The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 Correspondence - James Beckwith 10.16.2001JAMES A. BECKWITH Attorney and Counselor at Law 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-9966 // FAX 303-431-2803 / E -Mail Ithamer@aol.com October 16, 2001 Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Planning & Zoning 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Intermountain Resources, LLC Resolution 97-70 / Tepee Park Dear Mark: Enclosed is the letter I received from Chief Michael Morgan, Rifle Fire Protection District, regarding the filing of the Fire Management Plan with his Department pursuant to the terms of Garfield County Resolution 97-70. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, James A. Beckwith cc w/ enclosure: Mr. Don K. DeFord Mr. Christopher C. Meyers Mr. Norman A. Carpenter Mr. William Gherardi JAMES A. BECKWITH Attorney and Counselor at Law 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-9966 // FAX 303-431-2803 / E -Mail Ithamer@aol.com July 29, 2002 Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Planning Department 108 E. Eighth St., Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED JUL_ A (') ?H! GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING RE: Intermountain Resources / Norman A. Carpenter Special Use Permit / Tepee Park Harvesting AMENDED RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT OF GEORGE BAUER Dear Mr. Bean: Per our discussion of July 24, 2002, I am enclosing the following documents for inclusion in the "Commissioners' Packet" of materials for the August 5, 2002, BOCC meeting. These are submitted on behalf of the Special Use Permit Holders identified above:: 1. Summary of Amended Response to George Bauer Complaint (8 copies) 2. Amended Response to George Bauer Complaint (8 copies) I have included the Summary, since the formal Amended Response is quite comprehensive and lengthy. The Summary has the necessary appendices. Also enclosed herewith is an extra copy of this letter, which I would appreciate your office receipting and returning to my office in the self-addressed, metered envelope enclosed for your use. Your cooperation and assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Y urs truly, James A. Beckwith Enclosures RECEIVED JUL 3 0 2002 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING JAMES A. BECKWITH Attorney and Counselor at Law 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-9966 // FAX 303-431-2803 / E -Mail Ithamer@aol.com July 30, 2002 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Garfield County Courthouse 109 Eighth St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Tepee Park / Forest Management Plan AMENDED RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT OF GEORGE BAUER Dear Commissioners: On July 1, 2002, an informational hearing/meeting was conducted before the Board of County Commissioners. Based on information then provided, the matter was recessed and scheduled for further information gathering on August 5, 2002. On July 24, 2002, a conference was held with Garfield County Planning and the Garfield County Attorney, at which additional information was supplied. Based on that conference, this letter shall be the Amended Response by Mr. Norman A. Carpenter ("Carpenter") and Intermountain Resources, LLC ("I R") regarding the complaints made by Mr. George Bauer, and the questions raised by Commissioner McCown. CONVERSIONS ON CITATIONS TO FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN On July 1, 2002, a copy of the Official Forest Management Plan (OFMP) was obtained from Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Director. Comparison of this 85 page document with Mr. Bauer's Complaint reveals that Mr. Bauer's citations to pages do not match with the OFMP. The conversion between the two is as follows: No. Item BauerCite (Pg) OFMPCite (PO 1. Map / Existing & Proposed Road 2, 32 3, 4, 15, 21, 24 2. Width of Roads w/in Tepee Park 33 44 1 No. Item 3. Roads on 65%+ slopes 4. Roads on 50%+ slopes 5. Winter Operating Period 6. WPZ Protection 7. Fire Safety 8. Logging Slash 9. Administration 10. Recreation & Visual Resources 11. Logging Truck Noise 12. Dust Control 13. Truck Axle Configurations 14. Hours of Operation 15. Operating Season BauerCite (Pg) 34 34 40 41 46-48 49 49 53 55 55 58 58 58 OFMPCite (Pg) 54, Part (a) 54, Part (b) 64 65-67, 76 70-72 73 73 38, 44, 77 80 81 83 83 (See: Res. 97-70) 83 (See: Res. 97-70) AMENDED RESPONSE TO BAUER COMPLAINT 1. Haul Roads Within Tepee Park Bauer Complaint: Was current haul route shown on revised FMP approved either by GarCo or City of Rifle? BOCC Resolution 97-70 (97-70) nowhere specifies the location, construction or other requirements for haul roads within Tepee Park. Instead, Ordering Paragraphs (1) and (2) state: (Permit) is approved...upon the following specific conditions: (1) That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, and the forestry plan, shall be considered conditions of approval; (2)..prior to issuance of a County special use permit, the applicant receive (an SUP from USFS) and the appropriate land use permit from the City ofRifle for watershed protection. Any additional conditions of approval attached to those permits shall be considered conditions of approval for this permit. The OFMP (4/96) did identify proposed routes of the haul roads within Tepee Park (OFMP: Pg. 15) after discussion with and approval by Mr. Tim Moore, the then City Watershed Inspector. (OFMP: Pg. 43) The City of Rifle issued its Watershed Permit 1-97, which was amended to reflect the current owners in May, 2001. The Watershed Permit incorporated the OFMP. On July 1, 2001, the Porcupine Fire required immediate road construction for fire access. Prior to that date, haul roads had not been constructed within Tepee Park. The existing haul roads were then constructed at the direction of the Garfield County Sheriff, in the routes shown on the attached map. (Appendix A). On August 28, 2001, these haul roads were inspected, mapped and approved for re-routing by the City of Rifle under its Watershed Permit. (Appendix B) In addition, 2 Mr. Bill Gherardi, acting as the Designated Inspector for both GarCo and the City of Rifle, approved using the fire roads as the haul roads. Conclusion: Amended location of roads was approved by City of Rifle and the GarCo Inspector. The OFMP was deemed amended by City of Rifle on August 28, 2001. This may have been automatically incorporated into the GarCo Permit by Ord.Para. (2). 2. Width of Roads and Turn -Outs Bauer Complaint: Existing haul road is 20 ft. wide, has no ditch and is within a cleared swath of Aspen trees. No mulching seen on cut/fill slopes. What does inspection report show? A. Width of Haul Roads: The OFMP specified that haul roads within Tepee Park would have a surface, or "tread" width, of 12-14 ft., with visible turnouts. (OFMP; Pg. 44) The haul roads constructed do have that surface/tread width, except at "switchback corners" where, by necessity, the tread area is wider. Turnouts are employed at the switchback corners. Road construction and maintenance has been inspected, monitored and approved by Messrs. Bussone and Gherardi. The City of Rifle has not detected any siltation or other diminution in water quality of Beaver Creek. The GarCo and Rifle inspectors determined that the roads met the OFMP criteria. (Appendix C) The OFMP does not specify road width or turnouts outside Tepee Park. That specification is provided by either USFS (National Forest Lands) or Garfield Road & Bridge (GCR 317). Ordering Para. (7), 97-70, required improvements on GCR 317 to the specifications of GarCo R&B. These were completed and approved in 2000. B. Felling Aspen Trees: Ordering Para. (13), 97-70 prohibited the harvesting of Aspen trees within Tepee Park: "...with the exception of the incidental cutting of (Aspen) trees, approved by the inspector agreed to by the City of Rifle and the County. Construction of the haul roads did include felling certain Aspen trees along the route: particularly during the fire emergency in July, 2001. Cutting these Aspen trees was approved by Messrs Bussone and Gherardi, as part of their approval of the altered routes of the haul roads. Additionally, felling these Aspen trees was ordered by the Garfield County Sheriff, incidental to his order for the construction of the emergency fire access roads. Conclusion: The haul roads have been constructed in accordance with the OFMP standards. Aspen trees have been felled only as incidental to road construction. Road construction has been reviewed, inspected and approved by both City of Rifle and GarCo Inspector. 3 3. Roads on 65%+ Slopes Bauer Complaint: Haul road is constructed on cut/fill balance along entire length without regard to slope. Fill slopes extend downhill for 10-20 ft. without benching or retention. For roads exceeding 100 ft. in length, across slopes having a percentage of 65% or greater, the OFMP specified only that the roads would be shored by sidecasting. (OFMP; Pg. 54) The purpose of such sidecasting was to prevent erosion, and resulting silting into Beaver Creek. The OFMP did not specify or limit the percentage grade for the road. The OFMP further identified methods of constructing roads across such slopes, including "full bench cuts". (OFMP; Pg. 52) The width of such cuts is measured differently from width of a road on a level surface. [OFMP; Pg. 54, Item (b)] In constructing roads using full bench cuts, the actual width of the road is greater than 12-14 ft., although the tread/surface width remains at 12-14 ft., since the vehicles do not travel on "fill material". Rather, they travel on the compacted soil opened by the full bench cut. IMR/Carpenter have made the full bench cuts, and the sidecasting, in accordance with the OFMP. These cuts have been reviewed and approved by both Mr. Paul Bussone (Rifle Watershed Inspector) and Mr. Bill Gherardi. Notably, Mr. Bussone has not observed or discovered any silting or other contamination of Beaver Creek resulting from IMR's construction. (Appendix D) Conclusion: Roads constructed have complied with OFMP criteria, after inspection by GarCo and City of Rifle officials. 4. Roads on 50%+ Slopes Bauer Complaint: Standing live Aspen trees within fill slope, and there is no compacted bench. On slopes have a percentage 50%-65%, and exceeding 100 ft. in length across such slopes, the OFMP required that the road be shored by employing full bench cuts. (OFMP; Pg. 54) Here again, IMR's construction method is in accordance with OFMP (Pg. 52-54), approved by Messrs. Bussone and Gherardi). It should be noted that the OFMP, for roads exceeding 100 ft. in length across slopes 35%- 50% provides a different method of "shoring" the road to prevent erosion and watercourse silting. (OFMP; Pg. 54) Here again, IMR has constructed the roads in accordance with the OFMP, and approved by Messrs. Bussone and Gherardi. Conclusion: Complaint not substantiated after inspection and approval by GarCo and Rifle inspectors. 4 5. Winter Operating Period Bauer Complaint: Logging began in Fall and continued into April. Haul road system plowed to bare ground, as single lane without turnouts. Does not open land to utilize road to access both public and private lands for winter recreation. A. Snow Removal: Neither Resolution 97-70 nor the OFMP provide for any standards or requirements for snow plowing on haul roads within Tepee Park. Neither document provides any standards or requirements for snow plowing on GCR 317, 320 or USFS Road 824. Since GCR 317 is a Garfield County Road, snow removal is a County function. USFS Road 824 and "VonDette Road" are subject to USFS regulation only. Garfield County has never accepted either of these USFS roads as county roads subject to County regulations and rules. IMR/Carpenter has plowed the haul roads within Tepee Park, and, at USFS or GR&B direction, on USFS Road 824 and 317 in an appropriate manner to provide traction, access and erosion prevention. Mr. Bauer asserts that the plowing was "...to bare ground...", although the meaning of that term is not understood. Certainly, snow plowing reveals the rocked/graveled surface of the roads but it does not include removal of the rock/gravel to bare soil. B. Winter Operating Season / Timbering: 97-70 does not specify "operating seasons" for the Tepee Park project. The OFMP expected the "Regular Season", as it were, to run from June until winter snows prevented further work. (OFMP; Pg. 83) In addition, however, the OFMP also contemplated felling and yarding of tees and logs after winter snow began, due to the frozen ground. (OFMP; Pg. 64). C. Winter Operating Season / Log Transports: 97-70 does not specify a restricted "season" for hauling logs on County Roads. Ordering Para. (3) simply states that log hauling on County Roads would be between 6 AM and 6 PM, Mon -Fri. [This is a change from the 6-5, Mon -Sat. stated in OFMP, Pg. 83] Ordering Para. 16 specified GCR 317 and 320 (to Taugenbaugh Road) as the County Road Haul Route. Ordering Para. (11) required suspension of hauling when GCR 317 was needed by a local rancher for moving livestock. D. Public Access for Winter Recreation: This is discussed elsewhere within this Amended Response. Conclusion: Snow removal on GCR 317 is regulated by GarCo Road & Bridge. There are no regulations for snow removal on interior haul roads. Winter operating season is authorized by OFMP. Tepee Park is not open to public use. 6. Watercourse Protective Zones and Equipment Exclusion Zones Bauer Complaint: A field inspection must be done to determine whether landowner is in compliance with EEZ and WPA requirements. Did GarCo Inspector verify such compliance? 5 The OFMP establishes differing WPZ's for "perennial" and "seasonal" watercourses. There are four perennial watercourses: Porcupine Creek; Tepee Creek; Beaver Creek; and, West Mamm Creek. (OFMP; Pg. 65) For perennial watercourses, the OFMP establishes a WPZ 25 ft. on each side of the watercourse. (OFMP: Pg. 66-67) Equipment Exclusion Zones (EEZ) are 100 ft. on each side of the watercourse. (OFMP; Pg. 67) For seasonal watercourses, a 50 ft. EEZ is provided, but not a WPZ. (OFMP; Pg. 66-67) An exception is created for equipment on roads: EEZ: No heavy equipment will be allowed (sic) within the zone except at designated road crossings or along roads located within the zone. Trees harvested outside the WPZ but within the EEZ will be felled to lead away from the watercourse and end - lined out of the EEZ. (OFMP; Pg. 66) At the July 24th meeting with Planning and County Attorney, Mr. Bussone and Mr. Gherardi verified that IMR/Carpenter have complied with these conditions. Conclusion: Inspection by GarCo and City of Rifle established compliance with the WPZ and EEZ restrictions. 7. Fire Safety Bauer Complaint: Equipment seen on GCR 317 is greasy with debris from previous jobs still in place. Large chains on skidder tires canproduce sparks. Has the GarCo Inspector verified compliance with FMP? A. Fire Plans: Ordering Paras. 18 and 19, 97-70 required filing of plans and agreements for emergency services. These were submitted to the Rifle Fire Protection District and the Garfield County Emergency Preparedness Office in October, 2001, when the Permit was being issued. Verification was given to Messrs. Mark Bean and Don DeFord of those filings. B. Fire Tool Box: Except for Ordering Para. (1), 97-70 does not provide a requirement for this "fire box". The OFMP requires such a box be kept at the work site, and not on the equipment. (OFMP; Pg. 71, Item 8) The box is inspected and sealed by "...The County Sheriff or other County approved designee....". (OFMP; Pg. 71, Item 8) IMR provides this fire box to all contract loggers working on the project, and it has been reviewed and approved by Mr. Gherardi: the GarCo designated inspector. Verification of the fire box and inspection was given to Planning and County Attorney at the July 24th meeting. C. Belly Pans: The OFMP (Pg. 71, Item 10) specifically directs the inspection and cleaning of belly pans on bulldozers, skidders and loaders. and to frequently inspect exhaust systems thereof. Spark arrestors are required, except, inter alia, on passenger -carrying vehicles equipped with baffled mufflers. Notably, BOCC Resolution 97-70 requires timber crews to be transported by crew cab truck, and not individual passenger sedans, into and out of the work site. Additionally, logging trucks are twice-daily examined for leaks at the Montrose mill operated by IMR. 6 Mr. Bauer apparently observed the yarding equipment being transported into the job site ou. not at the job site. While on transporting trailers, this equipment does not pose a fire hazard. Upon arrival, and both before and after work each day, the yarding equipment is inspected and cleaned D. Water Truck: 97-70 is silent as to this specific requirement. The OFMP requires a 150 gallon capacity water truck or pumper with a minimum pump capacity of 90-100 gallons/minute, with pressure at 100 psi. (OFMP; Pg. 71, Item 9) At this capacity, the water truck will disburse its load in 1.8 minutes. Replenishment cannot be from Beaver Creek or Tepee Creek. Refills can only be obtained at the City of Rifle: involving a 2 hour minimum round trip. IMR/Carpenter admit that the tanker was not on site. As of July 15th , however, a 250 gal. tanker was stationed. As of July 29, 2002, a 3,000 gallon tanker is being stationed, with additional hose lengths up to 500 ft. Conclusion: Water truck not present, but now stationed and exceeds OFMP requirements. Yarding equipment is inspected and cleaned, each day, at the yarding site. Logging trucks - not specified in OFMP - are inspected twice daily at the Montrose Mill. All required fire equipment has been inspected and approved by GarCo Inspector. 8. Logging Slash Bauer Complaint: Piles of logging slash in the yarding areas are 10-20 ft. high, with majority of slash being tree tops. Our original Response identified and described the two methods for handling slash: i.e., "In Woods" and "Skidding". The OFMP discusses slash in only one place: Pg. 73. The OFMP sets forth the criteria for trimming limbs: i.e., inches from stump or ground, distance from roads, etc. Notably, it does not state whether the trimmed limbs will be left in the timber stand or skidded to another location (e.g., a landing) At Pg. 73, the OFMP does state: All merchantable culls will be removed from the harvest area if there is an economy of removal and an environmental benefit. However, a "merchantable cull" is not slash. It is, instead, a trunk 6 inches in diameter or larger which is not usable for lumber milling. It could be used for chipping or flaking (say, at Louisiana Pacific's now -closed mill in Olathe) to make wafer board. Since that mill is closed - and there is no other commercial market for chipping or flaking at this time - then there is not an "economy of removal" Mr. Bauer's complaint on slash is not the size of limbs trimmed. Instead, it is the slash piles at the landing areas. However, the OFMP does not have any provision for what will, or will not, be done at the landing areas. In the absence of such a provision - and since Res. 97-70 does not state otherwise - the landing areas are governing by Best Management Practices. 7 The Skidding method is preferred by foresters operating in Colorado, since it places the slash in a centralized area away from the actual timber stands. Fire prevention - and, if necessary, fire fighting - is more readily accomplished when the slash is centralized. Accordingly, after review and approval by Mr. Gherardi, EMR employed the "skidding" method of dealing with this slash. Verification of this approval was given to BOCC at the June 28th meeting. This slash will be burned when climate and other conditions are favorable for such burning. Obviously, that has not yet occurred. Nor has it occurred anywhere else in Timber Sale areas monitored by the U.S. Forest Service. Except for persons working within the yarding area, this slash is not visible nor an impediment to yarding operations within Tepee Park. Conclusion: Treatment of slash has been in accordance with OFMP (which does not establish a specific standard) and with Best Management Practices. The skidding method has been observed and approved by GarCo Inspector. 9. Administration / Inspection: Bauer Complaint: Who is responsible for supervision and inspection? Who is paying for it? Where are the inspection reports? A. Costs of Inspection Services: Resolution 97-70, Ordering Para. (5) provides for inspection, monitoring and supervision by the GarCo designated inspector as follows: ...the forest management practices and revegetation will be monitored for compliance with the proposed Teepee Park Forest Management Plan by a consultant agreed upon by the Board of County Commission, City of Rifle and the applicant, paid for by the applicant. That each tree will be marked prior to harvesting for inspection by the consultant and the Division of Wildlife, prior to harvesting. Garfield BOCC reviewing the resumes of various foresters and designated Mr. Bill Gherardi as the inspector for the GarCo Special Use Permit. The City of Rifle Watershed Permit No. 1-97 also provides for inspections and monitoring of the harvest project as follows: (Para. 18) "...Subject to approval by (BOCC), the Permit Holder shall hire Bill Gherardi... or such other consultant as the parties may mutually agree upon, to act as the forest management practices compliance consultant required by the Permit as well as the erosion/control/water quality supervisor required by the Permit. Para. 17, Rifle Watershed Permit, further provides that all costs of engineering, and inspections for continuing compliance with that Permit, are borne by the Permit Holder: to wit, l R/Carpenter. 8 In response to Mr. Bauer's Complaint, the costs of these inspections are not borne by either the City of Rifle or Garfield County or "taxpayers" in general. They are borne solely by 1R/Carpenter. B. Separate Forester for Project Supervision: The only provision in the OFMP for supervision of the project is at Pg. 73: The administration of the operation will be under the supervision of a Tucker & Frase forester. This includes the following:... The final layouts of haul roads, cable roads (corridors), yarder sets and the landings will be flagged in conjunction with the Contractor' s representative.... The monitoring of the road construction, felling, skidding, yarding and hauling operations as needed throughout the life of the operation. Obviously, this forester (Mr. Chris Meyers, IMR) works in cooperation with Messrs Bussone (Rifle Water Engineer) and Mr. Gherardi (City and GarCo Inspector) in the performance of the harvesting operation. It is clear, however, that the OFMP does not specify the GarCo inspector as the supervisor of the harvesting project. Instead, as would be customary, EVIR/Carpenter would have its own supervising forester. C. Annual or Periodic Reporting: The OFMP is silent as to any periodic reports to the permitting entity by either IMR/Carpenter or the permitting entity's designated inspector. The Rifle Watershed Permit requires twice annual reports to the Rifle Water Engineer (Mr. Bussone) and the Rifle Public Works Office (Mr. Sappington). Resolution 97-70 has only one requirement, set forth in Ordering Para. (9):' This Special Use Permit is subject to review for compliance or noncompliance with performance requirements associated with the issuance of the permit. The applicant will be required to submit a report one year from the date of approval of a resolution of approval indicating the measures taken to comply with the performance requirements of the permit. (Emphasis Supplied) The Permit was issued on October 29, 2001 (Appendix E), and, thus, the Permit Holder's Annual Report is due October 29, 2002. As highlighted in the quotation, however, this is a report by the permit holder - and not by the GarCo inspector. Resolution 97-70 does not specify a reporting period by the GarCo Inspector. Review of the Garfield County Land Use Code does not reveal any general reporting requirements for a County 1 Garfield County Land Use Code (April, 2002), Sec. 9.03.05 now requires review "...not less than every six months...." It is assumed here that the Permit is subject to annual review, inasmuch as it was issued prior to the April, 2002, adoption of the present Land Use Code. 9 appointed inspector. We are not aware of any other resolution or directive by BOCC to Mr. Gherardi regarding periodic reports. Equally important, there is no directive to Mr. Gherardi identifying the entity (BOCC) or GarCo official (e.g., County Planning) to whom such reports should be made - and the disposition or action upon such reports. In fairness to both BOCC, Mr. Gherardi and ]IMR/Carpenter, the attendees of the July 24th conference believe that BOCC should issue some guidelines to Mr. Gherardi regarding reporting, and the coordination with a specific GarCo official, for future action. Conclusion: Annual reporting_is required only for landowner and not GarCo Inspector. BOCC has not established reporting criteria for the GarCo Inspector. All fees for services by both City and GarCo inspectors are paid for by IMR/Carpenter. 10. Recreation and Visual Resources: Bauer Complaint: Gates are closed and locked, with No Trespassing signs erected. Access pre -2000 was never denied, even for motorized vehicles. This is an historic trail. Why and how are the current owners legally able to deny access? Mr. Bauer complains that he has been denied historic, prescriptive access over not only a hiking/equestrian trail but also travel within Tepee Park via ATV or other motorize vehicle. At the June 28th hearing, Commissioner McCown expressed his belief that the OFMP, in fact, provided an agreement for access to and across Tepee Park. A. Provisions of Permit and/or OFMP: Obviously, 97-70 does not contain any specific statement. Review of the OFMP reveals the following statements: A portion of the new road system will be temporary. The remaining portion will be closed to public travel with a system of gates. To discourage use of the roads during hunting season, a caretaker will be employed during the deer and elk hunting seasons. (Pg. 38) The landowners, who are also hunters, have expressed concern about the use of ATV's by unauthorized people. Although permission is occasionally granted to individuals to use horses on the property, the landowners wish to discourage the use of ATV's. To mitigate these concerns harvesting and associate operation (e.g., road construction and marking) shall be limited to the summer and fall months after the calving season. The landowner will close non-essential roads to unauthorized motorized vehicles (especially ATV's) during the regular hunting seasons beginning with the early archery season. Further, a caretaker will be employed to help enforce these restrictions. These road restrictions will not apply to roads necessary for the timber harvesting operation or management purposes. (Pg. 38) 10 All roads (within Tepee Park) will be single lane with turnouts 12 to 14 feet wide properly drained either with out -sloping or in -sloped with ditches. The main system will be seasonal: i.e., unsurfaced. They will not be open to the public and will be closed by gates. Roads that are determined unnecessary for fire suppression or general management will be permanently closed with a series of tank traps or other suitable barriers. (Pg. 44) There are no organized recreational facilities on surrounding lands. The Tucker-Frase property is not open to the public but horsemen and hikers are allowed to use the road along Beaver Creek through Tepee Park to pack trails over Battlement Mesa and USFS land to the south. (Pg. 77) B. Governing Legal Rules: To constitute "dedication to public use" the landowner must unequivocally intend to make the dedication, and the governmental entity must accept the dedication. City of Northglenn v. City of Thornton 193 Colo. 536, 569 P.2d. 319 (1977). Although normally performed by written instruments, there may be informal acceptance by the governmental entity through maintenance of the purported highway or the public's use of the highway. Board of County Commissioners of Delta County v. Sherrill 757 P.2d. 1085 (Colo.App. 1987). A public highway can, of course, be created by adverse public use over the required 20 years. Sec. 43-2-201(c), C.R.S. This requires continuous public use over the objection of the landowner and without the landowner's permission. However, the public's travel over unenclosed, vacant and undeveloped lands is deemed to be permissive and not adverse. Simon v. Pettit 651 P.2d. 418, 420 (Colo.App. 1984) ["Simon I"] Tepee Park has always been unenclosed, vacant and undeveloped.2 A hiking or equestrian trail is not considered to be a "highway" and adverse use of a hiking/equestrian trail over the 20 year period does not create a "public highway". Simon v. Pettit 687 P.2d. 1299, 1302 (Colo. 1974) ["Simon II"] Colorado law does not provide for a prescriptive "hiking trail" in favor of the public. Colorado law only allows for adverse use to create a "public highway". Equally important, a governmental entity may not condition the issuance of a land use permit upon the grant by the landowner of an interest in land in favor of the public. Nollan v. California Costal Commission 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3151, 97 L.Ed.2d. 677 (1987). Nollan has been adopted for use in Colorado on several occasions. SEE: Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation District 19 P.3d. 687 (Colo. 2001). If a governmental entity may not condition a land use permit upon granting such property interests, it may also not seek to enforce a permit to compel such interests. C. No Dedication / No Lawful Condition to Permit: As for travel by motorized vehicles, the OFMP statements unequivocally refute any contention that roads or routes to, within or across 2 Gates across the road, even though not locked, create a presumption of permissive, not adverse use. Simon 1 (Supra); Lang v. Jones 552 P.2d. 497, 499 (Colo. 1976) 11 Tepee Park were dedicated to public use. The OFMP clearly states that motorized vehicles, of any sort, will be and are prohibited within Tepee Park. Any and all roads created in the harvesting process are not only closed to the public but will be permanently closed or reclaimed after the project is completed. As to hiking or equestrian use, the OFMP statements are equivocal, at best, regarding dedication. On the one hand, the OFMP states that such access has been granted to specific parties by the landowner. (Pg. 38) On the other hand, the OFMP states that such users "...are allowed.... . (Pg. 77) Did the term "are allowed" refer to the prior statement that some requests have been granted by the property owner? The Garfield County Attorney may need to have a transcript of all BOCC hearings in 1996 and 1997 regarding the initial permit. IMR/Carpenter believe that such transcripts, while interesting, are irrelevant. The governing legal standard is "unequivocally intended". The determination that dedication, formal or by prescriptive use, has occurred must be made by a court of law. The only evidence of"acceptance of dedication" by BOCC is the granting of the Permit. BOCC did not grant the permit until October 29, 2001. In the intervening four years (1997-2001), Tepee Park changed ownership three times. Gates and "No Trespassing" signs were installed in 1997 when it was purchased by Intermountain Ranches. As if this were not enough, Resolution 97-70 nowhere speaks to the creation, dedication or acceptance of any public right-of-way across Tepee Park. Ordering Para. (1) is the only statement, and its language will not suffice to establish "unequivocal" dedication and acceptance. Finally, IMR/Carpenter believe that BOCC could not initially require nor can it now enforce, under Nollan, a requirement that a public hiking trail be granted across Tepee Park. Such right-of- way does not bear any reasonable relationship to the criteria for a special use permit: to wit, soil erosion; watershed protection; etc. Insistence by BOCC that a public right-of-way was created by OFMP could well complicate the agreements between Mr. Carpenter and USFS to create a hiking/equestrian trail elsewhere across Tepee Park. Mr. Carpenter is certainly not going to consent to or allow two such hiking trails. Overall, therefore, it seems best to leave the hiking and equestrian trail to the USFS/Carpenter agreements. Conclusion: The OFMP did not constitute nor will it substantiate dedication to public use. It therefore did not confer any rights in public to access Tepee Park - either by foot, horse or motorized vehicles. Tepee Park was, and remains, closed to public access and use. GarCo cannot condition issuance of permit upon granting a public right of access, nor can it enforce such a claim. Landowner has negotiated a dedicated hiking/horse trail with USFS which would be east of Beaver Creek. Construction is by USFS. 11. Logging Trucks Bauer Complaint: Sound of Jake Brakes reverberate through the valley and the trucks go too 12 fast. Why did GarCo permit turnouts on right hand side of GCR 317 and not within visual distance of one another? A. Noise by Jake Brakes Resolution 97-70 is silent on this issue. The OFMP states: The noise from 10-12 trips per day by log trucks through town can be mitigated by lower speeds and common courtesy by drivers. (OFMP; Pg. 80) Notably, Mr. Bauer fails to quote the italicized portion of this statement in his complaint letter. The OFMP nowhere specifies a criteria on noise through Tepee Park or the White River National Forest, nor across GCR 317. Certainly, "Jake Brakes" are noisy, but they are a necessary requirement for operating safety and wildfire protection. Using Jake Brakes avoids over -heating of brake linings - which, itself, can cause a wildfire. Jake Brakes assist in slowing the vehicle - loaded or unloaded - and thereby promote public safety. There are no residences in Tepee Park, along USFS Road 824 or across VonDette Road. For the most part, there are no residences along GCR 317 until north of the "gas pump station". Ironically, Mr. Bauer - to preserve silence, perhaps - would jeopardize the safety of the log truck driver and jeopardize wildfires by compelling the log trucks to use only axle brakes. This is neither reasonable nor responsible. B. Trucks vs. Sedans: IMR and Carpenter have previously cited the provisions of Sec. 42- 4-711, C.R.S., regarding rights of way. (Appendix F) Although the ascending vehicle generally has the right of way, the statute cedes the right of way to the descending vehicle "when it is more practicable for the ascending vehicle to back up to a turnout". Given the weights of descending logging trucks, and the difficulties in backing up such articulated vehicles, the statute clearly puts the duty to "back up" on an ascending passenger sedan or light pickup. Conclusion: OFMP only prescribed a standard for operations through towns. Jake brakes are critical for traffic safety and wildfire protection. State law has set a standard for the courtesies between trucks and smaller vehicles. 12. Dust Control Bauer Complaint: No Maw Chloride has been applied and there is no water truck. There are washboards all the way to National Forest gate. A. OFMP: Resolution 97-70 is silent as to this issue. The OFMP, at Pg. 81, states as follows: 13 Traffic on the gravel roads will generate dust. The landowner is prepared to apply dust control agents (such as magnesium chloride) to county roads where dust is an issue for adjoining owners and users, and to all haul roads that pass within 500 ft. of an occupied residence, on an as needed basis beginning with the first timber harvest and continuing until harvest operations cease. Water trucks will be required to be available as needed to water the road system sufficiently to reduce dust levels during periods of log hauling. As pointed out in Item 11(A), above, there are no adjoining landowners to Tepee Park, except the White River National Forest. There are no occupied residences within 500 ft. of the interior haul roads, USFS Road 824, VonDette Road or GCR 317 (including Mr. Bauer). Nonetheless, the stationing of a 3,000 gallon tanker is intended not only for fire suppression but also road watering, as needed. In addition, IMR, in the week of July 29th, will be installing additional road gravel on all interior haul roads to minimize dust during travel. Installation of this road gravel is not required under either OFMP or 97-70. B. Magnesium Chloride: Verification with Mr. Jake Maul, Garfield Road & Bridge, discloses that IMR paid for spreading of MagChloride on GCR 317 in Summer, 2000. It was during this period that IMR was improving GCR 317 and realigning USFS Road 824 south of Ms. Honea's property. GarCo Road & Bridge has verified to County Attorney the spreading of Mag Chloride. Mag Chloride was spread in Summer, 2001, but not by IMR. It was spread (or paid for) by oil and gas companies operating in the area. IMR was not performing any work during Summer, 2001. In Fall, 2001, after rendition of the Honea judgment, IMR did improve VonDette Road. However, this was after "dust season". In the week of July 22nd, Garfield Road & Bridge advised IMR of its schedule for additional Mag Chloride on GCR 317. IMR will be providing water for the initial preparation, and will be paying, in cooperating with the oil companies, for spreading of MagChloride by a third party contractor. Conclusion: Mag Chloride has in fact been applied to GCR 317 in 2000, 2001 and is scheduled for 2002. Other dust control actions do not apply in the absence of residences abutting County Roads or haul roads within Tepee Park: of which there are none. Nonetheless, IMR/Carpenter are installing addiitional gravelling on interior haul roads to minimize dust. 13. Log Truck Operations Bauer Complaint: The hauling weight must be in excess of 70,000 lbs., since cattle guards are 14 recently bent, there are ruts and washboards in gravel and the culvert ends are collapsed. In addition, log trucks go up the road 4-8 AM, down road 6-10 PM, winter -summer, 7 days a week. A. Axles and Gross Weights: Mr. Bauer's assertion that gross weights of loaded logging trucks is limited to 70,000 lbs. is totally VonDette Road and USFSRoad 824. Obviously, there lo1inaccurate. The weight limits on GCR 317 and 2 0 are 80,000 lbs. There are no weight lima are no weight limits on the private, interior haul roads. B. Hours of Log Hauling Operation: Resolution 97-70 only specifies that "...log hauling on County Roads..." will occur Monday through Friday, 6 accordanceAM toPM. Mth this re modifieds methe O only which provided for hauling Mon -Sat, 6 AM to hauls logs Mon -Fri, 6 AM to 6 PM. over the County Roads (317 and 320) [USFS 824 and VonDette Road have not been accepted by BOCC as "County Roads"] In addition, IMR has obeyed GarCo' s "frost law" for heavier weights during spring thaw. At the July 24th conference with Planning and County Attorney, the subject of variable hours was discussed. Given the lack of residences along GCR 317, and the need to blend logging and other traffic, it may be proper to consider allowing variable hours of log hauling. Harvesting operations within the forest, and in yarding areas within Tepee Park, occurs Monday through Saturday. No work is performed on Sunday. Conclusion: All logging operations are within operating seasons set by OFMP. All log hauling has been in compliance with prescribed times set by Res. 97-70. All axle weights have been in compliance with State or GarCo limits for GCR 317 and 320. Complaint as to operating 7 days per week is unfounded. 14. Operating Season / All Activities Bauer Complaint: Logging and truck began in late Summer, 2001 and continued until lower frost law in March, 2002. Log trucks stopped hauling but logging continued into April. Was Permit issued with knowledge that plowing and working (logging?) would continue all winter? Resolution 97-70 does not establish a specific Operating Season. The OFMP states: The working season is expected to be from late June or early July until snows prevent normal winter operations; expected to be in early December. (OFMP; Pg. 83)) Additionally, the OFMP clearly discussed continuation of the working season during Winter months, so long as the soil is not "saturated" or uncompacted snow depths are 24" within the EEZ, or frozen ground conditions militate against soil compaction. (OFMP; Pg. 64) 15 As discussed in Item 13(B), above, log hauling is not restricted to specific seasons, except as to GarCo's "frost law". Conclusion: IMRICarpenter are in compliance with operating seasons set in the OFMP. Resolution 97-70 does not set any other prescriptive standard. AN UNFAIR, AND UNFOUNDED, ACCUSATION The Porcupine Fire of July, 2001, was not on Tepee Park lands. It was, however, at the very edge of those lands. Unless contained, the fire would spread to virgin timber in Tepee Park. Upon discovery of the fire, Chris Meyers went into Tepee Park - and the ridge overlooking Porcupine Canyon - to determine the methods and means for access and containment. Mr. Meyers is a graduate Forester, a California Licensed Forester, a member of the Society of American Foresters and has 25+ years of fire fighting experience. After assessing the scene, Mr Meyers hadormed Sheriff prel preliminarily Dallesandri of his observations and proposed fire-fightingmethods. arranged the equipment and manpower for road -cutting and containment. Not having his own inspection, Sheriff D' Allesandri did not immediately adopt Mr. Meyers' proposal. Instead, he sent his own crew, by airplane, to assess the situation. Upon their report, SheriffDallesandrileamed that Mr. Meyers' observations isorpro oncurred posed plann MraMeyers pand roposal. The Colorado State Forestry and U.S. Forest Service adv Sheriff Dallesandri then implemented the plan proposed by Mr. Meyers. IMR does not quibble that the Garfield County Sheriff is the chief fire -fighting officer in Garfield County. However, without adequate County funding, trained personnel and the proper equipment, the Sheriff's effectiveness is dubious at best. In this case - as in many other fires - the Sheriff must rely upon assistance and expertise from State and Federal agencies, as well as Forest Industry representatives to fight wildfires. To impugn Industry assistance recommendations as being, somehow, "improper interference with fire -fighting" is not only unfounded in this circumstance but does little to promote cooperation by the Forest Industry with the Sheriff. AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT OR RESOLUTION A. Potential Subjects of Amendment: At the July 24th conference with Planning and County Attorney, the parties identified three items which would be, all or in portion, the subject of an amendment to Resolution 97-70 and/or the Permit. These were: Item 1. 9. 13. Sub' ect Interior Haul Road Inspection/Admin. Hours / Log Hauling From OFMP; Pg. 43 None At Present 6AM-6PM Mon -Fri 16 To Rifle Watershed Permit Better Guidelines to GarCo Inspector Variable Hours, including nighttime. The parties discussed Item 8 (Slash). However, further review of the OFMP reveals an absence of specific rules regarding slash treatment. IMR/Carpenter believe it best to leave that method to Best Management Practices, thereby affording flexibility to both the Supervising Forester as well as the GarCo Inspector. In addition, the parties discussed Item 10 and the question of whether a public hiking right-of- way was, or was not, created. Resolution of this question may require production of transcripts of the 1996-97 hearings on the original Tucker & Frase application or may require a judicial interpretation. B. Necessity for Amendment: (1) Item 9 (Undisputed): There is no dispute that providing better guidelines to Mr. Gherardi should be performed. However, IMR/Carpenter do not believe that public hearings would be required. Mr. Gherardi was designated via a resolution or order outside the terms of Resolution 97-70. It would be more expedient to simply adopt new guidelines by a similar, separate document. (2) Item 13: To amend the hours of operation would require public hearings, since the existing schedule is set in 97-70. Moreover, operating during nighttime hours might have an effect on residents in the Taugenbaugh Mesa area and that area of GCR 320 near I-70. The language of the amendment could allow for variable schedules, during frost periods, upon approval by Garfield County Road & Bridge. (3) Item 1: It is the position of IMR/Carpenter that it is debatable whether public hearings, or a formal appearance and meeting, before the BOCC are required to amend these items. On the one hand, Ordering Para. 1, 97-70, states that the permit is based upon the representations in the OFMP. On the other hand, Ordering Para. 2, 97-70, provides that any amendments or conditions on the Rifle Watershed Permit, or a USFS Permit, are automatically incorporated into the County' s Permit. There appears to be a conflict between City and County ordinances as well. The Rifle Watershed Ordinance authorizes amendments of the Watershed Permit, and its underlying FMP, without the necessity of City Council action. The approval by either the Designated Inspector or the Public Works Director is sufficient. By contrast, the Commissioners' statements at the June 28th meeting indicated that their direct approval is required for any change or deviation from the OFMP, incorporated into the Permit. This raises the obvious question: "How intimately involved do the Commissioners desire - or need - to be involved in a private project?" For example, the Permit requires work crews to enter Tepee Park using a crew cab pickup. What if, due to small crew size, two single -cab pickups are used? Is a public hearing, and application for amendment, required for that action? This is, obviously, a "minor detail" which, in comparison to the entire project, has little, if any, 17 impact or effect. Nonetheless, it illustrates the question. Most probably, BOCC would not be involved in such a change. However, neither the Land Use Code (April, 2002) nor Resolution 97-70 provide guidelines to T R/Carpenter, the GarCo Inspector or even County Planning on whether public hearings would be required.. DMR/Carpenter believe the question, as here involved, is answered by: (1) the purpose of the Permit conditions; and, (2) the scope of allowable County regulation. For example, the purpose of BOCC regulation of road construction is: (1) to prevent failure of the road by proper sidecasting, shoring, and bench cutting; (2) to prevent siltation of water courses through proper drainages; and, (3) avoid disturbance of as little land as possible to achieve siltation prevention. Frankly, for these acknowledged regulatory purposes, the location of the road is irrelevant. What is relevant is the manner by which the road is constructed, improved and maintained. What is equally relevant is whether the City of Rifle - as the watershed user - has been effected, or is concerned about an effect, upon water quality within Beaver Creek. Data presented to County Planning and the County Attorney clearly showed that the roads have been built and maintained, in accordance with the OFMP and the Rifle Watershed Permit. There has not been turbidity disturbance in Beaver Creek by any activities conducted by MR/Carpenter. C. No Necessity to Amend Item 8: The language of the OFMP, Pg. 73 clearly provided for optional slash treatment: i.e., In Woods or Skidding. IMR's employment of the Skidding method is not a violation of the OFMP or the Permit. There is no requirement to amend the permit to provide for this method. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth in this Amended Response, Intermountain Resources and Mr. Norman A. Carpenter do not believe adequate grounds exist to suspend or revoke the Special Use Permit granted for the Tepee Park Harvest Project - nor do they require conduct of public hearings on the Permit. Respectfully submitted, James A. Beckwith Appendices Attached 18 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B 353 .■■■■ C 11•••11E S O U R NEERING INC. Mr. Bill Sappington, Public Works Director August 29, 2001 City of Rifle PO Box 1908 Rifle CO 81650 RE: Intermountain Resources - Watershed permit No. 1-97 Dear Bill: In response to the concerns of some Beaver Creek residents expressed to City personnel regarding turbidity of Beaver Creek, I made a site visit on August 28, 2001. The site visit was made with Chris Meyers of Intermountain Resources and Bill Gherardi, Consulting Forester. Following in a brief summary of observation made of the date of the site visit: • The roads constructed during the previous two years are in excellent condition. The drainage structure (ditches, culverts, catch basins, etc.) are functioning very well. Revegetation is well established and the road surface is good. I saw no erosion anywhere on the existing road. • A new road on private land was constructed in early July primarily to provide access to the forest fire at the head of Porcupine Creek. Although most of the road is in the Porcupine Creek Basin, it originates on Beaver Creek just below Teepee Park and traverses along the west side of the drainage. This road will become the access for logging and will be brought up to Forest Service Road standards in the next 6 weeks. Culverts are on-site. • Some erosion has occurred along the new road but there is no evidence of any impact on Beaver Creek water quality because the road is far from the creek and separated by vegetated areas. • A Targe trench has been dug along the property line at the gate separating private land from public land. The purpose of the trench is to prevent vehicular trespassing which was occurring. The trench does not have an outlet, therefore no erosion has occurred and no impact to Beaver Creek is evident. None -the -less the trench and the embankment of excavated material are relatively close to Beaver Creek and the permit holder has agreed to "dress -up" the trench, refill most of it and revegetate the area. This will be done in the next few weeks. • No logging has taken place to date except for minor amounts associated with the road work. Most of the 2001/2002 winter logging will occur in Porcupine Creek Basin although a small amount in the West 1/2 of Section 31 in the Beaver Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 81 601 ■ (970) 945-6777 • Fax (970) 945-1137 Mr. Bill Sappington Page 2 August 29, 2001 Creek Basin is planned for this winter. Access to the site will be across Beaver Creek via an existing road crossing with culvert. The culvert is marginally acceptable and is scheduled to be replaced next summer. In summary we found no evidence of any activity which has impacted Beaver Creek. Certain recent activity in the process of being completed to acceptable standards. propose a field inspection in late September to verify that the clean up work is complete before winter. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. aul S. Bussone, P.E. Water Resources Engineer PSB/mmm 341-10.1 bs watershed 1-97.341.wpd CC: Chris Meyer RESOURCE ENGINEERING I N C. .;_ s • - ' 1 C---,--/ -,,,',.\ "r1 1 3 - ,,,,,,,_ ,. ....*1 1711041#6) ;•\1 1 , ______,.__:::0_,,,,,,-;:„ a (...:44.:„.. 7,_,..-,--.. • , , i „., ) / i ( )'.. ) ) V*41, ° ..,,- . , : ,..„... • , ,-. i 4 • \,.: l'C..\ ( ..f f (.(). ) F .„ ... • •„- „‘ ; ;,- , . .,I,_. _fp: - f))) a 1, ••<;----...., , 1:4 Y j. •„L','.;f1, .. I :,,!,:-1, .. ., • —0,,,, A, •,. ,,,., ., ..-nq 2,„: --in: APPENDIX C °11» O C o E S U R o r°°®E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. James Neu, Esq. Leavenworth & Karp PC PO Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE: City of Rifle - Beaver Creek Watershed Permit 1-97 Intermountain Resources 3;3 June 25, 2002 Dear Jim: On June 19, 2002 Resource Engineering, Inc. conducted the annual inspection of the Tepee Park logging activity in -Beaver Creek. We also reviewed the proposed 2002/2003 activities. We made the field trip with Mr. Chris Meyers of Intermountain Resources, LLC. Most of the proposed 2002/2003 logging will take place outside of the watershed boundary governed by the permit. The activities within the permit area includes limited logging in the "blow -down" area of Section 31. This activity consists of removing trees which have been blown down by recent wind storms. All of the activity is outside the riparian zone as is required by the permit. Road construction activities are as proposed and approved in the permit. Applicant has committed to meeting the requirements of the Water Quality Plan. Our inspection of current and previous activities indicates that Intermountain Resources has complied with the conditions of the permit. Roads are in good condition with no significant erosion. Revegetation is taking hold as expected. We specifically looked for any signs vehicle maintenance activity in the riparian zone and found none. We saw no evidence of dumping of oil or hazardous materials, however, we cautioned Mr. Meyers about such activity and asked that he remind his personnel to avoid any disposal of hazardous materials on-site. Mr. Meyers stated that they have regular meetings with employees and subcontractors to reinforce safety issues and water quality concerns so that the importance of these matters is passed on to all employees working in the watershed. We believe that this is important to achieve the goal of protecting water quality. It should be noted that RESOURCE obtained water samples at the three Beaver Creek stations on June 19, 2002. The samples were sent to ACZ laboratories for analysis and the results will be provided to the City when available. The field analysis for turbidities were as follows: Station 1 - City Intake Station 2 - Green Gate Station 3 - Tepee Park 1.34 NTU 2.39 NTU 8.03 NTU We noted that there were cattle in Beaver Creek above the City's intake and below the Green Gate during our sampling period. This activity would have likely impacted the turbidity at Station 3. Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue 111 Glenwood Springs, CO B1601 E (970) 945-6777 ® Fax (970) 945-1137 James Neu, Esq. June 25, 2002 Page 2 In summary we recommend approval of the proposed 2002/2003 logging activity under permit 1-97 we will schedule a fall inspection to review the work completed at that time. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. Paul S. Bussone, P.E. Water Resources Engineer PSB/mmm 341-10.1 jn be 1-97.341.wpd CC: Bill Sappington RESOURCE ENGINEERING I N C. APPENDIX D IJul -22-2002 02:56pm From -INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES LLC I!WIRESOURCE ■�11r■ ) R1.111I11■ E N G 1 N E E I*1 I N G I N C- II I Mr, Chris Meyers Intermountain Resources,; LLC July 17, 2002 P0 Box 670 Montrose CO 81 402 1 RE: Tepee Park Logging Operations Watershed Permit 1-97 1 Dear Chris: 1 was not able to reach you by telephone yesterday, but in light of recent concerns raised by local citizens, 1 took the City of Rifle Manager, Public Works Director and Planner on a brief inspection of Ithe logging area.: We did this in preparation for the City Council meeting to be held tonight, July 17, 2002; -- The purpose of the visit was to familiarize the City Manager and staff with the site and the level of I activity. I believe that iri general they were satisfied with the conditions and particularly were impressed with the main access road and the revegetation. 1 A few items were noted that I want to comment on: • A 65 gallon drum (apparently an empty lubricant container) is located along the access read to the blow down area. Would you please remove it so it does not end I1 up in the creek. • The roads within the private.property are verydry and dusty. You said in our earlier gi occur? I We are concerned about run-off from the roads in the event of a heavy rain fall, visit that.these roads would be graveled soon. Can you tel when that Ma • Do you and will you have a water truck on site? IThank you for your continued cooperation. 1 Sincerely, RES+ - E ENGINEERING, INC. I S. Bussone, P.E. I Water Resources Engineer PSB/mmm 341-10.1 cm situ viot.3+11.W0 9702490727 T-860 P.001/001 F-470 1 1 1 CC: p,S. Bill Sappington, City of Rifle - Jim Neu, Esq. The spring watts quality.resultswere received by Reso1rce:Engineering, Inc. On July 16, 2002 and.will be reviewed and forwarded to'yOU and the City soon. There were•no apparent problems based on our first quick look at the data, Consulting nginsers eared Hydrologists 009 Colorado Avenue U Glenwood Springs, CO A9601 1 (S70) 945-8777 NI Fax. t97Q) 045-1137 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E SPECIAL USE PERMIT Norm Carpenter, Intermountain Resources, LLC (PKA Tucker/Frase) In accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1979, as amended, and Resolution No. 97-70 of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, State of Colorado, hereby authorizes, by Special Use Permit, the following activity: Natural Resource Extraction - logging on the tract of land described Resolution No. 97-70 and in Garfield County, Colorado: The within Special Use Permit is issued subject to the conditions set forth in the above-mentioned resolution, and shall be valid only during compliance with such conditions and other applicable provisions of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, Subdivision Regulations, Building Code, and other regulations of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado. BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO ,� XIQNdddV Search - 3 Results - 42-4-711 rage 1 or 2 Source: My Sources > Colorado > Statutes & Legislative Materials > CO - Colorado Revised Statutes 0 TOC: Colorado Revised Statutes > / ... / > PART 7. RIGHTS-OF-WAY > 42-4-711. Driving on mountain highways Terms: 42-4-711 (Edit Search) +-Select for FOCUS TM or Delivery r- C.R.S. 42-4-711 COLORADO REVISED STATUTES *** THIS SECTION IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2001 SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT *** *** (2001) LEGISLATIVE SESSION *** TITLE 42. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION OF VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ARTICLE 4. REGULATION OF VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC PART 7. RIGHTS-OF-WAY ♦ GO TO CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY FOR THIS JURISDICTION C.R.S. 42-4-711 (2001) 42-4-711. Driving on mountain highways (1) The driver of a motor vehicle traveling through defiles or canyons or on mountain highways shall hold such motor vehicle under control and as near to the right-hand edge of the highway as reasonably possible and, except when driving entirely to the right of the center of the roadway, shall give audible warning with the horn of such motor vehicle upon approaching any curve where the view is obstructed within a distance of two hundred feet along the highway. (2) On narrow mountain highways with turnouts having a grade of six percent or more, ascending vehicles shall have the right-of-way over descending vehicles, except where it is more practicable for the ascending vehicle to return to a turnout. (3) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A traffic infraction. HISTORY: Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2351, § 1, effective January 1, 1995. Editor's note: This section was formerly numbered as 42-4-611. Am. Jur.2d. See 7A Am. Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 316; 8 Am. Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § § 815, 816. Source: My Sources > Colorado > Statutes & Legislative Materials > CO - Colorado Revised Statutes 0 TOC: Colorado Revised Statutes > / ... / > PART 7. RIGHTS-OF-WAY > 42-4-711. Driving on mountain highways Terms: 42-4-711 (Edit Search) http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve? m=356f06d19d4f0a9ace5935ff2079a16c&docnurr... 7/29/2002