sandy, stiff, moist at Boring 12, wet at Boring 1, brown.
CLAY AND SILT (CL -ML); highly calcareous, very stiff, slightly moist, white.
SAND AND CLAY (SC -CL); scattered basalt and siltstone fragments, stiff to very stiff, mixed brown.
SAND (SC); clayey, gravelly medium dense, moist to wet at 5.5' in Boring 10, brown.
ill
SAND (SP -SM); silty, gravelly, medium dense, wet, brown.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 -inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 -inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586
Drive sample blow count; indicates that 60 blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches were required
60/12 to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
475
Ground water level encountered at the time of drilling.
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on September 24, 1996 with a 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger.
NOTES:
2. Elevations of exploratory borings were not measured and logs of exploratory borings are drawn to depth.
3. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
4. Water level readings shown on the Togs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated.
Fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
5. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content (%)
DD = Dry Density (pcf)
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve.
-200 = Percent passin• No. 200 sieve.
195 392
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
UC = Unconfined Compressive Strength (psf)
LL = Liquid Limit (%)
PI = Plasticity Index (°/a)
LEGEND AND NOTES
Fig. 3
TEST SPECIMEN
V
A
L
U
E
195 392
25/485
"R" VALUE AT 300 psi = 15
100II
90
80
70
50
60
3
18.8
112.4
8/170
0
100 200
300 400
500 600 700 800
EXUDATION PRESSURE ( psi )
SOIL TYPE Gravelly Sand and Clay
SAMPLE LOCATION 2.0 mile, AND CR 320
42
GRAVEL 15
LIQUID LIMIT 34% PLASTICITY INDEX
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SILT and CLAY
17 %
HVEEM STABILOMETER TEST RESULTS
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF BORING LOG PROFILES
County Road 320, South of Rifle
Job No. 195 392
_ Sub rade Depth to
Boring Mile Post Bitumen Aggregate g Ground
Surface Base Type Water (ft)
No. ,;,,, Course
Notes: 1. Mile post is from Taugenbaugh Road.
2. Bitumen surface is hot plant mix in Borings 1 and2 and chip seal in remaining borings.
3. Borings were backfilled and covered with cold patch.
NE = Not Encountered
r
N
g
SAMPLE LOCATION
BORING
DEPTH
(FEET)
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
9 41/2
3
5
6
7
8
2
5
NATURAL
MOISTURE
CONTENT
(%)
13.8
11.3
12.1
11.9
11.9
NATURAL
DRY
DENSITY
(PCF)
122
119
HEPWORTH-RAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
GRADATION
GRAVEL
(%)
SAND
(96)
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 200
SIEVE
75
51
62
50
64
JOB NO. 195 392
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIQUID
LIMIT
(%)
25
32
PLASTIC
INDEX
(%)
12
19
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(PSF)
1850
AASHTO
CLASSIFICATION
A-6 (6)
A-6 (9)
15.3
11.3
15.3
113
subgrade
11 1 15.5 110
12 5 91
13 11/2 22.9 99
14 1 29.2 86
27.8
15
42
80
47
75
n"2
Y %.l
88
83
74
73
27
29
29
61
48
13
15
17
13
29
13
A-6 (8)
SOIL OR
BEDROCK TYPE
sandy clay fill
sand, silt and clay fill
sandy clay with gravel
very sandy clay with
gravel
sandy clay with gravel
A-6 (9)
A-6 (3)
A-6 (9)
A-7-5 (28)
sandy clay
very clayey sand with
gravel
sandy clay with gravel
gravelly sand and clay
slightly sandy clay
calcareous silt and clay
sandy clay with gravel
A-7-5 (1 1) calcareous silt and clay
J
• •
HEPWORTH-4AWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945-8454
Phone 970 945-7988
David Levy Forestry Services
Attn: David Levy
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City, California 95959
INVOICE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Invoice No. 3530GS
Job. No. 195 392
October 11, 1996
Re: Evaluation of Pavement Section and Subgrade Conditions, Road 320,
Garfield County, Colorado
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Truck Rig Drilling: 7.0 hrs. @ $100.00/hr.
Drill Rig Mileage: 60 miles @ $2.50/mi.
Carbide Bit Teeth: 1 @ $7.50/ea.
Field Engineer: 13.0 hrs. @ $40.00/hr.
Vehicle Mileage: 150 miles @ $.40/mi.
LABORATORY TESTING
Moisture/Density: 7 tests @ $10.00/ea.
Atterberg Limits: 8 tests @ $45.00/ea.
Standard Sieves to #200: 1 tesf @ $40.00/ea.
Unconfined Compressive Strength: 1 test @ $60.00/ea.
Hveem Stabilometer 'R' Value: 1 test @ $275.00/ea.
ENGINEERING & CLERICAL
Project Manager: 3.0 hrs. @ $80.00/hr.
Project Engineer: 6.0 hrs. @ $70.00/hr.
Draftsperson: 3.0 hrs. @ $35.00/hr.
Word Processing: 3.0 hrs. @ $30.00/hr.
Thank you.
Steven L. Pawlak,+ P.E.
/kmk
$ 700.00
150.00
7.50
520.00
60.00
70.00
360.00
40.00
60.00
275.00
240.00
420.00
105.00
90.00
TOTAL DUE $3,097.50
Please pay from this invoice; due upon receipt; 1%% interest per month due after 30 days.
• •
/G/1
le.
UNTR Y
NG/NEER/NG '�
I. -I. - ..o.","="-;*
April 17, 1996
Dave Levy Forestry Services
305 Railroad Ave.
Suite 7
Nevada City, CA 95959
Re: Forest Service Road Access @ Beaver Creek
IICE File Number 95049.(11
Dear Dave:
Enclosed with this letter are the updated plans for rthe
daonstructions from lh fe the toad to cal
the
'fucker/Frase property. These plans reflect recd
Engineers (11-P Geoteclr), Tony Svalos and Cindy llockelberg (U.S. Forest Service) and
representatives of your office. 11 is my urrderst"1e(Irgfthat lio'eslem,i� rvice it is agreedorthat additional
nel have
indicated that a conditional approval will be granted,c
geotechnical work be performed during construction, hckoud allow
lobew site
rspeci lhetudies
approvals in areas of concern. It is also my understanding that
of Rifle, and Garfield County.
The proposed road, Tying in Sections 24 and 25, 'Township 7 South, Range 94 West of the
6th Principal Meridian, Garfield County, approximately 9 utiles south of Rifle, is approxi-
mately 4,800 feet in length. Plan and profiles of the road have been created showing the
vertical relief and road grades along the road. (,r(SlstSerrt oy5`�l SUs nrinler�alsd l are shown define the terrain, where the road is proposed.
the enclosed plan to give a visual reference for the construction.
If you have. any questions or need additional material please give inc a call
Sincerely,
I11G11 (9t.INTItl':NGINI;L;IZING, INC.
Roger I). Neal, P.I.
Project Engineer
enc.
-29-
923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone: 303-945-0676 • FAX: 303-945-2555
deOUNTR Y
NGINEER/NG
:)%inc) C..04eT.l'3:.
l;(r) or t-30 ,iv1 .I
I 1 2
Toole 4 i 01-)01-A
l..r.r,�lt,� :38(20
Job (.1(1ekvr>._ (f _ — Job Mo. 1
by dalo 1t3/ .1 ck'dby---- da to
— 1
Subject pago
- of
:1)p JVC : god bp(1I('e
. co.1'.if+ I0, . . :....,
1 11r•y)0" = (l,t(>.
+
1i,
1 ( 11.11 11 t 1
1 1.1
1 \l''// � I p, 1 ll�l = 1•(0
1-3".01-1() . 1 Y i .
rJc:..1 V. IZJ�':f l{� . vs)/ .I fool 1 11` 1 1/ Nu." 1 1,1-1'.1 (111�.1
,1
C-).45):::,1% 1: r . •
.
4D 1\1 l 1- 1 ;,I; N)'
•
(.a3 1\e. �� �, c0t)nl/('
hrP r! I t? 712. ',k
`-T 1/1.ec
C51.1(10``. _. ��•l .'
0:15 h
L1;)e.c1.11
r'.
'0 •\1 1111+)
agev
923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
'III na7a • FAY -nn F -?FF'
i
A) INLET CHART
IE0'--
j- 116
156
144
r 132
120
106
1!6
i10,000
1{,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
EXAMPLE
0.11.4•••11.01.11
0.44 .1.
moo. u«n
111 1.1 it
121 2.1 6.1
111 2.2 I.1
•0.1..1
4.
3.
(2)
1.
Es,
4.
13)
-1.
- S.
- 4. •
z::
a0o �
7 100 I.
500 �._--
y - 72 �- 300 / /; L- 1.5
L) � F 200 wt,/ M I- 1.0 t
_ r L5
• i • 10 0 tam
r
.- ., .- 100 /4 k
C V .- / /
W ,- 41 .-/C ,
J.
x:-60 / /�►- LO IF 1.0
u • 4' / M .- 5 p /„."
:1:
�AIi4F/ SLT7PF✓ - I I
t - j ; _II
,{ 6
..z '_ SJ - 20 11) , D r
G I - ny/ / r1.n.i..••.1v.
• 27 10 /� I /•1.,,., 7 7
—r / r 1 .7
24 /- 1 / r
/ :' / /f•1. ••.r 12) r 131 rort1 -
21 "/ /' .1.8.1.1' .11.. 1), 1« I .6 L- .6
1 j L/ / ••I• •M w..4 W. 1...«. .6
I� y 1«4er .88..88.
I //1- _
r s L.5 L
i3 .0
L L.
Retcren-C: )SOOT, r-HWA, HEC -5 (1965).
3) OUTLET CHART --Flowing Full, n = 0.024
- 2000
-1000
100
t- 100
500
- 400
-120
-106
-{6
--\
4
-. _÷,� ..
1ov-L'11C1.n. 1.--• r 1
11041.121 c4ALET t1iK1T I1L+.1 •.41
w•r.«-11•
Ir rrI or.. -----•. •r•r.• rr 111 0
110
M1
-2 000:::_i
-i
T324 6,.
ILL
Ct -SOL::
I/ � h
�Oo (\,
c?‘„*.;
>
O^ 2
o° -' `V
\ \`C4Co,
" =LLLt
u40 _5)° ...
1
LTIt 00, 1.1
......Thc:\C
27 I �.x
,-20 1El
;'•.
--5-
SDC -
-10
r`
24
�21
1 It
15
6 I
- 3
• '-12
2
FIGURE 8-7 0
Inle_t and Outlet Nomographs for Circular Corrugated Metal Pipe Culverts
N
711.s'I:7 0:JC11
• •
/.'
,.• •
•
j • „.-, •
•• • / (p
/ I ,
,•
•
/1)----
524.,
.• ‘,
•-• -11400
PO.
•
/ •
.•••• /
.19'
„
top°
•• •-• • •
•
. •
_••••••
Buick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S/N:
TR -55 TABULAR IIYDROGRAPN METHOD
Type 11 Distribution
(24 hr. Duration Storm)
Page 1
Executed: 12-18-1995 08:21:43
Watershed file: --> C:\IIAESTAD\POIIUPACK\FOREST .WSD
Ilydrograph file: --> C:\IIAESTAD\PONDPACK\FOREST .IIYD
» » Input Parameters Used to Compute Ilydrograph «<<
Subarea AREA CN Tc * Tt Precip. I Runoff la/p
)escrlption (acres) (hrs) (hrs) (in) I (in) input/used
BASIN 1 112.90 63.0' 0.20 0.00 2.00
0.10 .59 .50
* Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point.
Total area = 112.90 acres or 0.1764 sq.mi
Peak discharge = 7 cfs
»» Computer Modifications of Input Parameters «<<<
Input Values Rounded Values Ia/p
subarea Tc * Tt Tc * Tt Interpolated la/p
Description (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (Yes/No) Messages
ASIN 1
0.19 0.00 0.20 0.00 No Computed Ia/p > .5
* Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point.
uick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S/N:
•
TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPII METHOD
Type II Distribution
(24 hr. Duration Storm)
Page 1
Executed: 12-18-1995 08:42:14
Watershed file: --> C:\IIAESTAD\PoNDPACK\FOREST2 .WSD
Ilydrograph file: --> C:\IIAESTAD\PONDPACK\FOREST2 .IIYD
>>>> Input Parameters Used to Compute Nydrograph <<<<
Subarea AREA CN Tc * Tt Preclp. I Runoff la/p
escriptlon (acres) (hrs) (hrs) (In) I (in) input/used
ASIN2 38.50 63:0. 0.10 0.00 2.00 1 0.10 .59 .50
* Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point.
Total area = 38.50 acres or 0.06016 sq.mi
Peak discharge = 3 cfs
»» Computer Modifications of Input Parameters « « <
Input Values Rounded Values la/p
Subarea Tc * Tt Tc * Tt Interpolated la/p
Description (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (Yes/No)
Messages
ASIN2
0.13 0.00 0.10 0.00 No Computed Ia/p > .5
* Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point.
•
CITY of RIFLE
202 RAILROAD AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1908 • RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 • (970) 625-2121 • FAX (970) 625-3210
F.�'-'`j
r 3
`.
AUG D4 9
elikiltrkilD COUNTY
August 6, 1996
Mr. David Levy
The CAN DO Company
305 Railroad Ave.
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City, CA 95959
RE: Teepee Park Forest Management Plan
Dear Mr. Levy:
I have attached a copy of our Water Resource Engineer's comments regarding the Teepee Park
Forest management plan. I believe their common sense approach of evaluating specific drainage
structures and erosion control methods and re -vegetation prior to actual construction is the best
solution.
The concern I have at this point is the issue of a change in the runoff pattern that could occur due
to the loging operation. At present, the timber helps retain snow and moisture on the mountain
and allows groundwater replenishment to occur over a period of time. It also allows the snow
melt to occur over an extended period of time. I would request that you provide the City with
an analysis of how this change in runoff pattern will affect the watershed.
Sincerely,
Tim Moore, City Engineer
Enclosure
cc: Mark Bean w/enc.
Scott Fifer wo/enc.
August 6, 1996LEVY.LTR
.�..i'�. ESOURCE
A....
■...■ E N G I N E E R I N G I NC.
Mr. Tim Moore
City of Rifle
PO Box 1908
Rifle CO 81650
RE: Tepee Park Forest Management Plan
Dear Tim:
August 5, 1996
At your request Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) reviewed the latest revision of the
Tepee Park Forest Management Plan dated April 1996. The Plan was prepared by Mr. Jeff
Calvert, registered professional forester for David Levy Forestry Services, Nevada City,
California. Our review concentrated on sections of the Plan which impact water quality issues
pertinent to the Beaver Creek watershed, source of municipal water for the City of Rifle. We
provide the following comments for your consideration.
BACKGROUND
RESOURCE reviewed an earlier version of the Tepee Park Forest Management Plan dated March
1995 and provided comments relative to that document in a letter dated March 21, 1995. At
that time we concluded the plan could provide a benefit to the municipal watershed if properly
implemented. However, we also raised several concerns and recommended that the plan be
evaluated under the City's Municipal Watershed Ordinance.
GENERAL
The concerns raised by RESOURCE in our earlier review have been, for the most part,
addressed in this latest revision of the Plan. Specifically, the issues related to construction of
the new road, reclamation of the abandoned road and drainage have been addressed.
The Proponent has increased the area of the equipment exclusion zone (EEZ) and agreed to
exclude winter harvesting in the EEZ without specific approval on a case by case basin as we
recommended.
A Water Quality Plan has also been included as an appendix to the Forest Management Plan.
The Water vCaiity Plan provides
the necessary
elements to iiiSi:iB 1e 18 protection of 'vVatCr
quality. Water quality monitoring has begun and the plan commits the proponent to an
on-going monitoring program. In addition, they have provided a list of Best Management
Practices to be implemented and an inventory of materials to be stored on-site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the Forest Management Plan as presented does provide the basis for the protection
of water quality in the Beaver Creek watershed, it lacks specific detail. The City's watershed
ordinance requires that plans be submitted which include a map showing the drainage pattern,
the amount of runoff and design details for drainage structures. In addition, the plans should
show the type and location of all erosion control structures such as silt fence, straw bales,
rip -rap, fabric and temporary culverts.
-3L-
Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists
909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 ■ (970) 945-6777 ■ Fax (970) 945-1137
Mr. Tim Moore
Page 2
August 5, 1996
We realize that it may be impractical to provide this level of detail for the total project at this
time. We recommend that prior to construction of roads and harvesting timber in any area, a
plan be provided to the City of Rifle showing the drainage structures and erosion control
methods to be implemented in that specific area. A schedule of operations should accompany
each submittal showing the starting date, completion date and proposed reclamation period.
As we mentioned earlier, the basic design concepts and Best Management Practices described
in the Forest Management Plan and the Water Quality Plan are adequate to protect the water
quality in the City's municipal watershed. Our recommendation for greater detail wi!I allow the
City to review the plans for adequacy and inspect the area to assure itself that the plan is being
implemented as approved.
One area of concern not discussed above is the change in runoff pattern which could result
from the timber cutting operation. This issue may be more of a water quantity rather than
water quality concern, however, any increase in peak runoff rate could cause a temporary
increase in turbidity.
The proponent states that the operation will result in a higher water yield from snowmelt. We
agree that the yield may be greater but the runoff will likely be higher also and it may occur
over a shorter duration with higher peaks. We have not analyzed the change in runoff pattern
which would occur as a result of the timber cutting so we can not offer any opinion at this time
as to the significance of the change.
If you have any questions, please give Scott Fifer or me a call. We would be happy to discuss
our comments in more detail if ,you like. Scott is planning to attend the meeting scheduled for
August 14.
Sincerely,
RES
RCE ENGINEERING, INC.
ul S. Bussone, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
PSB/mmm
341-1.2
tmfmplan.341
3 7t_
RESOURCE
ENGINEERING I N C.
•
Tim Moore
City of Rifle
POP Box 1908
Rifle, CO 81650
•
Jeff Calvert RPF # 2146
Phone (916) 265 - 4891
Mobile (916) 764 - 8301
Fax (916) 265 - 1976
Email candoco@oro.net
RE: Teepee Park Forest Management Plan
305 Railroad Avenue
Suite 7
P.O. Box 1797
Nevada City CA 95959
August 13, 1996
Dear Mr. Moore,
You have recently written to express your concerns over the lack of groundwater
replenishment and increase in peak flows as a result of the proposed harvest of timber
within the City's watershed. I have contacted two private companies that have
knowledge of snowpack enhancement and water yield manipulation due to timber
harvesting: Pacific Gas and Electric (PG & E) and Nevada Irrigation District (NID).
PG&E supplies hydro -electric power while NID supplies drinking and irrigation water
to customers in Northern California. Both of these companies harvest timber on
forested lands that they own or control. 1 have also contacted the forest hydrologist at
the USFS, Tahoe National Forest who has provided me with additional studies and
information.
It is well documented that timber harvesting effects snow pack accumulation, snow
melt and water yields. More specifically there is an effect on the timing and quantity of
peak flows. This can have an adverse effect on water quality due to an increase in
turbidity.
Snowpack Accumulation
It is a commonly held belief that trees provide shade to preserve the snow pack. While
this is in part true, this generalization discounts the effects of evapotransporation
losses and canopy interception on accumulated snow pack. It also fails to take
account of aspect, tree species, thermal losses and albedo, the reflective quality of the
snow itself.
1
• •
Spruce and fir trees typically intercept a great deal of snow fall. Smith 1 found up to 40
to 45 percent more snow in openings at maximum snowpack than under adjacent fir
stands. This is due to a portion of the snowfall held on the tree limbs evaporating. The
larger the tree the more snow will be intercepted and the less snow pack will be
accumulated.
Snowmelt
Forest cover does have an effect on the amount and timing of snowmelt. In the spring
the snow melts first around the tree due to conductive heat from the bole. While the
trees do shade the snow behind them they also reflect heat onto the snowpack.
The last snow to melt is on the north facing slopes which receive no direct solar
radiation only indirect radiation from the sky. So, while it is true that trees do provide
shade for the snow the shading is not as effective in the summer on north facing
slopes as it is on the south facing slopes.
Many of the early studies used strip cuts and clearcuts to measure differences in snow
accumulation and snowmelt. Smith's studies showed that not only was there a higher
accumulation of snow in the strip cuts but there was an increase in water content
depending on how the strips were oriented. Strips of a four chain width oriented north
and south had 5 to 8 times the water content within the snow than those oriented east
and west that were 2 chains wide. The conclusion is that while orientation of the
opening is very critical in narrow openings, as size of the opening increases, edge
effect rapidly diminishes.
Peak Flow
For the past 30 years, studies have been conducted on the Fools Creek watershed at
the Fraser Experimental Forest in Colorado analyzing the effects of timber harvesting2.
The objective of the experiments was to determine the effect harvesting timber would
have on the accumulation of snow pack, sediment production and the total yield and
timing of streamflow. Forty percent of the watershed (50% of the timbered area) was
harvested using alternating strip cuts from 1 to 6 tree heights wide.
A study by Troendile and Leaf 3 (1981) found that during the growing season
evapotranspirational draft and the accompanying depletion of stored soil moisture, is
reduced when trees are removed. As a result, harvested areas have a higher moisture
content at the beginning of the dormant season. The soil moisture storage requirement
satisfied at an earlier time results in excess water being available for streamflow.
1Smith, James L. Environmental Hydrology of the Snow Zone of the Sierra Nevada and Coast Ranges of
California, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1980
2Troendle, C. A. and C. F. Leaf, Effects of timber harvest on the Fools Creek watershed, 30 years later; in
Water Resources Research, Vol. 12, pp. 1915-1922, Dec. 1985
3Troendle, C. A. and C. F. Leaf, Effects of timber harvest in the snow zone on volume and timing of water
yield, in Interior West Watershed management, pp. 231-243, Cooperative extension, Washington State
University, Pullman, 1981
2
• •
The Fools Creek study indicated that the peak mean daily discharge was increased an
average of 23%, see graph below. The study goes on to concur with other such
studies that peak mean daily discharge occurs about 7.5 days earlier in the year,
because timber harvest advanced snowmelt and resulted in quicker satisfaction of
recharge requirements.
225
200
_175
_150
_125
Q _100
x
N .075
.050
.025
1956 - 1971
1940 - 1995
1
APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
Average hydrogaphs for Fool's Creek watershed. Solid curve is average hydrography
for 1940-1955; dotted curve is average hydrograph for 1956-1971.
Note that the peak is higher and earlier and the duration is longer. Similar studies by
PG &E in California have shown that partial removal of the overstory canopy tends to
attenuate peak summer flows.
Sediments
Early studies from the 50s and 60s all show significant increases in sediment loads
directly associated with non-regulated logging practices. However, these early studies
were instrumental in quantifying the need for state agencies to formulate "best
management practices" with regard to timber harvesting. Studies found that the
greatest effect on sediment loading was a result of poor road construction practices,
lack of soil stabilization on skid trails, and mechanical operation within the riparian
zone that exposed soils immediately adjacent to creeks.
Conclusion
The increase in water yields expected should not be as high as the studies sited. As
stated these studies involved sizable clearcuts and stripcuts. There are some small
clear cuts within the Aspens, but these will be oriented north and south and they are at
the bottom of the slopes were cool downslope thermals typically slow ablation. The
bulk of the area within the Beaver Creek drainage will use selection and group
selection as a silvicultural method. Less than 40% of the basal area is to be removed.
Openings are minimal with this type of harvest. Retention of most of the residual stand
will provide for late spring and early summer shade.
40
3
• •
The Teepee Creek and Beaver Creek drainages are north facing. Studies show that
the effect of harvesting on these slopes is considerably less than on south facing
slopes. The solar radiation is indirect for most of the spring.
The Teepee Creek Forest Management Plan call for the use of "best management
practices" with regard to skid trail stabilization and road construction. The watercourse
protection is to the highest standard in that no harvesting will take place within the
Watercourse Protection Zones. Additionally, no equipment is allowed within 100 feet of
the watercourses.
This paper is no way meant to satisfy the needs of a formal study or analysis. The only
real data on how the harvest will effect the Beaver Creek drainage can only come
during and after the event. By adhering to the instructions contained in the Forest
Management Plan and the associated documents and advice from consultants and
officials before and during the stages of the operation, we feel that the City of Rifle's
water supply will be protected. With the mitigations required in the plan we expect an
increase in water yield with no increase in turbidity levels.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Calvert and David E. Levy
4
4
74f) /
'VETO J. LASALLE
Forest Supervisor
United States411
— Forest
Department of Service
Agriculture
White River
National
Forest
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Dear Mr. Bean,
P.O. Box 948
Glenwood Springs,
Colorado 81602
970 945-2521
Reply to: 5460
Date: August 22, 1996
This letter is in regards to claims made by a Mr. Mike Bishop of the lack of
legal right-of-way access across his land loacted in Section 24, Township 7
South, Range 94 West (Beaver Creek). We have researched our records and have
concluded we enjoy a full and completely legal right-of-way across his lands on
Forest Road No. 824. Further, this right-of-way is considered public access by
this agency, as our title to the easement reads as such. If Mr. Bishop has
evidence showing some other situation, he should seek legal counsel and provide
us with that information.
Mr. Bishop's claim that the existing road is outside of the right-of-way cannot
be further considered without a valid survey. The Forest Sery
right-of-way surveyed when the DOW originally acquired it, and
survey to be correct. Mr. Bishop needs to provide a survey by
Professional Surveyor showing any validity to his claim before
further action. It is our opinion the road is in the correct
have a full easement open to the public upon it.
ice had the road
we consider this
a licensed
we will take any
location, and we
If you have any further questions, please call Gary Osier at 625-2371.
cc: Rifle RD
1.14
Seaver Creek Road No. 1940
SCNECULE A
(Name of Easement)
White River National Forest
Estate Acquired:
Consideration:
Authority:
Easement
$10.00
Aeaver•CreeiC Road.No.i1940'.
Name of Easement)
;•4' Any unpaid tags*
16 U.S.C. S 572 and 535; 43 U.S.C. 1715
5. Serms`and.provisions:set forth in the deed'to
..States e n s.
6 Payment of the purebaae price
7:' -She caution at item 4` in our"p-climinery title
June`9,'1977,'etill applies. _
the United
opinion of
•
Deed to the United States from State of Colorado, Oeeartment
of Natural Resources
filed for record in
on July 1,
Garfield
, dated _May 2, 1977 ,
County, Colorado
, 1977 , and recorded in. Rook
498, Page 32, Reception No. 279312
The Ownership and Encumbrance Report
issued by Garfield County Abstract Company
dated September 26 , 1977 at
- AN/r14.
J,.
shows that title to the easement is vested in the United States
of America, subject to:
1. Rights, if any, of the United States end third parties
under the reservations and exceptions contained in the
patent.
2. Minerals and mineral rights, if any, outstanding of
record in third parties.
3. Existing easements and existing rights-of-way, if any,
for roads, highways, public utilities, tunnels, ditches,
canals, conduits, drains, pipelines, and reservoirs.
•
Sa
.4 .
hr
Apt!m➢�.lL./:�.vj.eLi15r3
Ns �h �ReeorG^ •
eors49L' PAGE ''32
Tliis EAS :TFN G?AVT is made between the State of Colorado
for the use and benefit of the Department of Natural Resources,
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, hereinafter referred to as 'the Grantor,"
and the United States of America, Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, hereinafter referred to as 'the Grantee.'
The following recitals of fact are a material part of this
instrument:
A. The Grantor is the owner of the easement in the County
of. Garfield, State of Colorado described as follows and herein-
after referred to as "the easement premises:'
Being a strip of land 30 feet in width across H.E.S.
#309 of unaurveyed section 24, Township 7 South,
Range 94 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Garfield
County, Cclorado. Said easement being 15 feet on each
side of the following described center line. Beginning
at a point on the 1-5 line of H.E.S. 301, from which
point Corner Number 5 of H.E.S. 309 hears west 171.30
feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right
having a radius of 220.38 feet for 57.93 feet; thence
south 14'01'15' west 30.11 feet; thence along the arc
of a curve to the left having a radius of 236.50 feet
for 103.92 feet; thence south 6°46'05' esst 205.19 feet.;
thence south 3°32'29' east 184.44 feet; thence south
7'42'53" east 323.05 feet; thence along the arc of a
curve to the right having a radius of 286.50 feet for
128.17 feet; thence south 17°55'11.' west (8.48 feet;
thence along the arc of a curve to the left having e
radius of 286.50 feet for 81.17 feet; thence south
1°40'50" .: west 82.04 feet; thence south 1°38'56'
east 120.70 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to
the right having a radius of 286.50 feet for 67.67 fent;
thence south 11'53'10' west 109.95 feet; thence along
the arc of a curve to the left having a ratline of 286.50
4.7
4
feet for 271.33_feet;.thence south 42°22'22" east 221.63
,_ feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right
_ r l
,.,A. ' ba.ving a_ radina of .260.5O fart for 129.19 feet; ;thsace
south 13°54.06' east 13.02 feet; theaco ilo
rg .the arc
of a curve to the left having a radius cf 260.50 feet
for 166.52 feetp thence south 80°32'35' east 61.29
feet and ending on a point on the 2-3 line of H.E.S./
309. At which ending point. the Corner So. .3 of H.E.S.
309 bearn north 85'11' west 214.40 feet containing 1.6
acres, more or less.
. ;_t493 ,' 33
B. The Grantor wishes to grant and the grantee wishes
to receive an easement for perpetual public road eas'rr-r,t upon,
over, under, and across the easement premises.
NOW T:!SFEFORE, in consideration of Ten and '.:lCn Dollars
(610.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the following
grants, agreements and covenants and restrictions are made:
1. GRANT OF EASr21ENT: The Grantor hereby grant:: to the
Grantee, iris successors and assigns, a perpetual easement for
a perpetual public road easement upon, over, under, and across
the easement: premises.'
2. The Grantee shall construct and maintain a road upon
said easement premises within two yearn from the date of this
easement grant ani upon construction of said road the Grantee
shall post it in conspicious places to the affect that the
road is an access road to Forest Service land and all properties
on both sidrn of the easement premises are private and no
trespass is .allowed.
3. If said condition and stipulations of this easement
grant are not adhered to, it shall become null and void .,nel
shall revert to the Grantor.
4. WAR.^.ANTIES OF TITLE; Grantor warrants that he has
good and indefeasible fee simple title to the easement premises.
RUNNING OF B;S;EPITS AND BURDENS,. All provisions of
this instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with •
the land and are bi.ndtng upon and enure to the Beira, assigns,
+ successors, tenants and personal representatives of theparties
•
t
hereto.-
6.
ereto."6. CONSTRUCTION! The rule of strict construction does
not apply to this grant. This grant shall be given a reasonable
construction co that the intention of the parties to conver a
usable right of public enjoyment on the Grantee is carried out.
i'
Dnit430.Pue '3:i
1N S,,L7;FS3.Xr±z4 Onthe'Grantar and the Grantee have here •
-
unto set'their hands'tlli.s day of � ,�,�._, 19 77 .
STATE OF COLORADO -
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Wildlife
K R. GRIF?3!yirector
STATE 07 COLORADO
The foregoing instrument vas acknowledged before we this =
'ee day of ANI .,:11.0., 1977 by .Inca P t r eL
-toy commission expires
reaa••v=..
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary. Public
Subject:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 7f PC."ICuL7JP=
d I.c• ATM it -
910 Guaranty Bank Building
517 Seventeenth Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
546Q Rights -of -Waw
Deaver Creek Road No. 1940
_White River National Forest
Final. itle Opinion
5460 Rights -of -Way Acquisition
To: Regional Forester
Denver,"Colorado
OCT 1 4 1977
An examination has been made of the title evidence and re-
lated papers pertaining to an easement acquired by the
United States that is more particularly described in the
enclosed deed.
The title evidence and accompanying date disclose valid
title to the easement to be vested of record in the United
States of America, subject to the rights and easements noted
in Schedule A attached hereto which your Service has advised
will not interfere with the proposed use of the land.
The title evidence and related papers are enclosed.
• JACK E. RARFHORR
Regional Attorney
• Robert C. Reid
Attor:aey
Attachments
•
a.rk`;rl
LUCKY 13 RANCH
SUSANNA & CHRIS LOCHER
2309 317 RD.
RIFLE, CO 81650
P.O.BOX 2567
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
TEL. (970)625-3620
•
PLANING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF GARIFIELD
STAFF BUILDING AND PLANING DEPT.
ATTN. MARK BEAN
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601
RIFLE 10.15.96
RE: TUCKER AND ERASE PROPOSED TIMBER "MANAGEMENT PLAN"
DEAR MARK,
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
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 WE GOES BLM PERMITS
AND A FOREST SERVICE PERMIT. THE BLM PERMIT (BEAVER -MANN) 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 MAMM PEAK. FURTHERMORE
WE OPERATE A BLM PERMIT TOGETHER WITH ROY SAVAGE AND THE MEAD'S IN PORCUPINE.
ALL TOGETHER APPROX. 23'000 ACRES COMBINED. 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 RUN-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, RETAINED 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 WE 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 % 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 TUCKER/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 % 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 TOO. 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
OF 2 WEEK IN OCT.96.
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PRESENT TIMBER PRICES, LABOR COSTS, INSURANCE, 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/FRASE. 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 SUBDIVISION/PUD APPROVAL PROCESS. WE ARE AFRAID, ONCE IOGGING 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, PARACHURE 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 CONSUMPTION 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 THE TREATMENT PLANT ON
TAUGENBOUGH MESA HAD TO SHUT DOWN EVERY OTHER DAY DUE TO LACK OF WATER. THAT
PICTURE COULD SIGNIFICANTLY 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 MAKING OF AN INEXPERIENCED
GROUP OF PEOPLE. TIM FRASE, 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 OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
• •
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 WHAT KIND OF
SPECIL USE PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED TO TUCKER AND FRASE.
SINCERELY YOURS
LUCKY 13 RANCH
SUSANNA AND CHRIS LOCHER
WRNF 970-625-2532 ID:
TOTAL NO. OF
PAGES INCLUDING
COVER
FROM:
JAN 03'97 15:45 No.002 P.01
REGION 2, ROCKY. MOUNTAIN REGION
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
RIFLE RANGER DISTRICT
0094 COLTNTY ROAD 244
RIFLF,
NAME r 5(e-1`
CO 82650
970/625-2371
FA X NO,
- 5322,
PHONE no. - ;V
LOCATION f< III( D
COMMENT:
(-I
A7 4') isyol
-3-77
TO:
NAME
FAX NO. C341-,-- 7/ c59'
PI -ONE NO
LOCATION 6,0 /,.1,3 /
,‘, /51 4/4-7 A/c,:
T//< re -/./1/4- ..s .7 2
/7/ j:)( ‘) f -,v4;
7- /7 /.5.4, -/ /2/I (/‘,•!:-. /5 /1 /9/, ? t4/ d 2 6) e)t,i/k:
/1 4 Ald Lk))
tvi
' •
y // • / ,/
I.URNF 970-625-253')
ID: JAN 03'9? 15:45 No.002 P.02
f. Additional width to accommodate a critical vehicle on a bituminous or
concrete surfaced road.
3. Turnouts, The primary purposes of turnouts an single -lane, two-way
roads is to provide user convenience and safety and to maintain user speed.
Secondary purposes include excavation disposal and borrow areas, construction
and maintenance staging and turnaround areas, and disabled vehicle storage
areas, In many Situations, economic and environmental constraints preclude
conatruCting turnouts for secondary purposes.
a. Turnout Spacing. User costs, safety, and delays are important
considerations for traffic service level A or B roads. Normally the design
sped, intended traffic service level, and anticipated traffic volumes have
been determined previously through the transportation planning process. Use
exhibit 4 in conjunction with the following equation to determine turnout
spacing needed to attain the traffic flow characteristics for the intended
traffic service level.
where:
T = 36
T P Increase in travel time for the interrupted
vehicle (percent).
.
D a belay time per mile for the interrupted
vehicle (seconds). See exhibit 5.
S = Design speed (miles per hour).
Solve the equation for T. Then use the graph in exhibit 4 to determine the
turnout spacing required to accommodate the number of vehicles passing over the
road per hour (VPH). VPH is based on a 10 -hour day when converting from
average daily traffic.
'xhibit 5 contains turnout spacing requirements and operational constraints for
all traffic service levels. On roads identified as being subject to the
Highway Safety Act (FSM 7730.3), intervisible turnouts or appropriate signing
should be provided.
The interrelated variables (spacing, vehicles per hour, delay time, and design
speed) should each be analyzed based on their relative importance.
Different combinations should be investigated to determine their effect on haul
economics, safety, construction costs, and the environment.
The objective is to provide turnout spacing to satisfy the traffic flow
characteristics for the intended traffic service level.
b. location of Turnouts. Space turnouts on Mingle -lane roads according to
item a. The location of turnouts must reflect the proper blend of road users,
safety, and economics. Normally, locate turnouts on the outside of cuts, such
as the outside of a curve around a point of a ridge; low side of fills, such as
*-FSH 9/87 AMEND 2-*
JRNF 970-625-2532
ID: JAN 03'97 15:46 No.002 P.03
the upper side of curves across ravines; or at the runout_ point between through
cuts and fills, and preferably on the side of the unloaded vehicle. Turnouts
should not be used arbitrarily ae a waste or borrow area to balance earthwork
design quantities. Turnouts may be used to provide openings :For viewing of
scenic vistas.
c. Turnout Widths and gChs. (Ex. G).
When the design Criteria and elements (alignment and grade) require numerous
turnouts, consider constructing a two-lane road if it would be more economical
or would reduce safety hazards caused by constantly varying widths.
For typical turnout details, see exhibit 7.
4. Turnarounds. Turnaround designs should coiwider both critical and
design vehicles. Turnarounds should be provided at or near the and of
single -lane roads, at points where Traffic Service Level or road standards
change, and at management closure points, such as gates and barricades.
Normally this will not require additional extensive construction. With minor
alterations, a terminal facility Can often be used for this purpose.
Intermediate turnarounds are usually not necessary on most roads and should be
provided only when existing facilities, such as turnouts, do not provide
adequate room for users to turn around.
Consider placing signs if intermediate turnarounds create a hazard to other
users. Design turnarounds to allow the design vehicle to turn with reasonably
safe maneuvering. Unless economic or environmental constraints indicate
otherwise, design turnarounds to allow the design vehicle to reverse direction
in one backing and turning maneuver.
Resource management objectives may require additional turn arounds for fire
staging, maintenance, or other access needs. Additional turnarounds for
construction purposes may be cost-effective.
5. Curve Widening. Widening of the traveled way is required on some
curves to provide for the offtracking of tractor -trailer vehicles and for some
light vehicle -trailer combinations. Curve widening to accommodate the design
vehicle is considered a part of the traveled way.
In most cases, the design should consider several types of vehicles, of which
the following are most common.
a. Tractor -trailer combinations where the fifth wheel is located directly
over the drive wheels, such as a lowboy or a gravel truck.
b. Tractor -trailer combinations with towing pivot point offset to the rear
of the drive wheels, such as logging trucks with "stingers" to facilitate
making short radius turns.
c. Tractor -trailer combinations that have two fifth wheels and accessory
axles.
d. Yarders arranged in operational mode or travel configuration.
*-FSH 9/87 AMEND 2-*
JjJRNF -970-625-2532 ID
JAN 03'97 15:46 No.002 P.04
ROAD PRECONSTHUCTION HANDBOOK
Exbihit kL
Turnout Spins;
15
}
y 10
0
4-
CU8
v
5
L
ao 5 10 15 20 25
c Number of Vehicles Passing Over Road Per Hour (vph)
*—FSH 5/87 AMEND 1--*
53_
ti
o
\' ,
.,
1
a
1q
raw
"(k
ac
ZS
"$$$$"54".1
*—FSH 5/87 AMEND 1--*
53_
IRNF 970-625-9532 ID:
JAN 03'97 15:46 No.002 P.05
ROAD PRECONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK
E.xtUb i t 5
Turnout Spacing
Traffic
Service
Level
Turnout Spacing
Operational
Constraints
A
Make turnouts intervisible unless
excessive costs or environmental
constraints preclude construc-
tion. Closer spacing may
contribute to efficiency and
convenience. Maximum spacing
is 1,000 ft.
Traffic: Mixed
Capacity: Up to 25 vph
Design Speed: Up to 40 mph
Delays: 20 sec./mile or less
8
intervisible turnouts are
highly desirable but may
be precluded by excessive
Costs or environmental
constraints. Maximum spacing
is 1,000 ft.
Traffic: Mixed
Capacity: Up to 25 mph
Design Speed: Up to 25 mph
Delays: Should be 30 sec./mile
or less
Use signs to warn non-
commercial users of the traffic
to be expected. Road segments
without intervisible turnouts
Should be signed.
C
Maximum spacing is 1,000 ft.
When the environmental
impact is low and the investment
is economically ,justifiable.
additional turnouts may be
constructed.
Traffic: Small amount of mixed
Capacity: Up to 20 vph
Design Speed: Up to 20 mph
Delays: Up to 60 sec./mile
Road should be managed to
minimize conflicts between
commercial and noncommercial users.
D
Generally, only naturally-
occuring turnouts, such as
additional widths on ridges or
other available areas on flat
terrain. are used.
Traffic: Not intended for mixed
Capacity: Generally 10 vph or less
Design Speed: 15 mph or less
Delays: At least 60 sec./mile expected
Road should be managed to
restrict concurrent use by commerical
and noncommercial users.
Note: On roads identified as being subject to the Highway
Safety Act, intervisible
should be provided.
turnouts
or appropriate signing
*-FSH 5/87 AMEND 1-*
JJRNF 970-6?5-2532 ID
JAN 03'97 15:47 No.002 P.05
ROAD PRECONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK
F.xh;bit 6
111_12 tha- and I.e_gtiha
Traffic Service
Level
A
Turnout Width
10'
B
10'
Turnout Length
Transition Lengths
Design vehicle length
or 75 FT minimum. which-
ever is largest.
Minimum 50 FT transitions
at each end.
Design vehicle length.
Minimum 50 FT transitions
at each end.
c
Make the minimum total
width of the traveled way
and turnout the width of
two design vehicles plus
4 FT.
D
Make the minimum total
width of the traveled way
and turnout the width of
two design vehicles plus
4 FT.
Design vehicle length.
Minimum 25 FT transitions
at each end.
Empty truck length.
Minimum 25 rr transitions
at each end.
The maximum transition length is limited to 75 FT for all service levels.
*—PSH 5/87 AMEND 1.*
LIRNF 970-625-2532 I D :
Exhibit 7
JAN 03'97 15:47 No . 002 P.07
ROAD PRECONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK
M
II II 11 II
*-FSH 5/87 AMEND 1-*
WRNF 970-625-2532
APINMINGINMP
ID: JHN 03'97 15:48 No.002 P.08
50'
'‘JORMAL WIDTH (TYP)
22' (YF)
MINI MUI71
50'
60'
sill —lb.. -
22' (TP)
60'
MINIMUM
50'
22'(rYP)
TJR
\OUTS
TOB
TOR
TOL
OARFIELD cowry
July 29, 1996
Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303
Dear Mark,
FOREST
SERVICE
State Services Building
222 S. 6th Street, Room 416
Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
Telephone: (970) 248-7325
I have reviewed the Tepee Park Forest Management Plan recently re -submitted to Garfield
County by Tucker-Frase, prepared by David Levy Forestry.
As mentioned during our initial plan review meeting on March 20, 1995, our main concerns with
this proposal centered around the volume of wood scheduled for cutting, and the feasibility of
road construction into the steep areas of this property. I feel that these concerns have been
adequately addressed in the revised plan. The "Management Recommendations" section beginning
on page 29 has been revised to include several silvicultural options, and states clearly that no
more than 40% of the basal area in the original stands will be cut. In addition, the geotechnical
study indicates that proposed road locations are feasible.
Any forest management plan is only as good as the way it is carried out on the ground. Ensuring
that work is actually performed to the specifications stated in this plan will remain an issue. The
Colorado State Forest Service will remain available, on request, to inspect timber marked prior to
cutting, or to evaluate logged areas once work has begun.
Thanks for the opportunity to review this proposal. As always, feel free to contact either myself
or John Denison for additional input regarding this logging proposal.
Sincerely,
---�(
Kelly Rogers
Assistant District Forester