No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.05 Correspondence - James Beckwith 07.29.2008rEceiv-d 113oloB W)c JAMES A. BECKWITH E-mail: Ithamer@aol.com Attorney and Counselor at Law July 29, 2008 Ms. Deborah Quinn Assistant County Attorney Garfield County Attorney's Office 108 8th St. Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Tepee Park Ranch Dear Debbie: 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-9966 / FAX 303-431-2803 Based on our phone conversation of July 28th, I've enclosed copies of materials gleaned from the Building & Planning Department's files [7.23.08] as well as my own. ROAD BONDS Attachment A / Bonds 0380 and 1963: Bond 0380 was issued October 15, 2001, and was replaced on October 15, 2006, by Bond 1963. Both are for $75K. Intermountain Resources, LLC ("IMR") was the principal on Bond 0380, while Teepee Park Ranch, LLC, was the principal on Bond 1963. When SUP 97-70 was issued on October 19, 2001, Intermountain Resources, LLC was the permit holder. Teepee Park Ranch, LLC, was never the permit holder. Bond 0380 was to "...to provide a road bond in lieu of road paving on CR 317....", while Bond 1963 was "...to provide a road bond in lieu of paving on CR 320....". I cannot explain the difference in CR references between these two bonds. Res. 97-70 never required asphaltic paving of GCR 317. Instead, ¶8, required realignment of GCR 317 and an "all-weather surface". Similarly, Res. 97-70 only required repaving of a portion of GCR 320 if damaged by our logging trucks. Attachment B / Certification of Realignment / GCR 317: On October 15, 2001, Road & Bridge Department certified that IMR had satisfactorily completed the realignment of GCR 317, including the "all-weather road surface". Thus, Bonds 0380 and 1963 are, in my opinion, moot. Their purpose was satisfied before logging was incepted. Attachment C / Bonds 2281 and 1962: Bond 2281 was issued October 1, 1999, nearly two years before the actual Special Use Permit was issued to IMR on October 19, 2001! It was for $100K. Ms. Debbie Quinn July 29, 2008 Page Two. The principal was Intermountain Ranches, LLC, the owner of Tepee Park prior to Norm Carpenter. Bond 1962 replaced Bond 2281, and was issued on October 1, 2006, with Teepee Park Ranch, LLC, as the named principal. Both were for the same purpose: "...to provide a road bond to ensure the repair of damage attributable to principal's logging activities on CR 320 and/or CR 317....". Here, as well, Res. 97-70 required repairs only as to GCR 320, and not as to GCR 317. Incorporation of Resolutions: You will note, of course, that none of these bonds reference, adopt or incorporate Res. 2003-39. They limit their terms to Res. 97-70. ¶8 of that Resolution specifically stated that the bonds were effective only while the permit holder was engaged in active logging. Our last logging under any SUP was on October 8, 2004. Why Renewal of Bonds? In 2006, Norm Carpenter was notified of the annual renewal of the bonds. He was uncertain whether there would be more thinning and, in an abundance of caution, renewed the bonds. After consultation with Mr. Bill Gherardi, however, it was determined that project objectives had been met and there would not be any further thinning. SLASH TREATMENT GarCo Land Use Code: The BOCC has never adopted its own practices or procedures governing logging activities on private lands within Garfield County. The BOCC has never adopted, by incorporation, the Best Management Practices promulgated by the Colorado State Forest Service. SUP and Forest Management Plan History: The original applicant for an SUP/Logging was Tucker & Frase, a California partnership. Mr. David Levy, a forester in Nevada City, CA, assembled the first Forest Management Plan (FMP). The Levy FMP became the basis for logging practices under SUP 97-70. Active logging commence October 19, 2001. It was quickly seen that California style logging was not wholly adaptable to Colorado conditions. On September 17, 2002, I filed an Application to Amend SUP seeking to accommodate the differences. BOCC contended that SUP's cannot be amended: a procedural conundrum which I still do not comprehend. Nonetheless, on February 21, 2003, this was resubmitted as an Application for SUP submitted on behalf of Norm Carpenter and Intermountain Resources, LLC. The application was a multi -paged document with a picture from Tepee Park Ranch on the front. The document, itself, was the Second FMP, and was supplemented by Colorado Forest Stewardship Guidelines / Best Management Practices for Colorado: a publication of the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS). Appendix D / Levy FMP: The subject of"slash" [i.e., the trimmed limbs from felled trees] was never discussed in the Levy FMP. Instead, "Fuel Reduction" was discussed at Pg. 73, and dealt only with trimming trees. A copy is enclosed. Please note that "merchantable culls" are not "slash". Ms. Debbie Quinn July 29, 2008 Page Three. Appendix E / Application to Amend: We had proposed that slash would be piled at the landing, and burned when safe to do so. This amendment, of course, was dismissed and rejected out - of -hand by the BOCC for the procedural reasons noted above. Appendix F / Application for 2°d SUP: Our proposal to mandatorily burn the slash was intentionally omitted from this formal application. Instead, on Pg. 22-23; §III, 5.03.07(F)(H)], we simply incorporated the same provisions as set forth in the Levy FMP. If a burning was decided upon, however, it would be performed "...when environmental conditions are suitable....". [Pg. 24, §IV, 5.03.08(3)] The problem up to then, and thereafter, has been the persistent drought: under which Garfield County has annually prohibited burning between April and November of each year. Burning in Winter is problematic. Tepee Park Ranch averages 9,000 ft., and consistent snow depths through the Winter are 5-6 ft. In Winter, we simply cannot get in with the equipment necessary to conduct burning. Appendix G / CSFS BMP's: CSFS does not mandate one method vs. another: i.e., "Left - In -Woods vs. Removed -from -Woods". [Pg. 25] Appendix H / USFS Hiking Trail: In an effort to reduce trespassing by hunters, Norm Carpenter granted a trail easement to the U.S. Forest Service. To keep hikers/hunters on the trail, Carpenter and USFS agreed that "...logging slash and other impediments will be situated in such manner as to deter and prevent trail users form straying from the proper course of the trail....". [Memo of Understanding; Pg. 2, §2(B)] FORESTER REVIEW On no less than five (5) occasions, BOCC has requested, and received, review of the logging activity by consulting foresters. On October 26, 2001, Mr. Kelly Rogers, CSFS, reported on the initial selection of trees for harvest. On January 31, 2003, Mr. William Gherardi, in responding to specific questions from me, provided a comprehensive analysis of the project to date. On February 18, 2003, Mr. Joe Duda, CSFS, reported on his review. On April 14, 2003, and again on September 12, 2003, Mr. David R.W. Hoefer, USFS Retd., gave his independent review of the logging project. [Appendix I, collectively] Each of these reports has been submitted to BOCC. Each report approves the procedures and practices employed in this project. Each report was required by the governing resolution. You have advised that BOCC has again requested Mr. Hoefer's field review of this project. Res. 2003-39 does not require this report, nor can I find any Land Use Code provision requiring a project evaluation report for an SUP. Accordingly, none of the charges billed by Mr. Hoefer for this report and none of the remedial measures that may be recommended by Mr. Hoefer will be paid by Mr. Carpenter. They remain the sole obligation of BOCC. Ms. Debbie Quinn July 29, 2008 Page Four. I look forward to meeting you, and discussing this matter within the next two weeks: as I travel into Utah on other matters. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, James A. Beckwith Attachments Enclosed cc: Mr. Norman A. Carpenter w/ enclosures APPENDIX A RECEIVED OCT 1 7 20t1 SPECIAL USE PERMIT BOND Resolution No. 9'7-70 Timber Harvest at Teepee CR Ranch Property Bond No.: FS 4 55 03 80 KNOW ALL'MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That the Undersigned intermountain Resources. LLC as Principal, and Great American Insurance Company , as Surety are held and firmly bound unto GA.RFIELD COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE DEPT., Colorado as Obligee in the penal sum of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 ($75.000,00) for the payment of which, well and truly to be made the said Principal . and the said Surety, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severalty, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, the Principal now has or will be granted a Special Use Permit for natural resource extractions (com nercial logging operation); and WHEREAS, said Special Use Permit requires Principal to provide a road bond in lieu of road paving on CR317. NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall faithfully perform its duties under the above terms of the permit, then this obligation shall be mill and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, that if the Surety shall so elect, this bond may be canceled as to subsequent liability by giving (30) days notice in writing to both the Principal and Obligee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety have hereunto set their hands and seals on the dates set forth below. Date: Date: Great American Insurance Co pany Surety 'OCTOBER 15, 2001 OCTOBER 15, 2001 SPECIAL USE PERMIT BOND Resolution No. 97-70 Timber Harvest at Teepee CR Ranch Property Bond No.: FS 4 93 19 63 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That the Undersigned TEEPEE MK Rag Lt,d as Principal, and Great American Insurance Companv , as Surety are held and firmly bound unto GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE DEPT., Colorado as Obligee in the penal sum of Seventy-five Thousand and No/100 ($75,000.00) for the payment of which, well and truly to be made the said Principal and the said Surety, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents., WHEREAS, the Principal now has or will be granted a Special Use Permit for natural resource extractions (commercial logging operation); and WHEREAS, said Special Use Permit requires Principal to provide a road bond in lieu of road paving on CR320. NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall faithfully perform its duties under the above terms of the permit, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, that if the Surety shall so elect, this bond may be canceled as to subsequent liability by giving (30) days notice in writing to both the Principal and Obligee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety have hereunto set their hands and seals on the dates set forth below, TEEPEE PARK RANCH LLC Date: OCTOBER 15a 2006 Great America!' Insurance Company Date: OCTOBER 15, 2006 . Surety By: DEBBIE SCHtUCKEBIE ATTORNEY—IN—FACT CO APPENDIX W M NM I MN IIIIII IIIIII O M M IIIIII M ® IIIIII M ® NM INIII 11•1 Garfieid County Road and Bridge Department Intermountain Resources LLC. Attn: Christopher Meyers Dear Sir: October 15, 2001 This letter is to acknowledge the improvements that were made to CR 317 from the BLM property South to the Forest Service gate. The work consisted of sub grade and base course application along with drainage improvements. At this time, all of the requested improvements have been made and meet the approval of the Road & Bridge Department. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Tom Russell Director 902 Taughenbaugh Ave, Suite 305,Box 2 Rifle, CO 81650 Phone: 970-625-8601 Fax: 970-625-8627 APPENDIX C SPECIAL USE PERMIT BOND Resolution No. 97-70 Timber harvest at Teepee CR Ranch Property Bond No.: ES 3 42 22 81 KNOW ALL ME BY THESE PRESENTS, That the Undersigned INTERMOtiNTAIN RANCHES LLC as Principal, and Great American Insurance Company, as Surety are held and firmly bound unto GARFIELDCOUNTY HUNDRED O'r D & BdD ANDDGE NO/100 DEPT., Colorado as Obligee in the penal sum of CNE for the payment of which, well and truly to be made the said Principal and the said Surety, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS„ the Principal now has pr will be granted a Special Use Permit for natural resource extractions (commercial logging operation); and WHEREAS, said Special Use Permit requires Principal to provide a road bond to ensure the repair of damage attributable to Principal's logging activities on CR 320 and/or CR 317. NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall faithfully perform its duties under the above terms of the permit, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, that if the Surety shall so elect, this bond may be canceled as to subsequent liability by giving (30) days notice in writing to both the Principal and Obligee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety have hereunto set their hands and seals on the dates set forth below. :om an Great American Insuran p y Surety BY: . � `/..44' -a ;.: �'• MagareIuffman EC.l.1VrT1 r!r ; 1993 Date: OCTOBER 1, 1999 Date: OCTOBER 1, 1999 SPECIAL USE PERMIT BOND Resolution No. 97-70 Timber Harvest at Teepee CR Ranch Property Bond No..: Ts 4 93 19 62 - KNOW ALI, ME BY THESE PRESENTS, That the Undersigned TEEPEE PARK RANCH LLC as Principal, and Great American Insurance Company, as Surety are held and firmly bound unto GARFIELDCOUNNTTY ROADRED S= AND O! 1013 DEPT., Colorado as Obligee in the penal sum of ONE for the payment of which, well and truly to be made the said Principal and the said Surety, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents., WHEREAS„ the Principal now has or will be granted a Special Use Permit for natural resource extractions (commercial logging operation); and WHEREAS, said Special Use. Permit requites Principal to provide a road bond to ensure the repair of damage attributable to Principal's logging -activities on CR 320 and/or CR 317. NOW, THEREFORE, if'the Principal shall faithfully perform its duties under the above terms of the permit, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, that if the Surety shall so elect, this bond may be canceled as to subsequent liability by giving (30) days notice in writing to both the Principal and Obligee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety have hereunto set their hands and seals on the dates set forth below. TEEPEE PARCH RANCH I.I.0 Date: OCTOBER 1, 2006 Great American Insurance Company Dale: OCTOBER 1, 2006 Surety By: DEBBIE SCHLUCKEBIER, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT APPENDIX D TEPEE PARK FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Garfield County, CO prepared by Jeff Calvert, Registered Professional Forester David Levy Forestry Services Nevada City, California April 1996 G. Fuels Reduction The concentration of fuels in the form of logging slash is a major problem in harvest operations. In an effort to reduce the slash and minimize the fire danger the following practices will required: 1 . Limbs will be removed on all harvest trees to the point on the bole where the diameter is 4 inches or less. 2. Limbs 4 inches or more in diameter will be lopped to within 30 inches of the ground; within 300 feet of haul roads and landings and 100 feet of secondary roads and the Beaver Creek Trail (a public easement) they will be lopped to within 18 inches of the ground . 3. All merchantable culls will be removed from the harvest area if there is an economy of removal and an environmental benefit. H. Administration The administration of the operation will be under the supervision of a Tucker and Frase forester. This includes the following: • All marking of the conifer stands. • The flagging and marking of the Watercourse Protection Zones (WPZ) and the Equipment Exclusion Zones (EEZ) • The final layouts of haul roads, cable roads (corridors), yarder sets and the landings will be flagged in conjunction with the Contractor's representative. • Any necessary skid trail crossings will be flagged by the forester in conjunction with the Contractor's representative. • The monitoring of the road construction, falling, skidding, yarding and hauling operations as needed throughout the life of the operation. Tepee Park FMP 73 APPENDIX E 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 September 17, 2002 Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Planning Department Garfield County Annex Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Application: Existing Permit: Applicants: Zone District: Dear Mr. Bean: Amend Special Use Permit Res. 97-70 / Timber Harvest Norman A. Carpenter Intermountain Resources, LLC R/L (Resource/Lands); Extraction Enclosed please find an original and eight (8) copies of the Application for Special Use Permit. As your are aware, the Applicants currently hold and operate a Special Use Permit for Timber Harvesting in Tepee Park, located south ofRifle, Colorado. The SUP was issued on October October 29, 2001, and is based upon Resolution 97-70, rendered on August 4, 1997. Pursuant to your form application, we provide the following data: A. Applicants / Name and Address: Mr. Norman A. Carpenter Tepee Park Ranch 12403 Nacogdoches, Suite 110 San Antonio, TX 78217 210-599-7926 Mr. Christopher C. Meyers, Manager Intermountain Resources, LLC P.O. Box 670 Montrose, CO 81402 970-249-0812 Mr. Carpenter is the owner of the real property known as "Tepee Park". Intermountain Resources, LLC is the logging entity conducting the timber harvest under contract with Mr. Carpenter.. should be modified to provide as follows: Road Culvert Size Diameter 2b-1 24 inch 2b-2 24 inch 2b-3 36 inch 2c-1 18 inch 2c-2 18 inch 3b-1 36 inch 3b-2 36 inch 3b-3 24 inch 3b-4 24 inch H. Watercourse Protective Zones PROPOSAL: Amend OFMP (Pg. 65, 2"d Para.) to reflect adjustments to cable, helicopter and tractor yarding. Simply delete the last sentence of the 2"d Paragraph. The OFMP at Pg. 65, 2"d Para. currently states that the majority of timber within the Beaver Creek drainage will be taken out of the drainage by either helicopter or cable yarding. In comportment with the proposed amendments to the yarding methods, this sentence should be eliminated. I. Fuels Reduction PROPOSAL: Amend OFMP (Pg. 73, Sec. G) to substitute specific language and procedures governing slash handling. The subject of slash treatment was discussed at the August 5th BOCC meeting. The OFMP does not currently specify a method of handling slash: i.e., "Landing" vs. "Left -in -Woods". IMR proposes that Sec. G be revised to read in its entirety as follows: Sec. G: The concentration of fuels in the form of logging slash is a major problem in harvest operations. In an effort to reduce the slash and minimize the fire danger, the following practices will be required: (1) Harvest trees will be whole tree skidded to a landing. Limbs will be removed and piled at the landing. The landing will be burned when weather conditions permit safe burning; (2) All merchantable culls will be removed from the harvest area if there is an economy of removal. J. Public Access To and Through Tepee Park PROPOSAL: Amend OFMP (Pg. 77) to provide corrected designation that 7 APPENDIX F 9. The Contractor shall be required to have a water truck or pumper of a minimum capacity of 150 gallons of water on site during periods when the fire danger is high or above as forecast by the USFS Rifle Ranger District. The truck or pumper must be in good working order and capable of supporting an initial attack on a fire as a result of the operation, fire entries from adjoining properties or natural causes. Minimum Pump Capacity 90-100 gals/min @ 100 psi Minimum Hose Capacity 1000 ft. of 1.5 inch single-jacket/cotton 10. The Contractor shall be required to clean belly pans on bulldozers, skidders and loaders frequently and to make frequent inspections of exhaust systems on every piece of mechanized equipment for leaks and/or limbs or leaves jammed on or near them. 11. The Contractor shall furnish the following: Vehicle Equipment Personal vehicles; trucks; graders; tractors Welder Gasoline powered tools (chainsaw, soil auger) Fire Fighting Tools Required In or Near Equipment 1 Size "0" shovel with 38 1/2" handle minimum 1 Axe or Pulaski with 26" handle minimum 1 5 DC or larger rated pressurized fire extinguisher for each 1 backpack pump on each company truck or crew vehicle 1 Size "0" shovel 1 backpack pump 1 shovel with 381/2" handle minimum 1 8 oz. or larger BC rated chemical-prssurized fire extinguisher Fire extinguishers will be located within 10 feet of the operating chainsaw, power auger or welder. 12. All internal combustion power equipment used by the Contractor on the project shall be equipped with an approved spark arrester. They shall be cleaned regularly and maintained in satisfactory, working condition. Spark arresters must comply with all applicable State and Federal fire requirements. The following are exempt from the requirements of this rule: (a) turbo -charged internal combustion engines in which 100% of the exhaust gases pass through a turbo -charger; (b) engines of passenger -carrying vehicles and light trucks equipped with a muffler with baffles that are kept in good repair (glass packs are not an approved muffler for wildland work); and, (c) water pumping equipment during periods of actual use in firefighting. H. Fuels Reduction: The concentration of fuels in the form of logging slash is a major 22 problem in harvest operations. In an effort to reduce the slash and minimize the fire danger the following practices will be required: 1. Limbs will be removed on all harvest trees to the point on the bole where the diameter is 4 inches or less. 2. Limbs 4 inches or more in diameter will be lopped to within 30 inches of the ground. They will be lopped to within 18 inches of the ground within 300 feet of haul roads and landings and 100 feet of secondary roads. 3. All merchantable culls will be removed from the harvest area if there is an economy of removal and an environmental benefit. (2) Permits may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate mitigation for the following: (A) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approved by the County Commissioners before a permit for conditional or special use will be issued; Site rehabilitation methods are set forth herein. These have previously been approved under GarCo SUP 97-70, and are currently employed in the on-going harvest project. They will continue to be employed for the SUP requested here. (B) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional use is issued, f required The applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank commitment for credit, bond, certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan in workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications and construction schedule established or approved by the County Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds or check shall be payable to and held by the County Commissioners. A bond for the conduct and completion of the timber harvest, per se, is not relevant. Garfield County would not be conducting the timber harvest in the event of any stoppage or failure by EMR. Mr. Norman Carpenter, landowner, has not required, and does not here require, a performance bond for the timber project. A bond for the re -paving 1.6 miles of GCR 320 has already been posted with Garfield County under GarCo SUP 97-70. This bond will continue in full force and effect upon award of the SUP requested here. (C) Impacts set forth in the impact statement and compliance with the standards contained in Section S. 03.08 of this Resolution. 23 The impacts have already been discussed. As for Performance Standards, see Part IV. PART IV: INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 5.03.08: Industrial Performance Standards: All industrial operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State and Federal regulations regulatingwater, 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 whic such uses are located, in accord with the following standards: (1) Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. Applicants' harvest equipment does not exceed the noise abatement standards set in Sec. 25- 12-103(1), C.R.S., for industrial operations: to wit, 80 db(A) for periods 7 AM to 7 PM, at a distance greater than 25 ft. from the property boundaries. Motor vehicles used, or employed by, Applicants are within the noise limits set by Sec. 25-12-107, C.R.S. (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; As stated previously, vibrations resulting from operation of Applicants' harvest equipment are not detectable beyond the immediate area of operation, and not beyond the property boundaries. (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. Applicants' operation does not involve burning materials, except for such slash as will be permitted by local governing authorities when environmental conditions are suitable. To date, there have not been "suitable environmental conditions" during Spring, Summer or Fall. (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 provisions. Applicants' equipment does not produce these conditions beyond the boundaries of the property, nor beyond the immediate area of operation. Abutting properties are uninhabited. (5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas: 24 APPENDIX G COLORADO I FOREST I STEWARDSHIP � GUIDELINES TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Colorado The question "How much soil exposure is enough?" is common when preparing a site for a new forest. Clean as a parking lot (below) is too much. New forests need the nutrients and protection supplied by logging slash. Soil compaction is another problem with sweeping the forest clean. 111V1ARVEDLlt HSTING Slash Treatment and Site Preparation • Use brush blades on equipment when piling slash. • Scarify the soil only to the extent necessary to meet the reforestation objective of the site. Site preparation equipment producing irregular surfaces is preferred. Care should be taken to preserve the surface soil horizon. When you pick up a handful of forest soil, half of it is solid material. The rest is empty pore space that holds water and air. Heavy equipment can squeeze soil pores, reducing the space for water and air. Since trees need water and air for growth, the start of the next forest can suffer from soil compaction. Certain soil conditions are more likely to lead to compaction. Wet soils are more compactible than dry. The most severe compaction occurs within a few inches of the surface. Unfortunately, that is where seed germination occurs and where most of the water -absorbing tree roots are found. Wet soils are - easily compacted and displaced. Reduction of slash to decrease fire hazard is recommended. In the two scenes below, one shows acceptable slash reduction (top); the other is not acceptable because too much fire hazard was left. Regeneration of a new forest may require the removal of some logging slash. Seed from nearby trees germinates best in exposed mineral soil. Surface scarification activities must expose bare soil for new seedlings, while avoiding erosion. The three scenes below show mechanical scarification; inadequate (top), acceptable (middle), and excessive (bottom). Slash from log processing should never be cast into the SMZ. • Low slash and small brush should be left to slow surface runoff, return soil nutrients, and provide shade for seedling. Work around existing small trees and low brush. • Carry out brush piling and scarification when soils are frozen or dry enough to minimize compaction and displacement Stay clear of wet areas during scarification. Results like this create compac- tion and water quality problems. • Carry out scarification on steep slopes in a manner that minimizes erosion. Machine -made ruts on hillside soils can easily become channels for surface water erosion. 25 APPENDIX H MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that on this 00 day of , 2002, Mr. Norman A. Carpenter, of 12403 Nacogdoches, San Antonio, Texas 78217 (°Carpenter") and the United States Forest Service, White River National Forest, acting by and through the Rifle Ranger District, 0094 County Road 244, Rifle, CO 81650 ("USFS") have conceptually agreed and will sincerely endeavor to approve, execute and exchange easements over lands owned and controlled by Carpenter and USFS within the White River National Forest, located in Garfield County, State of Colorado, as follows: 1. USFS intends to convey to Carpenter a perpetual and unrestricted easement to use and enjoy U.S. Forest Service Road 824 from its origin on the north at the end of Garfield County road 317 ("Beaver Creek Road") to its southern terminus at the entrance to Carpenter's private lands known as "Teepee Park" in the SE 114 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 25, T7S, R93W, 6th PM, Garfield County, State of Colorado. Carpenter shall be entitled to use USFS Road 824 as an access route to such private lands. Such easement shall be appurtenant to and run with the land, and shall include perpetual use, without restriction, of that easement and shall be assignable, without restriction, by Carpenter to his heirs, successors and assigns. Carpenter shall give notice of such assignment to USFS. Additional conditions and terms of such easement shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. The easement shall be 60 ft. in width, except that portion of USFS Road 824 currently traversing lands now owned by Ms. Katharine M. Honea and located in the NW 1/4 of Sec. 24, T7S, R94W, 6th PM (Commonly known as "Von Dette Road") on which property the easement shall be 30 ft.. B. Maintenance of USFS Road 824 shall be performed as follows: (1) While Carpenter is using Road 824 for logging purposes, Carpenter shall be responsible to maintain the road; (2) When Carpenter and third parties are using Road 824 for commercial logging, oil & gas or other purposes, each of said parties shall bear the responsibility to maintain the road in proportion to each party' s use; and, (3) when Road 824 is not used by Carpenter and/or other third parties for commercial uses, then USFS shall have the sole responsibility to maintain USFS Road 824, at its sole expense. In no event shall Carpenter be responsible to maintain USFS Road 824 for use by third parties. C. USFS shall retain jurisdiction over USFS Road 824 and may, as USFS deems necessary and fitting, close USFS Road 824 to public travel. However, USFS shall not, at any time, close or forbid use of the road by Carpenter or his assigns. 2. In exchange for the easement described in Paragraph 1 hereof: Carpenter intends to convey to USFS an easement for a public hiking trail across Teepee Park, which trail easement shall be subject to the following conditions: 1 A. The Eking Trail shall commence on USFS lands, cross Beaver Creek in an eastern direction and proceed therefrom to theI3king Trail Corridor across Tepee Park The Hiking Trail Corridor shall be as follows: (1) Point of Entry: the SEI/4 of the E1/2, Sec. 30, T7S, R93W, 6th PM; (2) Course: Thence South through the E1/2 of W1/2, Sec. 31, T7S, R93W, 6th PM; Thence South through the W1/2 of the NW1/4 and W1/2 of the SW 1/4, Sec. 6, T7S, R93W, 6th PM, to the Point of Exit; (3) Point of Etat: the W1/2 of the SWl/4 of Sec. 6. B. The hiking trail easement, located within the Hiking Trail Corridor, may be ofvariable width, depending upon the slope and grade it must traverse, with width on easy or level slopes being not greater than 15 feet. However, the tread surface of the trail, regardless of slope of terrain, shall in no event be greater than four feet. Carpenter understands that the trail course will not be fenced, but that logging slash and other impediments will be situated in such manner as to deter or prevent trail users from straying from the proper course of the trail. C. USFS shall be entitled to designate and survey, at its sole expense, the hiking trail within the portions of those sections or portions thereof set forth above within two (2) years from the date of granting the easement. Carpenter shall approve the route as designated by USFS. Notice of designation and legal description thereof shall be provided to Carpenter, his heirs or assigns. The legal description of the hiking trail contained within such grant shall be the trail route as actually designated byUSFS and shall not contain reference to the Hiking Trail Corridor. USFS shall provide to Carpenter an Amended Easement Grant after designating the Hiking Trail. D. The hiking trail easement shall be for specified uses: to wit, foot and horse travel only. Motorized vehicles, including but not limited to snowmobiles, shall be prohibited at all times. Camping, picnicking or fires of any kind shall not be permitted. E. USFS shall survey, build, sign and maintain the hiking trail at its sole expense and without contribution by Carpenter. USFS shall have the sole and exclusive duty to maintain the Hiking Trail, without contribution thereto by Carpenter. Carpenter shall not have any duty to maintain the Hiking Tri. Signage shall include, but not be limited to, notices to the general public that the hiking trail traverses private property and users of the trail are prohibited from leaving the route of the trail as it traverses Teepee Park. USFS shall replace, upgrade and maintain the signs on the hiking trail at its sole expense. F., USFS may close the hiking trail and bar any public use thereof whenever, in USFS' discretion, conditions, deterioration or abuse of the trail by the public, area fire danger conditions of Severe or Extreme designation or other similar circumstances so warrant. 2 02/21/02 THII 09:50 FAX 9706252532 WHERETO the part's affix their this .20 day of FOR NORMAN A. CARPENTER; V. VL 0. VV , rayls a! 21001 hand and seal to this Memorandum of Understanding on , 2002• Mr. NOMAD A. Carpenter Teepee Park Ranch 12403 Nacogdoches San Antonio, TX 78217 210-599-7926 1/ FAX 210-623-3254 FOR UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE: Mr. David J. Silvieus, District Ranger Rifle Ranger District 0094 County Road 244 Rhe, CO 81650 970-625-2371 // FAX 970-623-2532 4 OPTIONAL Foam e9 (7-90) FAX TRANSMITTAL To �t p peri{. UAg{ DepA6eYY 1 Fox" NSN 7540-01_517-7590 l6ad 5p90_101 PhonQ H Fax #orMap ► GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION APPENDIX I Exhi b:i t Bill Gh rardi From: "Kelly Rogere tlgroge rs©iamar.coloste _ dot To: imartin rftsId-aounty.00rn>; box dmir rfield-county.com; ttstowe@aoloom> Cc: "Bill Ghermrdi" cbillgherarditahome_cam> . _ _ . _ .. _ _ Sent: i'i ri ;' e'2 �- t "timber Marking anTeepee z_L45 e -,r To: Garfield County Commissioners r �; ,q is 4 c .. From: Kelly Ripens, Colorado State Forest Service -� Date: October 26, 2001 Re: Timber marking on Teepee Park Property M the request of Mr. Bill Gherardi of Woodland Management Consultants, I recently inspected a portion of the Teepee Park property that las been marked for potential timber harvestBill asked me to send you my impressions of the marking job completed to date. The area marked was located in a stand of mixed spruce -fir timber near the top ofthe east drainage of Porcine Creek. Road construction to• the proposed harvest area appears to be near completion. Trees to be harvested have been marked with blue paint at DBI (4.5 foot height) and at the stump. Mr. Gherardi described the making as an "initial entry shelterwood cut", as described in the forest management plan completed for this property in 1996. The timber ming 1 inspected is in line with a shelterwood cut prescription. This is the most commonly used cutting scheme in old growth spruce -fir stands, and should work well in this particular application. It appears that 30-40 percent ofthe basal area of the stand has been marked for removal in this initial cut. Dead and poorly formed trees, as well as trees damaged by fire or insects have been marked. It appears that an effort has been made to select subalpine fir trees (the less merchantable species) and spruce trees from all size classes for removal, and to favor the better -formed spruce for retention as seed trees in this initial entry. The marking I examined is definitely not a "high grade" job, where only the largest trees are selected. In addition, no trees were marked for removal directly adjacent to roads. The timber mucking done so far appears to follow the prescription outlined in the approved management plan. Assuming the logging operation is closely monitored, I feel this area will benefit from the proposed manages tient., Please call me with questions or comments, or if I can be of further help in This matter. i Kelly Rogers Assistant District Forester Colorado State Forest Service, Grand Junction District (970) 248.7325 10129/2001 1 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 1 January 31, 2003 1 iAs you are aware, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County (BOCC) has voted to conduct a hearing on March 17, 2003, to determine whether to revoke the Special Use Permit granted for the conduct of the timber harvest. You are the Consulting Forester to BOCC on this Project. 1 Request is herewith made for a report from your office on the Tepee Park Timber Harvest. The Report requested should focus upon the following elements: 1 1. Whether the yarding methods employed by the Permit Holders within Tepee Park are consistent with Best Management Practices for the Colorado Timber Industry, including, but 1 not limited to, the procedures set forthin the ForestManagement Plan for Tepee Park dated April, 1996. 1 Mr. William Gherardi Woodland Management Consultants P.O. Box 10 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Intermountain Resources, LLC / Mr. Norman A. Carpenter Tepee Park / Special Use Permit Dear Mr. Gherardi: 2. The percentage of slopes in the Houston Mountain Area on which the Permit Holders are currently conducting Tractor Yarding. This request includes, but is not limited to, the dates on which such measurements were made, how they were made, and any notes of such measurements made by you. . 1) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr. William Gherardi January 31, 2003 Page Two. 3. Whether the conduct of the tractor yarding in the Houston Mountain Area has resulted in severe scarring of the existing slopes, created soil disturbances contrary to the Management Objectives set forth in the Forest Management Plan, or otherwise caused concerns to you, as a Consulting Forester, for any damage, injury or adverse impact to the public health, safety and welfare.. 4. Whether construction of the road into and through the Houston Mountain Area has resulted in substantial "scarring" of the existing slopes, adverse impact upon water drainage; or, adverse effects for erosion or soil control. In your Report, please state the dates on which such road was inspected b you, all measurements made by you, and, the method by which such measurements were made. 5. Whether the roads constructed by the Permit Holders within Tepee Park have been constructed in accordance with the road -building standards set forth in the Official Forest Management Plan for Tepee Park and all applicable road -building standards promulgated by the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. 6. Whether the Permit Holders have performed procedures to protect watercourses, wildlife and domestic Animal migration routes and wildlife feeding areas or habitat within the course ofthe timber harvest project. Your Report should indicate the dates of such inspections, the means or methods by which verifications were made by you, and all notes made at the time of suc inspections. 7 Whether the conduct of the timber harvest project has caused vibration, noise, smoke, dust, toxic or noxious vapors or other nuisances within Tepee Park and/or the lands abutting and surrounding Tepee Park. If your inspections did determine that such vibration, noise, etc., occurred, then please state the dates on which you directed corrective measures, the corrective measures taken, if any, by the Permit Holders, and your follow-up inspections showingcompliance, if any, by the Permit Holders with your directives. As with other requests made in this letter, your Report should state the dates of inspection, the means by which observations or measurements were taken, and all notes made by you on the dates of inspection. 8. Whether you have observed any procedures, conduct or other action committed by the Permit Holders, or their contractors and agents, which, in your professional opinion, have adversely effected the public health, welfare and safety of the lands surrounding Tepee Park If you did observe any such actions, please state in your Report: the date of such observations; the methods or means by which measurements or tests were conducted; the corrective procedures, if any, directed by you; the corrective measures taken by the Permit Holders; and all notes made by you on such dates of inspection. Mr. William Gherardi January 31, 2003 Page Three 9. Please describe the procedures and criteria observed by you to be employed by the Permit Holders in selecting trees to be felled as part of the timber harvest. In your report, state the dates of all such observations; the persons observed; and, when appropriate, any corrective measures directed by you in the tree selection process. 10. Please describe the procedures and criteria employed by you, as the County Consulting Forester, for inspecting trees to be felled within Tepee Park. For all such procedures or criteria, please state the source of such criteria: e.g., Garfield County Ordinances; Garfield County Land Use Resolution; Forest Management Plan; etc. 11. Please describe whether, inyour opinion, the participation of a representative ofthe Colorado Division of Wildlife would, or would not, have been of professional assistance in selecting trees to be felled. 12. Please describe any training sessions, seminars or other training procedures used by the Permit Holders, conducted separately or in conjunction with your role as County Consulting Forester, in the selection of trees to be felled in the timber harvest. In your Report, please state the dates of any and all training sessions observed or directed by you; the substance of such training sessions; and all follow-up review by yourself to verify compliance with the procedures set forth in the training sessions. 13. Background: On December 10, 2002, Mr. Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning Department, requested that you advise him of"....any further activity not in compliance with the conditions of approval...." contained in Resolution 97-70 and the Official Forest Management Plan (OFMP). On January 13, 2002, you reported: (a) the completion of tractor logging on the east side of Beaver Creek; (b) the construction of the road into the Houston Mountain Area; and, (c) the inception of tractor yarding in the Houston Mountain Area. Copies of these two letters are attached as Appendix A and B respectively. Request: Please state whether the actions reported in your letter of January 13, 2002, were, or were not, considered by you to be in compliance with the conditions specified in Resolution 97-70 and/or the OFMP. In your Report please provide all references to Resolution 97-70 and/or the OFMP on which you base your conclusion of compliance or non- compliance. Please provide, in addition, all dates of inspection; all observations made by you; and, any and all corrective measures directed by you to be taken by the Permit Holders in these three actions. 14. Please describe whether, in your professional opinion, the timber harvest conducted within Tepee Park may increase, augment or promote water drainage or production. Specify the scientific studies, treatises or other reports reviewed by you in forming such conclusion. 1 1) Mr. William Gherardi January 31, 2003 Page Four. 1 15. For the lands composing "Tepee Parr', and its timber harvest area, please describe the II populations of exotic or domestic pests for coniferous trees found within Tepee Park for the years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. In your Report, please provide the dates of any "cruise" or other inspections; the observations made by you; the means and methods of Idetermining pest populations, their density and the types of pests found, if any. 16. Given the continued - and deepening - drought currently experienced in Garfield County, please describe the relationship between the timber harvest currently conducted by the Permit Holders and: (1) the prevention of wildfire; (2) the removal of hazardous or combustible materials for wildfire; (3) the need for access roads, if any, to fight wildfire; (4) whether the need for such wildfire protection and access is continuing; and, (5) any additional measures which, in your professional opinion, should be undertaken to mitigate the potential for wildfire in Tepee Park. In your Report, please specify all dates of observation or inspection for wildfire; the reports, treatises or other data sources relied upon by you in determining wildfire potential and prevention measures; and, all agencies, persons or other entities consulted by you in making your conclusions. i ) 17. Have you, as the Consulting County Forester to the Tepee Park Timber Harvest Project, consulted with officials of the Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Board of Agriculture and/or the U.S. Forest Service regarding review of the timber harvest project being conducted within Tepee Park? If so, then, in your Report, please provide the dates of such consultations; the opinions and discussions had in such meetings; the dates of any field inspections made by such agencies or officials; and, the results of such field inspections and/or consultations. Your report on the issues outlined in this letter is requested to be delivered to my office not later than February 15, 2003. Your cooperation and assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. li Y s truly, ...22:z.e. 11 James A. Beckwith Appendices A and B Attached Woodland Management Consultants,LLC. PO Box 10 Fort Collins, CO 80522 February 15, 2003 Mr. James Beckwith 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 Dear Mr. Beckwith, This Tepee Park Timber Harvest Report follows the outline contained in your letter of January 31, 2003. 1. All yarding has followed the methods listed in the OFMP (Official Forest Management Plan - Tepee Park). Furthermore, the BMP's for Colorado are utilized in the field because they contain more site specific criteria for protecting resources. 2. Harvesting in Houston Mountain are on slopes less than 30%. I conducted field inspections, Exhibit A, traversing the area and measuring slopes with a clinometer. 3. All of the yarding on Houston Mountain was completed with 3-4 feet of snow on the ground. This minimizes any soil disturbance. 4&5. All roads constructed within Tepee Park follow the standards in the OFMP and BMP` s for Colorado.In fact the items stated below exceed the aforementioned standards. A. The old, existing road was constructed next to Beaver Creek on steep grades with no drainage structures.This road has been closed, water bared and seeded. B. The new haul road is located out of the Strearnside Management Zone on grades less than 10%. The first 1.2 miles ( from the north property line to the first conifer stand) was graveled with 10 inches of shale to prevent any potential erosion into Heaver Creek. C. The existing road system is maintained to provide in slope ditches to existing culverts at all intermittent and perennial stream crossings and every 500 feet on slopes greater than 30%. D. All road cut and fill slopes and IAndinghave been grass seeded to the Porcupine Fire Area.. All of the aforementioned items are based on field inspections as shown in Exhibit B. 6. All watercourses are protected by Streamside Management Zones and delineated on the ground by flagging. Road crossings in SMZ's utilize culverts with rip rap endpoints which dissipate water energy. Wildlife:Harvest ig within Tepee Park has not altered migration routes. Within the harvested areas,sunlight can now reach the forest floor which will stimulate grass and forb production. The portion of the road thru aspen stands has promoted aspen sprouts in the cut and fill slopes, which are excellent forage for ells. 7. All equipment for road building and timber harvesting is late model equipment containing all applicable filters and baffles for OSHA required noise, combustion and safety regulations. Minor equipment repair and maintenance is performed on bare mineral soil in landings with applicable safety and fire requirements. The dry weather conditions this summer (June -September) created short duration dust clouds commensurate with log hauling. Dust abatement, i.e. magnesium chloride, was applied on County Road 317 on August 25-28, 2002. 8. No effect on public health, welfare and safety. 9&10. Individual tree selection is based on the principles cited in the OFMP:"Silvicultural Systems and Cutting Methods for Old Growth Spruce -Fir Forests in the Central and Southern Rocky Mountains",and "Ecology , Silviculture and Management of the Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir Types in the Central and Southern Rocky Mountains" Site specific stand prescriptions were developed for Tepee Perk in 1998 and 1999. Chris Meyers and myself field inspected all stands and developed criteria for tree selection,to wit: Order of Precedence; a. Removals based on stand structure , i.e. number of canopy levels,topography and aspect. b. Remove high risk trees, bug killed, brood trees, windfall and broken top trees.c. Remove trees which will facilitate the safe operation of harvesting equipment. Based on this criteria, an area was sample marked and inspected by the logger and the Colorado State Forest Service. My subsequent filed inspections ( Exhibit B) has insured compliance with tree selection. 11. Within the OFMP, initial consultation with the DOW was incorporated, addressing the forest mosaic. Further, this issue was reaffirmed at the August 5, 2002 BOCC meeting, with Brett Ackerman stating his expertise in mosaics not tree selection. Finally, in other private and state timber sales 1 have conducted, the DOW has provided valuable information and assistance in identifying migration routes, calving areas, and hiding and thermal cover requirements; but, no input an individual tree selection. 12. Refer to 9&10. 13. All actions by the Applicant are in compliance. Specifically, those items listed in the OFMP: page 40- Methods of Operation, p.43-61- Road Construction, p.62 -Soil Stablizatiion Procedures,p_65-Watercourse Protection Zones & Measures, p30- Fire Safety, and p.73- Fuels Reduction. (2) 1 1 1 1 r' 1 r 1 1 11 Points of contradiction between the OFMP and the SUP; rar 1•VVB/VVO r-01� a. OFMP (p.38), DOW advice on forest mosaic, reaffirmed at August 5,2002 BOCC meeting.OFMP(p.31 &34)... foresters will mark trees. #5 of SUP- ... prior to harvesting for inspection by consultant and DOW. b. OFMP(p.80).... logging operations generate as many a 6 vehicles trips for crew and supplies.#12-SUP... crew cab for transport of employees. On the Tepee Park Project the applicant accomplishes mad construction and harvesting with subcontractors. The subs are not employees of the Applicant. 14. Tree harvesting within Tepee Park will increase downstream available water. The research papers listed in Exhibit C quantify this fact. 15. Insect activity is monitored continuously by field inspections per Exhibit B. The 2 most devastating insects for mature spruce -fir forests are the spruce bark beetle and the western balsam bark beetle, In 1998, there were no beetle killed trees in the Beaver and Porcupine Creek drainages, with a rare single bug tree in the Mamm Creek drainage Today there are 2-3 bug hits throughout the Beaver and Porcupine Creek drainages and groups of 5-20 bug hits throughout the Mamm Creek drainage 16. Wildfire and insect epidemics pose the gravest catastrophic risk to forest landowners.The forest in Tepee Park is composed of mature, heavily stocked stands of conifers on broken topography where afternoon lightning strikes are common. On July 3, 2001 a lightning strike started a rite. Due to the expertise of Intermountain personnel in building an access road for fire trucks and a bulldozer fire line the fire was confined to 35 acres. Primary road access has been established into all major drainages except the most easterly end of Man= Creek( scheduled for summer of 2003). Timber harvest on 500 acres has reduced the volume of fuel in the forest, since the trees are skidded with tops and branches intact to a landing. At the landing the slash is piled for burning under safe conditions, i.e. snow cover. Further, timber harvesting encompasses the surmner lightning season, with on site equipment the spread of wildfires is minimized. 17. To date I have consulted with the Colorado State Forest Service per the citations listed in Exhibit D. (3) Submitted by, Bill Gherardi Forester, Woodland Management Consultants, LLC. Enclosures wt..' fauc r—oia --•• il..11111m rrum- imartmuurilm KESUURCES LLC 4V 1..vvv tI--1.1. .0. IN. grey _ _ ._ . February 18, 2003 Intermountain Resources, LLC P. O. Box 670 Montrose, Colorado 81402 6702460727 T-046 P.002/002 F-121 Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-5060 (970) 491-6303 FAX: (970) 401.7736 Dear Mr. Meyers 1 was requested by Mr, Bill Gherardi to perform a review of the harvesting and road construction that is.being conducted by your company on the Teepee Park Ranch property south of Rifle, Colorado. 1 have prepared the following summary of my observations made during my visit to the parcel on February 6, 2003 that you have been harvesting timber on. We accessed the property via the new road that was constructed by Intermountain Resources. Road design was similar to roads 1 have observed on other private properties. The graveled portion of the new road on the west side of Beaver Creek will provide additional protection to the drainage through reduction of sediment movement. Culvert installations append to be adequate for the local conditions. The harvesting I observed was in spruce -fir forest type. All harvested areas 1 viewed had slopes less than 50% and were well suited to conventional ground based logging systems (rubber tired skidders and 'tractors). The selective harvest being conducted should favor Engelmann Spruce reproduction over sub -alpine fir. Thinning of the stands will decrease their susceptibility to attack from Spruce Bark Beetle, Western Balsam Bark Beetle and improve overall forest health. The western slope has areas with endemic and epidemic populations of these insects. Spruce Bark Beetles are at epidermic levels in the area of the Routt Blowdown. Removal and disposal of the slash is necessary to reduce the breeding habitat for these insects. The risk of catastrophic crown fire is also reduced through application of this treatment. When the harvesting operation is completed for the winter season monitoring of the site should continue. The drainage structures should be maintained to insure they remain functional. The harvesting taking place on this property appears to be well planned and the quality of the work is very good. R Jo `,t•lb A. Duda Colorado State Forest Service Forest Management Division Supervisor Colorado State Forest Service ly, A REVIEW OF THE TEEPEE CREEK TIMBER HARVEST PLAN And TIMBER SALE SITE GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO APRIL 14, 2003 BY DAVID R. W. HOEFER Consulting Forester TEEPEE CREEK TIMBER HARVEST PLAN AND SALE AREA REVIEW On March 20, 2003, Mark L Bean, Director, Buildings and Development, for Garfield County Colorado contacted me to review and comment on the Teepee Park Timber Harvest Plan and the timber sale area. This Plan was submitted to the County February 21, 2003 on behalf of Mr. Norman Carpenter and Intermountain Resources, LLC/Timber Owner. The Plan was reviewed in March and on April 11, 2003 a visit to the sale area was made by snowmobile. The sale area was viewed from the timber access road to where it dropped into the main Porcupine Creek drainage. Unfortunately, due to mechanical problems with the snowmobile, I was unable to get into the cutover stands to make any measurements. FINDINGS I have found the Application for Special Use Permit, Timber Harvesting, Teepee Park to be very complete and specific. For a private land timber operation, this plan has much more detail than most, especially with regard to fire and water quality degradation. LOGGING ON STEEP SLOPES. In my opinion, the only major area of question with the Plan are the slopes where tractor yarding (skidding) is permitted. Normally, tractor yarding or skidding is allowed on slopes up to 35%. It can be used on slopes up to 45% where soil conditions and the silvicultural system being employed are compatible. The Plan, on page 5, under Tractor Yarding, states tractor yarding will be on slopes 60% or less and that operations will generally be on slopes less than 45%. Tractor yarding will be used on steeper slopes (up to 60%) when it is more ecologically favorable overall than moving the yarder to a new set-up. Cable yarding will be used on slopes greater than 60%. I do not dispute the Plan but this does raise a concern. I also realize that newer rubber tracked equipment such as the Timbco T -400D Hydro-Buncher is quite efficient on steeper slopes than the tracked "cats" and rubber tired skidders. When using the silvicultural systems described on pages 4 and 5 of the Plan, a forest owner would not want to use skidding equipment that would damage or destroy the residual stand. Since the landowner is proposing the action, not the logger, it is most likely acceptable in meeting their objectives and not destroying seedlings or trees to remain. What I saw on the ground was that yarding was being conducted on slopes generally under 35%. None of the area with continuous slopes over 45% was logged. I was told rubber tired skidders were being used. Slopes over 45% could be logged with cable systems; however, these systems are more expensive to operate and would only be employed when economic conditions were more favorable. If these practices are followed, then the logging on steep slopes is not a concern. -1- SILVICULTURL SYSTEMS. The vegetation type proposed for the timber harvest is Engelmann spruce -subalpine fir. Also know as the spruce -fir forest. Historically, these forests are replaced by major disturbances with the onset of blowdown and bark beetles attacks that result in heavy fuel accumulations, then followed by high intensity fires. As noted in the application, as spruce -fir forests become over - mature they are subject to wind throw or blowdown due to the trees shallow root systems and the usual thin and often wet soil. Lately, in the Rocky Mountains, there have been blowdowns and bark beetle increases to the epidemic stage. A stand replacement fire might occur at any time or may not occur for another 200 years depending on bark beetle activity and weather conditions. From the information presented and observed, I concur that the timber stands are in a condition for the prescribed management. The Management Objectives are primarily to harvest over -mature timber and to improve overall forest health. The silvicultural systems for the harvest and regeneration of the stands are Group Selection, Shelterwood, and Single Tree Selection. Commercial thinning is proposed for even - aged stands where regeneration is not the objective. These are the appropriate silvicultural systems to use. The other silvicultural tool available is clearcutting. Clearcutting in high elevation spruce has been proven to be ineffective in short-term regeneration and is not recommended. Key criteria in applying these systems are stand age, stand condition, and susceptibility to wind throw. The Plan states emphasis will be given to subalpine fir removal where possible. This is consistent with most forest management objectives in the spruce -fir forest. My limited on the ground observation showed most of the timber was mature with larger trees being 24-36 inches in diameter. I did not observe stands of timber that were really overmature or where the stands were falling apart. It is an appropriate time to conduct an initial timber stand entry. The observed silvicultural system of harvest was primarily Shelterwood Removal. Residual trees of various sizes were left throughout the cutting area. I did not observe any Single Tree Selection or Commercial Thinning. Some patch cutting was observed on the portion of the sale first entered as the road climbs to the west from Beaver Creek. In my opinion, the amount of timber removed was on the high side for a sheleterwood system. There may be reasons for the heavier cutting such as high amounts of fir, blowdown, dead, or other stand conditions. I did not have an opportunity to measure the basal area or the trees per acre of the remaining stand to quantify this observation. A variety of tree diameter sizes, from sapling to mature, were left scattered throughout the cutting areas indicating the cutting was not a "high grading." I did not observe any damage to the residual stand. Skid trails were not obvious (a good sign); however, the areas observed were under snow. Likewise, slash disposal appeared to meet the standards in the Plan. -2- SILVICULTURL SYSTEMS. The vegetation type proposed for the timber harvest is Engelmann spruce -subalpine fir. Also know as the spruce -fir forest. Historically, these forests are replaced by major disturbances with the onset of blowdown and bark beetles attacks that result in heavy fuel accumulations, then followed by high intensity fires. As noted in the application, as spruce -fir forests become over - mature they are subject to wind throw or blowdown due to the trees shallow root systems and the usual thin and often wet soil. Lately, in the Rocky Mountains, there have been blowdowns and bark beetle increases to the epidemic stage. A stand replacement fire might occur at any time or may not occur for another 200 years depending on bark beetle activity and weather conditions. From the information presented and observed, I concur that the timber stands are in a condition for the prescribed management. The Management Objectives are primarily to harvest over -mature timber and to improve overall forest health. The silvicultural systems for the harvest and regeneration of the stands are Group Selection, Shelterwood, and Single Tree Selection. Commercial thinning is proposed for even - aged stands where regeneration is not the objective. These are the appropriate silvicultural systems to use. The other silvicultural tool available is clearcutting. Clearcutting in high elevation spruce has been proven to be ineffective in short-term regeneration and is not recommended. Key criteria in applying these systems are stand age, stand condition, and susceptibility to wind throw. The Plan states emphasis will be given to subalpine fir removal where possible. This is consistent with most forest management objectives in the spruce -fir forest. My limited on the ground observation showed most of the timber was mature with larger trees being 24-36 inches in diameter. I did not observe stands of timber that were really overmature or where the stands were falling apart. It is an appropriate time to conduct an initial timber stand entry. The observed silvicultural system of harvest was primarily Shelterwood Removal. Residual trees of various sizes were left throughout the cutting area. I did not observe any Single Tree Selection or Commercial Thinning. Some patch cutting was observed on the portion of the sale first entered as the road climbs to the west from Beaver Creek. In my opinion, the amount of timber removed was on the high side for a sheleterwood system. There may be reasons for the heavier cutting such as high amounts of fir, blowdown, dead, or other stand conditions. I did not have an opportunity to measure the basal area or the trees per acre of the remaining stand to quantify this observation. A variety of tree diameter sizes, from sapling to mature, were left scattered throughout the cutting areas indicating the cutting was not a "high grading." I did not observe any damage to the residual stand. Skid trails were not obvious (a good sign); however, the areas observed were under snow. Likewise, slash disposal appeared to meet the standards in the Plan. -2- REFERENCES. Colorado Forestry Stewardship Guidelines. Best Management Practices for Colorado. Foresters Field Handbook. 1994. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service. Forestry Handbook. 1984. Society of American Foresters. Silviculture of the Spruce-fir Forests, Sheppard and Alexander. An Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Health in the Southwest, 1997. USDA Forester Service GTR 295 A REVIEW OF THE TEEPEE CREEK TIMBER SALE Norman A Carpenter, Landowner Intermountain Resources, Timber Owner GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 BY DAVID R. W. HOEFER Consulting Forester HOEFER ASSOCIATES David R. W. Hoefer 440 Meadows Way Grand Junction Colorado 81503-2525 September 24, 2003 Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 198 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mark: Enclosed in my report as requested by the Garfield County Commissioners at their April 21, 2003 meeting. Their request was to look at the timber sale operations in relation to the Teepee Park Timber Harvest Project Special Use Permit. The logging operations observed were those conducted in 2002, prior to the permit review. There was no logging during the past summer. When I visited the area September 12, 2003, there was some road construction taking place and the removal of right-of-way trees. As indicated in my report, I, as a professional forester, feel the logging operation is in conformance with their Special Use Permit Application. With few minor exceptions, the Colorado Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Colorado have been followed. The roads within the sale area are adequate for the logging operation. I have noted in the report that some of the roads seem excessively steep and cross slopes greater than 50%. If the roads could have been constructed on National Forest lands some of these situations could have been avoided. It would have been desirable to manage the total forest ecosystem including National Forest lands in a cooperative effort. Having been in the Forest Service, I also know this would have been difficult with budgets, priorities, NEPA requirements, and overall coordination. This timber sale should have a positive effect on forest health. The stands of spruce are generally very healthy. Very little rot was observed. The subalpine fir within the spruce stands is showing signs of bark beetle attack. By removing the fir, which is more susceptible to insect and disease attack, and reducing the density (basal area) of the spruce, tree vigor will be retained or increase. This will reduce the treat of insect attacks on the spruce. In the longer term, fire susceptibility will also be reduced. Sincerely, S/ David R. W. Hoefer Consulting Forester Enclosure Teepee Creek Timber Sale Review At the request of the Garfield County Commissioners at their April 21, 2003 meeting, I conducted a review of the Teepee Creek Timber Sale special use permit. This review was made September 12, 2003 with applicant Chris Meyers (Intermountain Resources) and consulting forester Bill Gherardi accompanying me for most of the review. The review was made by driving and hiking major logging roads and walking through some of cutting areas. SUMMARY: It is obvious that Chris Meyers and Bill Gherardi understand the silvicultural practices needed to manage spruce stands and understand the Best Management Practices for Colorado. This is indicated in the timber management and logging operations on the ground. They are doing a good job. The timber sale has been conducted in a professional manner and should be an overall benefit to Garfield County. POSITIVE OBSERVATIONS: Cutting practices look good and the silvicultural objectives stated in the Plan should be obtained. Previously I had questioned the amount of trees cut resulting in a basal area (density of leave trees) lower than desired for the silvicultural system being implemented. [The stated desired level was at least 60%.] This does not appear to be an overall problem. There are pockets within the timber stands with high densities of subalpine fir. One of the Plan objectives was to reduce the amount of fir to improve the overall spruce stand. This is one reason for the more open stands that indicated in the plan. A second reason is mortality to the fir from bark beetles. A third is previous blowdown. One concern with having a light density of trees (low basal area) is that blowdown of the residual trees can occur. This was not a problem last year as there were very few blown over trees observed within the cutting areas. I saw very little damage to residual trees. Damage from improper cutting and skidding is indicated with trees having broken tops and barked skinned off the trunks. Utilization of the trees was good. There were very few high stumps and tops were cut to 6 inches or less. Trees that were left for future growth and, to serve as seed trees, were healthy with good form and vigor. The sale area was not high graded. Logging slash has been lopped and scattered. Some areas had very high existing natural concentrations of woody debris on the ground Skid trails are not very obvious; a good sign. 1 -2- I did not observe any skiiding on slopes over 45%. All culvert locations are marked with a fence post on the uphill side so they can be located if they get plugged. The main roads have a ditch for drainage. Many sections were graveled. All live drainages had culverts and culverts were placed intermittently along the road. Streamside zones have been protected. NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS: Roads are quite steep with some grades at 25%. It would be better if grades were less that 15%. However, there are tradeoffs involved since the terrain may not permit lower grades without excessive switchbacks and more ground disturbances. Soils within the sale area are quite forgiving with regard to erosion; however, channeling on the road surface can occur. These steep roads should not be a problem as long as they are water barred and seeded when the logging has been completed. One large road fill by Porcupine Creek has slid out. The road is on a very steep side slope and makes a switchback. Though the road itself is a bench cut, i.e., the roadbed is on natural ground and not fill, a large fill was needed for logging trucks to turn. Much of this fill has slid and will need to replace if logging trucks are to use the road. I am not sure this could have been avoided other than a different road location. A different road location would have possibly involved crossing the White River National Forests. Some of the roads did have rutting down the middle of the road surface. I recommended more dips be installed during construction and outsloping of areas on roads already constructed. Outsloping of the roads will also discharge and disperse road surface runoff. In one area, where there is a switchback on a steep slope, some road fill has entered the streamside zone and will erode into the live creek. In this case, it would be difficult to prevent the fill from encroaching on the stream. Heavy seeding is recommended though the area to be seeded is in shade. Woody debris might be placed on the fill to reduce the amount of soil movement. WORK REMAINING: Before winter, the road ditches need to be pulled (cleaned) and the road graded. The entrances to a few culverts were clogged so need to be cleaned. Also, the entrances of some culverts need to be cleared of rocks and other debris so they do not plug. Additional grass seeding is needed along some of the road cut and fill slopes. This is not a serious problem but will help stabilize soils. Roadside and landing slash piles need to be burned. Some slash is bunched against live trees so many need to be pulled back prior to burning. -3-