Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.02 BOCC Staff Report 09.08.2008 - Exhibit N - Application for Special Use Permit -Timber Harvest ProjectAPPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TIMBER HARVESTING TEPEE PARK Submitted On Behalf Of: Mr. Norman A. Carpenter, Landowner Intermountain Resources, LLC / Timber Owner Prepared By: Mr. James A. Beckwith Attorney at Law 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-996611 FAX 303-431-2803 Submittal Date: February 21, 2003 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT / TEPEE PARK TIMBER HARVEST INDEX Pg. I: Application Requirements / General 1 A. Applicants / Names and Addresses 1 B. Applicants' Representative and Authority 1 C. Legal Descriptions / Deeds and Easements 1 D. Vicinity, Tract and Assessor's Maps 1 E. Adjacent Property Owners 2 F. Existing Permits and Licenses 2 G. Reports from Responsible Agencies 2 H. Statement of Operations / Project Description 2 (1) Description of Property 2 (2) Management Objectives 3 (a) Wildlife 3 (b) Water 3 (c) Fire 3 (d) Forest Health 4 (3) Harvest Operations / Selection Criteria 4 (a) Group Selection 4 (b) Shelterwood Removal 4 (c) Single Tree Selection 5 (d) Commercial Thinning 5 (4) Harvest Operations / Yarding Methods 5 (a) Tractor Yarding 5 (b) Cable Yarding 5 (c) Helicopter Yarding 6 (d) Yarding Areas 6 (5) Interior Roads / Site and Location —$... (6) Interior Roads / Construction Standards 7 (7) Harvest Operations / Operating Schedule 10 (8) Harvest Operations / Environmental 11 (a) Wildlife and Fisheries 11 (b) Soil 12 (c) Water 12 (d) Visual Resources 13 (e) Endangered or Sensitive Species 13 (f) Cultural Resources I4 Conditional and Special Uses / Operating Standards 14 III: Industrial Operations / Operating Standards 15 (a) Revegetation Methods 17 (b) Soil Stabilization Measures 17 (c) Winter Operations 18 (d) Watercourse Protection Measures 19 (e) Special Protective Measures I Beaver Creek Water Quality 19 (f) Snag Retention 20 (g) Fire Safety 20 (h) Fuels Reduction 22 IV: Industrial Performance Standards 24 V: Approval or Denial of Special Use 26 (a) Legal Standard 27 (b) Conditions Attached to SUP 97-70 27 (c) Public Right -of -Way 32 VI. The Rule of Equality in Comments 33 VII. Conclusion 33 VIII. List of Attached Appendices 35 PART I: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS / GENERAL Sec. 9.03.01 Application: All special use permit applications shall be filed by the owner or owners, or entities with statutory authority to obtain ownership or land rights pursuant to eminent domain powers, of the subject lot with the Planning Director on a farm provided by the Planning Director for this purpose and shall consist of all information required of an application for a permit and subject to all administrative procedures thereof plus the following: (1) Supporting information, plans, letters of approval from responsible agencies and other information to satisfy requirements listed under Conditional and Special Uses in the Supplementary Regulations; (2) A vicinity map be drawn to scale depicting the subject property, location of roads providing access to the subject property, location and use of buildings and structures on adjacent lots and the names of owners of record of such lots; (3) A letter to the County Commissioners from the applicant explaining in detail the nature and character of the Special Use requested A. Applicants / Name and Address: Mr. Norman A. Carpenter Tepee Park Ranch 12403 Nacogdoches, Suite 110 San Antonio, TX 78217 210-599-7926 B. Applicants' Representative: Mr. Christopher C. Meyers, Manager Intermountain Resources, LLC P.O. Box 670 Montrose, CO 81402 970-249-0812 Letters establishing Mr. Beckwith's authority to act as representative for the applicants are attached, collectively, as Appendix 1. C. Legal Descriptions / Deeds or Agreements / Zoning Appendix 2: Appendix 3: Appendix 4: Copy / Carpenter Warranty Deed wl Legal Description Copy / Carpenter Timber Deed w/ Legal Description Copy / Carpenter/IMR Timber Sale Agreement Per the Garfield County Comprehensive Map, the subject property lies within an Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (AIRIRD) Zoning District. Per Sec. 2.02.31, timber cutting is an "extraction" and part of an "industrial operation". Per Sec. 102,03, extraction operations within an A/R/RD Zoning District are a "special use". D. Vicinity, Tract and Assessor's Maps Appendix 5: Vicinity Map / Source: BLM Land Status Map, Carbondale, 1994 Appendix 6: Tract Map / Source: USG5 Rulison and North Mamm Peak 1 1:24,000 Appendix 7: Excerpt / Garfield County Assessor's Map / Nos. 2403, 2405, 2453 1 E. Adjacent Property Owners: The U.S. Government is the sole owner of lands lying within 200 ft. of the boundaries of Tepee Park. There are two federal agencies involved: Mr. David Silvieus District Ranger Rifle Ranger District U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 94 County Road 244 Rifle, CO 81650 F. Existing Permits or Licenses G. Appendix 8: Appendix 9: Appendix 10: Appendix 11: Appendix 12: Representative U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 City of Rifle / Watershed Permit No. 1-97 U.S. Forest Service / Special Use Permit Easement Grant / U.S. Forest Service to Norman A. Carpenter Order / U.S. District Court / Case No. 00 PC 1243 (VonDette Road) Special Use Permit / Garfield County / Resolution 97-70. Reports from Responsible Agencies: Appendix 13: Appendix 14: Appendix 15: Appendix 16: Mr. Paul Bussone / City of Rifle Watershed Inspector Mr. William Gherardi / Garfield County Consulting Forester / Permit 97-70 Mr. Joseph Duda / Colorado State Forest Service Mr. Kelly Rogers / Colorado State Forest Service H. Statement of Operations/Project: (1) Description of Property: The subject property is commonly known as "Tepee Park" and will be so referred to in this Application. The name derives from Tepee Creek, a small tributary of Beaver Creek located on the property. Tepee Park is situated approximately 8.25 radial miles south of the City of Rifle, and is entirely surrounded by lands administered by the USFS and the BLM. Elevations within the property vary from 8,700 to 10,700. There are four main watercourses or drainages within the property: Beaver Creek; the headwaters of Porcupine Creek; Spruce Creek; and, West Mamm Creek. All flow north and are tributary to the Colorado River. Beaver Creek provides domestic water supplies to the City of Rifle, whose intake is approximately 5 miles north of the northern boundary of Tepee Park. Beaver Creek is regulated by the City of Rifle Watershed Ordinance, The vegetation types on the property include Engelmann Spruce-SubAlpine Fir, Aspen, Gamble Oak, riparian and upland meadows with combinations of two or more pure types. Soils are principally cobbly silty loams with clay loam subsoils. The area composing Tepee Park was originally patented through mining claims for oil shale and related deposits. 2 Until the present timber harvest project (GarCO SUP 97-70), there has not been any significant timber cutting within Tepee Park. Research and investigation further discloses that there has not been a catastrophic fire within Tepee Park in 300 years. Consequently, many of the Spruce - Fir and Aspen stands are over -mature. When the current harvest was incepted, many timber stands were littered with "blow -down" trees as a result ofprevious wind storms. The timber stands in Tepee Park have become dense and overgrown, making for difficulty in wildlife migration. Pest infestation has become near epidemic in scope, particularly in those areas where "blow -down" has occurred. The predominant pest observed is the Spruce Bark Beetle, with populations stretching throughout the property. Additionally, the Western Balsam Bark Beetle has been detected in areas of West Mamm Creek. (2) Management Objectives: The proposed timber harvest is a necessary portion of the management plan for Tepee Park. The timber stands to be harvested are over -mature and beginning to deteriorate. Applicants wish to capture the economic opportunity of harvest before a major catastrophe or further degradation occurs within the timber stands. This is a legitimate use of private property. The local community will share in tax revenues and employment opportunities. In addition, the timber harvested will add to the nation's lumber inventory which is presently in short supply. In addition to the monetary benefits of the harvest, there are other important benefits: Wildlife: Removing a portion of the overstory will allow an increase in sunlight with a resultant rejuvenation of the understory: i.e., grasses, forbs and shrubs and sprouts of Aspen. This will provide more forage for elk, deer and domestic grazing animals. Retention of "islands" and "lanes" of the Spruce -Fir forest with openings of earliest successional stages create ecotones. It has been well documented that this "edge effect" provides for better overall habitat for larger ungulates. Water: The reduction in overstory will reduce the moisture consumption by removing the large and mature trees, and thereby increase the amount of runoff available for irrigation for a decade or more. The openings increase the snow pack by allowing snow to build up on the ground where it can add to spring runoffs rather than being interrupted by tree limbs where it evaporates into the air. Attached hereto as Appendix 17 is a copy of the April, 2000, research report by Dr. Charles F. Leaf, entitled Past, Present and Future Effects of the U.S. Forest Service Management Policies on North Platte River Water Yields. Colorado is currently experiencing the worst drought in its recorded history. Obviously, any proper husbandry of private or public forests which can increase the amount of available water is of critical concern for all citizens. Fire: Improvement of access within Tepee Park will assist in any fire suppression activities. Reduction in the overstory and removal of dead and dying trees will reduce the potential for a catastrophic wildfire thereby creating more defensible space. Given the "Summers of Fire" in 2000, 2001, and 2002, the need for thinning of forests - whether on private or public land - has been of focal 3 concern for Federal, State and local governments. This is evidenced in the reports of Mr. Joseph Duda, Colorado State Forest Service, and Mr. William Gherardi, Garfield County Consulting Forester. Forest Health: The overstory stands currently are decadent and subject to insects and diseases. Not only is the timber resource under utilized but the down timber creates barriers to some species of wildlife. (3) Harvest Operations / Selection Criteria: The Conifer stands within Tepee Park will be harvested using a variety of silvicultural methods: Group and Single Tree Selection; Commercial Thinning and Shelterwood Removal. These are described as follows: Group Selection: In this method, small groups of trees are selected for harvesting. Group of trees (less than 2 acres) can be removed while leaving groups of wind firm, healthy, vigorous trees. This method provides an opportunity to release established regeneration. The object is to capture the opportunities that are provided by the small openings that presently exist. Those trees that are on the edges of openings have been exposed and may be more wind firm than individuals in denser portions of the stand. Since heart rot travels through the root system, diseased trees are frequently found in groups. This system promotes a healthier stand by removing obviously diseased individuals as well as those at high risk. Small groups that are healthy and wind firm are left intact to provide for vertical diversity and provide for future seeding of any disturbed soil from log skidding. Groups of Engelmann Spruce will be the primary species selected as "leave". Alpine Fir regeneration is disproportionately higher than Spruce regeneration so it is not preferred as a seed source. Also, it is much shorter lived than Spruce and is subject to heart rot at an early age. Therefore, Alpine Fir will be selected to harvest unless they are part of a Spruce "leave" group. Some portions of the stand will have leave groups that are contiguous to provide for travel cover or travel lanes for wildlife: particularly, deer and elk. This is especially important along roads. This will be accomplished by selecting leave groups that are connected with dense stands of saplings and poles as well as other mature leave groups. Generally, not more than 40% of the basal area of the original stand will be removed. Shelterwood Removal: In multistoried stands where the stand developed from the deterioration of overstory stands, and there is a manageable stand of reproduction, a shelterwood removal can be used to release this regeneration. The result is an increase in growth rate with favorable conditions for Spruce. In this method the "overwood" is removed. If the windfall risk is above average to high, the safest first cut is simulated shelterwood that removes the overwood with a thinning from below to obtain a widely spaced open -grown area that will be wind firm. These stands must be harvested with considerable care to protect the residual trees and regeneration, Skid trails or cable corridors must be flagged before the harvest operation commences 4 so that timber is felled towards the trail or corridor. Also, the timber must be felled in stages. Single Tree Selection: In stands where windfall risk is low, individual trees can be selected for removal. This method provides for a forest with an array of size and age classes. It is appropriate for uniformly spaced stands with an "irregular to all age" structure. As this method tends to favor the regeneration of more shade -tolerant species, such as Alpine Fir, this method will be used in stands that do not have a significant amount of Fir m the leave stand. Generally, no more than 40% of the basal area of the original stand will be removed. Commercial Thinning: In this method, the stands are relatively even -aged. The goal is to increase growth rates in the leave stand. Regeneration is not the object. This method should result in average diameters to be increased or remain the same. Very few of the stands present in Tepee Park can be so manipulated. However, some stands in the Porcupine Creek drainage and the northwestern slope of Tepee Creek qualify on a limited basis. Generally, no more than 30% of the basal area will be removed. The forest is advanced in age and, generally, the stands have deteriorated to different degrees and are not uniform. It is not possible to put a line on a map with any accuracy and restrict the forester to a certain silviculture that may not be appropriate. As conditions change within the stand so must the silviculture change. Some acres may not be harvested at all, while another acre may have all the overstory removed in order to release the regeneration and remove the decadent overwood (Shelterwood Removal). Still, another acre may have a few widely spaced individuals removed (Group or Single Tree Selection). 4. Harvest Operations / Yarding Methods: "Yarding" refers to the methods by which trees are removed from their original cut site. Three types of yarding will be used: Tractor; Cable (a/k/a "Skyline"); and, Helicopter. Tractor Yarding: This method includes conventional equipment such as skidders and dozers as well as the newer self -leveling hydro-bunchers popular for cut -to -length mechanized harvesting. Tractor yarding will be limited to slopes of 60% or less. The areas of tractor operation will generally be on slopes 45% or less because much of the steeper ground can be more effectively yarded with cable. However, tractor yarding will be employed on up to 60% slopes when it is more ecologically favorable overall than moving the yarder to a new set-up. Applicants currently employ self -leveling harvester equipment, such as the Timbco T -400D Hydro-Buncher shown in Appendix 18. Such equipment was designed specifically for "selective harvesting" within denser stands of timber, and for safe, ecologically sound yarding on slopes up to 60%. It was also designed for operator safety, since the operator' s cab is capable of 4 -way leveling. Cable Yarding: This method may be used on slopes greater than 60%, and may be employed in areas overlapping tractor yarding. A "skyline" system will be used with a carriage which has lateral yarding capabilities. The external yarding distances will generally be limited to 600 to 900 feet. This 5 is primarily due to the lack of adequate holding strength provided by the roots of these tree species. These lengths may be increased with the use of mid -span supports. Corridors will be flagged prior to yarding and should be aligned directly across the contours. Timber is to be felled in a "herringbone" pattern towards the corridors. Corridors are to be perpendicular to the haul road and parallel with each other. Diverging fan -shaped settings will be discouraged unless it is absolutely necessary. Helicopter Yarding: This method will be used on only the very steepest of areas where roads can not be constructed or where the construction of roads would result in severe scanning or soil disturbances contrary to the Management Objectives. This type of yarding is very expensive, and is weather -dependent for operator safety: i.e., winds; rain; snow; temperature; and, pressure. Yarding Areas: It is not practicable to put a line on a map with any accuracy to classify where one, or another, yarding method will be employed. As the tree or stand selection process changes, and/or the steepness of slope or soil conditions change, so must the yarding method employed also change. Accordingly, Applicants' forester(s) will employ "Best Management Practices" developed by the timber industry, generally, and as illustrated in the Timbering Guidelines publication disseminated by the Colorado State Forest Service. (Appendix 19) Applicants shall not be bound to use one method, as opposed to another, within specific areas of Tepee Park. It should be noted that Garfield County does not have any mandatory yarding standards governing the operation of timber harvests. 5. Interior Roads / Site and Location: The management of Tepee Park hinges on an adequate system of interior roads to: provide access within Tepee Park; remove timber; move equipment; adequately protect the timber stands from wildfire; and, when necessary, provide utility of access throughout the property for wildfire suppression. At the inception of the current harvest project, there were only two roads within Tepee Park: each of which was built by Mr. Tom VonDette during his leasehold period of the Virginia -Colorado portion of Tepee Park.' "Tepee Park Road" runs southerly from the northern forest boundary and into Tepee Park, itself. "Mamm Creek Road" runs easterly from Tepee Park Road toward West Mamm Creek. Together, these comprised approximately 3.8 miles of pre-existing roads. These roads, however, were insufficient for proper husbandry of the property. In July, 2001, a wildfire occurred in Porcupine Canyon, requiring the construction of a "Porcupine Fire Road" as an emergency fire access. Running westerly from Tepee Park Road, this road switchbacks to the crest of Porcupine Canyon, and continues southwesterly from that crest. Upon issuance of SUP 97- 70 in October, 2001, Applicants conferred with City of Rifle Watershed Inspector (Mr_ Paul Bussone), and Garfield County Consulting Forester (Mr. Bill Gherardi). It was determined to ' Deposition of Tom VonDette; conducted in July, 2000 in IMR v. Honea USDC, Colorado; Case No. 00 PC 1243. The Virginia -Colorado portion of Tepee Park was, generally, on and west of Beaver Creek. 6 improve Porcupine Fire Road as a major interior road within the property. Still, there remained problems for access into the northwest corner of Tepee Park (Houston Mountain), the southwest corner (Tepee Creek) and southeast corner (West Mamm Creek). SEE: Appendix F. There were no roads into these areas. Accordingly, in Fall, 2002, Mr. Carpenter directed the construction of access and fire roads into the Houston Mountain and West Mamrn Creek areas. Additional interior access roads will be built as the need arises. Review of the Garfield County Land Use Resolution discloses that "roads" - their siting and construction - are not uses -by -right, accessory uses, incidental uses, conditional uses or special uses within any of the Zoning Districts created by the Resolution. Indeed, the Land Use Resolution nowhere requires any layout, map or graphic for interior roads on private property? On August 5, 2002, Commissioner McCown, in a hearing to review SUP 97-70, stated that a private landowner may locate and construct a road on his private property without the necessity of County approval before doing so. This is a correct statement of Colorado law. SEE: Cherry Hills Development Company v. City of Cherry Hills Village 790 P.2d. 827, 832 (Colo. 1990). Thus, Applicants do not here provide graphics showing the locations of their roads. Moreover, Applicants will not seek County approval for installation of additional, interior access roads. 6. Interior Roads / Construction Standards: All interior roads 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 after the timber harvest is completed. Road design will avoid, or divert around when possible, steep, shale -based cliffs in the West Mamm Creek and Porcupine Creek drainages. Culvert size designation for road crossings will range from 12" diameter to twin 36" culverts. Sizes are based on evaluation with consulting civil engineers and, when applicable, the City of Rifle Watershed inspectors.' Field examination is used to determine crossing location(s) and determination ofthe size ofthe associated watershed(s), as well as comparison with existing culverts in related areas on or near the property. All road construction will be in accordance with Best Management Practices set forth in the CSFS Timbering Guidelines. In addition, and because they are sound and practical rules, the 2 The sole exception is for a Planned Unit Development, for which a Development Plan must be submitted. However, an operating plan for a timber harvest does not qualify as a "development plan" under Sec. 4.01.02, since improvements - i.e., buildings, utilities, etc. - are not being constructed. The Houston Mountain Road, and the Mamm Creek Road lie outside the City of Rife Watershed. Tepee Creek also lies outside the City of Rifle Watershed. 7 following will apply to interior road construction.4 However, please note that these rules nowhere exist in the Garfield County Land Use Resolution, nor does that Resolution specify construction standards for interior access roads on private property: A. Where a road section greater than 100 feet in length crosses slopes greater than 65%, placement of fill is prohibited and placement of sidecast shall be minimized to the degree feasible. B. On slopes greater than 50%, the road will be constructed on a bench that is excavated at the proposed toe of the compacted fill when the following conditions exist: (1) where the length of road section is greater than 100 ft.; (2) the road is more than 15 ft. wide (as measured from the base of the cut slope to the outside of the berm or shoulder of the road); and, (3) the fill is more than 4 ft. in vertical height at the road should for the entire 100 feet. C. Roads shall be constructed so no break in grade, other than that needed to drain the fill, shall occur on through fill. Breaks in grade shall be above or below the through fill, as appropriate. Where conditions do not allow the grade to break as required, through fills must be adequately protected by additional drainage structures or facilities. D. Through fills shall be constructed in approximately one foot lifts. E. On slopes greater than 35%, the organic layer of the soil shall be substantially disturbed or removed prior to fill placement. An exception may be proposed by the contractor where it is justified that the fill will be stabilized. F. Excess material from road construction and reconstruction shall be deposited and stabilized in a manner which will not adversely affect downstream beneficial uses of water. G. Drainage structures and facilities shall be of sufficient size, number and location to carry runoff water off of roadbeds, landings and fila slopes. Drainage structures or facilities shall be installed so as to minimize erosion., to ensure proper functioning, and to maintain or restore the natural drainage pattern. Permanent watercourse crossings and associated fills and approaches shall be constructed where feasible to prevent diversion of stream overflow down the road and to minimize fill erosion should the drainage structure become plugged. H. Where there is evidence that soil and other debris is likely to significantly reduce culvert capacity below design flow, oversize culverts, trash racks, or similar devices shall be installed in a manner that minimizes culvert blockage. These road -building standards meet or exceed those set in the Garfield County Road Specifications, applicable to Colorado public highways built or maintained by the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. SEE: Sec. 5.03.12, Land Use Resolution. 8 Waste organic materials, such as uprooted stumps, cull logs, accumulations of limbs and branches, and unmerchantable trees, shall not be buried in road fills. Wood debris or cull logs and chunks may be placed and stabilized at the toe of fills to restrain excavated soil from moving downslope. 1. A road shall be constructed without overhanging banks. K. Any tree over 12 in. d.b.h. with more than 25% of the root surface exposed by road construction shall be felled concurrently with the timber operations. L. Sidecast or fill material extending more than 20 ft. in slope distance from the outside edge of the roadbed shall be seeded, planted, mulched, removed, or treated as specified herein when the road either has access to a watercourse or is protected by a WPZ. M. All culverts at watercourse crossings in which water is flowing at the time of installation shall be installed with their necessary protective structures concurrently with the fill, construction and reconstruction of logging roads. Other permanent drainage structures shall be installed no later than October 15. For construction and reconstruction of roads after October 15, drainage structures shall be installed concurrently with the activity. N. Drainage structures and drainage facilities on logging roads shall not discharge onto erodible fill or other erodible material unless suitable energy dissipaters are used. O. Where roads do not have permanent and adequate drainage, the waterbreak specifications set forth herein shall be followed. P Drainage facilities shall be in place and functional by October 15, An exception is that waterbreaks do not need to be constructed on roads in use after October 15 provided that all such waterbreaks are installed prior to the start of rain that generates overland flow. Q. No road construction shall occur under saturated soil conditions (as defined hereinafter) except that construction may occur on isolated wet spots arising from localized ground water such as springs, provided measures are taken to prevent material from significantly damaging water quality. R. Road construction not completed before October 15 shall be drained by outsloping, waterbreaks and/or cross -draining before the beginning of the winter period. If road construction does take place after October 15, roads shall be adequately drained concurrent with construction operations. S. During the winter period, if seasonal seeps result in portions of a haul road becoming unstable, the forester shall be contacted to conduct an on-site inspection. If it is of minor extent, that portion will be surfaced with rock in depth and quantity sufficient to maintain a 9 stable road surface throughout the period of use. If the seep is of more serious nature, activity shall be suspended until a culvert is properly installed. T Slash and other debris from road construction shall not be bunched against residual trees which are required for silvicultural or wildlife purposes, nor shall it be placed in locations where it could be discharged into a watercourse. U. Road construction activities in the Watercourse Protection Zone (WPZ) shall be prohibited, except for stream crossings or as specified herein. V, Where culverts have been installed over a Class I (Perennial) Stream, a gravel base (minimum 4") shall be installed on road surfaces for a minimum of 35 feet each side of the culvert. Other crossings over Class 11 watercourses may also require a similar treatment. W. On slopes over 50% with grass or non -tree vegetation where road construction is required, the use of hand dug intercept ditches shall be considered as a possibility for minimizing the loading of the slope to reduce the potential for road slippage or cut bank failure. Typically, these intercept ditches are located 20 to 50 feet above the cut bank and run on the contour to an area of natural drainage. 7. Harvest Operations / Operating Schedule: Timber harvesting within Tepee Park incepted in October, 2001, upon issuance of the Special Use Permit awarded by Garfield County Resolution 97-70.5 Since that time, it is estimated that 25% of the timber qualified for harvest has been removed. Applicants expect that the timber harvest will continue for another 3 years (approximate): depending upon future weather conditions. Generally, a "harvest season" is April to December of each year. Winter months are usually excluded due to snow depths and difficulty of operating equipment in such snows. Due to Colorado's current drought, timber crews have been able to operate nearly year-round, except between February and April: i.e., the "frost period". Timber crews work from 6 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Saturday. Work operations are not conducted on Sundays, except in cases of wildfire emergency. Log hauling is restricted to the hours of 6 AM to 6 PM, Monday through Friday. Weather conditions, of course, will effect all hours of operation. Members of the timber crew work on staggered schedules. "Loaders" (i.e., those loading logging trucks) arrive earliest (5:00 AM to 6:00 AM) to perform the loading functions. Fellers frequently begin their work day at about the same time. "Skidders" arrive later (6:00 AM to 7:00 5 Although approved in July, 1997, SUP 97-70 required judicial interpretation of the VonDette Easement Grant of April, 1976. A favorable judgment was rendered on August 30, 2001, allowing SUP 97-70 to be formally issued on October 29, 2001. 10 AM} to assemble trees felled the previous day into the landing area. Due to the staggered schedules, and the remote area of Tepee Park, work crews will arrive and depart by their own private vehicles. 8. Harvest Operations ! Environmental A. Wildlife and Fisheries: The timber harvest is expected to increase forage for deer and elk. The regeneration cuts are expected to increase forage up to 400 pounds per acre within the Aspen stands. The selective harvest within the Spruce -Fir stands is expected to increase forage by as much as 500% with an increase of 30% in deer use. The operation will aid in the reduction of the barriers to wildlife migration that currently exist in the over -mature stands of Conifer and Aspen. The harvest will tend to break up these barriers. As skidders and dozers yard logs out of the stands they will tend to crush the partially rotten timber and break up piles of larger material. Recently fallen timber that has salvage value will be removed from the woods. Snags which are not necessary to fall for safety reasons will continue to provide habitat for cavity nesters. An increase in openings and vertical diversity will meet the optimum cover and nesting requirements for many birds (Warbling Viero and MacGillivray' s Warbler) that need mixed structural stages of Aspen. There will be some loss or impact upon the habitat value for certain species such as the loss of tree cover in the thicker Conifer pockets and noise from human activities. The magnitude of these impacts are predicted to be generally low and temporary while harvesting operations are occurring. They are not expected to result in significant decreases in species populations. In contrast to the impacts, the harvesting will maintain some important wildlife habitat characteristics: It will leave a combination of multi -layered canopy with seedlings, intermediates, dominants, co -dominants and predominants for diversity and mixed habitat structure Retention of snags for cavity nesting specieis and standing green culls for the wildlife resource. Leave openings for improved growth within previously decadent stands. Provide protection to the watercourses and wet areas which will protect the function of these riparian zones for migration and dispersal of wildlife. Maintain brush species for browse animals and cover protection. Retain hardwood species within and out of riparian zones to provide roost structures for bird species and forage for other mammals. 11 Impacts upon elk and deer during road construction and use is currently, and will be, mitigated during the harvest operation by preserving travel corridors and concealment cover. Only one drainage at a time will be operational, which will further mitigate any disruption the harvest may do to the elk herd. Upon the conclusion of harvest operations, temporary roads will be "put to bed" and permanent roads will remain gated and closed to the public. Moreover, there exist dense timber stands on the surrounding BLM and USFS lands. These lands will continue to provide additional suitable habitat for mammals and bird species. These thousands of acres of public lands will further mitigate any loss in habitat within Tepee Park. B. Soil: The primary factors influencing soil productivity are: (1) organic matter loss; (2) surface soil loss; (3) soil compaction; and, (4) growing space loss. Soil compaction and growing space loss will be virtually zero within the helicopter yarding areas. Within the cable units, soil compaction and growing loss due to operation of heavy equipment on growing sites is very low. Proper layout and pre -flagging of skid trails greatly reduces compaction from operations. The most sensitive sites - along riparian zones in Beaver, Tepee and Porcupine Creek - are only allowed to be yarded if and when there is snow or when the ground is frozen. Generally, the WPZ's and the EEZ's protect these riparian areas. Nutrient loss from bole removal should not be significant. Most of the nutrients are concentrated in the forest floor and topsoil. These decrease with depth. Nutrients are also in the foliage of the existing vegetation of the understory. Nutrients taken up by trees from the soil and forest floor accumulate in the leaves, limbs, trunk and roots of the tree, Tree trunks usually contain lower concentrations of nutrients than do other parts of the tree and the forest floor. Consequently, removing the trunk has the least effect on soil fertility available to the site. Soil fertility is not likely to be affected by the proposed operation. Road construction is generally through soils with moderate to moderately rapid permeability. Proper road design, together with seeding cuts and fills, will greatly lessen the sedimentation produced from the new roads. Sedimentation will be further mitigated by the use of the Soil Sedimentation Measures on skid trails. C. Water: The beneficial uses of watercourses include domestic use, fish and non -fish aquatic species habitat, wildlife habitat, limited recreational uses, and aesthetics. To protect existing watercourses, Applicants currently employ, and will continue to employ, Watercourse Protection Zones (WPZ) and Equipment Exclusion Zones (EEZ). The Watercourse Protection Zone (WPZ) is essentially a "no -touch zone". There will be no ground based equipment allowed within such a zone, and no trees shall be removed from it. There is added protection afforded by the Equipment Exclusion Zone (EFT_) where no ground-based equipment will be allowed, although selective harvesting will occur. When such timber is removed from the EEZ, it will be felled directionally away from the waterourse and removed away from the stream. 12 Both Beaver Creek, Tepee Creek and Porcupine Creek will have special protective measure to preserve water quality. Where there are slopes over 30%, any exposed soil within 50 feet of the top of the stream bank will be mulched with straw or slash, and have hand-dug waterbars installed. An added benefit of the existing program has been the realignment and relocation of the steepest portion of Beaver Creek Road (GCR 317) that is also within the riparian zone. This has greatly reduced the potential for sedimentation into Beaver Creek and thus into the Rifle water treatment plant located downstream from Tepee Park. The success of Applicants' water protection measures is established in the Reports of Mr. Paul Bussone, the Watershed Inspector for the City of Rifle. As shown in Appendix N, Applicants have adequately protected Beaver Creek from turbidity or other pollution problems. D. Visual Resources: Conduct of the harvest operation has not, and is not expected to, alter the "viewshed" ofthe area to any significant extent. Tepee Park is over 6 radial miles from Interstate 70, and much of its area is not visible to the casual observer. Because of the distance, height and angle from the highway - in combination with the variation in silviculture and its resultant mosaic of leave stands - the changes will not be noticeable to the casual observer. There will be no regeneration cuts visible from 1-70. Moreover, the impacts on the "viewshed" are being mitigated, and will be mitigated, by the following: • Use of WPZ's and EEZ's leaving 100% of the vegetation along the perennial creeks and keeping equipment away from all riparian zones. • Returning degenerated Aspen stands to subclimax conditions thus retaining the colorful Aspen component for which Colorado forests are so well-known. • Reducing the fire danger to the watershed by removing dead and dying timber, returning the stand to a more productive, younger successional stage, and, installing an interior road system whereby wildfires can be fought successfully and safely. A wildfire would be catastrophic to the "viewshed". These mitigations will greatly minimize the effects ofthe timber harvest with respect to visual uses. The silviculture will leave a considerable amount of stand structure in a variety of age and size classes over the majority of the area. In addition, this surrounding area is publicly-owned and may never be harvested - which would further dilute the effects of the proposed harvest. E. Endangered or Sensitive Species: USFS conducted a preliminary survey of Tepee Park in 1995-97 when analyzing Applicants' request for a special use permit.The survey resulted in the statement: "No critical habitat for any federally listed threatened or endangered species is known to occur within the White River National Forest". As for sensitive species - most commonly the Northern Goshawk and the Flammulated Owl - the U.S. Forest Service report further stated: "The project may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability on the planning 13 area, nor cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of species viability rangewide". During the past 1 1/2 years of harvest operation, evidence of rare, endangered or "special concern" species has not been discovered. If evidence is discovered, then activities in these areas will be stopped and/or modified based upon protection measures suggested by wildlife biologists or as mandated by law. F. Cultural Resources: The only known cultural resources within Tepee Park are two cabins located on the property. They are believed to be 40+ years in age. Neither of these has been or will be disturbed by the harvest operation. PART II: CONDITIONAL AND SPECIAL USES / OPERATING STANDARDS Sec. 5.03: Conditional and Special Uses: As listed under the Zone District Regulations, conditional and special uses shall conform to all requirements listed thereunder and elsewhere in this Resolution plus the following requirements: A. Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standardsand approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in accordance with the proposed use. Applicants do not draw water from any watercourse or well within the property. All water used for domestic (drinking) or wildfire suppression is transported to the site by private vehicle. Sanitation for work crews is by portable toilet. B. Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use. Access to Tepee Park is over a combination of County Roads and roads under the exclusive administration of the U.S. Forest Service. Traveling south from the City of Rifle, one traverses Garfield County Roads 320 ("Taugenbaugh Mesa Road") and 317 ("Beaver Creek Road"). Pursuant to Special Use Permit 97-70, Applicants improved Beaver Creek Road in accordance with specifications of the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department, which approved the construction in October, 2001. Continuing south, one travels "VonDette Road", a public right-of-way across property now owned by Ms. Katharine Honea, and USFS Road 824. Each of these roads is exclusively administered by USFS. By the decree in A/fR v. Honea (Appendix L), Applicants have a complete legal right to use the VonDette Easement. By Permanent Easement from USFS (Appendix K), Norman Carpenter and his contracts have a perpetual right to use USFS Road 824. Pursuant to their USFS Special Use Permit, Applicants realigned USFS Road 824 and VonDette Road to USFS road standards: completing and receiving approval of that construction in August, 2001 (USFS Road 824) 14 and November, 2001 (VonDette Road). Once again, it should be noted that Garfield County does not have regulatory jurisdiction over either USFS Road 824 or "VonDette Road"". These lie wholly within the White River National Forest. Moreover, in IMR v. Honea, Garfield County specifically refused to accept VonDette Road as a County Road. GCR 317 and 320 are Colorado Public Highways and, under governing Colorado law, may be traveled at any time of day or night. Applicants participate in "dust control" measures on these roads in cooperation with Garfield County Road & Bridge, the U.S. Forest Service, and other permitted users: most notably oil and gas operators. Applicants will continue such dust control measures as directed by the two governing entities. When there is a mix of truck and auto traffic on these access routes, the provisions of Sec. 42-4-711 ((Driving on Mountain Highways) govern as the Colorado "rules of the road" between ascending and descending vehicles. C. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character; As stated previously, Tepee Park lies in an area isolated from the general population. There are no residences or structures within several miles of the property. Surrounded entirely by the White River National Forest and a small portion of BLM ground, the "character of the neighborhood" is undeveloped timber lands. Landscaping and screen fences are not needed, since the harvest work is largely screened by surrounding hills, peaks and forests. Overhead lighting and signs are not employed in the conduct of the timber harvest. With the exception of those areas where yarding, de- limbing and loading occur, there are not "intensively utilized areas" requiring screening. Sec. 5.03.01 - 5.03.065: NOT APPLICABLE. PART III: INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS / OPERATING STANDARDS 5.03.07: Industrial Operations: Industrial Operations, including extraction... shall be permitted provided: (1)T he applicant for a permit for industrial operations shall prepare and submit to the Planning Director ten (10) copies of an impact statement on the proposed use describing its location, scope, design and construction schedule, including an explanation of its operational characteristics. One (1) copy of the impact statement shall be, filed with the County Commissioners by the Planning Director. The impact statement shall address the following: (A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, stream flow or ground water. 15 Applicants do not draw water from existing watercourses or wells within the property. Waters needed for drinking or wildfire suppression are transported into the property by private vehicle. Protection of the Beaver Creek Watershed (City of Rifle) is performed under City of Rifle Watershed Permit No. 1-97. Other watercourses are protected by Equipment Exclusion Zones (EEZ) and Watercourse Protection Zones (WPZ). These protective measures are currently employed under GarCo SUP 97-70, and will continue under the requested Special Use Permit. 03) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Vibrations, noise, dust, smoke or vapors resulting from operation of the timber-cutting equipment (skidders; delimbers; feller-benchers) are not detectable beyond the boundaries of Tepee Park. Slash will be burned when environmental conditions are suitable, and only in conjunction with permission from governing fire districts, USFS and/or BLM. Dust control methods on County Roads will be applied in cooperation with and at the direction of Garfield County Road & Bridge. Currently, this is envisioned to be not more than twice during the Summer. Existing drought conditions may alter the County's schedule for such dust control. (C) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Applicants currently employ, and will continue to employ, the wildlife protection standards previously discussed. Migration routes have been identified and are kept from barriers and blockades. The "hazardous attractions" to wildlife are, generally, the road construction and flagging materials currently stored on site. Deer and elk tend to literally eat the flagging tape, plastic string and other similar items. Applicants intend to minimize the amount of such materials on-site by purchasing, as needed, from suppliers in the City of Rifle and then transporting to the site. This would keep the "edible plastics" away from wildlife consumption. (D) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and their impacts to areas in the County. Congestion on interior roads within Tepee Park is not an issue. Tepee Park remains private property, closed to any and all public use except by written authorization of Mr. Norm Carpenter, the landowner. The sole traffic standard, as set in the Land Use Resolution, is for traffic "to and from" the site, but not "within the site". Under existing harvest operations, log-hauling over County Roads has averaged eight (8) loads per day. These loads are destined to a saw mill in Montrose, CO. In order to avoid early morning congestion with commuter and school bus traffic, log trucks enter Tepee Park 16 between 4 AM and 6 AM6, with the intended out -bound movement incepting at 6:00 AM. Absent adverse weather conditions, return trips from Montrose (to pick up an additional load) would occur at Noon and possibly 4:00 P.M. Theearly morning arrival ofunloaded logging trucks is intentionally timed to blend outbound loaded movements with the traffic patterns of the local citizenry. (E) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s). There are no residential or commercial structures within 1 radial mile of the boundaries of Tepee Park. The abutting USFS and BLM properties are undeveloped land. Conduct of the timber harvest is, in fact, intended to assist US Forest Service and BLM in the protection of these public lands from wildfires and trans -migration of pests. Generally, the timber harvest is conducted well within the Tepee Park boundaries, thereby avoiding any impact to Forest and BLM lands surrounding Tepee Park. (F) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution. A. Revegetation Methods: Road cuts and fills within 200 feet of a perennial watercourse will be seeded with the following seed mixture and at the rate of 30 lbs./acre (broadcast): 6# Mountain Brome 2# Creeping Red Clover 64 Slender Wheat 4# Timothy 10# Winter Wheat 2# Alsike Clover 30# Total B. Soil Stabilization Measures: 20.0% 6.7% 20.0% 13,3% 33.3% 6.7% 100% 1. All waterbreaks shall be installed no later than October 15 of the current year of timber operations. Waterbreaks shall be constructed immediately upon the conclusion of the use of the roads and landings which do not have permanent and adequate drainage facilities (rolling dips) or drainage structures (culverts). 6 GCR 317 is a Colorado public highway. Such highways are open to travel by all types and size of vehicles at any time of day or night. Travel over VonDette Road and USFS Road 824 is not subject to regulation by Garfield County. 17 3, Waterbreaks shall be maintained during the entire period of timber operations and shall be constructed and maintained in effective working condition to provide erosion protection for at least 1 year following the completion of harvest activities. 4. Waterbreaks shall be located to allow water to be discharged into some form of vegetative cover, slash, rocks or less erodible material and shall be constructed to provide for unrestricted discharge at the lower end of the waterbreak so that water will be discharged and spread in such a manner that erosion shall be minimized. 5. Waterbreaks shall be cut diagonally a minimum of 6 inches into the firm roadbed or skid trail and shall have a continuous firm enbankment of at least 6 inches in height at the lower edge of the waterbreak cut. Distances between waterbreaks shall be based on the Erosion Hazard Rating (ERH) of low, moderate, high or extreme. Maximum Distance in Feet Between Waterbreaks for EHR Ratings: % Gradient Low Moderate l gh Extreme 10 or less 300 200 150 100 I1-25 200 150 100 75 26-50 150 100 75 50 Over SO% 100 75 50 50 C. Winter Operations (October 15 - April 15): Winter operations on landings and roads will comply with the following requirements: 1. Log loading and reconstruction of landings shall be done only during periods when soils are not saturated. Yarding and log loading will be allowed when the ground is covered with snow or is frozen. Saturated conditions are defined as: (a) Soil moisture conditions that result in loss of traction by equipment used in ground skidding operations, as indicated by increased spinning or churning of wheels or tracks when compared to normal dry season performance; or adequate traction cannot be achieved without blading wet soil off skid trails; (b) Soil moisture conditions that result in loss of road surface, puddling of fine materials on the road surface by trucks or other equipment, and which could adversely effect the beneficial uses of water. 2. The constructing or reconstruction of roads shall be confined to periods of dry weather when soils are not saturated, as defined in #1 above. 3. Log landings shall be sloped and ditched to prevent water from accumulating on the landings. Discharge points shall be located and designed to prevent erosion. 18 4. Use of haul roads shall be confined to period when the road surface is not saturated, as defined in #1 above, On a case-by-case basis and when approved by the City Hydrologist or State Forester, ground based yarding equipment may be allowed within the EEZ, when the ground is covered with 24 inches or more of unpacked snow and slopes are less than 20%. However, no equipment will be allowed within the WPZ. D. Watercourse Protection Measures: Applicants currently employ, and will continue to employ, Watercourse Protection Zones (WPZ) and. Equipment Exclusion Zones (EEZ). WPZ's assure that the integrity of the riparian zone will be maintained. The lack of harvesting will protect the zone from any soil disturbance as a result of timber falling or skidding as well as loss of overstory that may raise water temperature. The zone insures that riparian vegetation in conjunction with the watercourse itselfwill continue to operate in a proper functioning condition. EEZ's, which may vary in width, generally exclude equipment from operating within their zones, thus protecting soil and vegetation from disturbance by machinery. EEZ's may be employed to protect features other than watercourses such as archaeological sites or underground utility lines or pipes. Applicants' foresters, in conjunction with the hydrologist for the City of Rifle require that the following watercourse protective measures: Watercourse Type Perennial Class 1 Ephemeral Class I and II Protection Measure Along both sides of perennial watercourse there will be no harvesting within 25 feet as measured horizontally form the top of the bank of the watercourse. In addition, along both sides of ephemeral watercourses there will be an Equipment Exclusion Zone for a distance of 100 feet as measured horizontally from the top of the bank of the watercourse. Along both sides of ephemeral watercourses there will be an EFT for 50 feet as measured horizontally from the top of the bank of the watercourse The EEZ and WPZ areas are similar to the "greenbelt" provisions of Sec. 5.05.02, Land Use Resolution: Le., 30 ft. each side of high water mark of a live stream. Taken together, the EEZ and WPZ exceed the Sec. 5.05.02 standards. E. Special Protective Meaures for Beaver Creek Water Quality: Due to the domestic use of Beaver Creek, special measures current undertaken by Applicants comply with the City of Rifle's specifications. These special measure will continue to be employed. On slopes over 30% 19 along Beaver Creek and Tepee Creek any exposed soil due to end -lining a log or a turn of logs within 50 feet of the top of the bank of Beaver Creek or Tepee Creek shall be treated for reduction erosion as follows: (1) initial treatment shall be by spreading slash or straw to a minimum depth of 4" over 85% of the exposed area with sufficient contact to the ground to help in the reduction of soil movement; (2) an additional treatment shall be to install hand dug waterbreaks to comply with requirements of the Soil Stabilization Measures set forth herein. These will be placed in such a manner that water that may have channeled down the depression or disturbance will be instead diverted to areas of vegetation; and, (3) treatment shall be done as soon after the completion of log removal in the area as possible and no later than the end of the week of occurrence. F. Snag Retention: Within the harvest area, all snags shall be retained to provide wildlife habitat except as follows: • Snags over 20 ft. in height and 16 inches d.b.h. shall be felled in the following locations: (1) Within 100 ft. of main ridge tops that are suitable for fire suppression; (2) For hazard reduction within 100 feet of all public easements, permanent roads, seasonal roads or landings. Where federal and state safety laws and regulations require the felling of snags; Merchantable snags in any location. • Snags whose falling is required for insect or disesase control. G. Fire Safety: All contractors and sub -contractors are now and will continue to be responsible for fire safety of their crews and equipment while operating within the harvest area. The contractor(s) working on the propertywill be required to submit a fire plan to the Garfield County Sheriff's Department when operating during fire season. During the fire season, every contractor shall have a plan for fire prevention and suppression in logging areas and shall observe the following fire prevention rules: 1. The contractor will prepare and file with the Garfield County Sheriffs Department and the Headquarter of any Fire District having jurisdiction, a Fire Suppression Resource Inventory that shall include, as a minimum, the following information: A. Name, address and 24 hour telephone number of an individual and an alternate who has authority to respond to the Sheriffs Department request for resources to suppress fires. B. Number of individuals available for fire fighting duty and their skills. C. Equipment available for fire -fighting. 20 Timber operators shall keep all roads in a passable condition during the dry season for fire truck travel. Subject to any law or ordinance prohibiting or otherwise regulating smoking, smoking by persons engaged in timber operations shall be limited to occasions where they are not moving about and are confined to cleared landings and areas of bare soil at least three feet in diameter. Burning material shall be extinguished in such areas of bare soil before discarding. The timber operator shall specify procedures to guide actions of his employees or other persons in his or her employment consistent with this requirement. 4. During the period when burning permits are required, all tail and side blocks on a cable setting shall be located in the center of the area that is either cleared to a mineral soil or covered with a fireproof blanket that is at least 15 f. in diameter. A shovel and an operational full five - gallon back pump or a fire extinguisher bearing a label showing at least a 4A rating must be located within 25 feet of each such block before yarding. 5. Subject to any law or ordinance regulating or prohibiting fires, warming fires or other fires used for the comfort or convenience of employees or other persons engaged in timber operations shall be limited to the following conditions: A. There shall be a clearance of 10 ft. or more from the perimeter of such fires and flammable vegetation or other substances conducive to the spread of fire. B. Warming fires shall be built in a depression in the soil to hold the ash created by such fires. C. The timber operator shall establish procedures to guide actions of his employees or other persons in their employment regarding the setting, maintenance, or use of such fires that are consistent with (a) and (b) of this subsection. 6. Timber operators shall provide for a diligent fire watch service at the scene of any blasting or welding operations conducted on their logging areas to prvent and extinguish fires resulting from such operations. 7. The timber operator, or his/her agent, shall conduct a diligent aerial or ground inspection within the first two hours after cessation of felling, yarding, or loading operations each day during the dry period when fire is likely to spread. The person conducting the inspection shall have adequate communication available for prompt reporting of any fire that maybe detected. 8. A brightly colored fire tool box will be required to be on each work site while work is being performed. This fire tool box will contain sufficient tools to equip all persons engaged in the Contractor' s operation. Fire tools shall be used only for suppressing wildfires. Tools shall be stored in fireboxes provided by the Contractor and readily available to employees. Each tool box shall be marked "Tools for Fire Only". 21 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 Weider 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 amrester. 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: I. Limbs will be removed on all harvest trees to the point on the bole where the diameter is 4 inches or Tess. 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 plantar 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, if 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 IMR. 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 5.03.08 of this Resolution. 23 The impacts have already been discussed. As for Performance Standards, see Part TV. PART 1V: INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 5.03.08: Industrial Performance Standards: All industrial operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State and Federal regulations regulating -water, air and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting apublic 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 setforth 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 FIaring 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 (A) Storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases shall be in accordance with accepted standards and laws and shall comply with the national, state and local fires codes and written recommendations/comments from the appropriate local protection district regarding compliance with the appropriate codes; Applicants do not use explosives in harvest operation. All fuel for their vehicles is transported to the site by private vehicle and only in containers meeting national safety standards. (B) At the discretion of the County Commissioners, all outdoor storage facilitiesrnay be required to be enclosed by fence, landscaping or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property. Tepee Park is isolated from public view. Outdoor storage areas for road -building and related materials are screened by existing timber stands - both Spruce, Fir and Aspen. There is no need for additional screening requirements. (C) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces. Wind is always a factor m mountain areas. Application of any road or dust control materials is done, and will be done, in a manner avoiding trans -migration to surrounding properties. (D) Storage of Heavy Equipment will only be allowed subject to (A) and (C) above and the following standards: (1) The minimum lot size is five (5) acres and is not a platted subdivision; Tepee Park is 4,500 acres in size (approx.) and is not a platted subdivision. (2) The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any existing residential dwelling; Applicants do not currently, nor will they, store heavy equipment within 300 ft. of any structure. All harvest and other equipment units are parked within the immediate work zone. (3) All equipment storage will be enclosed in an area with screening at least eight (8) feet in height and obscured from view at the same elevation or lower. Screening may include perming, landscaping, sight obscuring fencing or a combination of any of these methods. See Answer to Sub. (B), above. (4) Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate noise, 25 odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8 AM to 6 PM, Mon. -Fri. All equipment operated by or on behalf of Applicants does not generate noise, odors or glare beyond the boundaries of Tepee Park. Operations oflog-hauling trucks on Forest Service or County Roads are within legal standards for vehicles set in Title 42, Article 4, C.R.S. (5) Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and may not be conducted on any public right-of-way. Loading of log -hauling trucks and, when needed, equipment transports is conducted within the private property boundaries of Tepee Park. (6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operation of the facilities may begin. All percolation tests or groundwater resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers must be met before operation of the facilities may begin. Applicants have worked closely with Mr. Bussone to monitor water quality within the Beaver Creek Watershed. Applicants have not been advised that any percolation tests are needed to conduct the timber harvest operation. Applicants will coordinate with the City of Rifle for such tests, if City of Rifle so requires. (E) Any storage area for uses not associated with natural resources shall not exceed ten (10) acres in size. Areas necessary for over -night parking of harvest equipment are less than 10 acres in size. (F) Any lighting of (the) storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the property center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property. Applicants do not employ overhead lighting for its storage areas. PART V: APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE 5.03.10: Approval of Conditional and Special Uses: Uses listed as conditional under the appropriate Zone District Regulation shall be permitted based on compliance with the requirements listed herein; where uses are listed as Special uses, they shall be permitted only: (1) Based on compliance with all requirements listed herein; and, (2)Approval by the County Commissioners, which Board may impose additional restrictions on the lot area, floor area, coverage, setback and height of proposed uses or require additional off-street parking, screening fences and landscaping, or any other restriction or provision it deems neces to ro ct the health sae and cn e o,_ thelation and uses of the nei • hborhood or zone district as a condition of granting the special 26 use. A. Legal Standard: In the absence of a statute or ordinance. granting authority to do so, a local governing body may not impose conditions upon the approval of a development plan. If a plan meets all of the zoning requirements and authority to impose additional conditions or criteria to guide such authority is lacking, the plan must be unconditionally approved. Cherry Hills Resort Development Company v. City of Cherry Hills Village 790 P.2d. 827, 832 (Colo. 1990). Absent such guidelines, the governing body' s land use regulation is insufficient to provide all users and potential users of land with noti - • f the • articular standar} imposed by the : overnin r bod for develo -- sufficient standards to ensure that any action taken by the governing body in response to a land use proposal will be rational and consistent and that judicial review of that action will be available and effective. Ibid. FII - I 0. 1 - I S f: .1' 's . . - 11 - 1 A County may only adopt land use rules which have a ration healt saf- and welfare o the . ublic. Private interests promoted by a County's zoning rules are unlawful. Moreover, rules imposed for no apparent purpose other than to generate revenue are not for "health, safety and welfare". Finally, any condition to a special use permit imposed by a County body, when such condition is in conflict with a State statute, is invalid. B. Conditions Attached to SUP 97-70: Cor 172CA: 1. . .. i .. . the es heant, either within the • • • lication o stated at the meetin: ,e ore the Board of County Commissioners, and the forestry plan, shall be considered condi "oris of approval. The GarCo L UR nowhere contains authority for this "incorporation" provision. Research has not revealed any other legal authority supporting the adoption. Use of the condition is unwise, since it creates purported "permit conditions" without any of the specific factual findings required to be made under Colorado law or Sec. 9.03.04(3), Land Use Resolution. The condition will therefore create more future controversy than it merits. 2. That prior to issuance of a County Special Use Permit, the applicant receive a Special Use (Pennit) from the US. Forest Service fora haul route and the appropriate land use permit from the City of Rifle for watershed protection. Any additional conditions of approval attached to those permits shall be considered conditions of approval for this permit. This condition is no longer necessary. Mr. Carpenter holds a perpetual easement across USFS Road 824 and, by judicial decree, has an unfettered right to travel VonDette Road. Applicants already hold Rifle Watershed Permit No. 1-97. 27 3. That all timber hauling on County Roads be on Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6 AM to 6 PM. That any helicopter hauling will only occur between the hours o 7 M to 5 PM, Monday through Friday. Authority to restrict travel on public highways does not emanate from the Use Resolution. County roads are, after all, Colorado public highways and may be used for any awful urpose. Sec. 42-4-106(1) authorizes restrictions for all vehicles, not in excess of 90 days, when the roadway is deteriorated r damage due to climatic conditions. Sec. 42-4-106(3) authorizes unpositio of weight restriction County roads. Sec. 42-4-111(g) authorizes the designation of truck routes and general restrictions on highways consistent with Title 40, Article 4, C.R.S. 4. The haul route for timber and other overweight service vehicles will be approved by the County Road &Bridge Supervisor. Additionally, an overweight vehicle permit will be acquiree, a/� each vehicle needing such permit. This condition is not at issue. The haul route designated here is the same haul route as designated in SUP 97-70. That route is the most expeditious to reach U.S. Interstate 70. 5. That the forest management practices and revegetation will be monitored for compliance with the proposed Tepee Parkg planby Forest Management a consultant agreed upon by the Board of County Commissioners, City ofRhe and the applicant, and 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. The rationale for this condition is difficult to discern. Certainly, when conducting its periodic review, BOCC may wish to have the services of a consultant to understand the project. However, the Land Use Resolution does not contain any standards - either general or specific - governing timber harvests or revegetation. The consultant, therefore, is left without any standards b which to 'ud .e the harvest • ro-ect, except those which are described in this a lication. Since the Land Use Resolution does not a . ointment o a County Consultant - on anyproject, timber or otherwise - then the appointment of such a person a. .ears to be on . - • if 0. This would violate the rule in Cherry Hills Village Development Co. (Supra), requiring that a County Consultant be applicable to virtually all special or conditional uses before it may be applied to one specific special use. The second sentence of this condition puts the County Consultant in the role of directing, cvntrollin _ and su0 e i ' s t 0 - 1,. ■ • 0 rn, y the terms of this sentence, the consultant is personally selecting which trees or stands may be felled or thinned. Applicants already employ their own forester for this activity, and the appointment of an additional forester to perform those same functions is duplicative, unwarranted and an unjustified imposition of an additional economic burden on the Applicants. 28 1 11 0 - I 111r the a 11 If Garfield County believes consulting services would be meaningful during periodic review, then it should consult with the Colorado State Forest Service. CSFS employs qualified foresters, and part of its agency role is to advise local authorities on silvicultural matters. CSFS' services are free and, therefore, do not add economic burdens to the harvest project. As stated to the Garfield BOCC on August 5, 2002, CSFS will not supervise, direct or control a harvest project. 6 Approval of this application is based on the representation of the Forest Supervisor of the White River National Forest that the Forest Service Road No. 824 is a legal right-of-way for the proposed Special Use Permit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain a declaration of the status of the road from a court with the appropriate jurisdiction. This condition is moot. The judicial decree in v. Honea, governing "VonDette Road" has already been obtained. 7. That prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit, the applicant submit engineered plans for the construction of intervisible turnouts on CR 317 meeting the Forest Service standards for sizing and spacing and the improvements be constructed Additionally, the applicant will be responsible for the acquisition (of) any additional right-of-way necessary for the placement of the turnouts, without the County's use of the power of eminent domain. Any property so acquired will be dedicated to the County. This condition is also moot. GCR 317 has already been improved to the standards required by Garfield County Road & Bridge. Those improvements have already been approved by that agency. 8. That prior to the issuance of a Special Use Permit, the applicant shall pay for an overlay of at least 1 112 inches asphalt overlay of County Road 320 from Taugenbaugh Avenue to the intersection of CR 317 and 320, that is acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. A road bond of $100,000 will be placed with the Road and Bridge Department to be used for the repair of CR 320 andlor CR 317, due to damage attributable to the applicant's activities. The bond shall be valid for the period of time that the applicant is actively logging on their property. rw As stated previously, Applicant a sting boror this project will continue to remain in place upon award ofthe SUP requested here. It should be noted, however, that Colorado law`�ry prohibits imposition of special assessments - such as road repairs - which are disproportionate z to the A licants' use. Ktupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation District 19 P.3d. 687, 696 (Colo. -j 2001) Applicants are not the only contractors using GCR 320. Oil & gas operators use that road heavily, and with equal or greater "damage" to the roadway. Therefore, the issue of Applicants' proportionate liability for repair of GCR 320 remains an open question. 9. This Special Use Permit is subject to review for compliance or non-compliance with performance requirements associated with the issuance of the permit. The applicant will be required 29 to submit a report one year from the date of approval of a resolution of approval indicating the measures taken to comply with the performance requirements of the permit. The Board of County Commissioners will review the report in a public meeting within 30 days of receipt of the report and may determine that a public hearing is necessary to consider suspension of the permit or that conditions of approval must be met before additional activities can occur on the property. This condition is already set forth in Chapter 9, Land Use Resolution. 10. All vehicle used in conjunction with Logging operations must be licensed in the State of Colorado, through the Garfield County Clerk & Recorder 's Office. There is only one licensing (registration) standard: i.e., the State of Colorado. Sec. 42-3-103, C.R.S. When performing registration functions, the County Clerk acts as an additional agent of the Colorado Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division. Sec. 42-1-210, C.R.S. Such registration may be direct (Colorado resident) or apportioned (interstate carrier). Registration, however, is not required by the State of Colorado for out-of-state vehicles operating in interstate commerce. Sec. 42-3-103(2), C.R. S. Similarly, the out-of-state owner is not required to register his vehicle, even when engaged in intrastate commerce, until the owner becomes a "resident" of Colorado. Sec. 42-3-103(4), C.R. S. Residency requirements for registration purposes are either 90 days within the state or obtaining gainful employment within the State. Sec. 42-1-102(81), C.R. S. In other words, this condition imposes vehicle registration conditions in conflict with Colorado state law. It is, therefore, invalid as being - - • u • - . • - - . Garfield County is best advised to omit this condition from any permit: thereby leaving vehicle registration issues to the workings of Colorado state law. 11. The hauling of logs will be discontinued during normal tunes for local ranches to move cattle up or down CR 317, when requested by a local rancher with grazing rights or property in the Beaver Creek drainage. This condition is not at issue. 12. The applicant will not allow employees to drive personal vehicles to the site andwill provide a crew cab (truck) for the transport of employees on and off of the site. This condition is not authorized by the Land Use Resolution. It is not authorized by Secs. 42-4-106 and 111, C.R. S. It does not have a factual basis and, therefore, is not m furtherance of public health, safety and welfare. Tepee Park is located in a remote and isolated area of Garfield County. Applicants' logging crews do not have more than 6 persons total. They go to work at staggered times, based upon their individual activity. Truck loaders are earliest, with skidders and buncher operators later. The volume of traffic on GCR 317 is not so great as to require restrictions on the number of vehicles to be operated. Travel on VonDette Road 30 and USFS 824 is beyond Garfield County's jurisdiction. 13. There will be no harvesting of Aspen treesfrom the site, with the exception of the incidental cutting of trees, approved by the inspector agreed to by the City of Rifle and the County. The harvesting of Aspen trees is not currently at issue between Applicants and Garfield County. There is not a market for Aspen trees in the local area, due to the closure of Louisiana-Pacific's waterboard mill in Olathe, CO. It should be noted, however, that the Aspen stands in Tepee Park are just as decadent and over -grown as the Conifer stands. Sound husbandry would require harvest of the Aspen stands to improve their general health and productivity. 14. All revegetation of the site will be done with certified weed free seed mix. This condition is not at issue. 15. County Road 317 will be resurfaced to an all weather/season surface to the USFS boundary and consistent with the standards approved by (the) US. Forest Service for the Forest Service access road This condition is moot, since GCR 317 has already been improved to an all weather/season surface, and approved by Garfield County Road & Bridge Department. 16. The haul route will only be along CR 320 from the intersection of CR 320/317 to Taugenbaugh Ave., in Rifle. The designation of the haul route is in comportment with Sec. 42-4-111(g), C.R. S. It is not at issue here, since it is the most direct and expedient route. 17. Upon transfer of ownership of the property subject to this special use permit, the new owner(s) shall meet with the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board and published as an agenda item of the Board This condition is not at issue. 18. That prior to the issuance of the permit, the applicant enter into an agreement with the Ri Emergency Service to provide emergency services to the site. Tepee Park lies outside the boundaries of the Rifle E gency--Service-District. -- 19. Prior to the issuance of the permit, the Fire Management Plan is filed with the Garfield County Emergency Services office and the Rifle Fire Protection District. 31 S� These plans have already been filed with the Garfield County Emergency_.Services and the Rifle Fire Protection District - even though the Tepee Park is not within the boundaries ofthe Rifle Fire Protection District. C. Public Right -of -Way: It is expected that, at public hearing, there will be those citizens who will request that this special use permit be conditioned upon Applicants giving a public right-of-way across Tepee Park: to be used -by hunters, equestrians, snowmobilers and ATV operators. This is both unwise, unnecessary and unlawful. A public entity may not condition the issuance of a permit upon the transfer, by the Applicant for such permit, of an interest in property for the benefit of the public or other landowners. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d. 677 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374, 129 L.Ed.2d. 304, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994); Krupp v Breckenridge Sanitation District 19 P.3d. 687, 696 (Colo. 2001). Moreover, such a requirement nowhere appears within the Garfield County Land Use Resolution as a power conferred upon the BOCC itself or upon the Garfield County Planning Commission. Contrary to some popular opinion, there is not, and never has been, an historic public right- of-way across Tepee Park. SEE: Simon v. Pettit ("Simon T') 651 P.2d. 418 (Colo App, 1982); Simon v. Pettit ("Simon 11") 687 P.2d. 1299 (Colo. 1984). In these decisions, the Colorado Appellate Courts ruled: (1) that Colorado law nowhere confers a right to a "public hiking trail" created by adverse use; and, (2) that, under circumstances identical to those present in Tepee Park, there was not a legally recognized "adverse use". Any routes across Tepee Park or the White River National Forest, in this area, are not RS 2477 Rights -of -Way. That issue was previously litigated between Applicants and Garfield County in /MR v. Honea. In short, Tepee Park is closed to public use and travel, except at the written authorization of Mr. Norman A. Carpenter, landowner. This closure will be enforced, and is constar monitored during Hunting Seasons. Nonetheless, Mr. Carpenter has granted to the U.S. Forest Service a corridor along the eastern side of Tepee Park in which USFS may construct a public hiking and equestrian trail. Motorized vehicles, including snowmobiles, will not be allowed on this trail. USFS is currently studying the route and costs to construct this trail. 5.03.11: Dental of Special Use: The Counly Commissioners may deny any request for special use based on the lack of physical separation in terms of distance from similar uses on the same or other lots, the impact on traffic volume and safety or on utilities or any impact of the special use which it deems injurious to the established character of the neighborhood or zone district in which such special use is proposed to be located There are no same or similar uses engaged in upon either Tepee Park or any properties surrounding Tepee park. The established "character of the neighborhood" is undeveloped forest land, administered by the U.S. Forest Service. 32 PART VI: THE RULE OF EQUALITY IN COMMENTS It is expected that, at public hearing, various citizens will come forward to criticize the procedures employed in conducting a timber harvest. Included in such "procedures" are issues of access to/from the private property, the mixture of auto/truck traffic, contamination of watercourses, and noise associated with vehicles operating on County Roads. Still others may challenge the very existence of a timber harvest: preferring, instead, that all timber stands be left untouched. Most vocal among the critics has been Mr. George Bauer, of Silt, CO. Mr. Bauer is a surveyor by trade, and resides in Silt, CO. Although owning property near Tepee Park, he does not reside there and his private property does not abut Tepee Park at any location. Mr. Bauer does not have, to Applicants' knowledge, any education, training or expertise in silvicultural husbandry or management. On two separate occasions, Mr. Bauer has filed complaints to BOCC about Applicants' operations. In June, 2002, Mr. Bauer complained that Applicants were not following the Tepee Park Forest Management Plan in fifteen (15) different ways. It was discovered that Mr. Bauer was working with a version of the OFMP which had not been adopted by Garfield BOCC in SUP 97-70. After hearing, BOCC required only that a larger pumper truck be stationed in Tepee Park during Fire Season. All other complaints by Mr. Bauer were held for naught. In January, 2003, Mr. Bauer again complained that Applicants' logging trucks, while unloaded and not hauling logs, were using GCR 317, VonDette Road and USFS Road 824 outside the 6 AM to 6 PM time limits for "log hauling". Additionally, he asserted that some of the logging trucks were not registered through Garfield County. Neither of these complaints have any legal basis, as shown in the discussions on these conditions to SUP 97-70. Mr. Bauer' s complaints were dismissed, by agreement between Applicants and BOCC. Applicants welcome responsible comments on its timber harvest project. However, there must be a rule of equality between Applicants and the Commenters. Applicants are required, under the Land Use Resolution, to support their proposed operation with scientific data regarding watershed protection, timber management and erosion control. Commenters, such as Mr. Bauer, should also be subject to the same rule: i.e., criticisms or proposed conditions offered by them should have a scientific basis promoted by an expert with qualifications of education and work experience in the subject of silviculture. Without such parity, a Special Use Permit will be akin to Mark Twain's description of a camel: "A horse designed and built by a committee". PART VII: CONCLUSION The harvest project for which this Special Use Permit is requested complies with all governing provisions of the Timber Guidelines disseminated by the Colorado State Forest Service, and approved by the Colorado Timber Industry. When applicable, it complies with the City of Rife' s Watershed Ordinance to promote and protect water quality in Beaver Creek. Although the Rifle 33 Watershed Ordinance is not applicable to Mamm Creek and Porcupine Creek, Applicants have, "- nonetheless applied the Beaver Creek Watercourse Protective Measures to these watercourses. ✓ Periodic inspections - by the City of Rifle, the Colorado State Forest Service and the Garfield County Consulting Forester - have demonstrated that Applicants are in compliance with all governing standards by which the timber harvest is conducted. The Garfield County Lcmd Use Resolution does not provide any independent standards for assessing the proposed special use. Nonetheless, Applicants' timber harvest is an on-going, existing activity under SUP 97-70. Periodic reviews by the Garfield County Commissioners have not produced any additional standards nor any suspensions of Applicants' on-going activity. Existing conditions to SUP 97-70 must be substantially altered. Several of those conditions are moot, as a result of prior compliance by Applicants. Other of those conditions are superfluous either because they are pre-empted by governing state law or because certain areas lie outside Garfield County's jurisdiction. Still other conditions need substantial revamping. County Commissioners may deem it advisable and beneficial to have input from an independent consultant during periodic reviews of the permit. However, putting that same consultant in direct control and - supervision of the project necessarily compromises the independence of that consultant. Critics of this project must be placed on equal footing with the Applicant. Conditions proposed by citizen -commenters should be based on scientific data and promoted by an expert in silvicultural husbandry. Only by doing so will any resulting condition satisfy the legal standard. Accordingly, the Special Use Permit should be granted as proposed herein. Re pectfully submitt , A Pt AAA -r) fames A. Beckwith 34 VIII. LIST OF ATTACHED APPENDICES 1. Attorney's Letter of Representation 2. Carpenter Warranty Deed with Legal Description 3. Carpenter Timber Deed w/ Legal Description 4. Carpenter -Intermountain Timber Sale Agreement 5. Vicinity Map / Source: BLM Land Status, Carbondale 1994 6. Tract Map / Source: USGS Rulison and North Mamm Peak / Scale 1:24,000 7. Excerpt / Garfield County Assessor's Map 1 Nos 2403, 2405, 2453 8. City of Rifle Watershed Permit No. 1-97 9. U.S. Forest Service / Special Use Permit 10. Easement Grant / U.S. Forest Service 11. Order 1 U.S. District Court, Colorado 1 Case No. OO PC 1243 12. Special Use Permit No. 97-701 Garfield County 13. Report of Mr. Paul Bussone / Rifle Watershed Inspector 14. Report of Mr. William Gherardi / Garfield County Consulting Forester 15. Report of Mr. Joseph Duda / Colorado State Forest Service 16. Report of Mr. Kelly Rogers / Colorado State Forest Service 17. Dr. Charles F. Leaf 1 Past, Present and Future Effects of U.S. Forest Service Management Policies on North Platte River Water Yields 1 April, 2000. 18. Timbco Hydraulics, Inc. 1 T -400D Hydro-Buncher 19. Colorado State Forest Service / Colorado Forest Stewardship Guidelines - BestManagement Practices (BMP 's) for Colorado 1 February, 1998. 35 February 17, 2003 TEEPEE PARK RANCH Rifle, Colorado High Mountain Forest Retreat Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Planning pepxrrtment 108 E. Eighth Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81841 Re: Teepee Park, Application for Special Use Permit Dear Mr. Bean, This letter will attest that Mr. James A. Beckwith, Esq., of Arvada, Colorado, r'epr'esents myself and Mrs. Zelma J. Carpenter, my wife, as owners of the real property known as "Tepee Park" or "Teepee Park Ranch", in all matters relating to the above referenced application. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Norman A. Carpenter Mail Address: 12403 Nacogduchbs, Suite 110, Sen Antonio, TX 78217 Phone 210-599-7926 t Fax 210 653-3254 Fsb-I9-2003 03:31pm From -INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES LLC 9T02490T2T T-056 P.002/002 F-141 f INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES, LLC' T i February 17, 2003 11925 6530 Road P.O. Box 670 Montrose, Colorado 81402 (970) 249-0812 Fax (970) 249-0727 Mr, Mark Bean, Director Garfield County P1Inriing Department 108 Eighth St., Suite 201 Glenwood Springs., CO 81601 RE: Tepee Park /'Application for Special Use Permit Dear Mr. -Bean: This letter will attest that Mr. James A. Beckwith, Esq., of Arvada, Colorado, represents Intermountain Resources, LLC in all matters relating to the above referenced application. Your cooperation and assistance in -this matter is greatly appreciated. You Christopher C. Me Member r Mime of Capt er Record STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield I, Mildred fUsdorf, County Clerk and Recorder in and for said County, in the Stale aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, [rue and correct COPi of SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECP#557987 BOOK#1203 PAGE/48 08-22-00 10:15A as the same appears upon The records of my office. Given under Any hand and official seal this 31st day o[ AUGUST , A D 2O 00 10:00 �o+eio�cle, A 1.1.4 h7iidred Isdorf Depu[y '� v1 ` 1 County Clerk and Recorder J teas• swr•aa ,a 1 rr ucrkultrWv,pprtllarlik iva. iA rnr.7r of the County of 15 LrCn_.-- and state of '!'etas , of the trantests): WITNESS, That the Grantor, for and In consideration of the alis of 1 57,950,000.00 ) ••' Seven Million Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand and 001100 e'+ the receipt and sufficiancy of which is hereby acknowledged, his granted, bargained. sold end conveyed, and by 0th seRS presents does grant, bargain, 1141, convey end confirm unto the urenteats), the Ir heirs and ass Ions forever, MI the real property, together with Improvements, If any, a(tuate, Iylno and being In the GARiII! U end State of Colorado, described as follows; county o[ SEE PXIMin- 'A' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADEA PART HEREOF also known ■s street raraber • TEEPEE RANCif PARK TOGETHER with alit and singular and hereditaments and appurtenances thcraunto belonging, or In anywise eppertelning end the reversion and reversion', remainder and remainders, rents, Issues and profits thereof; and all the wets, right tete interest, claim and deoertd whatsoever of the Crantarts), either In lot, or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premise*, with the heredicement: and appwrterunces; TO HAVE AND TO 110LU the said promises above bargained and described wIth appurtenances, unto the Dranteetsl, their heirs, successor* end ase ions forever. The grantor, for itself, Ica successors and sealant, does covenant. ones agree thee it shsi( Ind will wAlIl IU MSD FOREVER DEFEuO the above -bargained premised in the quiet end peaceable possession of the grantee(s), their heirs, succaseors and miliaria, mgainot alt and every person or persons clefming the whole or sly part thereof, by, through or under the Grantor (s1. SUBJECT TO TI-IOSE TLE INSURANCE TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY AND3ExCGTL"TL)CCf[CRALTA)CES ANL) ASS1 SSMEhrI'5 FOR 11IE YEAR 2000 AFIIOMMITMENT NO. LIW234074 D SIlDSCQu1NLAND yEARS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor(*) have executed this deed on the date set forth above. STATE OF (:)/yre.9oI / � County of )ss, f,lif•LYNN, INC'., AN Okt:t:[)N l-URf'()Rri11TON bY: MELYIN L. MCDOUIJAL, I'RF.SID1 (r-SLCa11 AHY WILEY NS[.. INC.. AN OREc;ON COlti'OILADlQN DY. f filM N N. MCDOUGAL, PRESIDEnT-SECREFARY by The foregoing InsttrmeV nt was aackrwwi edged before me on this day of AuRuttil,I000 MCo0 A , PRE ID!^NT-5 •CRETAR' OF lLi9l M' INC.. ANDREW C0RPOJO A"ll,4L—PLR-DEffF-Gge-AFFe4Pi-or—L-rsEL-W4fhl WC. , � NORMAN H. My commission expires -4a 6G_ Witness my herd and off clot sem tame carr liscrpwlf f tlet1 Lorm /to. f6 Rev L-46. SPECIAL %ARRANTr OEEd (Photoyre hit Sl'Ec.lDI) OFFICIAL SEAL HI1.MA E KENNEDY NOTARY FURUC-OREGON CO1dt1IS lQpf NQ,A3211379 Ilr 0o1d1110iI011 EXPIRES APR II, 2003 Notary Pohl 'ad legal Description f 38.35.106.5, CAA.) flhen Recorded Return to; A. NORMAN, CARPENtER 19 DEVoNI.DCO, SAN ANTONIO, TX 7825' FxWW61`r )3 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111! . . 867987 08/22/2000 10t15R 81203 P48 M RL500RF - 1 of 1 R 8.00 0 397,50 GARFIELD COUNTY CO at o'clock el. RECORDER By DEPUTY. SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, Rade on this day of August 21, 2000 between LEELYHN, INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION AND WILEY MT., INC., AN OREGON CORPORATION of the County of and state of Colorado , Grontorts), and NORMAN A. CARPENTER Om legal address Is : 19 DEVONWOOD SAN ANTONIO, TX 782.37 of the County of la and State of 'Texas a of tate Grentee(s7: WITNESS, That the Grantor, for and 1n consideration of the sum of ( 37,9S0,0D0.D0 ) •e' Seven Million Hine Hund&cd Fifty Thousand and 01100 ••• DOLLARS the reenlist and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hos granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, sed by these presents doge grant, bergs in, sell, convey and confirm unto the Grenteete), their heirs end anions forever, all the reel property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being In tho County of GARfiELD end State of Coloreds, described nu follows: SEE EXHIBIT -A' ATTACHED 1!ERGTO AND MADE A PART HEREOF also known as street nutter TEEPEE RANCII PARK TOGETHER with ate and singuter and heredl temente and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or In snywisn upper t■In Inas end the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, Issues and profits thereof; and el l the estate!, right deli interest, atone ars' demand whatsoever of the Crentar(s), el thee In low or equity, nf, in and to the ■bovc bargained pronisel, with the hereditament% and appurt•nences; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said prernl sea above bargained end described with appurtenances. unto the Grantee( s 1, their heirs, successors and assigns forever, The Grantor, for itself, its successors and Assigns, does covenant, end agree that it that end u(Il VAARANI AS0 'GREYER DEFEND the above -bargained premises in the quiet and pcnceeble possession of the Grantee(s), their heirs, successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons claiming the whale or any part thereof, by, through or order the Grantor(sl, SU1UHCr TO THOSE EXCEPTIONS REFERRED TO IN TITLE iNSURANCLt COMMITMENT NU. GW23a074 ISSUED ay LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY AND EXCEPT GENERAL TAXES ANL) ASSP,SSMEN15 CUR T11L YEAR 2000 ANU suosl QuEN'r YEARS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantor(s) have executed this dead on the date sets forth sboye. STATE OF r(e7ar1 Cou ty of 11"r7'L I.1:1ELYNH, INC . AN Olc1Xk N (`ORPORA Ii(7N BY: HELVIN L. MCDOUGAL, IRESiDENr•S CRE -AARY WILEY 1,i',. INC., AN ORE(UON CORPORATION �GTC4 rt- EY, IMAM N. AMCDU AL, PRL•S DENT -SECRETARY The foregoing ihatrunent was acknowledged before me an this day of Augusl'2 7000 ?--011E o -E-AOifORA-T-{( a NORMAN N. MCDOUGAL, PRESIDENT-SEC;RITTARY OF WILEY MT., INE'., AN OREGON CORPORA.' ION My coerelssion expire& }/—/ - 23 Ululate ary hand and ofIllcial sea lrpe L lCrig, 9 OFFIGFAL SEAL HEMA E KENNEDY NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON T commission EXPIRES APRA879 121 MT 3 r Rotary Ptbl� rvrr� ' Legal Description ( 38.35.106.5, C.R.S,I when Retarded Return to: A, SCAMPI, CARPEYl9q rrfh Ro. 16 Rev 4-94, SPECIAL VARRA)TT DEED (Phoioyraphlc SAfc,UD1) .V071111 19 DEIgfit,WU, SAY AN you IQ. Tx 78237 o �¢ .317 Deputy J Cerduieer CopyoraeMd STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield 1, Mildred Alsdorf, County Clerk and Recorder in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct COPY 0. SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED RECP1567988 1300K11203 PAGE149-51 08-22-00 10:17A as the same appears upon the records of my office. Given -under my hand and official seal this 31st day of AUGUST A,D.2400 10:00 o'clock AM Mildred Alsdarf U County Clerk and Recorder 1Iiote legal address Is : l9 OEVONWOOD, SAN ANTONIO. Tx 78757 of the County at 0c162.l- and State of Texas , of the Grantee(s): WrTNESS, That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the nun of L 37.950,000.00 1 •" Seven M1EIlon Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand and 001100 ••• T}OI,LARS the receipt and muffleieney of which is hereby acknowledged, hes granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, end by these presents does grant, bergeln, sett, convey and confine Into the tirantee(7), their hairs and as glans forever, alt the real property, together with lepravements, If any, sl Nate, lying sed being In the County of GARFIELD and State of Colorado, described as follows: SEE EXHIBIT 'A' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PAR! THEREOF Park ✓Panc+- also known as street weber TEEPEE RdtYiQEfilltf[1J •1OCETITER with all and •Ingular and haredltaments and appurtenances thoreunto belonging, ar in enywI se epperteSming and the reversion and reversions, remainder and rematrdars, rents, issues and profits thereof; end all the estate, right title interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the Grattarts}, either in tau or equity, ef, 1n end to the above bargained premises, with the heredi tenants and appurtenances; ItAVE AND TO HOLD the meld premises above bargained end described with appurtenances, into the Grantees"), their heirs, successors end els isms -forever. the Grantor, for itself, its successors end assigns, does covenant, and agree that. It shall and will HRRRAI[T AHO FOREVER OEFEHO the abovc•bargained premises in the quiet arod peeceeblo possess' on of the Granteetsl, their heirs, successor■ and seal gra. Needn't at and every person or persons claiming the whole or any part thereof, by, through ar under the Grantorts), SS18IECTTO THOSE EXCEPTIONS REFERRED TO IN TITLE 1NSIfRANCE• COMMI[M13NT NO. GW234074 ISSUED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY AND EXCEPT GENERAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2000 AND sua5EQUL•NF ti F.AIIS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Granters) have executed thin decd en the date set forth above. STATE OF CO/Ora-Jib } 1st, County of ir1[]fti'1.0�� 1 [Tl:].YtJ. 3rJq . ArtGI :C'[ RATIO 7re: MLLVLN L. M[; (RIGA RC•S • SF,Clt41•N[Y WHEY MT., INC,. AN OREGON CORPORATION UY: NORMAN N. MLUQUUAL, YRIJS1UEN-CSECRETARY y .�•� The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me en this day of August 2I,MOO by MELVIN L. MCDOUGAL, PRES1DENT•SECREFARY OF IS:ELYNN, INC.. AN OREGON CORPORATION AW-149I(h1A - . = F-WILEY M F., Ill€ N N-EtOitf'(* ✓TION Lky ccaviasian expires 3-x'03 illrness ary hind apd official teal. LOSbrl L�B(lt� I1otal'y Public X16,\41, Spr(p-� 40 ti' "c? I a , Name and Address irFprs C a 11g Ho ly Created Legal Description L 38.55..106.5, C.R.S,i 'C _ Escrow/'. .. . R~•' When Recorded Return to: 6+. HORMAII, CARPENTER Titles C. •'''•,, 55,,.i'', i9 DtV011l000, SAH ANTONIO, TX 76257 Farm Ru. 16 ReY 6-94- SPE CI7i. IARRAWIT DUO (Photographic SPEC.I01) LAND -rm.E 4Y. ii,. 1 1111111111111111111111 I1111I 11111111111111111111111111 567986 08/22/2000 10:1211 91203 P47 h RLSDORF 3 of 3 R 15.00 13 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ID:9703454784 PAGE 3/7 Our Order No. GW234074 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 1051431 RECORDED DECEMBER 16, 1931 IN BOOK 168 AT PAGE 254 AS RECEPTION NO. 111666 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS_ PARCEL 13: MT. MAMM NO. 10 MT. MAMM NO. 11 AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 1051425 RECORDED DECEMBER 16, 1931 IN BOOK 168 AT PAGE 255 AS RECEPTION NO. 111667 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS. PARCEL C: MT. MAMM NO, 12 MT. MAMM NO. 13 MT. MAMM NO. 14 MT. MAMM NO. 15 AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 1119490 RECORDED MAY 21, 1945 1N BOOK 209 AT PAGE 447 AS RECEPTION NO. 154101 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS. NOTE: PARCEL A ABOVE IS SOMETIMES KNOWN AS: TRACT 42 IN SECTIONS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 93 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, AND TRACT 65 IN SECTIONS 30 AND 31, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 93 WEST OP THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO. Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 I uuii nisi nmi iiiii uuu muum iii mii uii uii 567888 08/22/2010 10:12A B1203 P48 M ALSDORF 2 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COMITY CO LEGAL DESCRIPTION Our Order Na. GW234074 THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SWI/4) OF SECTION THIRTEEN (13), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-FOUR (94) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (51/2) OF SECTION FIFTEEN (15), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-FOUR (94) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. PART OF DRAKE NO. 3 PART OF DRAKE NO.4 PART OF DRAKE NO. 5 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 1 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 2 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 3 PART OF ALBERTA NO.4 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 5 PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO. 1 PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO. 2 PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO.3 PART OF VIRGINIA NO. 1 ALICE ALICE NO. 1 ALICE NO. 2 ALICE NO. 3 LITTLE MAUD NO. 1 LITTLE MAUD NO. 3 LITTLE MAUD NO. 5 LITTLE MAUD NO. 7 LITTLE MAUD NO. 9 LITTLE MAUD NO. 11 LITTLE MAID NO. 13 AND LITTLE MAUD NO. 15 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIMS DESIGNATED AS SURVEY NO. 20096, EMBRACING A PORTION OF SECTIONS TWENTY-FOUR AND TWENTY-FIVE AND THE UNSURVEYED PORTION OF TOWNSHIP SEVEN SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-FOUR WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED DECEMBER 17, 1932 IN BOOK 164 AT PAGE 486. TOGETHER WITH: ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO, CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING PLACER MINING CLAIMS, TO WIT: PARCEL A: MT. MAMM NO. 1 MT. MAMM NO. 2 MT. MAMM NO. 3 MT. MAMM NO. 4 MT. MAMM NO. 5 MT. MAMM NO. 6 MT. MAMM NO. 8 MT. MAMM NO. 9 EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 2 } CerMiule ar Cagy or aemrd STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield I, Mildred Alsdorf, County Clerk and Recorder in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct COPY of TIMBER DEN.D RECD1657986 BOOK#1203 PAGE145"47 0B=22-00 10:12A as the same appears upon the records of my office. Given under my hand and official seal this 3lst dap of AUGUST AD.20 00, 10:00 o'clock A M Mildred Alsdorf County Clerk and Recorder 3t1N A. CARMIrIER, whose legal address is 19 Devcnwood, San Antonio, TX 7B257. 5.5 million board feet of merchant -Able green aanifer specie timber on the real property in Garfield County, Colorado, described on Exhibit A, attached and by this reference made a part of this Deed, together with an assignment of Grantor's right to harvest the timber as set forth in paragraph 15P. of the Wraparound, Nonrecourse Deed of Trust dated Septe'cfber 19, 1997, recorded October 17, 1997, Book 1039, Page 10, Reception Na. 515193, Garfield County, Colorado records. DATE: August 17, 2000. STATE OF OREGON ) } ss. County of Lane } FINITERMOUIITAIN RESClL1FtCES, r,rr. By: N -mark N. McDougal, Agent— The foregoing Timber Deed was execu by Norman N. McDougal, in his capacity a OFFICIAL SEAL HILMA E K£HNEOY WOTARY PuBUC-QREGON f COMMJSSION N0,A321B79 l UY CDMIIISSION EXPIRES APR 12, 2043 1"`Lttitiyl��l�tt�"tl ,6LijRBy ti fore me this t of Inte day of August, 2000, aurces, LLC. otaay Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: X41 ■ 16 } After Recording Return to: NOS A. CARPENTER 19 Devanad SanAntonio, TX 78257 e5c Lk� 1111111111 111111111111111111111till 111 11111 1111 567986 08/22/2000 10:128 81203 P45 M RLSDORF 1 of 3 R 3.5.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO TItvEER DEED Grantor: INIEFELUNTATN RR9ZUCES, LIC, a Colorado limited liability con aany, Whose legal ar Tress is 11925 -- 6530 Riad, P. 0. Sax 670, Mbntrase, Colorado 81402 for the consideration of a promissory note in the principal amount of Three Million nine e hundred fifty thousand and no/1O0 Dollars ($3, 950,000.00) , receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby sells and conveys to 1.1001114i.A. CAFTENTER, whose legal address is 19 Devcnwocol, San Antonio, TX 7:6257. 5.5 million board feet of zm>erchantahle green conifer specie tinter an the real property in Garfield County, Colorado, described on Exhibit A, attached and by this reference made a part of this Deed, together with an assignment of Grantor's right to harvest the tiMber as set forth in paragraph 15A of the Wraparound, Nonrecourse Deed of Trust dated Septetber 19, 1997, recorded October 17, 1997, Book 1039, Page 10, Reception No. 515193, Garfield County, Colorado records. DATE: August 17, 2000. By: STATE OF CJREGX } ss. County of Lane } INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES, IsT1'. 52- N man N. McDougal, Agent The foregoing Tier Deed was execu by Norman N. McDougal, 1n his capacity a •� OFFICIAL SEAL `HR.MA E KENNEDY / ■ NOTARY PU UC-CREGON ..:,/ CcMMISSION N4.A321B79 l 10 HY COMMISSION EXPIRES APR 12, 2403 ,' AND IME fore me this t of In.te ■ •unta day of August, 2000, sources, LTA. otary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: 1111111 11111 11111111113111 11111111 56788E 08/22/2000 10:12A B1203 P46 M ALSDORF 2 nF 3 R 15.00 D 0,00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO LEGAL DESCRIPTION Anmlimm Our Order No. GW234074 THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 114) OF SECTION THIRTEEN (13), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH. RANGE NINETY-FOUR (94) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (51/2) OF SECTION FIFTEEN (15), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NINETY-FOUR (94) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. PART OF DRAKE NO. 3 PART OF DRAKE NO.4 PART OF DRAKE NO. 5 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 1 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 2 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 3 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 4 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 5 PART OF P.C. IUNIOR NO. 1 PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO.2 PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO. 3 PART OF VIRGINIA NO. 1 ALICE ALICE NO. 1 ALICE NO. 2 ALICE NO. 3 LITTLE MAUD NO. 1 LITTLE MAUD NO. 3 LITTLE MAUD NO. 5 LITTLE MAUD NO. 7 LITTLE MAUD NO. 9 LITTLE MAUD NO. 11 LITTLE MAUD NO. 13 AND LTTTLE MAUD NO. 15 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIMS DESIGNATED AS SURVEY NO. 20096, EMBRACING A PORTION OF SECTIONS TWENTY-FOUR AND TWENTY-FIVE AND THE UNSURVEYED PORTION OF TOWNSHIP SEVEN SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-FOUR WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED DECEMBER 17, 1932 IN BOOK 164 AT PAGE 486. TOGETHER wTTH: ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN GARFIELD COUNTY. COLORADO, CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING PLACER MINING CLAIMS, TO WIT: PARCEL A: MT. MAMM NO. 1 MT. MAMM NO. 2 MT. MAMM NO. 3 MT. MAMM NO. 4 MT. MAMM NO. 5 MT. MAMM NO. 6 MT. MAMM NO. 8 MT. MAMM NO, 9 EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 2 1111111 11111 111111 MIAMI 1111 111 1111 Mill 567986 08/22/2000 10:12A 61203 P47 M PLSDORF 3 of 3 R 15.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 1 ID:9709454794 PAGE 3/7 Our Order No. GW234074 LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 1051431 RECORDED DECEMBER 16, 1931 IN BOOK 168 AT PAGE 254 AS RECEPTION NO. 111666 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS. PARCEL B: MT. MAMM NO. 10 MT. MAMM NO. 11 AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 1051425 RECORDED DECEMBER 16, 1931 1N BOOK 168 AT PAGE 255 AS RECEPTION NO. 111667 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS_ PARCEL C: MT. MAMM NO. 12 MT. MAMM NO. 13 MT. MAMM NO. 14 MT. MAMM NO. 15 AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 1119490 RECORDED MAY 21, 1945 IN BOOK 209 AT PAGE 447 AS RECEPTION NO. 154101 OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY RECORDS. NOTE: PARCEL A ABOVE IS SOMETIMES KNOWN AS: TRACT 42 IN SECTIONS 5, 6, 7 AND 8, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 93 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, AND TRACT 65 IN SECTIONS 30 AND 31, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 93 WEST OP THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO. Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 Sep -n-2000 01:41pm Frcm-111TEnk]lliiiA1N PESOURC€S LLC gl2; !oa Tt.r4 L3:19 Fi,3 g41, 895 8787 nxu. 9702490727 T-27 (S IP1 ) LATE: Ti. t 2000 FARMS: Norxran A, Carpexit r, dhh 'Teepees. a rk Ranch Irate. amain srni''c M, LLC (Seller) (n .oLt t_a n) This Twat sae AlarievEat is entere.:Unto beta n the parties in ac rda.'�t.ce with the Contract of sale bat�•men thou dated June 14, 2000, and the =ezlidinents thezE to . The parties agree: 1. sale a7ad Parrhazfe. Seller agrees t❑ sell to Ingrain arta Tate: unhei n a.g-res- to purchazsa flu i seller up to 25 znbf of merchantableattached rr:ni fex to xer on the real. property descsibad onE enibi A (??ope ) ■ as a part of this agreent 2 than teh1e timher Minter) is deg -Jar -led as live trees sound Agri trees at least 50 - rarollantehle, 12 inales �ar rain i d1 ter, breast 'high, and consisting of Eng1� � Spx, nd rougias Fir; plug marchautableAspeni saw logs- The par:tiea will riPsiVate sale areas as prgv.ded in paragraph 5. T1r er on each sale area shall int -1 udp va1vrr,F� of the abwe spies which. are representativa and pmparUctiate to t e3d-stinq stand of tuber. an thc. Etop rbi- 2. Purchase Price. The purchaza prim Thr the Titter 511.n11 3.50.00 lit: , net vaIuaxe Imxveste l and decked on Ings ttnt' -1 5 Ambi: of Timber has been harffasted and decked/ ar, until the P S00 Cillt t.e seller reds and. ,31 i vared to Intermountain dates Atacpst 21, principal nount of Three Malmo 7X±21amdred Fifty Thousalld and uoerj H no plaZa-sa5 ($3 ► 950, 00 0 , 0 01, is ped) Wri,ichEvar event last o curs . 'Irk price rka.11 be 200.00 per mb ► net sem, the remaining—volume h,aruested a: decked can landings. The purchase 'rice for verchantabie Aspen aw logs shall b 6.00 per tan. The parchase vrics for cam), or weigh ..ogs abed. ba $2 A 00 per ton, P a .rat Ter , iitarmrarzitai :wig 1 x a .t :Laino accurate S 1 -e re =rds Timber harvested aid sna 1 pnY 5e11.er on the l5th of e unnth f')r 1 harvested and d,,.oked betwe= the first rad 15°' of the preceilng month and cal the 30th ❑f each rr nth fo-4 TivIner homes ed and defied :rat ant 9 .5th 30th of th=i tronth . S e and WeLc]t. A11 1otTs to be seed shall be scaled at the n-..aurourita_th iai 1 }. us Lt ' •S4r�th IU'r Dr',n i C. ► East Sidi l u1 s. Logs to hr. t.re = 1� be: wei died at the Lntenrountair. u.sa.ng e xta.iied weight scza- o Sea -OS -2000 131:44pm Fro 1 fT=RWth TA1NI RESOURCES L1.0 0S/22/00 'LTE 13:20 FAX E41 895 s7$7 XCIAPJUA.1.4 b4UZ. 5TO243OT2T T -2T0 P.004/Q1O F -2!s '1`he patties shall riPsi to Balt a Reks 5. �s., - � o-n�.ted Salt �-� • � telt' 5 m� of tizak�r'- (rsi:gr. .tad Arras) , each of which shall 1 ccnt,--'n In addition to etch tesigntedArea, the parties ehall desigrate an alternate are (p,,lternate .rea) fpm. .ch InteLmzOntain ray harvest Timber i lit e -t able Timber r V luras in the Designated .Area t is Less .a at theAreaz and Alte ate Area Shall be dete surfed as soon. az is p�etiri follow,Lng Designated execution of this �art , Each. subsequent ubs ernent Des is ted and Alt-priiate Area 5 a ; } ba designated so that intex��tainraHove t DesignatedAroma to aanther without t =eR le delay or interruption. 6. cperating operatingPlan- Iote=ountain will suit to Saber al =DialtinnA fez ❑perating pl ax: at leas thirty ( 30) days before startin Jq °fid th}t year. 7. Duration, on E This Agreement is effective on the date first above writte and shall, continue seven years frac that date unless terminated. par-' ier by Seller, n r the foregoing, Shall �r p aw l -*Ls of the A9ze xzt RTTIPYl after I t.� ) r i v d a have.vethe r-� c?ht. too terminate this We Dinilmm volme o 10 mreof of Timber. S. Default. In the est of any default t dthe te of this c ntr d give wr'i,ttea noti satin the fl' t W in whit by �zte�untra seller shall ;, o� such writtsrr. �'�.c -rn��atain� is in c3.efa�tishell pease �� ad contract, Upoa �y�iwfi1.]„ u1t has of default a1� logging operations been corrected, and unless Imreceipt anddoes f said bnt�-ter �s� �� Pix �ytc��l. sixty (6O1 days of the tij+R q�" t�11°� �', ❑f the e~��".-'+`.y. � term i rsxte �'-�i-�-s ��'� 1���1�.T� �� that �� cSa1t�.�� extend this A�' 1t antd t bs beim � e F. e'gtati!M ■ suac'assc , e3;tend t0 and be obligatory n and assigns of the parties hereto. 9. Force 1.1.aj eura.. t party hereto shall be excused for dPl ey in peoraas �r,r3 for--pex4prmance of .01i9 contract dry: to weather c diti , tiYar, fire, std es 1 rots, 3- c}:outs,civil oti '►, c ESetitrn or stoppage of acts of , or because cf extx�ke ecio= } c �.,8%QY► �'���n�^-?Zt1d�� ��'a�`Sl�-, ►tel L,� {? r7. 5 ar inarke L b yorta � u? n trot of the tie 1 d y conditions �.�. �� �.71'��- v,pplyii g or handling ccrr exst or for y otherra115ite re an&ly beyond the arntral cf th2 p-. r ►_.i.es_ acme to provide p..uper daxcaticei. the event that the abs rneatlanexi. delayo contractaffect te - uats�+n d equal / (10) clays and seller agree 5 to period of tins a . i the :vent ref thZ p5sage of aHyl, 7 tl . '� �._�.�taat i.nrZ �S N�.� W t� . In t ' . r ��ral or reg11l:�tary agency, the ordinance, �:a�L.u�:e, or r�tril.at.�a_r key any �ve :result of Vr-ich mAte.tiall_y interfere With T.t,exna rain's ohiiity to parfc)ra Sep -O9-2044 01:45pm From -INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES LLC SST52490T27 08l3:/00 TUE I3: 20 FA.X 341 895 117g1 AMu1V_cL ZHO5. i -2T0 P.005/010 F-219 upri,,ir this Pent at a reasonable profit to IntermountaLn, Intermountain may than give notice to the Seller and terminate this Agreement- 11.11. M.._.xan do of Agreement. conte raneoV5lV with this Agreemantr the ,� parties shall execute a 1r� of Thus.. Sale Agreement in a form aLclrpt�� e to Lntermvantain Whidh Intermountain she 11 then. record in the real estate records ❑ f the county in vfiich the mai estate in Ekr ibit A is located. 12. A.cliditioriel Texans. seller and T.ntertmt stain agree to be Lound by the a : i tional tPirms and conditinn5 set forth in the attached k bit 8, which is by this reference made a part of this AgIdemant. 13- RiCtht of First Refusal. 1hte rountain Shall have the first right. of refusal to purChase any Timber whi_rn seller pzoposes to sell tor ten years from the termination date of this Amt. If Seller does offer ?r4di ti nal Tirdber for sale, Seller Shall giva. written notice of its electica to do so, Inbanrountain sba 11 have thirty (30) days from. the data of receipt of surEhsuch notice. within which to purchase the Thr whirl. Sa31Pr LE offering to sell/ or any portion thereof, at stumpage rates which =elect the fair market value of tha Mciiher at that time This Agreemzit has baso executed by the parties cr tha date first w tten above, FPILlaRt By: Xt- { "cam r-- 110Mvan. A. Cape t Ad sS ?`X Title:.,--� R. 0. Box E70 F.t'Yos , CO £1.5C2. Sep -O8-20. 01:45pm Frcn-INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES LLC W' r k..• VN 4 414 • 41.6 v Y_� ,e W 8702490727 7-270 P.006/010 F-219 rw ...r .1 1..1..4 Yr Si r.+.+ Oratr No, GW234094. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ftit.FST N l �THIRTEEN (1 (7) SOUxH, RANNNE-TY-MIR (4) � O TEE SIMI AL MERIDIAN. THE SOUTH HALF (51t2) OF ME SOUTH HAL (S1f2) OF SECTION P (5), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NiAiETY-FOUR (94) WE t' OF TIM SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. PART OF DRAKE NO. 3 PART OF PRANE N O. .4 PART OF DRAFX. }'NO.5 PART ❑F AIMERTA Q. 1 PART ❑F AERTA NO.2 PART OF AT. - TA NO 13 'PART OF ALBERTA NO. 4 PART ❑P AT.3ERTA NO. 5 PART OF P.C. TUMOR NC1.1 PART ❑F P.C. 7lTNIOR No, 2 PART OF P.C. rITINTIOR NC). 3 PART OF VIROINI.010. 1 ALICE Ar c.E Nv- a ALICE NQ. 7. ALMB No. LITTLE MAUD NO, LiTI IIE MAL1D NO. 3 I.tTTLT3 MAUI] No, s LITTLE MAIM NO. 7 LIMB MAUD NO.9 MILE MAUD NO. n LTrLMAUD NO. 13 AND LTITLEM(UDNO, 15 ❑IL sli.ALE P A.C1 , 14.U4 S DESIGNATED AS SLIM VNO, =96, EISiElzACING A PORTION OF S&rriON8 TwENTY•POUR AND TMENrY-FiVE AND 11'E uNSLIRV!YlD POPCrioN of To WNsfilP SEVEN SO1J h OF RANGE NTh Y FOUR 'MST OF 1-1-1PI3.].NCTPA �IAt z, AS I3ESL 3 E-C)1N IMMO 7 STATES PATENI'RECO11..1DECEMBITR.k7, 2932 TN BOOK 164 AT PAGF, 4E6, TOOETE ' WITH: At)ITIHA.T R,_ALPRoFE ,TY SITCuATE, LYING AND $SINQ OAPF1EL COUN- Y, cOLORAD O, CONSTh i £NG CF THE POLL0WINU PL.AcEIM MfNiNG CLA.1392, 7P WIT: PARCEL A; r�1 . KVI NO. 1 MT. M -AMM NO. 2 MT. MAMA -3 mAM-1,4 N ❑ . 4 MAMM Nc. 5 • 1AT'.MAMMNO. 6 M %MMM NO, u MT, MAMM O. 9 Sap -08-7000 Ol:4Spn From -INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES LSC uc/t�iuu .LUb i.�::L 5 �Uo tS7�f r . • 9702410727 T-270 P.007/010 F-219 ,1CUUU(ikL,, BROS. iac=7154537154 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Oar Orair No. G 4074 AS DESCRIHE3 MY UNITED STATEs PATENT NO. 1051431 RECORDED uEcmMIIE,R 16, 1931 az BOOK 16$ AT PAGE 254 AS RECEPTION NO. 111.666 OP TIS GAME= COUNTY ILF-coHD5. PARCEI, B; Mr. MAMM NO. ID MT. MAMM N0.11 AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATE,NT NO. 1051425 CORED 16, MI 1N 13OOK 166 AT PAGE 255 As RECEPTION NO. 111661 OF TILE GARE1= COUNTY RCOPOS. PARCEL C: MT, MAMhi NO. lx MT, M/ MM NO. 15 MT, M»tM No. 1.4 MT. MANN NO. 15 As )7F.ScRMED XN'LTNI TED STATES PATENT NO. 111949D RECORDER MAY 21, 5945 IN BOOK U9 AT PAGE 447 AS Et F.CEPTIoN NO, 1 4101 OF THE GAIRkTELD OJUNTY RECORDS. NM; PAACEL A AB OVA IS SOMETIMES ES KNOWN AS: TRACT 42 IN' SECTIONS 5, 6, 7 A?1T) 8, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE V3WEST OF' TELE SIXTH PRIfi1CWAL I+ IDLAN, GAM= COUNTY, COLorRAIDo, AND TRACT 65 IN SliCn011s 30 AND 31, TDWNSIE1P 7 BOUM RANGE 93 WEST OF THE SIXTH PR]NCIPALMF.RTAitX, GAV-FM-0 CEMNTY, COLORADO. Sap -08-2000 01:4Tpm From -INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES LAC 9T024S072T T -2T0 P.04a/oto F-219 u tz4/uu lug x 541 dab 0(b7 �r_uuuu~ nrsua. F�I�IT B S TUMpAG I 2'TER SALE iGREEVEN'i` ADDITIONAL ITEMS A, Seller warrants that Seller holds clear title to all Timber sold pursuant to this Agreement and agrees to vigorously defend all claims'to the contrary at Seller's Q.4i expense, Seller agrees to hold Intermountain 'harmless in the event that timber or lands not belonging to Seller are trespassed by Inter. -mountain or Intermounzain' s representatives due to inaccurate or improperly marked and/or described exterior or .interior Property boundaries. B. Intermountain, its contractors and .subcontractors, sha? 1. make every reasonable 'effort independently—or in cooperation with recognized fire protection agencies to prevent, control, and put out any fares starting on, burning on, or threatening the contract area. As used herein., "every reasvnahle effartf' consists, among other things, of using all available employees and equipment under the control, direct or indirect, of Intermountain, its ooutraCtvrs and subcontractors, C. Utilization Standards: 1. All Timber designated in this AgreeT er.t will be harvested, except visual trees reasonably requested by Seller. 2. Stumps will ba cut as low as poseible, but not to exceed twelve inches (12!r) in height, measured exam the ground at the uphill side of the tree. 3 Material whi.c-h is ten (10) fee'!" or more in length, six (6) inr. ;es or more in diameter inside the bark at the small end, and fifty percent (BM or more sound shall be considered merC .ansa Ile, D. intermountain shall protect property such. as fields, fences, telephone, l,ght and power Limes, buildings, ditches, bridges, etc., against unnecessary injury, and shall repair damage caused .by it by restoring than to the condition found prior to � damage, - As far as practical, all logging and hauling Operations shall be .n an order_ lay and progresisivU soon.feri exercising all reasor<ab? a protect i o:a to young growth and the surrounding environment. antero comas./ and seller will mutud11y designate i1a5h di.spossl metlioda oris to harvosting each Designated Area. Slash shall Seo -48-2000 01:41pm From-i4TERMOUNTAI RESOURCES LLC a u.1 N., . {.a rrua yrs you u r V I 9702440727 £ t JULj .Ij nliu.7 T-270 P.000/010 F-219 Legging operations) or from construction of reads or other improvements. A11 taps to a s even- inch (V') diameter will be cute and slash height will not exceed twenty --four inches (24') above the ground or existing slash. Intermountain shall have the right of ingress and egress over arc along roads which now exist on Seller's property as necessary fog the harvesting and removal of tiwmbsr. Intermountain may construct new roads at its expense in accordance with the following conditions and specifications 1. Roadbed width shall be 14 feet with ditching. 2. Generally, road ,grade aha1i ,be sera to ten percent (10%) unless otherwise mutually agreed. 3. Reads shall have standard turnouts as needed. 4. Seller and Intermountain will work cooperatively to establish the Location of such roads as are needed. Intermountain shall ba responsible for the cost of construction of such roads with these exceptions (a) If, because Seller has imposed specifications s which exceed those set forth in this section, the cast of construction exceeds $2,00D.00 per mile, Seller shall be responsible for the excess over *8,000.00 per male. (b) If road construction exceeds three (3) z t1en for every five (5) mmhf of Timber harvested, Seller be responsible for the cost of road construction in excess of three () miles. Intermountain shell be responsible for dust abatement and for surface rock replacement on existing roads. F- Miscellaneous terms: This Agreement shall he binding upon the heirs} admin strator, succes ora or annigns of both parties. 2. T ntormountain agrees to indemnify and hold haraiess the 5 Ller f'ro:a atay and all da.nages, c1ait , or demands upon . th t part of third parties OT account of any action by intexmouri' a±n, stn agent., sbrvzants, or emp1oyeerl, under this ,10-T'L'_enent, except as herein provided with respect to boundary } ^ n E tt7 at -e i.'rnac-:urate? y docri.bed or narked by • Sap -OB -2440 01:42pm From-INTERMOU TAUT RESOURCES LLC 9T02490T2T T -2T0 P.O10/010 F-219 MEMORANDTIM OF TSR 9.AS,E AGREEIENT AND IIIGEIT Or FIRST REFUSAL Effective August 4147 , 2000, Norman A: Carpenter, dba Tes ee park Ranch (Seller) , and Intermount it Resources, LLC (Intermountairn) entcrsd into a Timber Sale Agreement (Ag>ree tent) ,. by which tha seller has agreed sell. and Intermountain has agreed to buy on the ter= and conditions set ezt.h in the Agreement, merchantable timber described an the Agreement located on and a part of the real property owned by the seller axed mire fully described its Ichibit A attached hermto and by this refe$ence made a part hereof. Ths Tugrmotnsnt will, continue until tnrminatmd as eat forth i the Aszeam.snt or by this parties. The Agreement also Contains a first right of refusal in Intermountain's favor to purchase additional timber on the 'rcparty which 5e17 or•m y offer for mal.. This Zdemcrattduzn shall ba recaxdea in each county its which Property described i? E-thilait A is located SELLER; BUYER: TEEPEE PARK RANCH By; etL4 poxza n A. Carper STATE QF 3 County of ) ss The foregoing MtmorandUln Refuel was Executed before m8 Carpenter, in his capacity as , ' 11 ''r'' 'hand and v t�ti .saw • , , • ThTA- 7311"'..co .iO( zwo ] } County o± Hontrosa 1siernher ref mber an Saz.e Agxeetttent d Rig et thisTi . day' of Ault, 20D3, ight by NorofmFA. D{c, of Ranch, Saner Notary PUbL 4.c 4or soilomdo � •,�5 =_. My ComrnioLon ENpaz=: 24/4;9.fo The �ox�c;l i 1zg N :mnrandum of Timbax iaie Tigre=ent Lncd Right of First ': 9z.'1tsa1. was executed ken cxa MQ this day of 21.ily1j5t, 2000, by , as mamba - at tarmhu ti j.4 Resources/ LLC, Buyer Y• VIXTN 5 my hand and officio" t ual. • C..; • ti i7' -4 - a s' r` 1Y .. r s 1 } 1 .• • p. ▪ • to • t Ca--- • t ' cel ,T. ,, r { • ti "\\,{ 6 / \I J 5 � ia. i Y ti ;r r 1 .. sti 1 •.•_ �-- Y ,j r F-.3 i f ''� 5 . • -r • r - -- 1 \ G - -...,j \ • C • ?r y r � • cam' 1 • L - L HHUNDALE, COLORADO r1 r iQ'Si.Atrt'-. • 4 J • . a 1 .21 (1AR111.1_1l L-[) CI, ., vw. • :.rte Mrarn•- L". • • S 1w wtftrti; Rrr:046\A • • } y "• . ,- ,.. • yr - ' r •f• • At " S A te •., 44- l 1 1.• yr. - tom. • it'emr►r: , 'riC ra 1• r.i • 4 3 ' • '1 F:UR�:ST .� • i 3 ]: 'P. -• {,r'..tef • r I • 5 SI m 2 ]732 -- x400 Il{ UNDAifl ST PRO bb :24,0/001., S S 1 Raison (1 87) 9? _ 1 [ � • sw) I Rfi00 if S /,North iamf Peak (1987) 29 lr {.'7757 • u Sof Hou 406' • 3 2/ R I+• 5 'I' J rte^ r+ro n1 N N x( \\5• y ;1 0102 : h1ar7?m 1 .. 0.1 /1 ,L_ arrlll�Ylrl.! ti. -�� ■IR:c vmw 2407-561--05-05+ BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO CONCERNING THE RENEWAL OF RIFLE WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT NO. 1-97 HELD BY INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES, LLC FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND AMENDMENTS TO WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT NO. 1-97 L FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-97 (the "Permit") was initially issued by the Rifle City Council to Tim D. Frase, Stacey D. Frase, Dave P. Frase, Clay K. Tucker, Sharon L. Tucker, Paul R Quatraro and Kay Quatraro (the "Original Applicants") and became effective on May 22, 1997. The Permit is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. The Permit allowed for certain logging activities to be conducted within the Beaver Creek Watershed, which is within the defined boundaries of the City's Watershed District as defined in Section 10.05.020 of the RMC, pursuant to various terms and conditions set forth therein and in attachments thereto. 3. The Original Applicants conveyed the timber harvest rights and assigned their rights and obligations under the Permit to Intermountain Ranches, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company of which Chris Meyers is a member, which was the owner of the real property (the "Subject Property"). Intermountain Ranches, LLC then conveyed the timber harvest rights to Intermountain Resources, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company of which Chris Meyers is also a member and conveyed fee title ownership of the Subject Property to LeeLynn, Inc. and Wiley Mountain, Inc. two Oregon Corporations whose principals were also members ofa member of intermountain Resources, LLC. The Permit was amended on June 11, 1999 (the "Amended Permit") to identify the change of ownership of the land as LeeLyna, Inc. and Wiley Mountain, Inc. and the undivided ownership of the Permit as Intermountain Resources, LLC, LeeLynn, Inc. and Wiley Mountain, Inc. (the "Permit Holder"). The Amended Permit is attached hereto as Exhibit B. As of the date of the Amended Permit, no logging had occurred. 4. The United States Forest Service Permit required the Permit Holder to utilize an easement over private property to remove the logs from the Subject Property. The owner of the private property refused the Permit Holder use of this easement forcing the Permit Holder to commence litigation regarding the scope of the easement. As a result of this easement dispute, which is expected to have a judicial determination by Summer 2001, logging operations have been delayed. The Amended Permit provided that if the log removal has not commenced by November 20, 1999, the Permit shall expire. As of lune 20, 2001, no logging has occurred, and the Permit has expired. 5. While litigation developed on the easement issue, the Permit Holder prepared for A:. WATERS HEOPERMrrR1ENEWAL.W PD -1- 1 the commencement of logging operations, including the realignment and improvement of Forest Service Road 824 and County Road 317, and undertaking the requirements of the Permit and Amended Permit. 6. The Amended Permit required that a logging plan be reviewed and approved by the City's Consulting Engineer, Resource Engineering, Inc. The Permit Holder submitted a logging plan for the 1999/2000 harvest season, which logging plan was reviewed and approved; however, receipt and approval of an updated logging plan will be necessary prior to the commencement of logging operations. 7. The Permit and Amended Permit required twice -weekly and monthly extended baseline water quality monitoring , consisting of turbidity measurements at various flow levels on distinct points along Beaver Creek, to be conducted for four to six weeks prior to the commencement of any logging activity, and such baseline water quality monitoring has been completed and approved by the City's Consulting Engineer. 8. The Permit and Amended Permit required a $100,000 performance bond prior to the commencement of any logging activity and such performance bond has been posted and remains in effect through May 31, 2002. 9. LeeLynn, Inc. and Wiley Mountain, Inc. conveyed the Subject Property to Norman A. Carpenter and assigned their undivided ownership interests in the Permit to Intermountain Resources, LLC ("Intermountain"). Intermountain retains the timber harvest rights on the Subject Property and now owns one hundred percent (100%) of the Permit. 10. Based upon the unforeseeable litigation regarding access to the Subject Property and the Permit Holder's and Intermountain's progression towards the completion of all other aspects of the logging operation, City ofRifle Watershed Permit No. 1-97 should be renewed with all the original terms and conditions of the Permit and the Amended Permit, as amended herein. 11. The City accepts the findings and recommendations of Paul Bussone, PE., of Resource Engineering, Inc. dated June 14, 2001, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. IL CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RENEWAL OF 1'H.i PERMIT 12. The City incorporates the foregoing recitals as findings and determinations by the City Council, and conclusively makes all ofthe Findings of Fact, Determinations and Conclusions contained herein. 13. City of Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-97 is renewed, as amended herein, with all the original terms and conditions of the Permit attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Amended Permit attached hereto as Exhibit B, and the terns and conditions of the Bussone Letter attached hereto as Exhibit C. 14. The assignment of the undivided interests in the Permit from LeeLynn, Inc. and k.WATERSHEDPERMrfREt EWAL.WPD -2- Wiley Mountain, Inc. to Intermountain Resources, LLC is hereby approved and the consent of Norman A. Carpenter, the owner of the Subject Property, and his agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Permit is evidenced by his signature below. 15. Intermountain shall provide its proposed logging plan to the City's Consulting Engineer, Resource Engineering, Inc., for its review and approval 30 days prior to the commencement of any logging activities, and annually thereafter, with copies to the City Manager and City Attorney. The City's Consulting Engineer shall use its best efforts to notify Intermountain of objections to the plan within fourteen (14) days of receipt; however, if the City Consulting Engineer fails to respond within thirty (30) days of receipt, such plan shall be deemed approved. 16. The ongoing water quality monitoring required by the Permit and the Amended Permit (hi -weekly and storm event turbidity testing) shall occur at Intermountain's expense, but may be subject to cost-sharing with other active permit holders within the Beaver Creek Watershed. The burden to negotiate such cost-sharing rests solely upon Intermountain and the other active permit holders and, in the event a cost-sharing agreement cannot be reached, each permit holder is responsible to conduct whatever water quality monitoring is required under its permit. 17. The $100,000 performance bond shall remain in effect until the completion of the activities proposed and upon completion and acceptance by the City of all revegetation and reclamation required by the Permit. The performance bond shall not be released without the express written consent and approval of the City that the required period has expired. Intermountain shall provide written confirmation ofthe annual renewal of the performance bond to the City Manager, City Consulting Engineer and City Attorney. 18. The costs for legal and engineering services incurred by the City of Rifle in renewing and amending the Permit and ensuring that the Permit Holder begins to comply and continues to comply with the terms and conditions set forth herein, in the Permit and in the Amended Permit shall be borne by Intermountain. 19. Except as expressly set forth herein, all other terms, conditions and requirements of the Permit and the Amended Permit shall remain in effect and be a condition of this Renewal of City of Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-97. 20. Pursuant to Section 10.05.050(F) ofthe RMC, unless an extension is requested and granted, the Permit shall expire and become void if logging and log removal is not commenced by June 20, 2002. 21. This Permit shall expire on June 20, 2006 unless an extension is approved by the Council prior to such date following a review and public hearing of the Permit Holder's compliance with the Permit; provided, however, the bond required by the Permit shall remain in effect for a period of at least twelve months after the termination of all of the proposed activities to ensure that all required revegetation and reclamation is completed. ,a,_•WATERS} EDPERMrrRENEWAL_WPD -3- ' � 1 22. Any notice to the City as required by this Permit shall be provided to: Selby Myers, City Manager, 202 Railroad Avenue, Rifle, CO, 81650; Paul Bussone, 909 Colorado Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601; Loyal E. Leavenworth, P.D. Drawer 2030, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81602_ 23. Any notice to Intermountain Resources, LLC as required by this Permit shall be provided to: Chris Meyers, 11925 6530 Road, Montrose, CO 81402 J.D. Snodgrass, Esq., 200 N. 6`h Street, Grand Junction, CO 81502-0338 Jaynes A. Beckwith, Esq., 7910 Ralston Road, Suite 7, Arvada, CO 80002 24. This Permit shall not be effective until agreed to and approved by Intermountain Resources, LLC, Norman A. Carpenter and the City as evidenced by the signatures below. Dated this day ofJune, 2001, By ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO Mayor Accepted and agreed to this day ofJune, 2001 By k WATERSHEDPERMIIRFNEWALWPD -4- INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES, LLC Christopher C. Meyers, Manager LANDOWNER Norman A. Carpenter MAY. 17, 2401 4:04PiM )VENWORTH & KARP LOYAL E. LEAVENV XRTH SANDER N. KARP DAVID E. LEAVENWORTH, IR. GREGORY 7. HALL DAVID H. McCONAUGHY SUSAN W. LAATSCH TAMES S. NEU ,TB C. EERQU]IST 3OSLw V. WOOD* NICOLE D. GARRIMOYE ROBERT B. REICH KAthaiued in lYaw i & Teras only To: Company: Phone: Fax: From: LEAVENWORTH & KARP, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1011 GRAM) AVENUE P. 0. DRAWER 7030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Far-cizont• (970) 945.7336 jgngIL awfum-c4tl NO. 643 DENVER OFFICE:* THE TERRACENTRE $UILJPING 1100 STOUT STREET, STJ1TE 470 DENVER, COLORADO $204-2054 TelepbOne: (303) 825-3995 FREcimite' (303) $25-3997 FACSIMILE 'TRANSMITTAL SHEET James Beckwith, Esq. (303) 431-9966 (303) 4312803 James S. Neu Number of pages to be transmitted: *(Please direct all correspondence to our Grenwoad Springs Office) Date: May 17, 2001 Time: 4:48 pm 10 (including cover page) Document Description: City of Rifle Watershed Distxict Permit No. 1-97 and Amendment thereto. REMARKS: T wanted to get these off to you and I will forward attachments, exhibits etc. as 1 go through the fie. NOTE. If you encounter any difficulty in receiving the total number of pages indicated above, PLEASE CALL (970) 945-2261 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ORIGINAL. SENT BY U.S. MAIL Jim Operator X ORIGINAL NOT SENT THIS FACS) LE TRANSMISSION IS STRICTLY CONFIDENrIAL AND IS INTENDED DEX1 ONLYFOR TEE Th I JAI.ORENTITY NAMED 9]$OVE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THIS onme L" NEDiATELY AND RETURN TEE TRANSMISSION TO US AT `Ft3.t; ABOVE ADDRESS. Tn.A..n.vou. L12OO11CtiemsV I E\R 3\(72)1PaxeslBecksYlsh.►vpd MAY 17. 7001 4;05PM _lAVENWORTH & KARP NO. 643 P. 2 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO CONCERNING RIFLE WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT NO. 1-97 HELD BY INTERMOUNTAIN RANCHES, LLC FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND AMENDMENTS TO RIFLE WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT NO. 1-97 L FINDINGS OE FACT 1. Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-97 (the "Permit"), issued by the Rife City Council to Tim D. Frase, Stacey D. Prase, Dave P. Frase, Clay K. 'bicker, Sharon L. Tucker, Paul R. Quatraro and Kay Quatraro (the "Original Applicants") became effective on May 22, 1997. 2. The Permit allowed for certain logging activity to be conducted within the Beaver Creek Watershed pursuant to various terms and conditions set forth therein and in attachments thereto. 3. The Original Applicants assigned their rights and obligations under the Permit to Intermountain Ranches, LLC o' October 15, 1997, and said assignment was approved by the City of Rifle on the same date. 4. As of October 15, 1997 Intermountain Ranches, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company of which Mr. Chris Meyers is a member, owned the real property (the "Subject Property") on which the logging activity is to occur, as well as the timber harvest rights associated with the Subject Property. 5. On November 5, 1998 Intermountain Ranches, LLC executed a Timber Deed whereby it conveyed certain timber harvest rights for the Subject Property to Internoountn rn Resources, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company of ,which Mr. Meyers is a member. 6. On February 10, 1999 Intermountain. Ranches, LLC conveyed the fee title ownership of the Subject Property to Leeiynn, Inc. and Wiley Mountain, Inc., two Oregon corporations whose principals are also members of a member of Intermountain Resources, LLC. 7. By a separate lease agreement to be reached between the Permit Holders, LeeLynn, Inc. and Wiley Mountain, Inc, shall agree to provide Intermountain Resources, LLC access to the Subject Property in order to harvest timber pursuant to the Timber Deed and FA14991ResolutionAPJ FI. 1-97-amordmentvepd MAY. 17. 2001 4:Q6PM )AVENWORTH & KARP NO. 543 P 3 subject to the management and oversight of Intermountain Ranches, LLC. 8. No logs have been removed to date, but the paries expect such activity to begin in 1999. 9. The Permit should be amended to identify the additional parties involved in the management and operation of the logging activity contemplated by the Permit, subject to all of its origiusl terms and conditions as well as the conditions and clarifications listed below, and to further provide that the Permit is still valid. II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANA AMENDMENTS TO TEE FST 10. The City incorporates the foregoing recitals as findings and determinations by the City Council, and conclusively makes all of the pinciings of Fact, Determinations and Conclusions eonttined herein. 11. An undivided interest in the Permit shall be assigned by Intermountain Ranches, LLC to Intermountain Resources, LLC, j eeLynn, Inc. and Wiley Mountain, Inc. to properly reflect the identity of the four parties (collectively referred to herein as the "Permit Holder") involved in logging activity pursuant to and in reliance upon the Permit, and such assignment is hereby approved. 12. As soon as possible, but in no event later than July 1, 1999, the Permit Holder shall submit its proposed logging plan for 1999 to the City's Consulting Engineer, Resource Engineering Inc., with copies to the City Manager and City Attorney. The City Engineer shall use his best efforts to notify the Permit HoIder of objections to the plan within 14 days of receipt, however, if the City Engineer fails to do so respond within 30 days of receipt, such plan shall be deemed approved. 13. The Permit requirement of twice -weekly baseline water quality monitoring, consisting of turbidity measurements at various flow levels on distinct points along Beaver Creek, shall be conducted for four to six weeks, as determined by the City's Consulting Engineer, prior to the commencement of any logging activity. Such water quality monitoring shall be at the Permit Holder's sole expense, 14. The monthly extended baseline water quality sampling program required by the`. Permit shall commence as soon as practicable and shall continue until five samples have been taken. At Least one sample must be taken. prior to the commencement of any logging activity. Such water quality monitoring shall be at the Permit Holder's sole expense. 15. The ongoing water quality monitoring required by the Permit (bi-weekly and storm event turbidity testing) shall occur at the Permit Holder's expense, but may be subject to F;t19M.tsoluciom\R FFLE-1.97-amtridmenL*74 -2- MAY. 17. 2001 4:07PM _)AVENWORTH & KARP NO. 643 cost-sharing with other active permit holders within the Beaver Creek Watershed, The burden to negotiate such cost-sharing rests solely upon the Permit Holder and the other active permit holders and, in the event a cost-sharing agreement cannot be reached, each permit holder is responsible to conduct whatever water quality monitoring is required under its permit. 16. The $100,000 performance bond required by the permit shall be posted in a form suitable to the City Attorney and provided to the City Manager prior to the commencement of any fogging activity. 17. The reasonable costs incurred by the City of Rifle in amending the Permit as provided for herein and ensuring that the Permit Holder begins to comply and continues to comply with the terms and conditions set forth herein and in the Permit, including without limitation attorney fees and engineering fees not listed in paragraphs 13 and 14 above, shall be borne by the Permit Holder. 18. Subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, the Permit Holder shall bice Bill Gherardi of Woodland Management Consultants, Fort Collins, Colorado, 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_ 19. Unless an extension is requested and granted, the Permit shall, expire and become void if the log removal is not commenced by November 20, 1999. 20, Any notice to the City required by the Permit or this Amendment shall be provided to: Selby Myers, City Manager 202 Railroad Avenue, Rifle, CO, 81650 Lee Leavenworth, Esq., City Attorney, 1013. Grand Ave, Glenwood Springs, CO, 81602 Paul Bussone, Consulting Engineer, 909 Colorado Ave., Glenwood Springs, CO, 81601, 21, Any notice to the Permit Holders required by the Permit or this Amendment shall be provided to: Chris Meyers, 11925 6530 Road, Montrose, CO, 81402 J.D. Snodgrass, Esq., 200 N. 6th Street, Grand Junction, CO, 81502-0338 Larry Gildea, Esq., 38437 Dexter Road, Dexter, OR, 97431. 2.2. This Amendment was discussed at a duly noticed public hearing of the Rifle City Council at the Rifle City Hall on June 16, 1999, 23. This Amendment shall not be effective until agreed to and approved by the Permit R11501.keOlutiFisIRSELH-f-97-amcadment,wpd -3- 4dAY. 17.2001: 4:07PMa-)AVENWDRTH & KARP NO. 643 P. 5vvf'uur Lics cir s.rsi Crv.4. Ci ly as evil? ercec' by theft rcS C:iV== xignatura$ be L)w 24_ P'as5:.rrl'.i:.P-is 1-,._turec of CI- Q: behaff of 2.II• P:1 -4 1.y P:h.2..11 I:r.: N:i pi:r JOSCS. Y 25. Except as ex?rt.c ly modifiedh�re:..�. the z rr::. ar4 conc i.io o1 Rifl ist��.�rs'tcd acsr.rict l'e'rmit No. =-9? w?; 11. rtmwir! in ti,:.+ firct 25d effo.::. ; 1F RIfir.''", ^OLOrc? DO AGREED TO BY. : INTERMOUNTAIN IN RANCHES, LLC Mr . Chris Meyer L•,xJaLti:in?s �iLle:ft.�-y r�}vrGrs! �;w • WIEY MOUNTAIN, INC.. LN'. E "+.4OTT IN RE SOURC IS, LLC i\AY, Chri they 11N. t ° 99 :7R:, O 46 coxz.N:cK o ?�z :cc ?AG -F.. 7 . MAY. 17. 2001 4:08PM _)AYEHWORTH & KARP, j' N0. 643..E TilE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C OF RIFLE,-rLORADO BEFaRE .�-- E APPLICATION FOR A WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT I3 OF: TIM L D. ERASE; STACEY D. FgASE; DAVE P.�AATRAQY K. TV TUCKER= PAUL R.. WATT -ARO; AND KAY Q FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND APPROVAL OF WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT NO. 1-97 I. BACI ORDUND 28, 1996, as supplemented by a Tetter dated July 17, 1996, the Tucker 1, On May , to Ordinance No. 22 and Erase Partnership filed an application with the City of Rifle pursues pavan E. Levy. iicadon was filed on behalf of the Applicant by (Series No. 1994). The app California Professional Forester, 305 Railroad .Avenue, Suite 7, P. ❑ B Fisc and Stacey D. Frase,,Cali Dave Fro 3 997, the A.pplir its, Tum D. 95959. By letter doral. May 6, o, whose address is cla P. Erase, Clay K. Tucker, Sharon L. Tucker, Paul R. and Kay Quatrar gbane number Reddin, California 96002 (p 'tun Frans and Dave Erase, 1805 Hilltop ]]rive, sr and F 9116-2_23-2900), were substituted as applic is for the former applicant Tucker rame Partnership. Accompanying the application Park Forest Fra e lication was a document entitled Tepee Forestry Services dated Colorado, prepared by David Levy :Management Flan, Garfield, County, Colorado, the pppizcant's representatives have met March 1995. Following the receipt of the app without Imitation Tim. of Rifle, Colorado, inchtdiug with u li Engineers, . with the staff and consultants of the City Consuitix3g Moore, City Engineer. and Pant. Bnssa� and Scots Pifer, public meeting for Engineers, anal Resource Engineering, CIenwaod. Springs, Colorado. A P a Special Use permit purposes was held October 2, 1996. Because the Applicant also need a of ci existing road from the U.S. Forest Service to allow for th�� ase Permitction from realignment Id County to allow the through Forest Service laud., as well as a Sp action on the �ratwrshcd District permit Applicant to conduct lQ�,�g activities on the property.,ro ess on the oChGr permits.P was held in abeyance with the Applicant's consent pending � mer pApprogress have worked closely wiry. � a result of the need for other permits, the City and� �ordinatr their respective permitting Clearfield. County Staff sp Special Use Chi U.S. Forest Service and �•i'd1� processes. To date, the U.S. Forest Service has not entered om three �� eld County licanL did obtain a favorable recommendation Permit request. The A.pp Flaming and Zo iiny, Commission. To date, the Board of County 'Use m Commissioners he ouas ot yet acted an that recommendation, and the rest for a Speed U pending as well. 2_ A portion of the proposed activity h within the deemed boundaries of the City's of the Ririe M,n,;cipal Code 4re3.ua fter Watershed pistrict as defined in Section. 10.05.020 abv�e and within five (S) miles of the "Rifle Code"), speczii��ny the Beaver Creek dxainag F,FLEZI.TMS May 9. i+ 'r MAY, 17.2001 4:09PM )AVENWORTH & KARP NO. 643 P. 7 -Be Dir t aver Creek municipal diversion structure. The proposed activity within the Watershed 'ccannot functionally or practicably separated from the activity outside the District. D xstritri supplemented. by the Applicant is complete. The application 3. The application as Supp 1996, the Tepee Park Forest 28, 1996, and July 17,Forestry Si;erves, consists of correspondence dated May28, prepared byDavid Levy jviar,agernent Plan (Garfield County, Nevada City, California, dated March 1995. Also, a Tepee Park Forest M na.gem nt Plan dated Ae �' Forestry Services, Nevada City, April 1996, prepared .by David Levy Management Plan. (undated) was accompanying Water Quality Plan for Tep� Park Forest Man.ag Management submitted which supersedes the March 1995 Plan. The A and compil 1996 For= prapvsal of the as supplemented by the Water Quality Plan, constitutes the revised A liaant to mitigate any adverse water quality impacts under the City's Watershed District Pp Ordinance. 4. The Applicant has paid all fees required by the Ordinance. 5. A duly noticed Public Meering was held on April 16, 1997. At the hearing the Applicant presented the Tepee Park Management Plan inn detail, to�cnrcd with the Tim Water Q, City' uality PP was by Plan as proposed by the Applicant In addzuon, rostra �he City of Rifle. The City Engineer Engineer, and Scott Fifer, Consulting Hydrologist tesdfied that, pursuant to his review under Sermon 10.05.050(2)(e), the proposed activity posed to the City's water works, and pollution to the a foreseeable and significant resit and injury CityPi 's water su ply, and recommended that the City Council issue the etpe_ iledhis with the ctalsd ti as set forth in Scott Fifrx's letter dated Ivlax�ch 31, 1997. Mr. Fifer tit 5, 1996, August 7, 1995, as expert hydrologist and presented into evidence letters dated Augur July 31, 1995, April 12, 1995, and Fiferresented extensive testimony March 21, 1995. Mr.P torsi, regarding modifications to the 'mater QttAl ity Plan conditiod ns t approval were neceended conditibas of ssary to together with bis expert opinions as to why those a result of the proposed mitigate impacts to the Beaver Creek Watershed that may occur as activity and the need, under Ordinance 12., to rewire such conditions of approval;. 6. Mr. Fifer also testified that, if the Applicant complies with the terms and letter dated March 's conditions of the Management Plan the Water (duality Plan, and Mr. Fiferwould 31, 1997, (copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference) the Applicantlo the would be exercising Best Management Practices and that the potential. be r risk and mitigated. injury Fifer further s water works and pollution to the City's water supply e of logging erYP testified and introduced exhibits regarding studies that demonstrate emo of water by hetYPeincreasing flows on proposed by the Applicant waded actually increase the q y im the rising side of the hydrograph and by slightly. increasing g p oak flaws, without any decrease learnt were late irrigation season or winter flaws. Finally Mr. Fifer indicated eand the App negotiating modifications to. Parani aph 3(E) of his Marco 3L 7. Mr, David Levy, ombeha,lf of the Applicant, presented testimony confirming Mr. Fifers t that the consasxc ion of the proposed logging roads would testimony and also asserting help in fighting forest and wild fires and help reduce fixe danger risks. cn32.11 .2MS May 4. 1997 -2- hr1AY, 17. Nal 4:10PM IVE0RTH & KARP NO. 643 P. 8 consulting hydrologist, of the City staff and the City'slting was both t, g , In addition to the testimony in was also taken from members of the public. Testimony from Watershed public District Permit. favortestimony activity and issuance of the against tht proposed testimony my questioned and cluallenged the effect favor and was lay o and Testimony against the activity and water quantity.of the proposed activity on water quality dated ri7. 22, 1997, (a copy which is attached hereto and incorporated g , By letter da pof his letter dated March 31, 1997 herein by reference) M. Fifer modified aCsona�an� No. 3(3)est Management Practices and had and represented that this modification been arced to by the Applicant. It ming and. as Council finds that the Applicant's water q .ry lemoned . by the Water 14. The City gement Plan dated April 1996 and supe outlined in the Tepee Park Maua� duality Flan, and as the conditions of approval contained h Scott supplemented and modified by the B� Management Practices for the Fife: ' s Marek 31 and April 2.2, 1997, letters constitute proposed activity. finds and determines that the issuance of the permit requires 11. City Council herebyset forth is Scott Fifer's letter dared March 3 3., 199?, the inclusion of conditions, as more fully such conditions are necessary April 22, 1997; and that su as modified by Mr. Fifer's letter dated water works and pollution of the City's 'nater supply, to prevent a risk of injury to the City's and (5) of the Rifle and. that such conditions are authorized pursuant to Sections 10.05.050(4) Code. III. CONCLYJSXON� QF LAW AND TSSUA..`IE OF PER -MIT 12. The for doing F'iading s of Facts are incorporated herein by reference. diction over the proposedactivity 13. The City Council of the City of Rifle has ,� impossible to differentiate pursuant to Section, 1O.05.O20 of the Rifle Code. Because it and because the activity outside the Watershed Dim activity between the activities as within permit shall apply to all. the activities of the Applicant an integrated acaviry, - within the Beaver Creek Watershed. and, in particular, the 14, Based onthe evidence presented at the and Scott Public mer, the City' s Consultingg and exhibxn of 'Tisa Madre, City Engineer, the CityCouncil hereby determines that this decision shall constitutePark Forest . watershed. district IC pert, activity' as 'more fully outlined in the Tepee district permit far the proposed. logging David Levy Forestry Services Management Plan (Garfield County, Colorado) prepared by April 1996, togetheZ with the accompanying Water Quality (Nevada City, California} dated .ApPifer in his Management Plan, as modified by the conditions of approval recommended c m Fifer's letter of April 22, letter dated March 31, 1997, as modified for condition 3() Y tions ofapproval contained in said letter are hereby approved and adopted by 1997, �whuh eoneT� the City Council as conditions of approval of this permit. ed b condition 3(F} Mr. Fifer's March 31, 1997, letter. shall be 15. The bond required Y M.n'1991 MAY. 17. 2001 4,10PM )AVENWORTH & KARP N0. 643 P. 9 'tial amount of 5100,000 which the City Council hereby fil bencls andidetermines n to bea the trisThe adequates for the first year of the proposed activity._aired byo condition 3(E) and increased or part of the annual meeting and operating P qAttorney decreased as appropriate. The form of the bond shall be first approved by the City y prior to the commencement of any activity. th 16. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the Mansfied by,the Waxer Qty Plan, the conditions of Mr. Fifer's letter of March 31, 1997, as modwhich default isnot letter of April 22, 1997, or any other teras and r..ondiaox of this permit, ed or removed within ten (10) days after notice by the City shall be deemed a viol ation. of this Permit entitling the City to taste any pursue anywithout cur and all remedies available, including reremedial work; provided however that the limitationicatling on the surety bond. or all the tdhelc os s of such remedial work and any enforcement Applicant hail be solely respanstiia action by the City, including reasonable attorney fees and -costs- licant and compliance with this permitI7, The forest management practices of the Apuponby the Board of County will be monitored for compliance by a consultant agreed Ixc�n�� Commissioners and the City of Rifle and the Applicant, and paid for by the App (6), unless aux extension is requested prior to the. expiration date, if the proposed activity l8. Pursuant to Section 14-❑fv05r which this permit is issued is not commenced within mst shall expire and become void_ 12 months from the date of this permit, this pet copy 3,9. A co of this Decision and Permit shaft be Sem by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Applicant. 2.0. The City reserves all remedies contained in Sections 110. 5.060, 10.05.070, and 10.05.090 as additional remedies for violations of the peunk ca 21. This perm.0 shall expire on December 31, 2003, unless an. e extension oa reviewsand puffis ed and approved by the City Council prior to the expiation date, following eviewer, the bond healing of the A�rpli+�nr's compliance wirh��ph�t conditions; provided, remain in effect in an ' required by Condition No. F xn the tion of all activity to ensure that agreed. upon amount for a period of two years after the term all revegetation and required mitigation continues. 22. This permit may not be assigned or conveyed by the Applicant without the prior written consent of the City. 23. TiesP errnit sr.1 not be effective until agreed to and approved by the Applicant as evidenced by its signature below. . MAY. 17. 2001 4:11 PM )AVENWORTH & KARP Dated this day of May, 1997. ATTEST; Ciry Clerk Accepted RIO agreed to this :1: day of May, 1997. NO. 643 P, 10 CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO Ey , Mayor APPLICANTS: •' \. u---- 'Sharon L. Tacker Tim. D. Frase t.l:r':r 7 '.,G e • • Stacey D-. 1rase Dave P. Frise f. C y K. Tucker i E\RIFLED.iMS , M..ty9. tD97 C Paul R. Qitatraro Kay Quatraral • -5- CONSTRUCTION STIPULATION issued under Forest Road Easement Act of October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579); 36 CRF 251.50, et seq. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1 ri PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 9 This Stipulation, made this _day of , 19_, by and b LeeLynn. Inc. hereinafter referred to as the Holder, and USDA Forest Service, acting by authorized representative, hereinafter referred to as the Forest Service. Whereas, a Forest Road easement will be issued to the Holder based on an as -built surveys fol- lowing completion of construction for the use and occupancy of National Forest land for the use and maintenance of a road as described in Exhibit A and shown on map at Exhibit B, and such authorization requires that all construction conform with approved plans, specifications and stipulations. Now, therefore, the Holder agrees to the following terms and conditions, and the Forest Service herby authorizes the construction to proceed in accordance with these terms and conditions. 1. Construction of the road shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications defined in an approved annual operating plan set forth in Exhibit C,. The annual operating plan shall contain a fire plan and erosion control plan. Provisions of the Annual Operating Plan and appended plans shall be enforceable under the terms of this Stipulation. 2. The Forest Service may suspend all or any part of the construction activities on breach of any of the conditions herein. Prior to suspension, revocation or termination, the Forest Service shall give the Holder written notice of the grounds for such action and reasonable time to cure any noncompliance. However, the Forest Ser- vice may require immediate temporary suspension of all or any part of the activities when the Forest Service determines it is necessary to protect the public health, safety or the environment. If requested by the Holder, the superior to the officer ordering the suspension, revocation or termination shall arrange within 10 days of the request for an on -the -ground review of the conditions with the Holder. The supe- rior shall affirm, modify or cancel the temporary suspension as soon after the review as possible. 3. The Holder shall cut only timber as necessary in clearing for road construction, recon- struction and maintenance. Timber shall be paid for in advance by the Holder. 4. The Holder shall do everything reasonably within its power to prevent forest fires and shall not dispose of material by burning in open fires during closed season established by law or regula- tion without a written permit from the Forest Service. 5. The Halder shall repair fully all damage to National Forest roads and trails caused by the Holder in exercise of the privilege granted. 6. The Holder shall be responsible for the prevention for the prevention and control of soil erosion and gullying in the construction area and areas under holders control and shall take such preven- tative measures as are necessary to repair and revegetate damaged areas and to prevent future damage. etween, and through its CONSTRUCTION STIPULATION issued under Forest Road Easement Act of October 21, 1976 (P.L. 94-579); 36 CRF 251.50, et seq. This Stipulation, made this day of , 19 , by and between, LeeLynn, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the Holder, and USDA Forest Service, acting by and through its authorized representative, hereinafter referred to as the Forest Service. Whereas, a Forest Road easement will be issued to the Holder based on an as -built surveys fol- lowing completion of construction for the use and occupancy of National Forest land for the use and maintenance of a road as described in Exhibit A and shown on map at Exhibit B, and such authorization requires that all construction conform with approved plans, specifications and stipulations. Now, therefore, the Holder agrees to the following terms and conditions, and the Forest Service herby authorizes the construction to proceed in accordance with these terms and conditions. 1. Construction of the road shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications defined in an approved annual operating plan set forth in Exhibit C,. The annual operating plan shall contain a fire plan and erosion control plan. Provisions of the Annual Operating Plan and appended plans shall be enforceable under the terms of this Stipulation. 2. The Forest Service may suspend all or any part of the construction activities on breach of any of the conditions herein. Prior to suspension, revocation or termination, the Forest Service shall give the Holder written notice of the grounds for such action and reasonable time to cure any noncompliance. However, the Forest Ser- vice may require immediate temporary suspension of all or any part of the activities when the Forest Service determines it is necessary to protect the public health, safety or the environment. If request& ' I the Holder, the superior to the officer ordering the suspension, revocation or termination cw_,. within 10 days of the request for an on -the -ground review of the conditions -_, rior shall affirm, modify or cancel the temporary suspension as soon after th r 3. The Holder shall cut only timber as necessary in clearing for r v.` . J struction and maintenance. Timber shall be paid for in advance by the Holder ik1A3- I -r< 4. The Holder shall do everything reasonably within its power to p shall not dispose of material by burning in open fires during closed season estal tion without a written permit from the Forest Service. 5. The Holder shall repair fully all damage to National Forest roads Holder in exercise of the privilege granted. 6. The Holder shall be responsible for the prevention for the preventioti erosion and gullying in the construction area and areas under holders control and sh tative measures as are necessary to repair and revegetate damaged areas and to pre 7. The Holder shall protect scenic and esthetic values in the construction areas as far as pos- sible. 8. The Holder shall take reasonable precautions to protect all public land survey monuments and accessories, private property comers and Forest boundary markers. In the event that any such land markers or monuments are damaged or destroyed, the Holder shall reestablish or reference the corner in accordance with directions and procedures to be furnished by the Forest Service. 9. This authorization is issued for a period of one (1) year ending on November 1, 2000. If the right-of-way project is still being used for the purposes previously authorized in accordance with all provisions of the authorization, if renewal is allowed then existing law, and if the use is determined to be consistent with the then existing resource management plans for the affected land, the authorized of- ficer may renew the authorization for a term he deems to be reasonable under the circumstances. 10. At such time the as-builts are submitted and accepted by the authorized officer, a FLPMA Forest Road Easement will be issued in a reciprocal exchange for two trail rights-of-way. for LeeLynn, Inc. Title Martha J Ketelle Forest Supervisor USDA -Forest Service White River National Forest EXHIBIT A T.7 S.. R.94 W, 6th P.M. Section 24: Lots 4, 5 Section 25: Lots 1,2 ;*% EXHIBIT 3 a600 M 7732 • .x • 00 23 • U • __r • 9C :•+7 f • Y" Te Fares :: _•:•'• - •.• • • SCALE 0 loco 3000 3000 4OCA BCCA 6000 7000 FEET MILE • } Exhibit C Beaver Creek Forest Development Road Operating Plan The purpose of this plan is to outline operating guidelines for all construction activities associ- ated with the road construction and reconstruction on National Forest System lands in the Beaver Creek drainage, Rifle Ranger District. The project is located in the City of Rifle's watershed, and a drainage which is geologically very active. This plan must be signed by the District Ranger prior to beginning any construction activity. Work will occur between Stations 1+00 and 48+40, and reclamation of the road being abandoned. 1. GENERAL OPERATIONS: Road construction may not occur during freezing weather, while there is snow on the ground, or the route is excessively muddy. A. All heritage sites will be protected. If any archeological sites found during road construction they will be protected and the District notified such that the Forest Archeologist may make a de- termination as to the actions needed. B. An inspector must be hired to ensure all operations are in compliance with the associated plans. Operations supervised on National Forest System lands will include the final road design, construction stipulations, operating plan, and other applicable plans. The inspector is to file daily reports with the District and notify the District if any violations occur. The District is to be re- sponsible for corrective actions on reported infractions. C. Log hauling must comply with days designated by Garfield County_ There will be no hauling during holiday weekends or during spring break up. Use of haul road shall be confined to peri- ods when the road surface is not saturated (as defined under Section II, Letter B). D. A Goshawk nest survey will be completed prior to any road construction or reconstruction. In the event a nest is found, the project must be delayed until August or the District Wildlife Bi- ologist accepts mitigation measures or construction timing. E. If it is necessary to move any range improvements they must be rebuilt to Forest Service stan- dards. F. A gate meeting Forest Service standards shall be placed near the trailhead area (near area of new road realignment as designated by the Forest Service representative), so it may be closed during the spring to preserve the road surface. G. Storage of materials including such items as culverts, seed, equipment, and so on must be at a location approved by the designated Forest Service representative. Equipment maintenance may not take place on National Forest System lands. H. Porta -potties will be provided for personnel during road construction. lq. ROAD CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES: During construction of approximately 3600 feet of new road, a geotechnical engineer must be on-site. The geotechnical engineers role is to } Exhibit C Beaver Creek Forest Development Road Operating Plan The purpose of this plan is to outline operating guidelines for all construction activities associ- ated with the road construction and reconstruction on National Forest System lands in the Beaver Creek drainage, Rifle Ranger District. The project is located in the City of Rifle's watershed, and a drainage which is geologically very active. This plan must be signed by the District Ranger prior to beginning any construction activity. Work will occur between Stations 1+00 and 48+40, and reclamation of the road being abandoned. I. GENERAL OPERATIONS: Road construction may not occur during freezing weather, while there is snow on the ground, or the route is excessively muddy. A. All heritage sites will be protected. If any archeological sites found during road construction they will be protected and the District notified such that the Forest Archeologist may make a de- termination as to the actions needed. B. An inspector must be hired to ensure all operations are in compliance with the associated plans. Operations supervised on National Forest System lands will include the final road design, construction stipulations, operating plan, and other applicable plans. The inspector is to file daily reports with the District and notify the District if any violations occur. The District is to be re- sponsible for corrective actions on reported infractions. C. Log hauling must comply with days designated by Garfield County. There will be no ha1174^- during holiday weekends or during spring break up. Use of haul road shall be ods when the road surface is not saturated (as defined under Section H, Letter I � V( D. A Goshawk nest survey will be completed prior to any road construction or kj In the event a nest is found, the project must be delayed until August or the Dist ologist accepts mitigation measures or construction timing. E. If it is necessary to move any range improvements they must be rebuilt to Foti dards. F. A gate meeting Forest Service standards shall be placed near the trailhead ares new road realignment as designated by the Forest Service representative), so it m; during the spring to preserve the road surface. G. Storage of materials including such items as culverts, seed, equipment, and so location approved by the designated Forest Service representative. Equipment ma not take place on National Forest System lands. H. Porta -potties will be provided for personnel during road construction. 11. ROAD CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES: During construction of approximately 3600 feet of new road, a geotechnical engineer must be on-site. The geotechnical engineers role is to observe the road construction and road cuts to evaluate if conditions are similar to those dis- cussed in the attached Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical Report. If actual conditions vary from the report, then some modification may be warranted. if ground water seepage is encountered in cuts, then potential for instability could be high. If ground water seepage is encountered during construction or which develops after construction will be evaluated immediately to assess the na- ture of the seepage and need for remedial drainage systems. The geotechnical engineer may also monitor the following road construction guidelines in place of the representative to be on site at all times (Section I, Letter B). A. Al equipment and construction debris (man made debris and trash including old culverts) caused by road construction will be removed from National Forest. B. Construction or reconstruction of the road shall be confined to periods of dry weather when soils are not saturated. Saturated conditions are defined as: (a) Soil moisture conditions that result in loss of traction by equipment used in ground skidding Operations, as indicated by increased spinning or churning of wheels or tracks when compacted to normal dry season performance; or adequate traction can not be achieved without blading wet soil off skid trails. (b) Soil moisture conditions that result in loss of road surface, puddling of fine materials on the road surface by trucks or other equipment, and which could adversely effect the beneficial use of water. C. The surface of the road shall have a course of 3" minus six inches deep and 4" surface course 1 112" minus layer applied prior to any hauling beginning D. Culverts of 18" or greater in diameter must be placed where the proposed and reconstructed road crosses watercourses. No fords will be installed. E. Rolling dips will be installed where needed. Drainage ditches will lead to areas of undis- turbed vegetation to naturally filter sediment. F. 1. Cut slope guidelines: a. Road width will be a minimum of ten to a maximum of fourteen feet, per the specified final drawings submitted by High Country Engineering and drawn 7/26199; Sheets 1-9. Design speed will be 10 miles per hour. b. All drainages are to be permanent and culverts installed at perennial and intermittent stream crossings. c. Road cut slopes in colluvium and weathered formation rock will not be steeper than 1.25:1 (horizontal to vertical) and no higher than 20 feet. In the dormant landslide complex, cuts should be no higher than 10 feet. d. Road cuts, in unweathered formation rock with bedding dips of less than 20 degrees, will be no steeper than 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) and no higher than 15 feet. . e. If the cut slope guidelines present in items 3 and 4 cannot be achieved, then. retaining walls will be considered in soil and weathered rock cut areas. Rock bolting or other forms of slope re- inforcement may be needed if bedding is steeper than 20 degrees. The design of retaining walls and rock bolting systems will be evaluated on a site specific basis. f. Cut slopes will have adequate surface drainage. Concentrations of surface runoff will not be allowed to flow directly down unprotected cut slopes. All topsoil should be stockpiled during the initial cuts, replaced on cut slopes for final seed preparation. Slash should be scattered on cut slopes, after the area is seeded. Fulfillment of the seeding standard will be adequate revegeta- tion. 2. Fill Slope Guidelines a. Most of the on-site colluvium and formation rock will be suitable for road embankment fills. Exceptions are highly organic topsoil (which should be retained for revegetation in a soil stock- pile), highly plastic clays, and claystones. Rocks larger than 12 inches used in the road fill must have at least two feet of fill on top. Roots, tree trunks, and logs will not be placed in road fills. b. Road fill slopes will be no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) and no higher than 25 feet. Fill slopes in the dormant landslide complex will be no higher than 15 feet. c. If the fill slope guidelines presented in Item 2 above can not be achieved, then retaining walls or mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) fills will be considered. The design of retaining walls and MSE fill will be evaluated on a site specific -basis. d. Before fill placement, the subgrade will be prepared by removing all vegetation and highly organic topsoil. e. Road fill placed on slopes steeper than 20 percent willThe benched into the hillside, If the slope is greater than 40% layer placement must be used. f. The fill will be placed in lifts appropriate for fill material and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum standard Proctor density at near optimum moisture content. g. Fill slopes will have adequate surface drainage. Concentrations of surface runoff will not be allowed to flow directly down unprotected slopes. Stockpiled topsoil from initial cuts should be replaced an fill slopes for final seed bed preparation. Slash should be scattered on fill slopes af- ter the area is seeded. Fulfillment of this requirement is adequate revegetation, G. Sustained grades of new constructed segments shall"not exceed 8%. H. Turn radii to be not less than 35 feet. Horizontal curve. radius not less than 50 ft. Install curve widening for long log truck. 1. The basic road prism will be single lane, crowned with turnouts. Turnout interval of spacing will be not less than 1,000 feet, and rely on naturally occurring opportunities. J. Install signing needed for safety and traffic control as per the MUTCD. K. Clearing limits shall be 27 ft. minimum total width. On a 12 foot road with no cuts and fills this would be 5 feet beyond the edge of travelway. Clear to 10 feet above cut catch and 5 feet beyond toe of fill to allow for windrowing of clearing debris for later use on completed cut and fill slopes. Windrow tops and limbs along clearing limits for later use. NO concentrations of slash will be permitted. Topsoil shall be conserved for use on disturbed areas and to provide seed bed on cut and fill slopes. M. EROSION CONTROL: The road construction and reconstruction will be occurring in the City of Rifle Watershed. A. Silt fence must be installed and continually maintained along the sections of National Forest where road work is occurring within fifty feet of live water. N. FIRE PREVENTION AND SAFETY: Construction operations will included activities that could potentially start fires. To reduce the risk, the following prevention plan will be used. 1. LeeLynn, Inc. (hereafter referred to as the operator) shall do everything reasonable within its power and shall require its employees, contractors, and employees of contractors to do everything reasonable within their power, both independently and upon request of the Forest Service to prevent and suppress fires on or near the lands to be occupied under this permit. In case of fire suppressed by the operator, the operator shall report its occurrence - to the Forest Service within 24 hours. The operator is responsible for all suppression costs and resource damage for any fire resulting from its operations and practices. 2. The operator is responsible to insure that each employee, subcontractor, or any other individual or company working on the project site is aware of the provisions of this fire plan, is familiar with the location and proper use of fire fighting equipment, and conducts themselves in a fire -safe manner. 3. No material shall be disposed of by burning in open fires without a written permit from the Forest Service. 4. Exhaust systems of vehicles shall have an acceptable muffler and shall be in proper working condition. All motorized equipment and machinery shall be equipped with spark arresters. 5. Fire extinguishers required: Type ABC : One 2 lb. per pickup - or - One 5 lb. for trucks over 1 T. GW One 10 lb. per dozer, motor patrol, scraper or other earthrnoving equipment. 6. A separate fire cache shall be maintained at the site of operations, containing a minimum of one shovel per person, one backpack water pump - 4 or 5 gal. ("Indian" or equiv.), one , } and one axe or Pulaski. Tools must be kept sharp and handles smooth, ready for immediate use. Fire tools shall not be used on the job for other purposes. 7. Vehicles shall be parked only in cleared, approved areas. 8. All smoking will be done only inside of vehicles or in areas cleared of flammable material. 9. Welding Welding is herein used to mean: electric arc welding; arc or gas cutting or heating; gas welding; grinding of metal; use of any flammable gas, carbon or hydrocarbon fuel for heating or forging metal. No welding shall be conducted within 100 feet of fuel storage areas. Each welding crew will have immediately available a water tank of not less than 300 gal. capacity with a pump capable of pumping 20 gallons per minute at 100 PSI and not less than 100 feet of hose. Exception: hand held propane torches may be used without the above referenced water tank and pump; provided that all other requirements are met, and that a shovel and a full 4 or 5 gallon backpack type water pump are immediately available for use. There will be no welding when winds over 15 mph occur, or when the predicted fire danger for the day as determined by the White River National Forest is greater than "3". (See item 11.) All welding will be done in within an area cleared of all flammable vegetation and materials for a minimum radius of 30 feet from the welding operation. 10. Any fuel or flammable liquids must be stored in an area cleared of all vegetation and flammable substances for a radius of 30 feet. Further, fuels, oils, lubricants, etc. must be stored in approved conr2iners. Fuels storage will be at least 200 feet from any stream. 11. A fire watch person (lookout) will be at the site of any and all welding, fueling, tractor or other mechanized equipment operation, etc. This person will have no other duty than to watch for fire starts and be ready to take immediate fire suppression action. The fire watch person will remain on site observing for smoke or fire for a minimum of one half hour after cessation of operations requiring the fire watch person. The fire watch will carry a shovel and have a 4 or 5 gallon backpack water pump (full and in good operating condition) immediately available. The fire watch person will be in good physical condition and able to fight fires. Exception: A fire watch person(s) will not be required when the predicted fire danger for the day as determined by the White River National Forest is "3-`' or less. A fire watch person(s) is required if the predicted fire danger is "3+ high" or more. It is the operator's responsibility to contact the Forest Service to determine what the predicted fire danger is. The predicted fire danger may be obtained by calling 963-2266 M -F at about 4:30 PM. and one axe or Pulaski. Tools must be kept sharp and handles smooth, ready for immediate use. Fire tools shall not be used on the job for other purposes. 7. Vehicles shall. be parked only in cleared, approved areas. 8. All smoking will be done only inside of vehicles or in areas cleared of flammable material. 9. Weldine. Welding is herein used to mean: electric arc welding; arc or gas cutting or heating; gas welding; grinding of metal; use of any flammable gas, carbon or hydrocarbon fuel for heating or forging metal. No welding shall be conducted within 100 feet of fuel storage areas. Each welding crew will have immediately available a water tank of not less than 300 gal. capacity with a pump capable of pumping 20 gallons per minute at 100 PSI and not less than 100 feet, of hose. Exception: hand held propane torches may be used without the above referenced water tank and pump; provided that all other requirements are met, and that a shovel and a full 4 or 5 gallon backpack type water pump are immediately available for use. There will be no welding when winds over 15 mph occur, or when the predicted fire danger for the day as determined by the White River National Forest is greater than "3". (See item 11.) All welding will be done in within an area cleared of all flammable vegetation and materials for a minimum radius al() f r-- : operation. 10. Any fuel or flammable liquids flammable substances for a n stored in approved containers. 11. A fire watch person (lookout) wi other mechanized equipment ( watch for fire starts and be n watch person will remain on s hour after cessation of operati carry a shovel and have a 4 or condition) immediately availa condition and able to fight fires. f I T I'1 ' 11/. 0 Ce591 cleared of all vegetation and oils, lubricants, etc. must be 1200 feet from any stream. welding, fueling, tractor or 11 have no other duty than to uppression action. The fire for a minimum of one half erson. The fire watch will (full and in good operating will be in good physical Exception: A fire watch person tie predicted fire danger for the day as determined by the IN .....,,.,.,.... ',west is "3-" or less. A fire watch person(s) is required if the predicted fire danger is "3+ high" or more. It is the operator's responsibility to contact the Forest Service to determine what the predicted fire danger is. The predicted fire danger may be obtained by calling 963-2266 M -F at about 4:30 PM. 12. Blasting: use of explosives is authorized, subject to the following provisions: Operator must have a valid, current Explosives Permit from the State of Colorado. Overnight storage of explosives is not authorized on National Forest land. There will be no blasting when winds aver 15 mph occur, or when the predicted fire danger for the day as determined by the White River National Forest is greater than "3". (See item 11.) Adequate safety lookouts and traffic control will be provided to insure public safety during all blasting operations. A shovel and a full 4 or 5 gallon backpack type water pump must be immediately available for use. 13. Wood material on National Forest System lands may not be disposed of by piling and burning. Slash is to be scattered on top of the new slopes after topsoil is placed and the area is seeded. Stumps may be placed on the old road section of road after it has been ripped and seeded. V. REVEGETATION MIX: Seed mix must be certified weed free. Live seed per acre: 12 lbs Mountain Brome 5 lbs Alsike Clover 5.4 lbs slender wheatgrass VI. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: Operation Maintenance and Costs: During the hauling life of the road the easement holder will be re- quired to complete twice annual blading operations and apply 50 tons of replacement gravel each year. VII. PERFORMANCE BOND: A performance bond must be posted. The monies must be in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit and meet Forest Service standards. The bond amount has been calculated at $85,000 for road construc- tion, and $8,000 for reclamation, totalling $93,000.00. Via. ROAD RECLAMATION: Once road construction is completed on the new road, the authorized Forest Officer and Forest Engineer shall meet with designated representative to work out a reclamation plank. Generally, that portion of the old road which will no longer be used shall be ripped, recontoured, waterbarred, and fertilized/seeded. After seeding with the approved revegetation rnix, slash and stumps shall be placed on old road to aid in reclamation. The following parties have executed this Beaver Creek Operational plan to be effective as of 19 , and further agree that any violations of these conditions may result in suspension of work. LeeLynn, Inc. U.S Forest Service George V. Foley, Jr. Acting District Ranger 0094 County Road 244 Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-2371 Designated Representative Designated Representative: Cindy Hockelberg Rifle Ranger District Rifle, CO 81650 (970) 625-2371 Authorization ID R1F8 Contact ID Carpenter Expiration Date: xxx 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 B09398 08/22/2002 01111P B1379 P828 !i ALSOORF 1 of 6 R 30.00 0 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service FOREST ROAD EASEMENT Act of October 21, 1976 (P. L. 94-579); 36 CFR 251.50, et seq FS -2700-9i (8199) OMB No. 0596-0082 THIS EASEMENT, dated this day of Auoust, 2002 from the United States of America, acting by and through the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, to Norman A. Carpenter an individual of the Stale of Texas hereinafter called Grantee. W.ITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantee has applied for a grant of an easement under the Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1761), fora road over certain lands or assignable easements owned by the United States in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and administered by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. NOW THEREFORE, Grantor, for and in consideration for the receipt of a reciprocal easement by Grantee to the Grantor, does hereby grant to Grantee, subject to existing easements and valid rights, a nonexclusive easement for use of a road, whether existing or as constructed or reconstructed, over and across the following described lands in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado: T. 7 S.. R. 94 W. of the 6'" P.M. Sections 24 acid 25 The location of theroad is more specifically described by a centerline description contained in Exhibit A and approximate location shown on Exhibit B attached hereto. Said easement grant shall be 30 feet on each side of centerline with such additional width as required for acommodation and protection of cuts and fills. If the road is located substantially as described herein, the centerline of said road as constructed is hereby deemed accepted by Grantor and Grantee as the true centerline of the easement granted. This grant is made subjectto the following terms, provisions, and conditions applicable to Grantee, its permittees, contractors, &33ignees, and successors in interest. . A. Grantee shall comply with applicable Federal or State law and shall comply with State standards for public health and safety, environmental protection, and siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of or for rights -of -ways for similar purposes, if those standards are more stringent than applicable Federal standards, B. Except as hereinafter limited, Grantee shall have the right to use the road for the purposes set forth in clause D, subject to such traffic control regulations and rules as Grantor reasonably may impose upon or require of other users of the road without unreasonably reducing the rights herein granted. C. Upon the change of ownership of the Grantee's land served by this road, the rights granted under this easement can be transferred or assigned to the new owner upon written notification to Regional Forester. yLiwites i i I'0-41' fl� L Qw -1L‘,10 2-31Lsrot-i 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 609398 08/22/2002 01:11P B1379 P829 M ALSOORF 2 of 8 R 30,00 D 0..00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO NORMAN A. CARPENTER PAGE 2 FOREST ROAD EASEMENT D. This easement shall continue for as long as needed for access to the land of the Grantee. Provided, Thal the Grantee shall make no use of the road for hauling forest products or other commercial use of the road until it pays or makes arrangements acceptable to the Grantor to pay its share of the road construction or reconstruction costs; and Provided further, that the Grantor shall review terms and conditions of this easement at the end of each 30 -year period from the date of issuance, and may incorporate in the easement such new terms, conditions, and stipulations as existing or prospective conditions may warrant. These shall have the same force and effect as if included in the original grant. F. All construction or reconstruction of the road shall be in accordance with plans, specifications, and written stipulations approved by the Grantor prior to beginning such construction or reconstruction. F. The rights herein conveyed do not include the right to use the road for access to developments for short - or long-term residential purposes, unless and until the Grantor and the Grantee agree upon traffic control regulations, rules, and other provisions to accommodate such use of the road. G. Grantee shall pay the Grantor for its share of maintenance cost or perform maintenance, as determined by the Grantor. The maintenance obligation of the Grantee shall be proportionate to total use and commensurate with Grantee's use. Any maintenance performed by the Grantee shall be authorized by and shall conform with an approved maintenance plan. In the event the road requires maintenance, restoration, or reconstruction work to accommodate the Grantee's needs, the Grantor shall authorize the work required in the same manner as provided herein for maintenance or in clause E for reconstruction. The Grantee shall perform such work at its own expense. H. The annual fee for this use is waived in consideration by the granteee to the programs of the Forest Service through the grant of reciprocal rights-of-way. I. - This easement shall terminate in the event an easement is granted subsequently by the United States to a public road agency for operation of this road as a public highway. J. Grantee shall pay the United States for all injury, loss, or damage, including fire suppression costs, in accordance with existing Federal and State laws. K. Grantee shall indemnify the United States for any and all injury, loss, or damage, including fire suppression- costs the United States may suffer as a result of claims, demands, losses, or judgments caused by the Grantee's use or occupancy under this easement. This easement is granted subject to the following reservations by Grantor; 1. The right to cross and recross the road at any place by any reasonable means and for any purpose in such manner as will not interfere unreasonably with Grantee's use of the road. 2. The right to relocate the road on which this use is authorized to the extent necessary to accommodate the management needs of the National Forests. 3. The right to use the road for all purposes deemed necessary or desirable by Grantor in connection with the protection, administration, management, and utilization of Grantor's lands or resources, now or hereafter owned or controlled. 1 11111 111111 11111 1111 1111111 11111111 11111 1111 1111 609398 08/22/2002 01:11P B1379 P830 f1 ALSDORF 3 of 6 R 30.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO NORMAN A. CARPENTER FOREST ROAD EASEMENT PAGE 3 4. The right alone to extend rights and privileges for use of the road and right-of-way to other Government departments and agencies, States, and local subdivisions thereof, and to other users including members of the public; Provided, That the Grantor shall control such use so as not to interfere unreasonably with use of the road by Grantee or to cause Grantee to bear a share of the cost of maintenance greater than is commensurate with the Grantee's use of the road. The grant of a right to use the road described in this easement does not create an obligation ori the Forest Service of the United States to maintain the road in a usable condition. The Regional Forester may take action to suspend, revoke, or terminate this easement under the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Administrative Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes in 7 CFR 1.130-1.151. An administrative proceeding is not required when the easement terminates on the Qccurrence of a fixed or agreed-upon condition, event, or time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor, by its Forest Supervisor, Forest Service, has executed this easement pursuant to the delegation of authority to the Chief, Forest Service, 7 CFR 2.60, and the delegation of authority by the Chief, Forest Service, dated August 22, 1984 (49 FR 34283), to the Regional Forester of each Fo rest Service Region under authority of Title V of the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 (U.S.C. 1761, et seq.), on the day and year first above written, and the delegation of authority by the Regional Forester to the Forest Supervisor under authority of letter of Delegation of Authority dated May 24, 1994, on the day and year first above written. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY: THA J. KET LLE Forest Supervisor White River National Forest Rocky Mountain Region Forest Service Department of Agriculture c4,‘ CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT - STATE OF COLORADO ) y SS: COUNTY OF GARFIELD ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5 day of Martha J. ICetelle, Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expire Notary Public 20,3 204 z, by NORMAN A. CARPENTER FOREST ROAD EASEMENT 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 609398 08/22/2002 01 11P B1379 P831 M ALSDORF 4 of B R 30.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO ACCEPTANCE This easement is accepted subject to all terms and conditions. BY: Norman A. Carpenter • PAGE 4 DATE: 1- According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of Information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection Is 0596.0082. This Information is needed by the Forest Service to evaluate requests to use National Forest System lands and manage those lands to protect natural resources, administer the use, and ensure public health and safety. This Information Is required to obtain or retain a benefit. The authority for that requirement is provided by the Organic Act of 1897 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate rules and regulations for authorizing and managing National Forest System lands. These statutes, along with the Term Permit Act, National Forest Ski Area Permit Act, Granger-Thye Act, Mineral Leasing Act, Alaska Term Permit Act, Act of September 3, 1954, Wilderness Act, National Forest Roads and Trails Act, Act of November 16, 1973, Archeological Resources Protection Act, and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to Issue authorizations for the use and occupancy of National Forest System lands. The Secretary of Agriculture's regulations at 36 GFR Part 251, Subpart B, establish procedures for issuing those authorizations. The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom at Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) govern the confidentiality to be provided_for information received by the Forest Service. Public reporting burden for this collection of information, if requested, is estimated to average 1 hour per response for annual financial Information; average 1 hour per response to prepare or update operation and/or maintenance plan; average 1 hour per response for inspection reports; and an average of 1 hour for each request that may Include such things as reports, fogs, facility and user Information, sublease information, and other similar miscellaneous information requests. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. uniu 1101 niiii 11111 1111 1111111 IIIl ui niii ilii mi 609398 08/22/2002 01:11P 81379 P832 M ALSDORF 9 of 6 R 30.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT A A road easement located in Sections 24 and 25 of Township 7 South, Range 94 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, being 60 feet in width, lying 30 feet on each side of the following described center line of an existing road. Commencing at the a point on the centerline of an existing road from which Corner 9 of Tract 65 of Township 7 South, Range 93 West of the 6th P.M, bears N89°02'43 "E 3192.80 feet; thenceon and along the_ centerline of said existing road the following courses, N7°56'44"E for 62.54 feet; thence N5°32'44"W for 76.33 feet; thence N5°38'20"E for 118.41 feet; thence N29°2443" E for 99.2'7 feet; thence N44°51'17"E fa. 149.48 feet; thence N33°58'21"E for 121.91 feet; thence N16°53'25"E for 90.38 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal curve, the radius point of which bears N75°54'33"W, and 161.91 feet, thence along said curve through a central angle of 33°00'00" for 94.16 feet; thence N24°53'52"W for 103.62 feet; thence N3°51'47"E for 95.41 feet; thence N5°28'33"W for 257.75 feet; thence N4°48'55"E for 157.71 feet; thence N1°02'24"E for 362.84 feet; thence N2°06'01"W for 140.63 feet; thence N3°07'57"W for 365.77 feet; thence N7°38102"W for 203.60 feet; thence N1°58129"E for 83.78 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal curve, the radius point of which bears S89°35'54"W, and 302.15 feet, thence along said curve through a central angle of 24°00'00" for 131.30 feet; thence N31°18'47"W for 110.75 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal curve, the radius point of which bears N56°40'56"E, and 237.98 feet,' thence along said curve through a central angle of 31°00'00" for 131.07 feet; thence N7°29'34"W for 240.66 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal curve, the radius point of which bears S79°46'06"W, and 313.89 feet, thence along said curve through a central angle of 21°00'00 for 116.17 feet; thence N27°15'51"W for 85.13 feet; thence N18°02'20"W for 51.50 feet; thence N9°35'01"W for 99.17 feet; thence N3°10'23"E for 158.49 feet; thence N21°58'33"W for 226.68 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal curve, the radius point of which bears S80°01'59"W, and , 173.90 feet, thence along said curve through a central angle of 26°00'00" for 79.75 feet; thence N39°05'11"W for 126.10 feet; thence N30°13'13"W for 97.23 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal carve, the radius point of which bears S52°28'43"W, and 398.43 feet, thence along said curve through a central angle of 10°00'00" for 74.81 feet; thence N54°53'03"W for 114.63 feet; thence N32°39'57"W for 46.27 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal curve, the radius point of which bears N84°42'27"E, and 59.25 feet, thence along said curve through a central angle of 131°00'00" for 136.04 feet; thence S52°35'30"E for 527.74 feet; thence S37°18'23"E for 75.37 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal curve, the radius point of which bears N59°47'15"E, and 50.61 feet, Page 1 of 2 1 111111 11111 111111 11111 1111 1111111 11111 111 11111 1111 1111 609398 08/22/2002 01:11P B1379 P833 M ALSDORF 6 of 6 R 30.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT A (cont.) thence along said curve through a central angle of 112°00'00" for 99.34 feet; thence N36°09'17"E for 68.17 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal curve, the radius point of which bears N58°26'02"W, and 88.06 feet, thence along said curve through a central angle of 73°00'00" for 113.21 feet; thence N37°25'20"W for 293.06 feet; thence N30°12'17"W for 137.65 feet; thence N21°04'19"W for 96.53 feet; thence N15°43'49"W for 215.22 feet; thence N23°4827"W for 73.99 feet; thence N38°13154"W for 151.57 feet; thence N11°44'07"W for 68.94 feet; to the beginning of a horizontal curve, the radius point of which bears S79°00'34"W, and 163.43 feet, thence along said curve through a central angle of 32°00'00" for 92.14 feet; thence N33°26'01"W for 148.39 feet to a point on Line 2-3 of H.E.S. 309 from which Corner 2 of said H.E.S. 309 bears S85°11'00"E for 885.47 feet. Containing 6.265 acres more or less. Page 2 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO PATRICIA A. LOAN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE Civil Action No. 00 -PC -1243 FILED LIHl7tdCOWIE R. COLORADO OCL1lIT AUG 3 0 2001 JAMES K. w,tu Cl~ CLERK INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company, INTERMOUNTAIN RANCHES, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company, and NORMAN A. CARPENTER, Plaintiffs, v. KATHERINE M. HONEA; the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO; and the UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency of the United States of America, Defendants. JUDGMENT This matter came on for a bench trial commencing August 16, 2001, the Honorable United States District Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Coan presiding. PURSUANT to and in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion And Order entered by the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Coan on August 30, 2001, it is ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs Intermountain Resources, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Intermountain Ranches, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company, and Norman A. Carpenter and against the Defendants Katherine M. Honea; the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado; and the United States Forest Service, an agency of the United 1 Judgment OO -PC -1243 States of America on plaintiffs' first claim for relief, as amended by the evidence at trial, that the Easement Grant conveyed by Tom VonDette to the Colorado Division of Wildlife on April 14, 1976 was an express common law dedication of a public road which was accepted within a reasonable time by the United States Forest Service and the general public. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the easement premises described in Section A -of the Easement Grant converyed by Tom VonDette to the Colorado Division of Wildlife an April 14, 1976 is a public road, open to all lawful public uses by all members of the public, including the plaintiffs, subject to regulation by the United States Forest Service consistent with the public use. It is FURTHER ORDERED that a permanent injunction is entered against Defendant Katharine M. Honea prohibiting her, and her agents and employees, from any and all actions obstructing, restricting, hindering, or preventing the plaintiffs' use of the public road. It is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Katherine M. Honea; the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado; and the United States Forest Service, an agency of the United States of America and against the Plaintiffs Intermountain Resources, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company, Intermountain Ranches, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company, and Norman A. Carpenter on plaintiffs' second claim for relief that the easement premises is an R.5. 2477 Road. It is 2 Judgment (DO -PC -1243 FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs Intermountain Resources, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company, intermountain Ranches, L.L.C., a Colorado Limited Liability Company, and Norman A. Carpenter and against the Defendant Katherine M. Honea on Defendant Honea's counterclaim for trespass and nuisance. It is FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear his, her or its own costs. -- DATED at Deriver, Colorado this 30Th day of August, 2001. BY THE COURT: FOR THE COURT: �G CQ CC CCt Patricia A. Coan United States Magistrate Judge ECS TED STATES DISTRICT CCL DENVER. 'DLORADo MG3O, 1 3AMES 9ANSPEAKER. CLQ JAMES R. MANSPEAKER, CLERK By Step 3 4/ P. Ehrlich, Chief Deputy Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO CERTIFICATE OF MAILING Civil Action No. 00 -PC -1243 The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Judgment dated August 30, 2001 was served on August 30, 2001 by: (*) Delivery to; or by (**) Depositing in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: James K. Beckwith, Esq. ** 7910 Ralston Road, Ste. 7 Arvada, CO 80002 Timothy E. Whitsitt, Esq. ** Whitsitt & Goss 320 Main St., Ste 200 Carbondale, CO 81623 JD Snodgrass, Esq. Williams, Turner & Holmes, PC 200 N 6th St. PO Box 338 Grand Junction, CO 81502-0338 Michael Hegarty, Esq. Assistant US Attorney DC Mai! Box Don K. DeFord, Esq. 109 8th St., Room 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 U.S. Magistrate Judge Gudrun Rice United States District Court 402 Rood Ave., Room 323 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Secretary/Deputy Clerk • This E.HS1,EfE1rr GRANT 5s made between Tom Von Aette here- i.naftor referred to as "the Granter," and the State: of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Department of Natural Resources, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, hereinafter referred to as "the Grantee." The•follo,wing recitals of fact are a material part of this instrument: A. The Grantor is the owner of land in the County of 'Garfield, State of Colorado described as follows and herein- after re erred to as "the easement premises:"- Being r raises:"Being a strip of land 3D feet in width &cross H.E.S . #309 of unsurveyed section 24, Township 7 South, Range 94 West of the 6th principal Meridian in Gar- field County, Colcrade_ Said easement being ' 15 feet on each side of the following described center line. Beginning ata point on the 1-5 line of II.E.S. 309„ from which point Connex Number 5of H.E.S. 303 hears west 171.30 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right.havinr3 a radius of 220.38 feet for 57.93 feet; thence. south 14°01'15" west 30.11 feet; thence along the arc of a curer: to the left havina i radius of 296_50 feet for 103.92 feet; thence south 6°46'05" east 205.18 feet; thence south 9°32'29" east 134.44 feet; thence sc th 7°42'53" east 323.05 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 286.50 feet for 128.3.7 :Feat; thence south 17°55'11" west 60.48 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 286.50 feet for 81.17 feet; thence "south 1°40'50" .est •52..84 ' feet; thence south 1°38'59" east 120.70 feet; -thence along the arc of a. curve to the riff t. having a =dills of 286.50 feet for 67.67 fent; thence south 11'53'10" west 3.09.35 feet; thence along tie arc of a curve to the left having a radio,:; c•r 2B6.50 £eet tor 271.33 jeet; thence soutl+ 42a22'Z-2" bast 121.. feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right having .. . a.diu.s of 20..W feat for 129.39 feet; thence South 13°54:06" east 13.02 feet; thence along tho arc of a curve to . t e ?eft having a radius of 260.50 feet for ?:66:52 feet; thence euuth 30"32':35" east 61.29 feet. end ending on a oraent.on .tkrr 2--3 line of .ii.E.$. 209. . AL whic3.1 en i -ng pc,int Curner.1i;.s. 3 of U.E.S. 309 bean; nol n ;350111 :der;t 219 .�r5 ret containing 1.G acres, more o:: less. DEFENDANTS EX�,iIBIT _4-! .Y3 . B. They Grantor wishes to grant and the Grantee wishes to receive an easement for perpetual public road easement .pon, over, under, and across the easement premises. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten and no/106 llars'($10.00) and other valuable consideration, the eceipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acl;no ledged, the following. grants, agreements and covenants and restrictions•are ade: 1. GRANT OF EASEMENT: The Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee, his successors and assigns, a perpetual easement for perpetual public road easement upon, over, under, and across the easement premises. - 2 . WARRANTIES TIES OF TITLE: Grantor warrants that he has Dod and indefeasible fee simple title to the easement. premises. . 3. RU 1' XNG OF BENEFITS AND BURDENS: All provisions of tis instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the land and are binding upon and enure to the heirs, assigns, xccessors, tenants and personal representatives of the parties roto. 4. ATTORNEY'S FEES: Either party may enforce this 7strument by appropriate fiction and should he prevail in such 1.3.taTzr.i.r33 - he fih:,ll recov' :- a:: part of his costs t. )asonable attorney's fee. l 5. CONSTRUCTION: The rule of strict construction does not apply to this grant. This grant shall be given a reasonable rnstruction so that the Intention of the parties to confer a usable right of public enjoyment on the Grantee is carried out. IN WITNESS YWIIEREOF the Grantor and the Grantee have hereunto set their hands this /7 day GRANTOR 'For: Von n tte . . `ATE OF COLORA.UO ) County of } ss. The foregoing i.nstruuent was acknowledged before me this ___ day of A.D. 13by tom vondett_e. My comni.i. ;s_siC)n expi.rcss Feb. 6, 1979. iti .ness Rry is u and finial seal. 2- s.o'1• • l • 3 I• 1 •• • 01 3z 1 1 ?.A:-'-•. 1. L;,....7°...c.cl.!;:!t_. Y . dUL-i GU - 279312 2` 9312 stepphans Pecorder 'EASifMENT GRANT • dul::,458 rk:E 32 ' This EASEMENT GRANT is made between the State of Colorado for the use and benefit of the Department of Natural Resources, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, hereinafter referred to as "the Grantor," and the United States of America, Department of Agriculture Fret Se.vice, hereinafter referred to as "the Grantee." The followirg rdcitals of fact are a material part of thin instrument: A. The Grantor is the owner of the easement in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado described as follows and herein- after referred to as "the easement premises:" Being a strip of land 30 feet in width across E.E.S. X309 of unsurveyed section 24, Township 7 South, Range 94 West of the 6th Principal Meridiem in Garfield County. Colorado. Said easement being 15 feet on •ach side of the following described center line. ,Beginning at a point on the 1-5 line of H.E.S. 309, from which west 171.30 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 220.38 feet for 57.93 feet; thence south 14°01'15" west 30.11 feet? thence along the -arc. of.a curve to the left having a radius of 286.50-feet•:;.4 for 103.92 feet; thence south 6°46'05" east 205.18 feeti thence south 9°32'29" east 184.44 feet; thence south 7°42'53" east 323.05 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 286.50 feet -for 128.17 feet; thence south 1.7°55'11" wrst 68.48 feat;. thence along the arc of a curve to the left having a;. radius of 286.50 feet for 81.17 -feet; thence south '~•` point Corner Number 5 of R.E.S. 309 bears 1'40'50" • west 82.84 feet; thence south 1°38'58"~ east 120.70 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a thence south 11°53' the arc of a curve radius of 286.50 feet for 67.67 feet; 10" west 109.85 feet; thence along to the left having a radius of 286.50 feet for 271.33 feet; -thence south 42°22'22" east 121.63 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 260.50 feet for 129.39 feet; thence south 13°54'06" east 13.02 feet; thence along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 260.50 feet for 166.52 feet; thence south 50°32'35" east 61.29 feet and ending on a point on the 2-3 line of H.E.S. 309. At which ending point the Corner No. 3 of H.E.S. 309 'bears north 85°11' west 214.48 feet containing 1.6 acres. r,:nr.+ 6:._ + i8 33 B. The Grantor wishes to grant and the grantee wishes to receive an easement for perpetual public road easement upon, over. under, and across the easement premises. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten and NO/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the following grants, agreements and covenants and restrictions are made: 1. GRANS' OF EASEMENT: The Grantor hereby grants to the Grantee, his successors and assigns, a perpetual easement for a perpetual public road easement upon. over, under, and across the easement premises. 2. The Grantee shall construct and maintain a road upon' said easement premises within two years from the date of this easement grant and upon construction of said road the Grantee' shall post it in conspicious places to the affect that the road is an access road to Forest Servi6e land aril all •properties on' both sides of the easement premises ars private and no trespass is allowed, 3. If said condition and stipulations of this Basemen grant are not adhered to, it shall become null and void and shall revert to the Grantor. 4. WARRANTIES 0r' TITLE: Grantor warrants that he has good and indefeasible fee simple title to the easement -promisee. 5. RUNNING OF BENEFITS Alin EtiR.DENS z A11 provisions of this instrument. including the benefits and burdens, run with - • the land and are binding upon and enure to the heirs, assigns, successors, tenants and personal representatives of the parties hereto. 6. CONSTRUCTION: The rule of strict construction does not apply to this grant. This grant shall be given a reasonable construction so that the intention of the parties to convex a usable right of public enjoyment on the Grantee is carried out. rA_:.34 Iv' WLThESS S:'itEE. OF the Grantor and the Grantee have here- unto Got their hands this .,a '� day of0' 19 STATE OF COLORADO I7drxr>�S STATE OF COLORADO Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife �.L K R. GRIE$; p/rector SS Notary Public CcrIu uto of Copy of Retard STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield I, Mildred Alsdorf, County Clerk and Recorder in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct COPY of EASEMENT GRANT REC#279312 BK1)498 PG132 07/01/1997 2:30P as the same appears upon the records of my office. Given under my hand and official seat this 23RD day of MAY , A.D. 201/a 1 1 _ OC} o'clockA_NI Mildred Alsdorf e 1 County Clerk and Recorder Deputy (2207 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 COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield 1-111111-11111-111111i1111-1111111111111111_111.11MIN 511927 08/05/1997 10:38P 51023 P930 447 1 of 6 R 0,00 C 0.00 M 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday , the 4th day of August A.D. 19 97 ,there were present: Marian Smith Lariy McCown John Martin Don Deford Mildred Alsdort; Chuck Deschenes , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner Commissioner Chairman Pro --Tem , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 97 - 7 0 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION FOR THE TUCKER AND PRASE PARTNERSHIP. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from the Tucker and Prase Partnership for a Special Use Permit to allow for the extraction of natural resources from the site identified in the application; and WHEREAS, Garfield County Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 14, 1996 and continued said hearing to January 8, 1997, upon the question of whether the above dbscribedSpecia1T1 a permit should lie granted -or denied; at whicli hearing the public and interested - persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board held apublic hearing an February 10,1997 and continued said hearing to July 28, 1997, upon the question of whether the above described Special Use Permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Special Use Permit; and 1111111 Hill 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 51/927 08/05/1997 10 38R B1026 P931 447 2 of 6 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact: 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Special Use Permit be and hereby is approved to allow for the extraction of natural resources, 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. That prior to issuance of a County Special Use permit, the applicant receive a Special Use from the U.S. Forest Service for a haul route and the appropriate land use permit from the City of Rifle for watershed protection. Any additional conditions of approval attached to those permits shall be considered conditions of approval for this permit. 3. That all timber hauling on County Roads be on Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. That any helicopter hauling will only occur between the hours of 7 a. m. to 5 p. m., Monday through Friday. 4. The haul route for timber and other overweight service vehicles will be approved by the County Road & Bridge Supervisor. Additionally, an overweight vehicle permit will be acquired for each vehicle needing such permit. 5. That the forest management practices 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 Commissioners, City of Rifle and the applicant, and 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. 111111111I111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 511927 08/05/1897 10 38R 5t028 P032 447 3 of 6 R 0,00 D 0.00 N 0.00 GMRFIELD CLERK. 6. Approval ofthis application is based on the representations of the Forest Supervisor of the White River National Forest that Forest Service Road No. 824 is a legal right- of-way for the proposed Special Use permit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain a declaration of the status of the road from a court with the appropriate jurisdiction 7. That prior to the issuance of a Special Use permit, the applicant submit engineered plans for the construction of intervisible turnouts on CR 317 meeting the Forest Service standards for sizing and spacing and the improvements be constructed. Additionally, the applicant will be responsible for the acquisition any additional right-of-way necessary for the placement of the turnouts, without the County's use of the power of eminent domain. Any property so acquired will be dedicated to the County. 8. That prior to the issuance of a Special Use permit, the applicant shall pay for an overlay of at least 1 ',4 inches asphalt overlay of County Road 320 from Taugenbaugh Avenue to the intersection of CR 317 and 320, that is acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. A road bond of $ 100,000 will be placed with the Road and Bridge Department to be used for the repair of CR 320 andlor CR 317,due to damage attributable to the applicant's activities. The bond shall be valid for the period of time that the applicant is actively logging on their property. 9. This Special Use Permit is subject to review for compliance or noncompliance with performance requirements associated with the issuance of the permit. The applicant will be required to submit a report one year from the date of approval of a resolution of approval indicating the measures taken to comply with the performance requirements of the permit. The Board of County Commissioners will review the report in a public meeting within 30 days of receipt of the report and may determine that a public hearing is necessary to consider suspension of the permit or that conditions of approval must be met before additional activities can occur on the property. 10. All vehicles used in conjunction with logging operation must be licensed in the State of Colorado, through the Garfield County Clerk & Recorders Office. 11. The hauling of logs will be discontinued during normal times for local ranches to move cattle up OT down County Road 317, when requested by a local rancher with grazing rights or property in the Beaver Creek drainage. 12. The applicant will not allow employees to drive personal vehicles to the site and will provide a crew cab for the transport of employees on and off of the site. 13. There will be no harvesting of aspen trees form the site, with the exception of the incidental cutting of trees, approved by the inspector agreed to by the City of Rifle and the County. 111111111111111111111111011111111 ani iu niii mi uu 14. All revegetation of the site will be done with certified weed free seed mix. 15. County Road 317 will be resurfaced to an all weatherlseason surface to the USFS boundary and consistent with the standards approved by U.S. Forest Service for the Forest Service access road. 16. The haul route will only be along CR 320 from the intersection of CR 320/317 to Taugenbauglz Ave. in Rifle. 17. Upon transfer of ownership of the property subject to this special use permit, the new owner(s) shall meet with the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board and published as an agenda item of the Board. 18. That prior to the issuance of the permit, the applicants enter into an agreement with the Rifle Emergency Services to provide emergency services to the site. 19. Prior to the issuance of the permit, the Fire Management Plan is filed with the Garfield County Emergency Services office and the Rifle Fire Protection District. Dated this 5th day of j,ug li st , A.D. 19 97 _ ATTEST: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD GF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD CO ' " 1 ORADO Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing R by the following vote: Commissioner Chairman Smith - Absent Aq.ec Commissioner Chairman Pro -Tem John F, Mattie ,Aye Commissioner harry McC,Dxn ,Aye STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield 1111111 Wall 1111 Eli 1131E111 OE INN 511927 06105/1997 10:36A 31028 P934 447 5 of 6 R 0.00 D'0.00 N 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN'WITNESS (WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 19 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners l 1111111 11111 11111 1111111111 11111 11111• III 11111 1111 1111 511927 08/09/1997 I0:38A 81028 P939 447 6 of 6 R 0.00 D 0,00 N 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK EXHIBIT A All of that certain real property, together with! t ,.W,thou1 warranty any and all water rights appurtenant thereto, if any, desor ::cif �s follows: THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW1I4) OF 31 3 -'ION THIRTEEN (13), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE NIN r''. -FOUR (94) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. THE SOUTH HALF (S1/2) OF THE SOUTH k ..F ::311'2) OF SECTION FIFTEEN (15), TOWNSHIP SEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANG:: 91NETY-FOUR (94) WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. PART OF DRAKE NO. 3 PART OF DRAKE NO. 4 PART OF DRAKE NO. 5 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 1 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 2 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 3 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 4 PART OF ALBERTA NO. 5 PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO. 1 PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO. 2 PART OF P.C. JUNIOR NO. 3 PART OF VIRGINIA NO. 1 ALICE ALICE NO. 1 ALICE NO. 2 ALICE NO. 3 LITTLE MAUD NO. 1 LITTLE MAUD No. 3 LITTLE MAUD NO. 5 LITTLE MAUD NO. 7 LITTLE MAUD NO. 9 LITTLE MAUD NO. 11 LITTLE MAUD NO. 13 AND LITTLE MAUD NO. 15 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIMS DESIGNF, i ED AS SURVEY NO. 20096, EMBRACING A PORTION OF SECT SONS TWENTY-FOUR AND TWENTY-FIVE AND THE UNSURVEYED POR T'CN TOWNSHIP SEVEN SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-FOUR, WEST OF :-HE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED DECEMBER 17, 1932 IN BOOK 164 AT PAGE 486, ALL IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO. • 353 ::2?ERESOURCE MENNE -)EIN N• E N G( N E E R I N G I N C. J Mr. Bill Sappington, Public Works Director City of Rifle PO Box 1908 Rifle CO 81650 RE: intermountain Resources - Watershed permit No. 1-97 August 29, 2001 Dear Bill: in response to the concerns of some Beaver Creek residents expressed to City personnel regarding turbidity of Beaver Creek, l 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 origiriates•ori 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 large 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 l2op2 winter logging will occur in Porcupine creek -Basin although a small amount in the West Y2 of Section: 31 in the Beyer Consulting Engineers and Hydrologists 909 Colorado Avenue ■ Glenwood Springs, CO 91901 ■ [9703 945-6777 ■ Fax (97C) 945-1.1 37 Mr. Bill Sappington August 29, 2001 Page 2 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. E 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 be watershed 1-97.341.wpd CC: Chris Meyer RESCDURCE N 4 I N E E Ft I N C3 l N C. ll!llRESDURCE ILL O lain . 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 35 3 June 25, 2002 bear Jim: 4n 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 rriade 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 4ovemed 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 onto 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 Hydrokogists 909 Colorado Avenue a Glenwood Springs, CO 91 901 • (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 11,b197 41.wpa CC: Bill Sappington RESOURCE ENGINMRINQ I N C. } MRESOURCE ■ ENEM ■ eUli/ E N G I N E E R I N G I N C. Mr. Bill Sappington City of Rifle PO Box 1908 Rifle CO 81650 RE: Beaver Creek Watershed Permits 1-97 and 2-02 Dear Bill: October 18, 2002 On October 17, 2002 we conducted the fall inspection of the intermountain Resources logging operation and the Carpenter Road. Mr. Bill Gherardi accompanied me on both inspections and Mr. Chris Meyers attended the inspection of the logging site. PERMIT 1-97 INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES The logging roads were in excellent condition. All of the primary roads had been graveled with shale rock since our spring visit. This included the access road to the "blow down" site across Beaver Creek. The fuel oil drum that was noted last spring was removed. Most of the logging in the "blow -down" site has been completed and the logs are stacked for hauling. The riparian zone around Beaver Creek was undisturbed as is required. We found no evidence of erosion in spite of the heavy September rains. 1 did ask Chris and Bill to check all culvert entrances for debris. Most were clean but a few had some build-up of material. Also, the upper portion of the main road needed some grading work on the ditches. Bill said this work will be completed soon. We requested that Bill provide Resource Engineering, Inc. (RESOURCE) with all of the bi-weekly turbidity readings collected this summer and we will provide you with a summary of the results soon after we receive them. RESOURCE will conduct the fall water quality sampling before the end of October. We will also provide a summary of those results along with photographs of the site taken during our inspection. In summary it is our opinion that Intermountain Resources is in compliance with their permit and we found no evidence of any immediate risk to the water quality in Beaver Creek above the City's intake. The water quality tests, of course, must be reviewed prior to our final opinion. PERMIT 2-02 CARPENTER ROAD The Carpenter Road has not yet been completed. This road is graded and passable by vehicle up to the spring crossing and rough graded beyond that paint. No gravel has Mr. Bill Sappington October 18, 2002 Page 2 been laid nor have any culverts been installed but the ditches are cut and the cut slopes have been graded for the lower part of the road (to the spring). The culverts have been laid out at the proposed locations. They are 18° CMP culverts and each will have a flared end section at the discharge end. The spacing is ± 500' and at critical low points. The road grade is less than 6%. All of this is consistent with approved road standards. The contractor expects to install the culverts this fall and seeding of the slopes will be completed it weather permits. The gravel will be placed next summer. There was no evidence of erosion on the road and nothing was noted during our inspection that causes any concern regarding water quality. Final approval of this road project will require a spring and fall inspection in 2003 and perhaps a follow-up in 2004 to evaluate revegetation. Sincerely, RESOURCE ENGINEERING, INC. aul S.:ussone, P.P. Water Resource Engineer PSB/mmrn 341-10.0 E:1Client\341lbs beaver ck water shed 341.doc CC: Mr. Chris Meyers Mr. Bill Gherardi Mr. Jirn Neu } JAMES A. BECKWITH Attorney and Counselor at Law 7910 Ralston Rd, Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-9966 II FAX 303-431-2803 I E -Mail Ithamer@aoL com January 31, 2003 Mr. William Gherardi Woodland Management Consultants P.Q. Box 10 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Intermountain Resources, LLC / Mr. Norman A Carpenter Tepee Park / Special Use Permit Dear Mr. Gherardi: As you are aware, the Board ofCounty 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. 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. 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 not limited to, the procedures set forth in the Forest ManagementPlan for Tepee Park, dated April, 1996. 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. . l 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 of the 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 showing compliance, 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, conductor 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, in your opinion, the participation of a representative of the 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. Mr. William Gberardi January 31, 2003 Page Four. 15. For the lands composing "Tepee Park", and its timber harvest area, please describe the 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 determining 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. 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. YQ�irs tnily, James A.. Beckwith Appendices A and B Attached 17-Feb-2CO3 01:19pm From-Kinko's Campus West Ft. Collins, CO +67948ZbuT i -eat r.uuiPvua r-014 Wood.Iand Management Consultants,LLC. PO Box 10 Fort Collins, CO 80522 February 15, 2003 Mr. James Beckwith 791.0 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 PI an - 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 cal slopes less than 30%. 1 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 mihnimi7es any soil disturbance. 4&5. All roads constructed within Tepee Park follow the standards in the OFMP and BMIA's far 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 Streamside 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 l3eaver 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 greaterthan 30%. D. All road cut and fill slopes and landings have 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. 1T -fab -2003 01:20pm From-Kinka's Campus Wast Ft. Collins, CO +9704E2890T T-682 P.002/008 F-813 Wildlife:Harvesting 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 elk. 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 or' public health, welfare and safety, 9&1O. lindividual 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 Mountai„s",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 Park 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, windfdl1 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 i]OW was incorporated, addressing the forest mosaic. Further, this issue was rearmed 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 Frocedures,p.65-Watercourse Protection Zones & Measures, p.70- Fire Safety, and p33- Fuels Reduction. (2) 17 -Feb -2003 01:21pm From—itinko's Campus West Ft. Collins, CO +9704828507 T-682 P.003/008 F-813 Points of contradiction between the OFIvIP and the SUP; 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 road 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 tare 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 fire, 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 Mamm 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 summer lightning season, with on site equipment the spread of wildfires is minimized. 17. To date 1 have consulted with the Colorado State Forest Service per the citations listed in Exhibit D. (3) 1T -Feb -2003 01:21pm From-Kinko's Campus West Ft- Collins, CO +970482890T T-663 P.004/008 F-813 Submitted by, Bill Gherardi Enclosures } Forester, Woodland vFm ement Consultants, LLC. (4) 17 -Feb -2003 01:22pm From-lfinko's Campus West Ft. Collins, CO +9744828907 T-682 P.005/008 F-813 Ex,75_6i.t A 3f1}:V•17ur. __ r� ;� r) /),97-015 /)Drams December l r 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1¢ ,17 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )J 38 39 40 Wk, MVVV VI rpdornInest rt. �.o[ Iins, to +9 04828907 T-632 P-006/009 F-813 setatheioagitRnd 45-8a6 Eye -Eat -A.. 4S-366 L-P;ik Wada In USA Month January F'ebruar_y March �nri1 May June J_Ltl_y — August September October November Exioi lL 8 Field Inspection Log 1 Dam Day 3 4 ...2.0.O -C —2-aa.i • . Da Day O.�nrea Br Ap,vvn4 ray --2- 2 —200.3-.. --- Day _.6 L2 L2 9 26 ,9 2 �..i..E . !_. 2 3 4 5 6 —1 7 s 9 1[ 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 17 -Feb -2003 01:24pm From-KInko's Campus West Ft. Collins CO +9T04828807 T-632 P.007/008 F-813 Exhibi ---Watershed Management in the Rocky Mountain Subalpine Zone:The Status of Our Knowledge. Charles Leaf. - Watershed Management in the Central & Southern Rocky Mountains: A Summary of the Status of Our Knowledge by Vegetation Types,ieaf. - The Potential Effect of Partial Cutting & Thinning an Streamflaw from the Subalpine Forest, Troendle. -- The Fraser Experimental Forest, Colorado: Research Programs and Published Research, 1937-1985. - The Dead Horse Experiment; A Field Verification of the Subalpine Water Balance Model, Troef:dte . -- The Coon Creek t'}atar Yie10 Augmentation Pilot Project, Seving & Troendle. Fab -19-2003 11:41am From -INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES LLC 1 LU 1 V E..M444 February 18, 2003 Intermountain Resoutces, LLC O. Box 670 Montrose, Colorado 81402 9T0249072i T-048 P.002/O02 F-121 Colorado 3rata University Fort Collins, Colorndo 8052A -506e (970) 4916303 FAX: (970) 491-7'235 Dear Mr. Meyers I 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. I 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 Y have observed on other private properties. The graveled portion of the new road ❑n the west side of Beaver Creek will provide additional protection to the drainage through. reduction of sediment movement. Culvert installations appeared to be adequate for the local conditions. The harvesting I observed was in spntce-fir forest type. All harvested areas I 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 forefit health. The western slope has areas with endemic and epidemic populations of these insects. Spruce Bark Beetles are at epidemic levels in the area of the Routt Blowdown. Removal and disposal of the slash is necessary to reduce the breeding habitat for these inserts. The risk of catastrophic crown fire is also reduced through application of this trtatm.ent. 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. k spectrally, Jo ' ph A. Duda Colorado State Forest Service Forest Management Division Supervisor Colorado State Fore,yt Service 17—Feb-2003 01:24pm From-Hinka's Campus West Ft. Collins, CO +0704828907 T-682 P.008/008 F-813 E.xhib. t 3f11 Gherardi From: "Kelly Rogers" <11rogersgNaroar.cobstete-e+.e= To: <jmartin garfialId-county.com>; < dmin artield-oounty.com>;itstnwe eol.com> Cc: "Bill Gherardi" <billgherardi[ home.com� _ .. _ - - - Sen Sent Friday, October 26, 2001 4:i5 PM ;, << -- Subject Timber Marking on Teepee Park Lc.i'� C� , To: Garfield County Commissioner From: Kelly Rogers, Colorado State Forest Service: -� £ Date: October 26, 2001 Re: Taber marking on Teepee Park Property At the request of Mr. Bill Gherardi of Woodland went Consultants, I recently inspected a portion of the Teepee Park property that has been marked for potential timber harvest. Bill asked me to send you my impressions of the marking job completed to date. The area marked was located in a stand of mixed spmc a -5r timber near th,e top oftbe east drainage of Porcupine Creek Road construction to the proposed harvest area appears to be near c omplction. Trees to be harvested have been marked with blue paint at DSII (4.5 foot height) and at the stump. Mr. Gherardi described the marling as an "initial entry shelterwood curt", as described in the forest management plan completed for this property in 1996_ The tuber marking I 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 of the basal area of the stand ]res been marked for removal in this initial cut. Dad 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 1 examined is definitely not a'Ugh grade" job, where only the largest trees are selected. In addition., no trees were marked for removal directly adjacent to roads. The timber marking done so far appears to follow the prescription outlined ha the approved management plan. Assuming the logging operation is closely monitored, I feel this area will benefit from the proposed management. Please call me with questions or comments, or if I can be of further help in this matter. Kelly Rogers Assistant District Former Colorado State Forest Service, Grand Junction District (970) 24$-7325 10/29/2001 PLATTE RIVER HYDROLOGIC RESEARCH CENTER Charles F. Leaf, PhD, P.E. 59365 WCR R Merino, Colorado 80741' (970) 522-1829 April ZOdO Research Paper PRHRC-6 Past, Present, And Future Effects Of U.S. Forest Service Management Policies On North Platte River Water Yields 1,7 Charles F. Leaf ABSTRACT Water yield from the Upper North Platte River Basin has significantly decreased since large- scale human -caused and natural disturbances between the mid eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds. On the North Platte at Saratoga, Wyoming, average annual water yields between 1945 and 1.996 were some 116,000 af/yr less than average yields between 1904 and 1944. Moreover, expected forest, regrowth on areas logged between 1945 and 1995 will ttrther reduce water yields from current levels. The minimal timber harvesting proposed by the U.S. Forest Service during the next 50 years will not compensate for these reduced yields. It is estimated that future water yields from the Upper North Platte River Basin will continue to diminish by at least an additional 16,500 to 18,000 aflyr under existing management policies. A change of current policy in favor of environmentally sound water oriented forest manage- ment is needed. Responsible forest management would partially restore forest health, diminish the risk of wildfire and resultant watershed damage, and restore much-needed water which otherwise will not be available to the Endangered Species Recovery Program downstream. Keywords:. North Platte River, Water Yield Improvement, Routt National Forest, Medicine Bow National Forest, Endangered Species Act, Forest Health, Platte River Agreement, Wildfire, Timber Harvest, Forest Service Man- agement. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 1997) has concluded that water resources development for irrigation in the Platte River Basin is substantially responsible for creating an annual "shortage" of some 361,000 aflyr at Grand Island, Nebraska. According to the FWS, the perceived shortage has profoundly deteriorated habitat critical to: (a) the endangered Whooping Crane, and (b) the threatened Piping Plover, Least Tern, and Pallid Sturgeon, with a resultant decline in these federally Listed species. Not included in the FWS assessment are the cumu- lative impacts of U.S. Forest Service management policies during the past 80 or 90 years on National Forests which comprise the headwaters of the Platte River Basin. This report will show that these policies have re- duced water yields from the North Platte River in Colorado and Wyoming. Moreover, the reduced yields have materially contributed to the negative impact on threatened and endangered species down- stream. } HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE The Coalition For Sustainable Resources (CSR 1999a and 1999b) and Leaf (1999a) have concluded that the forested headwaters of the Platte River ex- perienced Targe -scale disturbance events between the late 1800s and early 1.90Os. As a result of those stand -replacing disturbances by human and natural causes, half or more of the forested watersheds of a century ago, were characterized by a large number of openings and extensive areas of young trees. By comparing then (late 1800s to early 1900s) and now photographs; Gosnell (1999) found that tree cover consistently now occupies previously open space. Prior to World War II, the Forest Service sold only modest amounts of timber while allowing the pre- viously disturbed areas to restock. Timber harvest then increased after World War II, and remained fairly constant during the next four decades. On the Routt and Medicine Bow National Forests, timber harvest has steadily declined since the early 1990s. Today, less than 10 percent of the inventoried area a w 60 40 Page 2 on the Routt and Medicine Bow National Forests is occupied by trees less than 50 years old.. In con- trast, trees less than 50 years old occupied almost 40 percent of the same area some 100 years earlier (Figure 1). WATERSHED MANAGEMENT RESEARCH From 30 to almost 75 percent of the annual precipi- tation in the forested headwaters of the Platte River Basin is consumed by mature and over mature for- est cover through the complex processes of evapo- transpiration. This dense forest cover results in more evapotranspiration and lower levels of soil mois- ture, with the least amount of water being available for streamflow. More than 80 years of watershed research through- out the United States, much of which has been spe- cifically oriented toward the mountain West, has conclusively shown that timber harvest and other naturalor human -caused forrns of vegetation re- moval significantly reduce evapotranspiration with a resultant increase in water yield (Anderson, et al., 1976; Leaf, 1975; Troendle, et al. 1998). As trees reoccupy a site after logging or natural dis- Figure 1 Percent Available Forest Timberland vs. Age & Hydrologic Utilization (From Figure 4, Leaf, 1999a) 0 50 75 too PERCENT HYDROLOGIC UTILIZATION 100 e 20 • MEDICINE BOW NATIONAL FOREST 0 50 100 150 200 AGE (YEARS) 250 300 1 1 i turbances such as fire, blowdown, and/or insects, water use increases with time until the condition of maximum water use (complete hydrologic utiliza- tion) is reestablished (Troendle and Leaf, 1980). Results from Fool Creek on the Fraser Experimen- tal Forest in Colorado, show that the reestablish- ment of complete hydrologic utilization after strip cutting this watershed in 1955 will take approxi- mately 80 years (Troendle and King, 1985), pro- vided that the watershed is allowed to completely recover without additional disturbance. The esti- mated rate of recovery is graphically shown in Fig- ure 2, taken from Leaf (1999a). Results from the Fraser Experimental Forest are based on studies of small watersheds. However, similar results have been documented from natural disturbances on much larger watersheds at the land- scape scale. In Colorado, Love (195 5) detected a water yield in- crease of approximately 2 inches (20 percent) as the result of a massive spruce beetle outbreak in 30 per- cent of the forest cover on a 762 -square mile water- shed in the White River Basin. Subsequently, Bethlahrny (1974) also detected major increases in streamflow from beetle kills on the White River and also the Yampa River (604 square miles) drainage basins which persisted more than 25 years after the epidermic (Bethlahmy, 1975). PERCENT COMPLETE HYDROLOGIC UTILIZATION 100 80 Figure 2 Percent Complete Hydrologic Utilization As A Function Of Age Of Stand 20 ASPEN . , . LODGEPOLE PINE SARUCE/F1R FOOL CREE}S, FEF 4 20 40 60 80 AGE (YRS) 100 120 Page 3 In Montana, Potts (1984) reported on a mountain pine beetle epidemic which killed an estimated 35 percent of the timber in the 51.5 -square -mile Jack Creek watershed. Similar to the White River re- sults, he detected a "15 percent past -epidemic in- crease in annual water yield, a 10 percent increase in low flows, and little increase in peak runoff" Troendle and Bevenger (1996) reported that signifi- cantly increased water yields and sediment yields resulted from wildfire on landscape scale watersheds near Yellowstone National Park. Finally, Troendle, et al., (1998) confirmed small wa- tershed research results with the Coon Creek dem- onstration project in the North Platte River Basin. Patch cutting almost 30 percent of this landscape scale catchment resulted in water yield increases comparable to the Fool Creek Experiment. HYDROLOGIC MODELS Today, powerful tools are available to hydrologists which enable them to simulate watershed responses from forest cover changes at the landscape scale. The Subalpine Water Balance Model (WATBAL) developed by Leaf and Brink (1973), the Land Use Simulation Model (LUMOD) developed by Leaf and Brink (1975), and WRENSS (Troendle and Leaf, 1980) were originally uniquely designed to reliably predict spatial and temporal changes in key hydro- logic processes on a landscape scale. As documented by Swanson (1987), Troendle (1983), and others, these tools have been validated on small experimental watersheds, and more re- cently, on the larger Coon Creek demonstration project. For example, I made conservative WATBAL-simulated estimates of water yield in- creases from patch -cutting on the East Fork of the Encampment River in the early 70s. It is notewor- thy that recent results from Coon Creek fall right in line with these early projections. Table 1 summarizes WATBAL simulations of wa- ter yield increases from patch -cutting on the 28.5 - square mile (18,240 ac) East Fork of the Encamp- ment River. Coon Creek represents 23 percent of the total watershed area. Projected increases vary from 1,213 af/yr for seven units patch -cut (7,661 acres) to 2,506 aflyr for eleven units patch -cut (17,693 acres) including Coon Creek. PAST AND PRESENT WATER YIELDS FROM TETE NORTH PLATTE RIVER IN COLORADO AND WYOMING Forest Inventory The conclusion that water yields today are less than they were in the early 1900s is supported by an analysis of timber inventory data. As seen in Table 2, relative forest water use (consumptive use) estimates derived from forest inventory data collected on the Routt and Medicine BowNational Forests (U.S. Forest Service, 1987) suggest that 100 years ago, consumptive use was considerably less than today. Table 1 WATRAL Simulated Water Yield Increases From Timber Harvesting Un The East Fork Of The Encampment River . Medicine Bow National Forest, 1970 Simulated Water Unit Acres'}- Yield Increase (in.) Beaver Dam Forested 1 (ISWLP) 1,459 1.9 East Fork Forested 3 {3 SELF) 1,094 1.8 East Fork & l]amfina Forested 7 {7 SWLP) 1,642 1.5 East Fork & Damfino Forested 9 (9NWLP) 1,277 1.9 O amfina Forested 10 (10 NLP) 2,189 2.3 Total 5 Units Cut 7661 Avg. Incr. 1.9 (1,213 aflyrl Total 11 Units Cut (Including Coon Creek) 17,693 Avg. Incr. 1.7 [2,546 efJyr) ) 1} Forty percent of each unit occupied by openings 5 tree heights in diameter; minimum 5 tree heights uncut,farest between openings. Water Yield Page 4 A high percentage of the water available to the Upper North Platte River is generated from snow - melt on densely forested federal land, most of which is controlled by the U.S. Forest Service. For example, 78 percent of the annual yield from the North Platte at Northgate, Colorado is gener- ated from some 272,000 acres of Routt National Forest upstream. Leaf (1999a) presented results from statistical analyses of water yields from the North Platte River for the period of record. Table 3 presents the data base used for the North Platte River at Saratoga, Wyoming. Flows at Saratoga between 1970 and 1980 were estimated from a regression between the North Platte at Saratoga and the North Platte at Northgate (r2 = 0.71) to complete the data set of Table 3. Water yields from the North Platte River at Northgate, Colorado are summarized in Table 4. An evaluation of the gaging station his- tories has shown the extensive record to be con- sistent. That is to say, any long-term changes in. water yield with time must have been from caus- ative factors other than measurement discrepan- cies or gage relocation. ,Table 5 summarizes the results of modified Cochran t-test comparisons of historic with exist- ing mean annual water yield. Reduced water yield varies from some 43,000 af/yr on the North Platte at Northgate to 116,000 aflyr on the North Platte - at Saratoga at a high level of statistical confidence. The reduced yields are not the result of expanded water use for irrigation. As seen in Figure 3, irri- gated acres have remained essentially constant be- tween 1915 and 1968. Since 1968, irrigated acres have actually decreased from the long-term norm. Diversions from the North Platte to the South Platte via the Michigan Ditch have not increased, but have decreased since 1945. Transbasin diver- sions between 1913-1945 averaged 3,469 aflyr compared to 1,505 aflyr during 1946-1991. Finally, the reduced annual water yields appar- ently are not the result of reduced precipitation as will be shown below. Climate Glade Creek is a snowcourse in Wyoming with one of the longest periods of record in the region. Data collection began in 1919. A data set obtained from the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service includes 1919 through 1998. During 1919-1950, data were collected near the middle of each month. After 1950, measurements were Table 2 shifted to the first of each month. A statistical comparison of estimated first-of=month observa- tions with' middle -of -month observations for 1930- 1950 yielded no significant difference in estimated peak seasonal water equivalents. Peak seasonal water equivalents from Glade Creek S nowcourse are summarized in Table 6. A t-test comparison of mean annual historic and Comparison Of Forest Water Use: Routt And Medicine Bow National Forests In The North Platte River Basin Upstream From Saratoga, Wyoming Age Class Percent Hydro!. 41til. Routt NF Medicine Bow NF acres2) 1887 1987 acres2) 1887 1987 Total 1887 1987 1 • 20 21 .40 41 .60 0 30 60 20,839 18,185 9,083 0 64,671 18,576 34,963 1,776 23,764 25,639 12,011 10,498 85,510 53,148 32,847 25,639 30,587 12,274 Total 48,107 20,352 123,398 48,148 171,505 68,500 Acres of existing available timberland inventoried. Table 3 North Platte River At Saratoga, Wyoming April - September 1904-1996 (Data Missing: 1907, 1908, 1910, 1971-1980} Source: State of Wyoming State Engineer's Office, Water Div. 1, Saratoga, Wyoming Discharge Year 1,000 of Discharge Year 1,000 of Discharge Year 1,000 of Discharge Year 1,000 of Discharge Year 1,000 of 1904 817 1923 981 1939 422 1955 319 1981 205 1905 805 1924 714 1940 362 1956 589 1982 759 1906 915 1925 683 1941 463 1957 1168 1983 1231 1909 1673 1926 1045 1942 604 1958 508 1984 1273 1911 752 1927 928 1943 619 1959 444 1985 737 1912 1103 1928 1040 1944 442 1960 450 1986 1116 1913 706 1929 1098 1945 842 1961 404 1987 273 1914 1072 1930 535 1945 510 1962 974 1988 560 1915 493 1931 366 1947 761 1963 397 1989 263 1916 721 1932 919 1948 571 1964 483 1990 386 1917 1458 1933 631 i 1949 990 1965 909 1991 418 1918 933 1934 146 ' 1950 678 1966 309 1992 281 1919 466 1935 460 1951 710 1967 616 1993 779 1920 1141 1936 703 1952 1053 1968 680 1994 390 1921 1192 1937 554 1953 428 1969 596 1995 908 1922 648 1938 830 1954 234 1970 851 1996 846 Page 5 Table 4 North Platte River At Northgate, Colorado April - September Water Yields April - September 1916-1991 (1,000 AF) (1904-06, 19, 11-15 Estimated) Source: US GS Surface Water Data Base, Denver, CO 1904 319.5 1905 314.3 1906 362.0 1909 691.0 1911 291.3 1912 443.6 1913 271.3 1915 179.1 1916 304.4 1917 578.3 1918 353.6 1919 147.8 1920 431.9 1921 427.7 1922 217.2 1923 479.6 1924 330.7 1925 236.2 1926 422.2 1927 355.4 1928 397.6 1929 465.8 1930 262.1 1931 130.2 1932 392.1 1933 220.2 1934 47.1 1935 179.0 1936 299.1 1937 178.6 1938 361.6 1939 150.1 1940 116.2 1941 153.4 1942 204.5 1943 252.8 1944 156.6 1945 299.2 1975 271.1 1946 184.4 1976 162.7 1947 271.6 1977 63.4 1948 234.6 1978 328.4 1949 369.7 1979 380.5 1950 196.2 1980 337.9 1951 284.7 1981 82.4 1952 345.1 1982 302.6 1953 160.1 1983 512.3 1954 69.0 1984 548.1 1955 128.3 1985 309.1 1956 232.0 1986 488.3 1957 337.2 1987 133.1 1958 224.2 1988 262.5 1959 190.1 1989 101.4 1960 192.7 1990 136.8 1961 199.9 1991 169.6 1962 432.6 1963 146.7 1964 153.7 1965 382.3 1966 87.6 1967 236.4 1968 251.7 1969 240.3 1970 326.6 1971 340.8 1972 186.4 1973 357.6 1974 361.8 Table 5 Summary Of t -Test Comparisons Of Mean Annual Historic And Existing Water Yields La CATION RECORD PERIOD MEAN ANNUAL YIELD (1,000 af) LEVEL OF 31 SIGNIFICANCE HISTORIC EXISTING HISTORIC EXISTING DIFF. Jarth Platte River at Northgate Colorado fIprth Platte River at Saratoga, Wyoming 1904 -'44 1904 -'44 1945 -'91 1945 •'96 304.03 774.74 261.19 658.60 42.84 116.14 86% 93% 31 Based on Modified Cochran t-test Comparison (Snedecor, 1961). Page 6 WATER YIELD (1 O6 AF) 2.0 Figure 3 Irrigated Acres and Water Yield in the Upper North Platte Basin (b) 1x x xx:axxxsx.,,.. ,"..xaxs x 1.5 - r lxrx (a) l 1 11 cip cvR 1.ap Inn lgll�t id VI 1! 1r�1 1 lP u b d 1 V i 41 Y1 rr 0.5 0 s, xx x i; I; 11 a Ii �' S ��i1�1 it AI ?cog Ii ll ti 11 ¢ ),,bea bol 1r o I Ix11 xxsx x i i s x i x i i x I i i s; 200,000 100,000 0I e4P oo 4, t l it !„ North Platte 1 1 I k P 1 d 1 t at Saratoga, WY g% d 1 ! i tit 11 l ! i ll I/1 a' 6 ° North Platte at Northgate, Co I r N T tr, ch r tri r Table 7 w err r u -j T Summary Of t -Test Comparison Of Mean Annual Historic And Existing Seasonal Peak Snowpack Water Equivalents Location Glade Creek, Wyoming Record Period Historic Existin 1919-'50 °s Cr) 19511-'98 existing peak seasonal snowpack water equiva- lents showed no significant difference as sum- marized in Table 7. DOUBLE -MASS ANALYSES The previous statistical results can easily be illus- trated by double -mass analyses. The analysis is made by simply plotting a graph. of the cumulative data for one hydrologic variable against the cumu- lative data of another variable. When the relation- ship between the variables is a fixed ratio (Searcy and Hardison, 1960), this graph is a straight line with constant slope. A line with constant slope thus shows consistency between the variables. Breaks (inflection points) in the double -mass curve are co- incident with changes in the relationship between Mean AnnualPeak Water Equiv. (in.) Historic Existin ■ Diff. 23.47 23.86 0.39 Level Of Si•niticance N.S. @ 95 percent level the variables. Such changes may result from: (a) site changes or changes in data collection of one (or both) variables, or (b) from hydrologic changes in the basin. If it can be shown that methods of data collection or site characteristics have not changed over a long pe- riod of record, then a change in slope can be attrib- uted to a hydrologic change in the basin. Figures 4 (a) and 4 (b) are double -mass plots of cu- mulative water yield on Glade Creek peak water equivalent for the North Platte River at Northgate, Colorado and Saratoga, Wyoming, respectively. Two significant inflection points are apparent in both double -mass curves: (a) Inflection point in double -mass curve result - Page 7 } 0 LU 20 15 rn 10 ing from forest regrowth subsequent to large- scale natural and human -caused disturbances since the late 1800s, and (b) Inflection point in double -plass curve result- ing from increased timber harvesting, which increased water yields relative to segment A - B. However, increased water yield from timber harvesting during this period was not - 5 t4- 15 5 0 sufficient to offset reduced yield from forest regrowth on earlier large-scale disturbances. It should be noted that mass curves (cumulative wa- ter yield on cumulative time) showed exactly the same infection points. However, no significant inflection points were detected in the mass curve of Glade Creek peak water equivalent (Figures 5 (a), 5 (b), and 6). Figure 4 Double•Mass Plots of Cumulative Water Yield on Cumulative Peak Snowpack Water Equivalent 0 I 5 0 01 01 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 01 l ' • ./ (o) NORTH PLATTE RIVER AT NORTHGATE, CO 1 1 1 L ineecrion Point In Double -Mass Curve resulting from forest regrowth subs equenl 10 large-scale disturbances since lata 1e00s Inflection Point in Double -Mass Curve resulting 1E00 increased limber harvesling cn Rout) NF Which increa3ed Water yields relative 10 segment 0.0 r 1 1 1 1 1 r 7 11 0 10 20 30 CUMULATIVE PEAK W.E. fie in.) (GLADE CREEK, WY} CUMULATIVE 4/1 - 0/30 WATER YIELD 110 lar) 0 r r 0 40 30 20 — 10 0 01 01 0 r (b) NORTH PLATTE RIVER AT SARATOGA, WY 1 1 1 ! 1 0 N 0 y IV Inflection Pohl In Double -Mass Curve res ultin from form refrovan subsequent no large -s bele ,S•IYlbertces trete 111* 15001 © lnitection Point in Double -Mass Curve retuning tem increased timber harvesting on Roup and Mackin! Bow NF's whirl) increased weter ykida rtatir. to s•grn•M -(0 1 1 1 1' F 1 1 r 1 0 5 Figure 5 Mass Plots of Cumulative Water Yield •1 10 ea' 1 1 1 0 an • (a) NORTH PLATTE RIVER AT NORTHGATE, CO Cl Inflection Pant In Mass Curve Resulting From Foresl Regrowth Subsequent Ta Large -State Disturbances Since Late 1BOOs ® Inflection Pore) In Mass Curve Resulting From Increased Timber Harvesting On Rouli NF +Mich Increase V4`dler Yields Relative To Segment 0 -© ! 1 I 1 1 20 30 40 CUMULATIVE YEARS 50 00 CUMULATIVE 411 - 9/30 WATER YIELD (10Saf} Page 8 10 15 CUMULATIVE PEAK W.E (10 tine) (GLADE CREEK, WY) 50 40 — 30 -• 20 10 — 1 72N (b) NORTH PLATTE RIVER AT SARATOGA, WY I ! 01 .• • 1 tra N en ® Inflection Point In Mass Curve Resulting Fro Forest Regrowth Subsequent To Large -Scale Disturbances Since Lala 1000s ® Inflection Point In Mass Curve Resulting Fro Increased Timber Harvesling On Routi and Medicine Saw Nls Wni(h Increased Water Yields Relative To Segment ® - ! 1 f 0 10 29 30 CUMULATIVE YEARS 40 b0 00 a 3 Table 6 Summary of Peak Seasonal Water Equivalent for Glade Creek, Wyoming Snowcourse: 1919-1998 Source: Snow Survey Unit, USDA NRCS, Denver, Colorado Units: inches Peak Year W.E. Est. Beg. Mn. Date Peak W.E. Year Peak Peak W.E. Date Year W.E. Date 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 19.0 24.5 28.0 30.5 24.0 19.0 27.0 16.0 36.0 34.0 24.0 16.0 9.0 25.0 22.5 16.5 23.0 32.0 23.8 27.1 25.2 21.4 16.4 16.2 36.0 13.4 19.9 24.2 22.8 23.E 27.1 24.8 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4119 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/19 4/18 4/19 4/19 4/18 4/18 4/23 4/15 4/15 4/16 4/15 4115 4/15 4/15 4/18 4/18 24.2 28.0 30.5 23.2 18.5 27.0 15.5 36.0 34.0 24.0 14.7 11.7 25.9 22.6 20.4 19.8 32.0 22.3 27.6 23.0 21.7 16.9 15.4 36.6 14.6 19.0 24.2 22.1 21.8 29.0 25.3 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 24.8 4/01 28.2 4/01 22.4 3/30 24.8 4/01 20.3 3/31 33.1 3/31 26.3 3/28 21.8 3/31 20.3 4/02 15.0 3/30 18.3 3/28 27.4 3/28 18.4 21.0 27.0 3/29 19.1 3/29 22.0 3/30 19.6 5/01 23.0 3/26 27.1 34.8 3/30 28.7 19.9 32.9 3/27 28.6 4/29 34.8 3/29 1'1.1 3/29 29.5 3/29 26.7 3/29 23.3 3/26 13.3 3/30 32.5 3/29 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 25.7 4/29 21.5 24.1 27.8 3/27 114.3 3/31 21.3 3/30 31.0 3/30 19.7 3/29 20.7 3/28 16.1 3/27 21.2. 3/30 17.1 3/28 26.6 3/29 26.4 4/30 34.6 3/25 21.4 3/31 Mean 23.37 Std. Dev. 6.34 Std. Dev. of Mean 23.47 (1919 - 1950) 6.32 1.12 23.86 (1951 - 1998) 5.82 0.84 SIGNIFICANCE OF MASS CURVES IN DETECTING AND INTERPRETING WATER YIELD CHANGES IN THE UPPER NORTH PLATE RIVER BASIN Historical accmunts, double -mass, and mass curves of water yield from the Upper North Platte suggest that streamflow measurements began at a time•when the cumulative increased water yields from prior large- scale disturbances were maximum. As seen in Table 2, relative forest water use (consumptive use) esti- mates derived from forest inventory data collected on the Routt and Medicine Bow National Forests sug- gest that 100 years ago, consumptive use of the sub - alpine forests was considerably less than today. Leaf and Alexander (1975) and Troendle and King (1985) have shown that due to the considerable time it takes for subalpine coniferous forests to regenerate, increased water yields from stand replacing distur- Page 9 bailee can go undiminished for up to 30 years and longer. Even after this peri od of time, at least 40 or more years are required before runoff increases from }the initial disturbance are completely erased (Figure 2). This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 7 devel- oped from a simulation analysis of a particular forest management alternative (Sheppard, et al., 1991). In Figure 7, the slope of the mass curve is constant for a long period of time after initial disturbance (or at the point of maximum increase resulting from ear- lier disturbances). Subsequently, decreasing incre- mental yields due to forest regrowth produce a slope change. In the Upper North Platte River Basin, the slope change due to forest regrowth, apparently oc- curred sometime during the 1930s as shown in Fig- ures4and 5. GLOBAL WARMING Inevitably, the question of perceived "global warm- ing" has came up with the suggestion that human - induced climate change in the late twentieth century has increase evapotranspiration of mountain forests. Responding to this issue, Brown and Sheppard (1995) have done lona-term studies of tree -ring chronologies at the Fraser Experimental Forest. They found that: "... No unusual increases in tree growth are evident in the last years of this century, sug-, gestirrg that these trees are not recording any late -spring warming trends that May be re- Iated to human induced global climate change." WATER YIELD RESPONSE FROM TIMBER HARVESTING ON THE ROUTT AND MEDICLNE Bow NATIONAL FORESTS: 1949 - 1998 As previously discussed, the U.S. Forest Service sold modest amounts of timber on the Routt and Medicine Bow National Forests between the mid 1940s and early 1990s. Figures 8 and 9 show acres clearcut dur- ing this period on the Routt and Medicine Bow Na- tional Forests. These data were obtained from Routt )l The simulations were based on the assumption that 49 per- cent of the acres cut in Figure 10 and 51 percent of the acres cut in Figure 11 were in the North Platte River Basin. Figure 6 Mass Curve of Peak Water Equivalent at Glade Creek, Wyoming Snowcourse, ✓ ye n r 1.5 W • 1.0 i^ J Water Yield (in.) Cumulative Water Yield (in.) Page 10 0 20 40 GO 80 CUMULATIVE YEARS 100 Figure 7 Simulated Increased Water Yields (Shepperd, et al., 1931) And Resultant Mass Curve 9 1500 1000 500 (a) Water Yields Projected by WATBAL For A 12O -Year Simulation Period Under Alternative B I (b) Mass Curve Of Water Yields 25 50 75 Cumulative Years 100 125 Figure 8 Routs National Forest Acres Patch Cut, Strip Cut, and Clearcut 1946. 1998 1600 1- 1000 cccc r,1 Q 600 a 0 Pasch & Strip Cut ClearCkt Tat al 0 0 Figure 9 Medicine Bow National Forest Acres Patch Cut, Strip Cut, and Clearcut 1946. 1998 Patch &Skip Cut Toss{ 2000 1600 0 0 and Medicine Bow National Forest files (U.S. Forest Service, 1999). Figure 10 shows simulated ten-year increments of water yield responses for 100 years sub- sequent to initial cutting in the mid -forties 4}. The simu- lations were made using the time trend relationships of Figure 2 and WRENSS estimates of increased wa- ter yields from this type of silvicultural practice. Figure 10 shows that forest cutting since the mid -for- ties resulted in an upward trend iri water yield increases which has already peaked. Over the next 50 years, a-� 016006 co c 5,000 CaV mm m Figure 10 Estimated Water Yield Increases For 100 Years Subsequent To Initial Logging North Platte River at Saratoga, Wyoming (a) ROUTT NATIONAL FOREST 1 1 0 0 t9 r 0 Preferred Alternative (U.S. Forest Serv. 1997) AQ From Historic Clear Cutting N n N n 5,000 to r tee m a 0 H .11 0 N residual increases from this logging will decrease in response to expected forest regrowth (Figures 11 and 12). It should be noted that estimated water yield increases from proposed future timber harvesting on the Routt National Forest (U.S. Forest Service, 1997) is far less than required to compensate for diminished yield in- creases from logging during the past several decades. Accordingly, water yields from the North Platte sys- tem will continue to decline. Figure 13 summarizes historic, present, and future trends of water yield in the Upper North Platte River Basin. As previously discussed in some detail, cur- rent water yields average some 116,000 aflyr less than historic levels. Moreover, water yields are conserva- 5) It should be noted that reduced water yields from the entire Medicine Bow and Routt National Forests in the North Platte River Basin are estimated to be 18,000 aflyr. This estimate does not include reduced yields from forest regrowth on,the Laramie River in Colorado. Page 11 Figure 11 Forest Regrowth in a 30 -Year 01E1 Clearcut on The Medicine Bow National Forest (Photo Courtesy of Eric Wagner) Figure 12 Forest Regrowth in a 5G+ Year Old Clearcut (dashed line} in a School Section on the Medicine Bow National Forest Note invasion of trees into the clearing in the foreground (Photo Courtesy of Eric Wagner) Page 12 Figure 13 Past, Present, and Future Effects of Forest Service Man• agement Policies on Routt and Medicine Bow National Forests on North Platte River Water Yields AVERAGE ANNUAL WATER YIFLO FROM NORTH . TEN-YEAR MEAN APRIL • SEPTEMBER WATER YIELD [1.000 al: 750 ea • T00 0 4 sea N C a. 550 o- • 500 650 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 116,000 at/yr Reduced Water Yield flue To Forest Service Management 15.500 airyr Projected ❑ecraasa in Water Veld If Present Management Cantlnu ei Figure 15 Past, Present, and Future Effects of Forest Service Management Policies on Routt and Medicine Bow National Forests on North Platte River Water Yields (With Partial Restoration Cf Yields Through Forest Management) 1904. 1944 1945-1996 1997 - 2045 Figure 14 North Platte River at Saratoga, Wyoming Ten -Year Mean APR - SEP Water Yield 1917. 1999; 2000. 2039 1, i 1 A N- w 0• eek Proposed Patch Cut Alt [Leaf, 18e5x] Ho Action (Decreased Yield As The Result of Expected Regrowth on Areas Clearcut Since 1950) r+ YEAR 7 r 1 o 0 o 0 N o • 0 0 0 r n 0 tively estimated to decline at an average rate of at least 16,500 af/yr during the 19972045 time period under present U.S. Forest Service management policy 5r. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS U.S. Forest Service management policy has contrib- uted to a water -yield reduction in the Upper North Platte River Basin of some 116,000 af/yr since the 650 600 } 550 n. 500 775,000 af/yr 1904.1944 731,529 aflyr i 9D D.[Fafl'yr' 44/ /ice/// ,0-;10.grpvin 89,029 aflyr Potential Water:-` Yield Increase Under Patch C uttl ng System: 642,SOct 1945 - 1996 1997-2045 early 1900s. Future yields will diminish by an esti- mated additional 16,500 to 18,000 af/yr under exist- ing policy. Leaf (1999a) has estimated that water - oriented silvicultural practices, if applied on the Routt and Medicine Bow National Forests, could easily pro- duce an additional 89,000 af/yr from the North Platte upstream of Saratoga, Wyoming (Figures 14 and 15). The proposed silvicultural practices designed to fa- vor water yield are scientifically credible alternatives which are far superior to excessively large clearcuts or large-scale beetle attacks and uncontrollable crown fires which have been shown to increase in intensity as the result of no management. To illustrate, Figure 16 is a comparison of the effects of an array of forest management alternatives on resource and economic values taken from Alexander (1987). Using the rela- tive ranking scales shown, the cumulative total rank of the no -cutting alternative of 14 compares with cu- mulative totals of 24, 24, and 27 for the group selec- tion, sheltenvaod, and patch -cutting alternatives, re- spectively. In the Upper North Platte River Basin, research has shown that these silvicultural alternatives would sig- nificantly increase water yield with virtually no deg - Page 13 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 Figure 16 Relative Ranking of the Effects of Cutting Methods on the Resources of Spruce•Fir Forests (Alexander, 1987) Scale: 1 signifies the least favorable, 5 the most favorable. Wildlife Habitat Closed Forest Species 1 L 1 1 1 Livestock Forage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BC PC US AIS 55 GS i5 NC BC PC US MS SS GS IS NC - - Wildlife Habitat - Open Forest Species LD 1 1 ( 1 1 BC PC US MS SS GS 13 NC - Recreation and - Esthetics Hypothetical composite for all values 1 1 1 1 1 _1_- 1 3C PC Us MS 55 GS 15 NC radation of water quality or channel processes (Alexander; 1987; Troendle, et al. (1998); Leaf, 1999a). Finally, the argument has been made that increased water yield from forest management is unlikely to benefit the critical habitat along the Platte River in Nebraska because there is currently no legal mecha- )nism for "protecting" this water. However, Leaf (1999b) has shown that the Platte River system is re- markably efficient in transmitting hydrologic changes upstream to downstream locations. On average, al - 6 4 3 3 5 4 3 2 - Water Yield 1 1 1 1 BC PC Us 115 S5 GS i I 13 NC Timber Growth and Yield 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BC PC US 145 SS GS 15 NC Tim ber Economics 1 1 1 1 1__ 1 1 J BC PG U5 115 55 GS 15 NC BC Block clearcutting 10 acres+ PC Patch clearcutting 3 - 5 acres US Uniform shelterwood 55 Simulated shelterwood GS Group selection or Group shelterwood 2.0 acres 15 individual tree selection NC No cutting most 60 percent of headwater yield increases would augment instreat-n flows in the critical habitat some 300 miles downstream under the existing priority sys- tern of water rights administration. Clearly, a change in management policy which par- tially restores lost yields through water oriented for- est management is needed. Such management would also partially restore forest health, diminish the risk of uncontrollable fires with resultant watershed darn - age, and most importantly, provide additional water for endangered species recovery downstream. ACKNQ WLED GMENT A special thanks to Eric Wagner of Walden, Colorado for giving me permission to use photographs (Figures 11 and 12) from his collection. LITERATURE CITED Alexander, R.R., 1987. Ecology, silviculture, and management of the Englemann Spruce subal- pine fir type in the central and southern Rocky Mountains. U.S. Dept. Agric. Forest Service Agric. Handbook No. 639, Washington, DC, 144 pp. Anderson, H.W., M.D. Hoover, and K.G. Reinhart, 1976. Effects of forest management on floods, sedimentation, and water supply. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Sen+. Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-18, Pa- cific Southwest Forest and Range Expt. Stn., Berkely, California, 115 pp. Bethlahmy, N., 1974. More streamflow after a bark beetle epidemic. Journal of Hydrology, 23 (1974) 185-189. North Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, Netherlands. Page 14 L!) 13ethlahmy, N., 1975. A Colorado episode: beetle epidemic, ghost forests, more streamflow. Northwest Science, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1975. Brown, P.M., and W.D. Shepperd, 1995. Englemann spruce tree -ring chronologies from Fraser Experimental Forest, Colorado: Potential for a long-term temperature reconstruction in the Central Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Serv., Inter. West Global Change Workshop, Gen. Tech. Rept. RM -GTR -262, Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Expt. Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 23-26. CSR, 1999 a. Testimony to Committee on Resources. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Coalition for Sustainable Resources, Inc., Walden, CO. CSR, 1999b. Review of Platte River Cooperative Agreement watershed management alternative, Coalition For Sustainable Resources, Inc., Walden, CO. FWVS, 1997. Biological opinion of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's preferred alternative for the Kingsley Dam project (project No. 1417) and North Platte/Keystone Dam project (project No. 1835). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Island, NE. July 25, 1997. Gosnell, R., 1999. Forestry can help solve water prob- lems. Colorado Water Newsletter of the Water Center of Colorado State Univ., Feb., 1999. Colo. Water Research Inst., Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins, CO, pp. 10-13. Leaf, C.F. and G.E. Brink, 1973. Hydrologic simu- lation model of Colorado subalpine forest. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. Rm-107, Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Expt. Stn., Fort Collins, CO, 23 pp. Leaf, C.F. 1975. Watershed management in the Rocky Mountain subalpine zone: The status of our knowledge. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM -1.37, Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Expt. Stn., Fort Collins, CO, 31 pp. Leaf, C.F. and R.R. Alexander, 1975. Simulating timber yields and hydrologic impacts resulting from timber harvest on subalpine watersheds. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM -133, Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Stn., Fort Collins, CO, 22 pp. Leaf, C.F., and G.E. Brink, 1975. Land use simula- tion model of the subalpine coniferous forest zone, USDA for. Serv. Res. Pap. RM -135, 42 pp., Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Expt. Stn., Fort Collins, CO 80521. Leaf, C.F., 1999a. Cumulative hydrologic impacts of U.S. Forest Service management practices on the Routt, Arapaho -Roosevelt, Pike, and Medi- cine Bow National Forests: Potential for water yield improvement. Res. Pap. PRHRC-3, Platte River Hydrol. Res. Center, Merino, CO. 15 pp. Leaf, C.F., 1999b. Platte River Basin water balance model ©. Res. Pap. PRHRC-5, Platte River Hydrol. Res. Center, Merino, CO, 12 pp. Love, L.D., 1955. The effect on streamflow of the killing of spruce and pine by the Englemann spruce beetle. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 36 (1): 113-118. Potts, D.F., 1984. Hydrologic impacts of a large-scale mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus Ponderosae Hopkins) epidemic. Water Resources Bulletin, Amer. Water Resources Association, June, 1984, pp. 373-377. Searey, J.K. and C.H. Hardison, 1960. Double -mass curves. Geol. Surv. Water -Supply Paper 1541- B. USDA, Geological Survey, U.S. Govt. Print- ing Office, Washington, DC, 66 pp. Shepperd, W.D., C.A. Troendle, and C.B. Edminster, 1991. Linking water and growth and yield models to evaluate management al- ternatives in subalpine ecosystems. In: National Silvicultural Workshop Proceedings, Silver City, UT, May 6-9, 1991, P. 42-48. Snedecor, G.W., 1961. Statistical Methods, fifth. ed., The Iowa State Univ. Press, Antes, Iowa. Page 15 'Swanson, R. H., 1987. Applying hydrologic prin- ciples to the management of subalpine forests for water supply. In: Management of Subalpine Forests: Building on 50 Years of Research, Proc. Technical Conf., Silver Creek, CO, July 6-9, 1987. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept., RM - 149, Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Expt. Stn., Fort Collins, CO, pp. 79-85. Troendle, C.A., and C.F. Leaf, 1980. Hydrology Chapter III, pp. 1-173. In: Water Resource Evaluation Non -Point Sources in Silviculture. USDA For. ServiEnv. Prot. Agency Report EPA -60018-80-012. Troendle, C.A., 1983. The Deadhorse experiment: A field verification of the Subalpine Water Bal- ance Model. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note, RM - 425, Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Stn., Fort Collins, CO, 7 pp. Troendle, C.A. and R.M. King, 1985. The effect of timber harvest on the Fool Creek watershed, 30 years later. Water Resources Bulletin 21 (12) 1915-1922. Troendle, C.A. and G.S. Bevenger,1996. Effect of fire on streamflow and sediment transport, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. In: FIRE, The ecological implications of fire in greater Yellowstone, Proceedings, Second Biennial Conf on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Jason M. Greenlee, Editor, Internatl_ Assoc. of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, WA, pp. 43-50. Troendle, C.A., M.S. Wilcox, and G.S. Bevenger, 1998. The Coon Creek Water yield aurrmenta- tion project. In: Proceedings 66th Annual Meet- ing of the Western Snow Conference, Snowbird, UT. Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Forest Service, 1987. Timber inventory reports: Routt, Medicine Bow, and Arapaho -Roosevelt National Forests. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mtn Region, Denver, CO. U.S. Forest Service, 1997. Draft environmental im- pact statement for the proposed revised Routt NF land and resource management plan. USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mtn. Region, Denver, CO. U.S. Forest Service, 1999. Logging summaries, Routt and Medicine Bow National Forests, File Re- ports, USDA For. Serv., Rocky Mtn_ Region, Deriver, CO. Page 16 ?br 1 In 1972, a northern Wisconsin logger named Pat Crawford patented a tree cutting ear and began looking for a cost-effective machine to mount it on. His first attempt was to modify a Timberjack 494 skidder by rersing the operator's seat and installing Lite shear on a boom. it then purchased a Draft excavator feller- uuncher in 1975 and used it for four years. Most of his logging jobs were in national 'ests and tight selective cuts were „dooming very common. The Droll had a IP counterweight and a long tail swing ...A made it almost impossible to ,,,;lective cut without damaging standing trees. To solve this problem, Pat designed a w boom geometry. The new boom geometry located the boom and lift cylinder pivots well behind the center of a rotating turntable. This made the boom's mass act as a counterweight, eliminating the large parasitic counterweight and tail swing. The boom also knuckled over the cab making it possible to cut a tree right next to the machine and then swing with the tree while staying almost within the machine's width. The new boom could also be extended vertically to delimb a tree from the top down. Initially, the new boom geometry was installed on a rubber -tired machine with side-to-side cab leveling, but hydraulic problems meant replacing the tires with tracks. A patent was filed on this machine This new machine was introduced in April, 1982 at the intermountain Logging Show in Spokane, Washington. The design was a huge success and approximately 600 of the 4 -cylinder, 4 -way cab leveling machines were eventually built. -in February, 1980 and another patent with additional:.'' claims was issued'in April,' -= 1985.•With the success of this first machine Pat asked Larry Klement, who had ct helped build the machine, to �""`'- ;l del become his partner... Timbco ;1 r� .4; + 1v11 v .h toa ; `-'Hy1raulics, Inc: was formed. - �� :.tom "p` A small 6,000, sq. ft: shop __ was built in Shawano, Wisconsin where the first production Timbco Hydro-Buncher was built and sold in July, 1980. in January, 1982, Timbco was challenged to build a 4 -way cab leveling machine. With this challenge, Timbco produced its first 4 -cylinder, 4 -way cab leveling machine in only three months. Timbco redesigned the machine again in 1987 to an engine -up configuration with the 4 -cylinder cab leveling being abandoned for a much improved 2 -cylinder design. This new generation T400 Series Hydra-Buncher has proven to be an even greater success. The new T400-0 Series Hydro-Bunchers now offer even more improvements such as lighter and stronger boom construction, an entirely new electrical system, and a 2O% increase in cooling capacity. Since its beginning, Timbco Hydraulics, Inc. has expanded five times and as.ot June,1999 has produced over 1,550 T400 Series Hydro-Bunchers. Timbco is continuously testing designs for new products like-lhe TF800 Series Hydro-Skidders introduced in 1996. The "Timbco family" still numbers lust under fifty employees, all proudly supplying products to loggers around the world. Timbco is a company whose success is built on - innovation, integrity, and remaining close to the togging industry. Being founded by loggers; we,beiieve all loggers have a very basic need... equipment that is simple, easy to service and maintain, and has the flexibility to "lit" into their operation. Whether it be on steep slopes, in wet swamps, in tight selective cuts, or with any cutting attachment... Timbco products have, and always will, fulfill that need. 3 Timbco's unique 2 -cylinder, 4 -way cab leveling keeps the operator comfortable and productive in a level position, even when working on 51% slopes. Cab leveling allows the mass of the entire upper structure to be shifted towards the slope to increase stability. To put it in more familar terms, we naturally do the same thing by leaning forward when walking uphill. Timbco's 2 -cylinder leveling system is simpler, 'cleaner, and faster than other manufacturer's leveling systems. Cab leveling controls are also very simple and easy to operate, one button for each direction of travel. Compound leveling (leveling in two axis simultaneously), is done by operating the controls for two directions at the same time. Forward Rear, s iF 27° (51% slope) 0° 36°, s/oTe �nn..7 •.ars Timbco's current 2 -cylinder, 4 -way cab leveling system has many advantages over 4 -cylinder systems, including Timbco's original cab leveling system used in the engine -down machines. } Cab':Le�elirigeomel' Side -To -Side Pivot SWIM 1 A 1 rl • A 2 -cylinder cab leveling system weighs less and requires fewer hydraulic lines and connections than a 4 -cylinder cab leveling system. • Two cab leveling cylinders can be positioned at the rear -most comers of the leveling mechanism, outside the swing bearing race. This position provides the most leverage and stability because the cylinders are [coated the furthest away from the leveling pivots and each other. • Every pivot must have some tolerance (play) built into it for assembly purposes. A 2 -cylinder cab leveling system has at least four fewer pivot points, therefore, less built-in tolerance, In addition, Timbco uses its PATENTED tapered hub pin retaining system in the front -to -back and side-to-side pivots, leaving minimal tolerance. • A 2 -cylinder cab leveling system has fewer pivot points to grease and fewer cylinders to maintain. • Timbco uses a solid steel casting, heavy-duty steel weldment, and a 51" (130 cm) diameter swing bearing rated to 1,200,000 Ib. (544 316 kg) capacity for maximum strength and rigidity. Improvements in the T400 -D Series Hydro-Bunchers include larger 6-1/2" (16,5 crn) diameter cab level cylinders with heavy-duty, bolt -on pistons for additional strength and ruggedness. Front -To -Back Pivot A) The longer dimension "A" is, the more leverage the cylinders have to level the upper turntable from side-to-side. B) The longer dimension "B" is, the more leverage the cylinders have to level the upper turntable from front -to -back. The longer dimension "A & B" are, the more stable the entire leveling mechanism will be. 17 i Timbco's PATENTED boom design locates the main boom pivot well behind the center of rotation where the mass of the boom itsetf acts as a counterweight. This feature eliminates the need fora large parasitic counterweight`. The main lift cylinder pivot is also located behind the center of rotation to allow the boom to knuckle over the cab. This feature allows cutting a tree right next to the tracks and the boom can lift heavier loads closer to the machine with less stress on the swing bearing. The boom can also be extended almost 30' (9,14 m) vertically to delimb a tree frorh the top down. The Timbco "0" model Hydro-Bunchers also feature new "box -construction" boom weldments. The new design is engineered to produce a boom that is stronger and distributes load stress better. A reduction of weight towards the tip of the boom increases lift capacity at full extended reach. In addition to the standard boom choices, there are three additional boom configurations available. Aft boom configurations are interchangeable and can adapt to any lagging application as required. ' An optional 2, WO Ib. (953 kgj counterweight is only recommended on the T4i5-Q and T416.O when rasing cutting attachments weighing over 5,000 Ib. (2 268 kg). Tall swim does not increase with the addition al the counterweight. ogir;p bte a ,:a �� ��� tD,....:. ��,. s„ � ❑fir louver:; the rotating; aced tram gig e� ti ta 'e fat. P!?otal ,me .:, turn. b�.: ,������an the VDDn, �n a,:,;.r �;v:.tot'a tre turntable.)3Y..me eco d:at Its ti • draulic ram none Mable 3t 3 `;< o 'end to thei:iga i. la,�et. edtatetrQ tatatln` otnt % L tm and ire P , turntable °airs QtAtli.. of tne votal;orinnecton. I. d••0 a beam - tnwer en tr Tinibco's 4 -bar power link allows fixed boom mount cutting attachments, such as a bar saw, disc saw, or control -fall CTL processor, to be swept through a 152° arc from full back tilt to full forward tilt. This feature is especially useful when working in blow -down timber or for positioning the tree after it has been • felled. When used with a lateral tilt cutting attachment, a felled tree can be dragged in and placed right alongside the machine parallel to the tracks or even dragged past the machine to skidders. • Large 5" (172 mrn) diameter, 40" (102 cm) stroke attachment tilt cylinder has an induction - hardened and chromed rod for maximum wear resistance. Several improvements, including additional rod bearing attachment bolts and a heavy-duty bolt -on piston design, have been incorporated into the cylinder for the T400-0 Series Hydro-Bunchers. • All linkage and attachment tilt cylinder pins are 2-1/2" (84 mm) induction hardened and chromed for maximum wear resistance. T400-13 Series Hydro-Buncher linkage pins are also quenched and tempered for additional strength and wear resistance. All linkage pins are a teardrop design retained by locknuts. • Steel bushings used in all pivot paints. • The "Y" shaped paddle link is burned and machined from 4" (102 mm) thick steel plate. - The "dog bone" shaped links are burned and machined from 1-3/4" (44 mm) thick steel plate. 15 Attachment Tilt imbco T400-D Series Hydro-Bunchers are designed to be simple, rugged, and 'e the ability to perform under the worst logging conditions, whether it be on ..ap slopes, in wet swamps, or in tight selective cuts. Tmbco's solid, time- roven design, combined with 2-cylinder, 4-way cab leveling and the flexibility 1 capacity to install any type of cutting attachment, provides the most satile feller-buncher available today. The track systems designed for the T450 -D and T455-0 Hydro-Bunchers are specifically engineered to give maximum service life in Canada's severe -duty conditions. These track systems are some of the most rugged, purpose-built forestry undercarriages available today. • Heavy-duty 0&K F Series final drives and Rexroth A6VE Series 2 -speed, bent -axis track motors. • DFG Tractor -type double flange rollers. • Tractor -type clipped and relieved track shoes and sprocket teeth reduce mud and snow buildup. • Raised idler for better climbability and less ground disturbance. • Replaceable bolt -on track sliders and track shoe support wear surfaces. Bottom rollers can be installed in place of the sliders if desired. • Track frames bolt to the carbody for easy removal. Track Type Guarico Custom (060) Guadco Custom (076) 8.5" (216 mm) 8 per side Track Pitch Bottom Rollers Carrier Type Slider (Rollers optional) (Rollers optional) Number of Shoes 48 per side 45 per side 8.0" (203 mm) 9 per side Slider Final Drive 0&K F062 168.0: 1 ratio G&K F100 142.0 : 1 ratio Track Motor Rexroth A6VE80 2 -speed Rexroth A6VE107 2 -speed Integral track brake Integral track brake MIN - 2.44 cu. in. (40 cc) MIN - 3.23 cu. in. (53 cc) MAX - 4.88 cu, in, (80 cc) MAX - 6.53 cu. in. (107 cc) Tractive Effort (After efficiency reductions) 81,000 Ib. (36 741 kg) 91,000 Ib. (41 277 kg) Drawbar Pull (Atter roiling resistance reduction) 77,580 Ib. (35 190 kg) 87,445 Ib. (39 665 kg) Drawbar -To -Weight Ratio 1.36 :1 1.48 :1 Travel Speed LOW - 1.6 mph (2,6km/h) LOW -1.5 mph (24 km/h) HIGH -3.2 mph (5,1km/h) HIGH -3.0mph (4,8 km/h) Ground Pressures: 24"1600 mm SG - 7.42 psi 7.83 psi 28'7700,mm SG (Standard) : 6.46 psi ` 6.82 psi 30V750 rnm DG 6.05 psi 6.40 psi 36"1900 mm "IQ ,. s :x - :5:25 ._ APPENDIX 19 Colorado Forest Stewardship Guidelines Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Colorado Colorado State Forest Service / February 199S Attached as Separate Publication