The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.0 BOCC Staff Report 09.08.2008 - Exhibits A - LExhibits for Public Hearing September 8, 2008 — Meeting with new property owners/Release of Bonds Termination of Special Use Permits, Tepee Park Ranch Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Staff Memo F Resolution 97-70 — Natural Resource Extraction Tucker Frase G Resolution 2003-39 — Natural Resource Extraction Norman A. Carpenter H Resolution 2008-86 — Natural Resource Extraction Black Diamond Minerals, LLC I City of Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-08 J Minutes to BOCC hearings on May 19, 2008 and June 9, 2008 K "A Review of the Teepee Creek Timber Sale" by David R.W. Hoefer dated September 12, 2003 (with cover letter) L "A Review of the Teepee Creek Ranch Timber Harvest" by David R.W. Hoefer dated August 26, 2008 (with cover letter) M "Tepee Park Forest Management Plan" prepared by Jeff Calvert of David Levy Forestry Services dated April 1996 N Application for Special Use Permit — Timber Harvesting, Tepee Park Prepared by Mr. James A. Beckwith dated February 21, 2003 Special Use Permit Bond Resolution 97-70, FS 422281 in the amount of $100,000 by Intermountain Ranches, LLC dated October 1, 1999 P Special Use Permit Bond Resolution 97-70. FS 4550380 in the amount of $75.000 by Intermountain Resources, LLC dated October 15, 2001 Special Use Permit Bond Resolution 97-70, FS 4931962 in the amount of $100,000 by Teepee Park Ranch LLC dated October 1, 2006 w/attached letter from GAIC R Special Use Permit Bond Resolution 97-70, FS 4931963 in the amount of $75,000 by Teepee Park Ranch LLC dated October 15, 2006 w/attached letter from LAIC 5 Letter from Patricia Clough, Great American Insurance Company dated January 12, 2007 T Memorandum to the Board of County Commissioners from Fred Jarman, Director of Building and Planning, dated August 6, 2007 U Letter signed and sealed February 18, 2008 from Patricia Clough, Great American Insurance Company regarding sale of property V Memo to the Board of County Commissioners from Marvin Stephens, Road & Bridge Supervisor, dated May 14, 2008 W Email from Jake Mall, dated August 14, 2008 with attachment - Invoice from Frontier Paving, Inc. dated July 30, 2001 X Proposal from Frontier Paving, Inc. dated September 3, 2008 for overlay on 1.6 miles of CR 320 I, Proposal from Frontier Paving, Inc. dated September 3, 2008 for overlay on 2.8 miles of CR 320 Z Letter from Tom Russell to Intermountain Dated October 15, 2001 AA Material from Terry Broughton received August 28, 2008 BB SUP 'permit' Resolution 97-70 PROJECT' INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW APPLICANT LOCATION ACCESS SITE INFORMATION EXISTING ZONING BOCC 09/08/08 KE I I)Q New Ownership Meeting; Release of Bonds associated with, and termination of, Special Use Permits for "Extraction, Processing, Storage and Material Handling of Natural Resources" for a lumbering operation and approved by Resolution 97-70 and Resolution 2003-39. Board of County Commissioners Approximately 9 miles south of City of Rifle County Road 320 to County Road 317 (Beaver Creek Road) to Forest Service Road 824 Teepee Park Ranch, 4,332 acres occurring in the S'A of the S V2 of Sec 15, T7S, R94W; and Tract 42 in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of T8S, R93W; and Tract 65 in Sections 30 and 31, T7S, R93W of the 6th P.M. Agriculture / Residential / Rural Density (ARRD) GIS map of property and vicinity Tepee Park Ranch, Release of Bonds and Termination ofSUP 's BOCC — 09108108 Page 2 I. BACKGROUND Pursuant to a request from the Board of County Commissioners, County Attorney staff, Road and Bridge staff and Planning staff are providing information for consideration of the release of bonds, GA1C numbers FS4931962 and 63, required by Resolutions 97-70 and 2003-39 which approved land use for timbering operations via Special Use Permits. The Board further directed staff to hire a forester to provide a report on the condition of the subject property, and that report was completed by David Hoefer and attached as Exhibit L. Should the bonds be released, further action of the Board would be consideration of termination of the Special Use Permits for the tirnbering operations. On May 19, 2008 a request was made by Tepee Park Ranch, LLC for release of bonds associated with road improvements and Board consideration again occurred at the meeting held on June 9, 2008. Staff is providing additional information so that the Board may make a fully informed decision regarding this matter at a noticed public hearing. Both resolutions also included a requirement that the new owner meet with the Board. The Board asked that this meeting with the new owner, Black Diamond Minerals, LLC. be scheduled as well. II. SITE DESCRIPTION AND APPROVALS The 4,332 -acre property which comprises Teepee Park Ranch is located south of the terminus of County Road 317 (Beaver Creek Road) via. Forest Service Road 824. The property has changed ownership several times throughout the years when Special Use Permits have been in effect. 199611997— An application was submitted for a Special Use Permit for Natural Resource Extraction for Tepee Park Ranch. The BOCC memorialized approval for such use in Resolution 97-70 (see Exhibit F) which allows for a timbering operation further identified as being for the Tucker and Frase Partnership. Conditions of this approval are itemized in the Exhibit, however several of those conditions are discussed below. Condition 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. The Tepee Park Forest Management Plan, prepared by Jeff Calvert of David Levy Forestry Services and dated April 1996, is submitted at Exhibit M. Condition 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. Condition satisfied. Condition 5. That the forest management practices and revegetation will be monitored for 2 Tepee Park Ranch, Release of Bonds and Termination of SUP 's BOCC — 09/08/08 Page 3 compliance with the proposed Tepee 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. See above referenced Exhibit M. Condition 8. That prior to issuance of a Special Use permit, the applicant shall pay for an overlay of at least 1 '/x 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 place with the Road and Bridge Department to be used for the repair of CR 320 and/or 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. See discussion in Section III. Condition 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 U.S. Forest Service for the Forest Service access road. See Exhibit Z, letter from Road and Bridge director in 2001 indicating all improvements to CR 317 were completed and acceptable. Condition 16. The haul route will only be along CR 320 from the intersection of CR 320/317 to Taugenbaugh Ave. in Rifle. This condition is mentioned only to provide additional information concerning condtion 8 above Condition 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 being met today with the scheduled meeting with the current owner, Black Diamond Minerals, LLC The Special Use Permit approved in Resolution 97-70 was issued October 29, 2001, Exhibit BB to Norm Carpenter, Intermountain Resources LLC, (PKA Tucker/Frase). 2003 -- Resolution 2003-39 (Exhibit G) approved a Special Use Permit for Natural Resource Extraction for Norman A. Carpenter and conditionally permitted logging activity. Conditions of Resolution 2003-39 are itemized in the Exhibit, but those of particular note are itemized below: Condition 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, including the forestry plan, shall be considered conditions of approval. The Forest Management Plan submitted with the 2003 Special Use Permit 3 Tepee Park Ranch, Release of Bonds and Termination of SUP's BOCC — 09/08108 Page 4 application was in the body of the submittal materials as prepared by James Beckwith and attached as Exhibit N. Condition 3. That the forest management practices and revegetation will be monitored for compliance with the conditions of approval contained in the resolution of approval, by a consultant for the Board, agreed upon by the Board of County Commissioners and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant. Numerous reports have been submitted regarding the compliance with requirements. Only the most recent of these,from (befall of 2003 and the recently completed report, are included here, see Exhibits and L. Neither resolution required any security for compliance with this condition. Condition 4. A road bond will remain in place with the County to overlay 1.6 miles of CR 320 with asphalt at the completion of the timber harvest. See Section III. Condition 9. The haul route will only be along CR 320 from the intersection of CR 320/317 to Taugenbaugh Ave. in Rifle. Additionally, an overweight vehicle permit will be acquired for each vehicle needing such permit. To staff's knowledge the haul route was along CR 320 from the intersection of CR 320/317 to Taugenbaugh Ave. in Rifle. Additional support of this is found in the application material submitted by Jim Beckwith for the 2003 SUP Page Wound in Exhibit N. Condition 10. Upon transfer of ownership of the property subject to the Special Use Permit issued in accordance with this resolution, 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. One of the functions of this hearing is to satisfy this condition as Black Diamond Minerals, LLC will meet with the Board Condition 12. Compliance with all terms and conditions of approval contained m any permit issued to the applicant, its successors or assigns, by any local government, state or federal agency, shall be deemed to be conditions of this Special Use Permit. A violation of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of such pernut(s) shall be deemed to constitute a violation of the terms of approval of this Special Use Permit. The applicants, their successors and assigns, shall notify the Garfield County Board of Commissioners of notice of violation or violations of such permits as issued by any local government or state or federal agency. The Garfield County Board of Commissioners shall be notified within ten (10) calendar days of any violation or notice of possible violation. Black Diamond Minerals, LLC and its predecessor owners of this property have had watershed permits with the City of Rifle. There is a current permit in effectfor Black Diamond Minerals, LLC, see discussion below. Condition 13. On or before October 1, 2003, the County's consulting forester, hired in 4 Tepee Park Ranch, Release of Bonds and Termination of SUP 's BOCC — 09108/08 Page 5 accordance with paragraph 3. above, will do an on site inspection of the site to review the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval in this resolution. A report will be prepared for the Board of County Commissioners after the site review, presenting the findings. See Exhibit K "A Review of the Teepee Creek Timber Sale" completed by David R.W. Hoefer, Consulting Forester and Dated September 12, 2003 2008 - The Board of County Commissioners approved a Special Use Permit for "Extraction, Processing, Storage and Material Handling of a Natural Resource" for a Shale Borrow Pit on the property (see adjacent map), memorialized in Resolution 2008-86 (Exhibit H). The Borrow Pit was permitted use of the extracted shale material to complete on-site road improvements and road improvements associated with FS Road 824. The improvements are associated with exploratory oil and gas activities on the site. Resolution 2008-86 Condition 1. That all representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or the submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. Condition 2. Prior to activity occurring on the site, the applicant shall provide a copy of the approved permits form the following agencies and shall remain in effect for the life of this permit: a. City of Rifle Watershed Permit (Exhibit 1) Condition 8_ The Applicant shall be required to submit a report annually, until such time as the release of the reclamation bond by the County, of the borrow pit operation for staff review_ Upon review of any deficiencies pursuant to conditions of approval or other local, state, or federal permits, Staff may forward the report to the County Commissioners for full review of the Special Use Permit. Copies of annual reports required by and submitted to other agencies including, but not limited to, the City of Rifle, will be attached to the annual report submitted to the County. The Watershed Permit was conditioned (number 13, 4th bullet item) on "All existing slash piles inherited by Black Diamond from the previous operator shall be eliminated as soon as weather permits." Black Diamond must meet this condition to remain in compliance with its 5 Tepee Park Ranch, Release of Bonds and Termination ofSUP 's BOCC — 09/08/08 Page 6 County Special Use Permit as required by Conditions 2 and 8 referenced above. 111. PROVISION OF BONDS As identified above, the Special Use Permit approvals required road improvements to both CR 317 and 320, security for damage caused to CR 317 and 320 by operations, and continuation of a bond for an asphalt overlay of 1.6 miles of CR 320. Map of 320/317 Resolution 97-70, Condition 8 required that "prior to the issuance of a Special Use permit" the applicant shall pay for an overlay of at least 1 % inches of asphalt overlay of County Road 320 from Taugenbaugh Avenue to the intersection of CR 317 and 320, AND this condition required a road bond of $100,000 to be used for the repair of CR 320 and/or CR317 due to damage attributable to the activity. See Exhibit 0 which is entitled "SPECIAL USE PERMIT BOND" and dated 1999. This document is identified as Bond No. FS 3 42 22 81 and further stated that the $100,000.00 road bond was to "ensure the repair of damage attributable to Principal's logging activities on CR 320 and/or CR 317". The Principal in this bond was Intermountain Ranches, LLC. In 1998 and 1999, portions of CR 320 were included in a County tar sanding project. In the summer of 2001, a portion of CR 320 that was subject to condition 8 of Resolution 97-70 was paved with an asphalt overlay, which, according to Jake Mall, Administrative Foreman of the County Road and Bridge Department, was a 1.5 inch overlay for 1.6 miles from the intersection with CR 332 to just past the entrance to Rifle village south or CR 357A. This overlay cost the County $37,999.13 and no funds were received from Intermountain. See Exhibit W. Road & Bridge indicates that the total distance of CR320 from the intersection of Taugenbaugh Boulevard to CR 317 is 2.8 miles. 6 Tepee Park Ranch, Release of Bonds and Termination of SUP 's BOCC — 09/08108 Page 7 On October 15, 2001, Road and Bridge Director Tom Russell sent a letter to Intermountain Resources indicating that all the improvements to CR 317 were made and met the approval of the County Road and Bridge Department. See Exhibit Z. On October 15, 2001, Great American Insurance Company issued Bond No. FS 4550380 in the amount of $75,000, Exhibit P, for Intermountain Resources, LLC, "to provide a road bond in lieu of road paving on CR 317." On October 29, 2001, the Special Use Permit authorized by Resolution 97-70 was issued to Norm Carpenter, Intermountain Resources, LLC (PKA Tucker/Frase), Exhibit BB. In February 2003, James Beckwith submitted an application dated February 21, 2003 to County Planning on behalf of Norman Carpenter, Landowner and Intermountain Resources, LLC, Timber Owner, which was considered as part of the record for Resolution 2003-39. Included in this application, at page 23, is the following representation: 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. See Exhibit N Resolution 2003-39 Condition 4 stated that a road bond would remain in place with the County to overlay 1.6 miles of CR 320 with asphalt at the completion of the timber harvest. This resolution did not repeal or replace Resolution 97-70, so the conditions of both resolutions are still in effect. On October 15, 2006, Bond No. 4131963 was issued by Great American Insurance Company for Teepee Park Ranch, LLC, in the amount of $75,000 "to provide a road bond in lieu of road paving on CR320." See Exhibit R which is entitled "SPECIAL USE PERMIT BOND." A letter from Great American dated January 12, 2007 stated that this bond replaced bond number FS 5440380 and requested that the prior bond be cancelled. A similar request was made with respect to the $100,000 bond for repair of damages to CR 317/320, both letters indicating that coverage had never lapsed for either bond. See Exhibit S. August 6, 2007 a Memorandum (Exhibit T) was issued to the Board from Fred Jarman regarding notification of replacement of two bonds that were originally issued to "Intermountain Resources, LLC" that had been issued to Tepee Park Ranch, LLC. The Board of County Commissioners approved the cancellation of the prior bonds based on the replacement of them with the current bonds by Board action on August 6, 2007. See Exhibit S which is unsigned however a signed copy is available at the Clerk and Recorder office. What exists today are these two bonds issued to Teepee Park Ranch, LLC. December 2007 — Transfer of the property from Teepee Park Ranch, LLC to Black Diamond 7 Tepee Park Ranch, Release of Bonds and Termination of SUP 's BOCC -- 09/08108 Page 8 Minerals, LLC. February 18, 2008, Great American sent Notices of Cancellation of both bonds due to the sale of the property to Black Diamond, but without prejudice to any rights existing under the bonds, see Exhibit U. Teepee Park Ranch, LLC has requested release of these bonds. Minutes from the discussions by the Board of County Commissioners on this request at the May 19, 2008 and June 9, 2008 are attached, see Exhibit J. The current cost estimates to pave either L6 miles or 2.8 miles of CR320 with a 1.5 inch asphalt overlay are$256,051.36 and $442,267.10, respectively. See Exhibits X and Y. IV. ACTIONS FOR BOARD TO CONSIDER 1. Discussion with current property owner in order to satisfy conditions of the existing resolutions. 2. Release of Bonds — the Board should consider each bond, determine the intent of each bond, determine whether the conditions of each bond have been satisfied, and either release each or direct staff to pursue collection. Specific findings should be made as to what conditions have not been satisfied and the amount of money to be collected from the bond to satisfy such conditions. 3. If release of each of the bonds is approved, termination of Special Use Permits associated with Resolutions 97-70 and 2003-39 should be considered if the current owner has no desire to continue that use. If release of each of the bonds is not approved, then termination of the Special Use Permits should not occur until the bond issues are resolved. V. AUTHORITY & APPLICABILITY Section 9.01.06 Compliance with Conditions of Permits: upon being advised of an alleged violation of any permit issued by or on behalf of the County Commissioners, the County Commissioners may establish a time for consideration of the alleged violation, upon not less than three (3) days' notice to the party engaging in activity under such permit, and to the owner of the property which is the subject of the permits, at which hearing the County Commissioners may consider whether a violation of the conditions of the permit has occurred. If the County Commissioners determine that a violation has occurred, the board may suspend the permit until such violation can be corrected or until measures can be taken to prevent a recurrence of such violation, or, if the violation is determined to be continuing or likely to recur and to endanger the safety or welfare of the residents or property of residents within the county, the County Commissioners may terminate the subject permit. (A. 81-145) Should the Board determine to release of the Bonds as required by the Special Use Permits: PUBLIC NOTICE EXHIBIT 1 4 TAKE NOTICE that the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, State of Colorado, will hold a public hearing to consider release of bonds required by, and termination of, Resolution 97-70 and Resolution 2003-39 for Special Use Permit(s) for "Extraction, Storage, Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" for logging and forestry related activities on Teepee Park Ranch as described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: Legal Description: Legal Description; Tepee Park Manch The South half (S 112) of the South half (S 112) 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 Pan of Alberta No. 1 Part of Alberta No. 2 Pan of Alberta No. 3 Part or Alberta No. 4 Part of Alberta No. 5 Part of P.C. Junior -No. 1 Part of PC. 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. 3 Little Maud No. 3 Little Maud No..5 Little Maud No. 7 Little Maud No. 9 Little Maud No. t 1 Little Maud No. 13 and Lime Maud No. 15 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claims designated as Stu-►ey No. 20096. embracing a portion of Sections Twenty-four and Twenty-five and the unsueveyed portion of Township Seven South of Range Ninety --Four West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, as described in the United States Patent recorded December 17, 1932 in hook 164 page 486_ TOGETHER WITH all the real property situate, lying and being iu Garfield County, Colorado consisting of the following Placer Mining Claim, to wit; Parcel A: Mt_ Maxam No. 1 Mt. Mamm No. 2 lilt. Mrimm No. 3 Mt. Mamm No. 4 h9t Mamm No. 5 Mt. Matnm No. 6 Mt. Manan No. 8 Mi Manua No. 9 As described in United Stales Patent No. 10514M recorded December 16, 1931 in Book 168 at Page 254 as Reception No. 111666 ate Garfield County Records. Parcel El: Mt. Mamm No. 10 Mt, Mamm Na. 11 As described in United States Patent No. 1051425 recorded December 1.6. 1931 in Book 168 al Page 255 as Reception No. 111667 of the Garfield County Records. Mt, Manan No. 12 Mi, Matnm No. 13 Mr. Mamrn No. 14 Mt_ Manua 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 now known as: Tract 42 in Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8, Township 8 South, Range 93 West of the Sixth Principal 1V1eridian, Garfield County, Colorado, and Tract 65 in Section 30 and 3I , Township 7 South, Range 93 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. Garfield County, Colorado, wording to the re -survey thtgeof. Practical Description: 4,332 -acre property located 9 miles south of the City of Rifle, accessed via CR 317 (Beaver Creek Road) to its terminus, then commencing south on United States Forest Road 824. Consideration: The County is the obligee on two bonds provided as security for improvements related to the Special Use Permit as identified above. Activity associated with the Special Use Permit has since ceased, therefore the applicant is requesting release of the bonds. Additionally, as logging activities are no longer active an the property and, as ownership of the property has changed, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the revocation of the Special Use Permits and shall meet with the current property owners, Black Diamond Minerals, LLC to discuss its plans for the property. All persons affected by the release of bonds and termination of the Special Use Permit are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for the Special Use Permit. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public hearing on the application has been scheduled for the 8th day of September, 2008 at 1:15 PM, in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building, 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County • Complete items I, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. i. Article Addressed to: IlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIrilrII Williams Production RMT Company 1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 3 Denver, CO 80202 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature x B. Received by (Printed Name) 0 Addressee C. Dat: of Derry D. Is delivery address different from item 1? •i Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type Certified Mail Registered 0 Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.D.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) O Yes ?. Article Number [Transfer from service label) 7007 0220 0001 6138 1165 '5 Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION 1 Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ▪ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. I. Article Addressed to: II��I�IIJ��r�I�III,rrr�Irll�rl�l Noble Energy, Inc. 1625 Broadway, #2000 Denver, CO 80202 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature x B. Received by ( Printed Name) ❑ Agent 0 Addressee C. date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from tem 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Type Certified Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes ?. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7007 0220 0001 6138 1172 'S Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 y 1 I r] :ii•I■r+r r�rt:e y Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Rem 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Article Addressed to: James A. Beckwith, Rsq. 7910 Ralston Road, Suite 7 Arvada, Co 80002 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. signature �J] ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes if YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Type rtlfied Mail ❑ Registered ❑ insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes . Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7007 0220 0001 6138 0298 'S Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 r Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. r Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. r Attach this card to the back of the rnailpiece, or on the front if space permits. Article Addressed to: IIr1Iu'III1Ilrr1IuIlIuiIIrlll White River National Forest 900 Grand Avenue PO Box 948 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee ryes ., eiK. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from If YES, enter delivery addres 3. Service Type Certified Mail Registered El Insured Mail 0 Express ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes '. Article Number (Transfer from service labs) 7007 0220 0001 6138 1141 S Form 3811, February 2004 • Domestic Return Receipt Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. I Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. . Article Addressed to: IlriliIIriiiif.IIIIIIIIIIrriuIII BLM 2850 Youngfield St. Lakewood, CO 80215 102595 -02 -M -15x0 ; COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X ciag 8. Received by (Printed Name) CO Po TF?i &- ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date /Delivery D. is delivery address different from item 1? If YES, enter delivery address below: Yes 0 No 3Certified ice Type Mail egistered 0 Insured Mali ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 1. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7007 0220 0001 6138 1158 'S Form 381 1, February 2004 ENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION Domestic Return Receipt Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. r Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. . Article Addressed to: II,II�I1rr�1,I�III��I�II$pIIl Laramie Energy!! LLC 1512 Larimer Street Denver, CO 80202 102595-02-M-1540 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature X B. Received by nted Name) ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. ,S9rvice Type Certified Mail 0 Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7007 0220 0001 6138 1189 S Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02•M-1540 1910127 PROOF OF PUBLICATION RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, Andrea Porter, do solemnly swear that I am a Publisher of The Rifle Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7/24/2008 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 7/24/2008 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set r} and this 31st day of July 2008. Andrea Porter Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 31st day of July. 2008 Mary E. Borkenhagen, Notary Public My Commission expires: August 27, 2011 Garfield County Building CAfltCJI1 .,y Commission Expires 08127i2O11 1 Mnt IYU 11-.t !Rat tile oudru yr buunly Commissioners, Garfield County, Slate al Colorado, wilt hold a public hearing to consider release of bonds required by, and termination of, Resolution 97-70 and Resolution 2003-39 for Special Use Permit(s) for "Extraction, Storage, Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources" for logging and forestry related activities on Teepee Park Ranch as described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to -wit: Lg1 Clescription: TePee Park Ranch The South hall (5 1/2) of the South half (S 1/2) of Section Fifteen (15), Township Seven (7) South, Range Ninety Four (94) West of the Sixth Principal Meridian Part of Drake No. 3 Part 01 Drake No. 4 Part of Drake No. 5 Part 01 Alberta No. 1 Part of Alberta No. 2 Part 01 Alberta No. 3 Part of Alberta No. 4 Part 0f Alberta N0.5 Part o1 P.C. Junior No. 1 Part of P.C. Junior No. 2 - Part of P.C. Junior No. 3 Part of Virginia No. 1 Alice Alice No. 1 Alice No. 2 Alice No. 3 Little Maud No. 1 Little Maud No. 3 Little Maud No. 5 Little Maud No. 7 Little Maud No. 9 Little Maud No. 11 Little Maud No. 13 and Little Maud No. 15 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claims designated as Sur- vey No. 20096, embracing a portion of Sections Twenty-four and Twenty -live and the unsurveyed portion of Township Seven South of Range Nine- ty-four West of the Sixth Principal Meridlan, as de- scribed in the United States Patent recorded De- cember 17, 1932 in Book 164 page 496. TOGETHER WITH all the real property situate, ly- ing and being in Garfield County. Colorado con- sisting of the following Placer Mining Claim, to wil: Parcel A: FIM. Marnm No. 1 Mt. Mamm No. 2 bZ An` ua leurnor AeriVA pue urer6elgl 1/621713 8139 Pue 4luo uo!I9o!iitueP pelep!suoo aq mous lobate alq!6!!a a op9loloa u! uopeortpa 1996!410 uolln1Usu! 00085! sa181S palluf18141 u! Penssi toy W!iedls!u!wpe IS1. 0U9Ug 8180 1111999 831El5 pat luewnoop tuawwan06131010 '4a01.10A9d 710-94.11119U10 103318 8!11!8ge 911110 Ode, : p9iiufl 0111 fo Anu96e p8Z!)0gtrt9 1914010 U0118118NIwpF ale *dee 'gouPlq Rus ,{q panss! 10319!9 alq!6lla m3 to Oda enuenea 40 wawtledi Burm0110y a4140 euo 6upq 04 peau noA swioJ e!geidaooy ,6ny `Aepsanl 81009 eaeld 6u!Ilod Paulgwo0 lay esayi luawep3Eg p!Ing uoltells!u!wpy 119H +4!O - 311111 uor4e4S a1!l 111S lrnuluo3 a[1seo Maty 1910127 PROOF OF PUBLICATION GLENWOOD SPRINGS POST INDEPENDENT STATE OF COLORADO } COUNTY OF GARFIELD } SS. 1, Andrea Porter, do solemnly swear that 1 am Publisher of the Glenwood Springs Post Independent. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Glenwood Springs Post Independent is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 7/22/2008 and that the last publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper •_ed 7/22/2008. In witnes why :'• s ere unto set my hand this 13 th day of August, 2008 Publisher/Gen al Manager/Editor Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 13th day of August, 2008. ci Mary E. Borkenhagen Notary Public My Commission expires: August 27, 2011 Garfield County Building My Commission Expires 08127011 I PPP$-ggggi" ===2C C C w W m m 2222p OC aaa•000aa Z22v+Awna-. cnnm 000 w N — na iarfI500-a aro-aoa a22 4 0 x ? 7 ®4 5 N� . 7 m h az o�3 man 5 -co OIDV° rn�amw ,D x•oo of o M ¢ it m wgnnm owe.mxFm°,Sv mg -9, w mom::•'"=a ?. m -T G 2 m m'C nn• Y? CE•p. O N 0M -Pi Gln fO a - �_ ��'� 3nammo',-mo^ 2amQgg6-2a mmmmmmm22'$$ mmmw [a ,imn �.�Cm��rZZ2 33B31. jmmd a nZ wN- 05m,5°2-4—=?' o �om009poo2 a �• mv��m�'ilo oa mooa Q 0 -1 rN CL• Zw—�p JO'w—& �- a^m--04.1 Q�•V� ❑�_ m3 -0a Aim -- man S,a�agi nw 3 m m_.m 0a+91a m aiamQ many o'am mm 2n $nm(0 ge4 av �Oaa`c a c 3333R. ' v== .a 4ap N m" C G C R a lS zzzzz 90000 N awN-• 3 ��•y O tea'2 Nm y ��3 L7d �� n -m 5" ,n-" .Zmnmym amnm3m 0.c2O F6.4_73333 mmOSF. �_..tiro�.33 STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield Ata regular County, Colorado, held in Glenwood Springs on M o there were present: Ma 'an Smith Larry McCown John Martin Don Deford 1111111 1111111111 11111 111111 11111 11111111 11111 511927 08/05/1997 10:38R B1028 P930 447 1 of 6 R 0,00 D 0.00 N 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK ) )ss meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in ndav , the 4th day of August A.D. 19_9 7 Mildred Alsdorf Chuck Deschenes , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner Chairman Pro -Ter , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 9 7-70 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION FOR THE TUCKER AND FRASE PARTNERSHIP. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from the Tucker and Frase 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 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 WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on 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 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 511927 08/05/1987 10 38A B1028 P931 447 2 of 6 R 0.50 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: I. 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 willonly 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. 11111 1111 11111 111111 111111111111! 511927 08/05/1997 10 38A 81028 P932 447 3 of 6 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK 6. Approval of this application is based on the representations of the Forest Supervisor of the White River National Forest that Forest Service Road No, 824 is a legal right- of-way for the proposed Special Use permit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain a declaration of the status of the road from a court with the appropriate jurisdiction 7. That prior to the issuance of a Special Use permit, the applicant submit engineered plans for the construction of intervisible turnouts on CR 317 meeting the Forest Service standards for sizing and spacing 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 1/2 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 and/or 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 reviewthe 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 car. 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 or 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. 11JI1!III!ll 111111111111111111111111111111 IIIJi II 1111 • 511927 08/05/1997 10 38A B1028 P933 447 4 of 6 R 0.00 D 0,00 N 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK 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 weather/season 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 Taugenbaugh 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 issl1ance 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 Align st• , A.D. 19 97 AT 1'ES T: lerk of the Board GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUN' C ORADO Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing R oIu o• w.. adopte► by the following vote: Commissioner Chairman Smith - Absent lx Commissioner Chairman Pro -Tem John F. Martin ,Aye Commissioner Larry McCown ,Aye STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield } )ss } 11111! 11111111111111111111111111111!111111111111! 511927. 08/05!1997 10.38A 61028 P934 447 5 of 6 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK County Clerk and ex -officio CIerk 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, l 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 111E1 Until 11111 111111 511927 08/05/1997 10:38A 81028 P931 1� �1 1111111115 11 1� 1 7 6 of 6 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 GARFIELD CLERK EXHIBIT A All of that certain real property, together with but without warranty any and all water rights appurtenant thereto, if any, described as follows: THE SOUTHWESTTOWNSHIP E(7 QUARTER ANGEOF NINETY-FOUR THIRTEENN (94) WEST OF THE TOWNSHIP SEVEN � ) , SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN. (15),TOWNSHIP THE SOUTH LSFEVEN (7) SOUTH, RANGE N 51/2) OF THE SOUTH HALFNETY FOUR (94) WEST OF OF SECTION EN 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.G. JUNIOR NO. 3 PART OF VIRGINIA NO. 1 ALICE ALICE NO. 1 ALICE NO, 2 ALICE NC. 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 CIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIMS DESIGNATED AS SURVEY NO. 20096, EMBRACING A PORTON OF SECTIONS TWENTY-FOUR AND TWENTY-FIVE AND THE UNSURVEYED PORTION OF TOWNSHIP SEVEN SOUTH OF RANGE NINETY-FOUR, WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AS DESCRIBED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED DECEMBER 17, 1932.IN BOOK 164 AT PAGE 486. ALL IN THE COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO. 1111111 I 111 11111 1111 1111111 1111 1111 111 1 1111 1111 11 11 628471 06/02/2003 04 00P B1475 P673 M ALSDORF 1 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) 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 21st day of April, 2003, there were present: John Martin Larry McCown Tresi Houpt Don_Deford Mildred Alsdorf Ed Green , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-39 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH TME APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION FOR NORMAN A. CARPENTER. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from Norman A. Carpenter for a Special Use Permit to allow for the extraction of natural resources from the site identified in the application; and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on April 21, 3002, upon the questionofwhether 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 ofsaid Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact: 1, That the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all parties were heard at the hearing. •1111111 11111 111111 1111 111111 11111 11111111 1111111 1111 628471 06/02/2003 04:00P BI475 P676 M ALSDDRF 2 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 2. That the proposed special use conforms to the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in all directions if appropriate conditions are attached to the permit. 4. That the proposed use will comply with all applicable standards contained in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, including, but not limited to all standards in Sections 5.03.07 and 5.03.08. 5. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use is consistent with the best interest ofthe 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, including the forestry plan, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. That all timber hauling on County Roads be on Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Not included in the hauling hours are the trips in and out of the property by loggers and unloaded trucks accessing the property before 6 a.m.. Any helicopter hauling will only occur between the hours of 7 a. m. to 5 p. m., Monday through Friday. Haul trucks will not travel in a convoy, they will be spaced at least 10 minutes apart, before leaving the property. 3. That the forest management practices and revegetation will be monitored for compliance with the conditions of approval contained in the resolution of approval, by a consultant for the Board, agreed upon by the Board of County Commissioners and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant, 4. A road bond will remain in place with the County to overlay 1.6 miles of CR 320 with asphalt at the completion of the timber harvest. 5. The Special Use Permit, when issued, is subject to review for compliance or noncompliance with performance 'requirements associated with the issuance of the permit. The applicant shall submit a report one year from the date of issuance ofthe permit, indicating the measures taken to comply with the performance requirements ofthe 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 or revocation of the permit or that 1111111 11111 111111 111 1111111 1111 11111111 11111 11111111 628471 06/02/2003 04:00P 871473 P677 11 ALSDORF 3 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO conditions of approval must be met before additional activities can occur on the property. 6 All vehicles used in conjunction with logging operation must be property licensed in the State of Colorado and the appropriate documentation provided to the Garfield County Clerk & Recorders Office verifying the licensing. 7. The hauling of logs will be discontinued during normal seasonal times for local ranchers to move cattle up or down County Road 317, when requested by a local rancher with grazing rights or property in the Beaver Creek drainage. 8 All revegetation of the site will be done with certified weed free seed mix. 9. The haul route will only be along CR 320 from the intersection of CR 320/317 to Taugenbaugh Ave. in Rifle. Additionally, an overweight vehicle permit will be acquired for each vehicle needing such permit. 10. Upon transfer of ownership of the property subject to the Special Use Permit issued in accordance with this resolution, 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. 11. Prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit, the Fire Management Plan shall be filed with the Garfield County Sheriff's office and the Rifle Fire Protection District. 12. Compliance with all terms and conditions of approval contained in any permit issued to the applicant, its successors or assigns, by any local government, state or federal agency, shall be deemed to be conditions of this Special Use Permit. A violation of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of such permit( s) shall be deemed to constitute a violation ,f the'ternis of approval of this Special U se Permit. The applicants, their sucbessors'and assigns, shall notify the Garfield County Board of Commissioners of notice of violation or violations of such permits as issued by any local government or state or federal agency. The Garfield County Board of Commissioners shall be notified within ten (10) calendar days of any violation or notice of possible violation. 13. On or before October 1, 2003, the County's consulting forester, hired in accordance with paragraph 3. above, will do an on site inspection of the site to review the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval in this resolution. A report will be prepared for the Board of County Commissioners after the site review, presenting the findings. Dated this ?FA day of .Temp , A.D. 2003. 111111 11111 ItIll 1111 1111111 1111 11111 111 11111 1111 111 628471 06/02/2003 04:00P B1475 P678 M ALSDORF 4 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIEL.D COUNTY CO ATTEST: 0%1'01111�}f .. J r o'_ -. Cle ' oft 130ard GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSION FRS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO COM Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing vote: ► • : it . k • COMMISSIONER TRESI HOU r , Aye , Aye COMMISSIONER LARRY L. MCCOWN , Aye STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield t , 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 ofthe Proceeding ofthe 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.2003. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 1111 II;l��`iMl�,fw� L ��li�'t+4i�I 1 1#�iti4N� 11 III Reception#: 752000 0711012O0B 09 75.03 CMI Jean Rlherioo 1 of 5 Rao FQt.30.00 Doc Fee 0.00 CARF1ELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) 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, June 16, 2008, there were present: John Martin , Commissioner Chairman Larry McCown , Commissioner Tresi Houpt , Commissioner (Absent) Don DeFord , County Attorney Jean Alberico , Clerk of the Board Ed Green , County Manager EX H1 IT � l s when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2008-86 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR EXTRACTION, PROCESSING, STORAGE AND MATERIAL HANDLING OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR A PROPERTY OWNED BY BLACK DIAMOND MINERALS, LLC Parcel ID's: 2453-061-00-005 AND 2405-261-00-073 WHEREAS, the Board of County Comrnissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received an application from Black Diamond Minerals, LLC for a Special Use Permit ("SUP") for Extraction, Storage, Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources for a Shale Borrow Pit on approximately .66 acres specifically located in the SE 1/. of the SW 'Vi of Section 25, Township 7 South, Range 94 West of the 6th PM in the Agricultural 1 Residential / Rural Density (ARRD) zone district; and WHEREAS, on May 12th, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners did not refer the application to the Garfield County Planning Commission for a recommendation in a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on June 16th , 2008 upon the question of whether the above described SUP should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions concerning the approval of said special use permit; and i NW KiriirJALPlif iNii ki ireggi:tiri,A1111Li 111H I Receptiontl: 752000 0711012006 09125:03 AM ,lean OlOerica 2 of 6 Rec Fee.50-Du Doc Fee.0.00 GQRF3ELD COUNTY CO WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact as listed below: 1. Proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. The public 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 meeting. 3. The above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use permit has been determined to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. The application has met the requirements of Special Use (Sections 5:03, 5:03:07, 5:03.08 and 9:03) the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that Special Use Permit is approved for Black Diamond Minerals, LLC for Extraction, Storage, Processing, and Material Handling of Natural Resources for a Shale Borrow Pit specifically located on approximately .66 acres in the SE 'A ofthe SW 1/4 of Section 25, Township 7 South, Range 94 West of the PM located in the Agricultural / Residential / Rural Density (ARRD) zone district with all of the following specific conditions: 1. That all representations of the Applicant, either in testimony or the submitted application materials, shall be considered conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Prior to activity occurring on the site, the Applicant shall provide a copy of the approved permits from the following agencies and shall remain in effect for the life of this permit: a. City of Rifle Watershed Permit; b. DRMS 110 Permit; c. Stonnwater Management Plan and Discharge Permit. 3. The Shale Borrow Pit hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 4. Prior to activity on the site, security shall be provided consistent with recommendations of County Vegetation and in accordance with the County Attorney's requirements. 5. All of the conditions are binding of the County permit and the State Division of Reclamation. 2 i 1111 ileiTiftlerrYing 1f+k Hitia I! 111 Recepiian#; 752000 07/1012009 09.25.03 RM Jean Lilberico 3 of 5 Re❑ Fee S0.00 Doc Fee 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO Mining and Safety (DRMS). DRMS can withhold the reclamation bond if the final reclamation is not executed according to the plans. 6. If a bond is required by DRMS, County will be invited to any bond release inspection and will have the opportunity to demonstrate that any item of the permit has not been complied with and that bond should not be released. 7. The Operator acknowledges that the County has performance standards in place that could lead to revocation of the Special Use Permit if continued violations of the permit occur over a period of time. 8. The Applicant shall be required to submit a report annually, until such time as the release of the reclamation bond by the County, of the borrow pit operation for staff review. Upon review of any deficiencies pursuant to conditions of approval or other local, state, or federal permits, Staff may forward the report to the County Commissioners for full review of the Special Use Permit. Copies of annual reports required by and submitted to other agencies including, but not limited to, the City of Rifle, will be attached to the annual report submitted to the County. 9. The County commits to notifying the operator of any compliance concern and allows an inspection with site personnel and the designated County inspector prior to contacting any agency. 10. The County can request a site inspection with one calendar day's notice to the Operator. Full access to any part of the site will be granted. On request, all paperwork must be shown. The County cannot request a large number of inspections that would interfere with normal operation without cause. 11. All mining activities shall be required to comply with the following performance standards: (1) Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. (2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located. (3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards. (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and hones: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this 3 i 1111 VI F4 ric im# 4+ihMILI firi1i14.N. IN 11IIi Recep t ian#: 752000 0771012DM 09:25.03 AM .]van R1berico 4 c1 5 Rao Fes.$: OO Doe Fee:0.00 GRRrIELO COUNTY CO provision (5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas: (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 fire codes and written recommendations / comments from the appropriate local protection district regarding compliance with the appropriate codes; (B) At the discretion of the County Commissioners, all outdoor storage facilities may be required to be enclosed by fence, landscaping or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property; (C) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces; (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. 2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any existing residential dwelling. 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 Iower, Screening may include berming, landscaping, sight obscuring fencing or a combination of any of these methods. 4. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Mon. -Fri. 5. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private properly and may not be conducted on any public right-of-way. (E) Any storage area for uses not associated with natural resources, shall not exceed ten (10) acres in size. (F) Any fighting of storage area shall be pointed downward and inward to the property center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property. (6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential haanrds 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 ground water resource tests as may be required by local or State Health Officers must be met before operation of the facilities may begin. 4 i 1111! ,# 1"Erlifil{141101l114`klltrir's'N+Ik IC II 1111 Receptionit: 752000 07/1012008 09:25.03 FIM Jean Albcrico S of 5 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee.0 00 GaRF1ELD COUNTY CO 7!J Dated this f day of c u , A.D. 20 C'5� ATTEST: GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Cle ,'1• f the Board Cha. Upon motion duly made and seconded the re Ding Resaluti. was adopted .y the following vote: COMMISSIONER CHAIR JOHN F. MARTIN COMMISSIONER LARRY L. MCCOWN COMMISSIONER TRESI HOUPT , Aye , Aye , Absent STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) 1, , 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. FN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto sct my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 20 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 5 EXHIBIT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR A WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT FOR A SINGLE NATURAL GAS WELL PAD WITH MULTIPLE WELLS, ASSOCIATED PRODUCTION FACILITIES, AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND APPROVAL OF WATERSHED DISTRICT PERMIT NO. 1-08 BLACK DIAMOND MINERALS, LLC TEEPEE PARK RANCH EXPLORATION PROJECT BEAVER CREEK WATERSHED I. BACKGROUND 1. In March 2008, Black Diamond Minerals, LLC ("Black Diamond" or the "Applicant") applied to the City of Rifle (the "City") for a watershed district permit to construct and operate a single natural gas well pad with multiple wells, associated production facilities, and road improvements located in South half of Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 93 West, 6th PM, Garfield County, Colorado (the "Facility"). The Facility is located within five (5) miles of the City's Colorado River water intake structure within the City's Watershed District jurisdiction and the application was submitted pursuant to City of Rifle Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994, codified in Article II ofChapter 13 of the Rifle Municipal Code (":RMC"). The proposed activities include the construction and operation of a single well pad with multiple wells, associated pad facilities and gas gathering pipelines, and access road improvements located within five (5) miles of the City's Beaver Creek municipal water diversion and -intake structure and within close proximity of upper Beaver Creek. 2. For the purposes of this permit (the "Permit"), the application shall consist of the watershed permit application entitled Teepee Park Ranch Exploration Project prepared by Black Diamond Minerals and Tetra Tech Permit Application dated March 2008, supplemental materials provided by Black Diamond on May 20, 2008 including Engineering Design Plans, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP), Spill Response Plan, all correspondence and materials submitted to the City by the Applicant or its agents and representatives with this application, as well as all representations, whether oral or written, made as part of the application, and the Erion Letter, discussed below. These items shall be collectively referred to herein as the "Application." 3- Any and all other permits issued or to be issued by county, state and/or federal agencies in relation to the construction and operation of the Facility are incorporated herein by this reference. 4. Following his review of the application, Michael Erion, P.E. of Resource 1;+,200wC1 tea ifktR-1tl1181BIackDiamouments)Pcrmd.w•pd -1- City of Rifle, Colorado Watershed District Permit No. 1-08 Black Diamond Minerals, LLC Teepee Park Ranch Exploration Project Beaver Creek Watershed Engineering, Inc., Consulting Professional Engineer for the City, stated his findings in a letter dated May 28, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Erion Letter"). The Erion Letter concluded that the proposed activities to be performed do not present or create a clear or foreseeable risk of significant injury to the City's waterworks or pollution to the City water supply so long as the Applicant adheres to the proposed mitigation measures contained in the Application and the conditions stated in the Erion letter. Therefore, the activities are classified as a Minor Impact under the RMC. II. FINDINGS OF FACT 5. The proposed activities are within the defined boundaries of the City's Watershed District as defined in RMC § 13-2-20, specifically within five (5) miles of the City's Beaver Creek municipal water diversion and intake structure. The proposed activities include the construction and operation of a single well pad and three wells, in addition to pad facilities, access roads, minor gathering pipelines, and a shale borrow pit. Due to the nature of the project and proximity to Beaver Creek, the proposed project is classified as "Minor Impact." Because of the potential for the Applicant's activities to impact the City's Beaver Creek water, certain conditions must apply to this Permit as set forth in the Erion Letter. 6. The Application filed by Black Diamond is complete. 7. Black Diamond has paid the application fee required under RMC § 13-2-110. 8. A duly noticed Public Hearing was held before the Rifle City Council (the "Council") on June 4, 2008. At the hearing, testimony was presented by Jim Neu, the City Attorney, and Michael Erion regarding the activities proposed by the Applicant and the applicability of the City's Watershed District Ordinance. Mr. Neu explained to the Council that its jurisdiction on this matter extended five (5) miles beyond the City's Beaver Creek intake point, and that its authority was limited to the protection of the City's water quality and supply. Mr. Erion explained the provisions of the Permit, and recommended issuance of the Permit subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Erion Letter, which classified the proposed activities as a Minor Impact pursuant to RMC § 13-2-120(c). Mr. Erion testified regarding his knowledge of the Project and his analysis of the Application, and the conditions stated in the Erion Letter. Representatives of Black Diamond also provided testimony regarding the Application and the proposed activities. Testimony was opened up for members of the public. 9. With the conditions stated in the Erion Letter in place, the Council finds that the Project, if constructed and operated as proposed in the Application and pursuant to the conditions stated in the Erion Letter, does not present or create a clear or foreseeable risk ofsignificant injury I:G2 io sc I i eotalR i (k18.1 of 18) k l act Di am o u d1:0oc u men i s'Pc rm il. w pd -2- City of Rifle, Colorado Watershed District Permit No. 1-08 Black Diamond Minerals, LLC Teepee Park Ranch Exploration Project Beaver Creek Watershed to the City's waterworks or pollution to the City water supply. 10. The Council hereby finds and determines that the issuance of the Permit requires the inclusion of conditions as set forth in the Erion Letter, that such conditions are necessary to prevent a risk of injury to the City's water works and pollution of the City's water supply, and that such conditions are authorized pursuant to Sections §13-2-140 of the RMC. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ISSUANCE OF PERMIT 11. The foregoing Findings of Facts are incorporated herein by reference. 12. The City has jurisdiction over the proposed activity pursuant to RMC §13-2-20 and City of Rifle Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994. 13. Based on the evidence presented at the Public Hearing and the Erion Letter, the City hereby determines that this decision shall constitute a Watershed District Permit for the construction and operation of a single natural gas well pad with three wells, pad facilities, access roads, minor gathering pipelines, and a shale borrow pit as described more fully in the Application, and as modified by the conditions of approval recommended by Mr. Erion in the Erion Letter, which conditions of approval are hereby approved and adopted by the City as conditions of approval of this Permit. The conditions stated in the Erion Letter are reiterated as follows: • Additional wells may be drilled on the approved pad subject to written notice to the City by the Applicant at least fifteen days prior to construction. City staff shall approve the request or forward it to the City Council for review within fifteen days. • The Applicant shall prepare an annual activity plan to be submitted to the City by March 1" of each year. The plan shall include all activities within the Beaver Creek drainage basin whether inside or outside of the Watershed District boundary. • The Applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Storm Water Management Plan, SPCC Plan, Spill Response Plan, Emergency Response Plan, and Engineering Standards for the project. Further, the Applicant shall comply with all the conditions of the Resource Engineering letter dated April 1, 2008 regarding snow removal. • All existing slash piles inherited by Black Diamond from the previous operator shall be eliminated as soon as weather permits. D29URViimts.i{irk1R-10{I B]61aclDiamoodllocumentsWermit.wpd -3- City of Rifle, Colorado Watershed District Permit No. 1-08 Black Diamond Minerals, LLC Teepee Park Ranch Exploration Project Beaver Creek Watershed • • The Facility shall be subject to biannual inspections or more frequently by the City and/or its consultants, as determined necessary by the City in its sole discretion. Any and all costs and fees associated with such inspections shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant The Applicant shall post with the City a performance guarantee in a form approved by the City Attorney in the minimum amount of $50,000.04 to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions set forth herein and to allow the City to step in and take corrective actions should the Applicant default on any such term or condition. Said performance bond shall remain in effect until the completion of the Project and complete reclamation of the Project. The performance bond shall not be released without the express written consent and approval of the City that the required period has expired. The Applicant shall designate a contact person for City of Rifle Watershed Permit activities. In addition, all representations, whether oral or written, made by Black Diamond and/or its agents as part of the application and public hearing process shall be conditions of approval of the Permit. 14. All conditions of approval contained within any permit issued to the Applicant by any county, state and/or federal agency shall be deemed conditions of approval ofthis Permit. Any violation of the conditions of any other such permit issued to the Applicant shall be deemed a violation of this Permit subject to all of the remedies provided for herein. 15. A copy of this Permit shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Black Diamond. 16. Pursuant to Rifle Municipal Code § 13-2-110(7), Black Diamond shall reimburse the City for all outside professional services, including but not limited to engineering, legal, consulting, publication and copying fees associated with the review of the Application prior to the issuance of this Permit. 1:'.20081C I ien is 1R i It1 R-10 (i N )918 ckD i ■ma n d VD ocumc ntsWcrm is.wpd -4- 17. This Permit shall not be effective until approved by the City and agreed to and by Black Diamond. Dated this day of , 2008. By ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF RIFLE, COLORADO Mayor City of Rifle Watershed District Permit No. 1-08 accepted and agreed to this day of , 2008. 1::120081CIieaupaii,e.R-10[18]811.c1 DiamondDocumcnuTermit. wpd 13y: -5- BLACK DIAMOND MINERALS, LLC Name: Title: into a road, he wasn't going to be in a big hurry to rip it up. It gives him access to areas that he couldn access otherwise. Commissioner Haupt had a concern and made a statement about the time of hauling logs out because of the school bus traffic and if the applicant is truly committed to that schedule of getting the first truck out before the school bus arrives that she would expect them to hold themselves to that so there aren't kids put into jeopardy. Mr. Beckwith commented he understands this and they are committed. If they could have a starting time of 5:00 a.m. in the morning, they would do that so they can keep the timing away from when the school buses will be there. Commissioner Houpt suggested that the applicant discuss route times with the school district and to make the last trip out as late as possible. Mr. Beckwith stated he would be happy to do that since the best way is to take the first load out as early as possible in order to be out of that area making the last load out as late as possible so that the school buses have dropped off the kids and not on the street. Jim Beckwith - The 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is reasonable, if the school district stated they would rather have the trucks out by 5:00 a.m. unfortunately they would have to come back here for another application, but they are willing to accommodate it. A third trip is not feasible; the trucks only make two trips. Condition No. 11 — Jim Beckwith stated the project is outside of the Rifle Fire District but he sent them the plan anyway. It was made clear that the Garfield County is the responsible party and through his agreement with the various fire districts, Rifle would be the one to respond. The Sheriff will need this plan and they would response as well. Commissioner McCown made a motion to close the public hearing; Commissioner Houpt seconded; motion carried. Commissioner McCown made a motion to approve the natural resource extraction special use permit with Conditions 1-7 striking the first sentence in number 8, striking number 11, modifying number 12 to read "shall be filed with the Garfield County Sheriff's Office and the Rifle Fire Protection District", number 2 correcting the statement Monday through Saturday to Monday through Friday and the same hours will apply; the ten minutes spacing as written will stay in there; given the changing in numbering of the conditions, ending with 12 conditions, adding Condition 13 that this operation will be evaluated one year from today's date, actually changing that to be able to get our contractor up there when there is not 4 -foot of snow, 1 would ask Mr. Hoefer to go back and look at this property no later than October l ' and the operation that is taking place and report back to the Board. Commissioner Houpt seconded. Commissioner Houpt — a lot of discussions with neighbor with traffic concerns and hope the applicant will work well with everyone that's impacted by this. Mark requested clarification on the new condition number 13. Commissioner McCown stated that by October Is' the consultant would be requested to have a report back to this Board on the operations of this special use permit meeting on the conditions that have been set forth today, and wants to see something back an how things are going. One year was previously mentioned but it would make the report due in March when there is 4 -foot of snow and therefore would like the consultant to be able to see the ground. The report to be submitted within 15 days however, allowing the flexibility Mr. Hoefer needs. Motion carried. May 19, 2008 • Release of Road Bonds GAIC numbers FS493I962 and 63, Norman A. Carpenter, Resolution 2003-39 (SUP Timber Harvest; County Road 320) — Carolyn Dahlgren, Marvin Stevens and Michael Van Derpol Teepee Park Ranch LLC is requesting that we acknowledge satisfactory performance under the terms of our road use permit or overweight permit and further that we release their surety and bonding company from all obligations provided pursuant to that permit. Marvin Stephen submitted a memo stating it is his opinion that Teepee Park Ranch LLC has satisfactorily performed all conditions of their permit and that there are no potential claims that may be asserted by Garfield County against Teepee Park Ranch LLC under the terms of that permit. It is also his opinion that the County Commissioners should release Great American Insurance Company, the surety company, from the terms and conditions of bond number FS4931962. Carolyn stated that Jake and she spent quite a bit of time on the telephone with the bonding company and with the legal representative of Norm Carpenter, who was the latest owner of this property. Your last resolution covering this property was 2003-39; that resolution required, and I am quoting "a road bond will 21 remain in place with the County to overlay 1.6 miles of County Road 320 with asphalt at the completion of the timber harvest". The timer harvest factually happened at some point last year, and the property changed hands. My understanding is that County Road 320 doesn't need the overlay right now. Although the special use permit runs with the property, the bonds don't run with property. The bonds are in the name of a particular owner of property. What I understand from this trail of bonds and resolutions; it's done, it's over with. The bonds should be released, have to be released. We can deal with the new company which owns the company; which is an oil and gas company and require bonding for their use of the roads. But; there is no timber harvesting going and this SUP is dead in the water. I would in fact recommend this SUP be removed if you will, as a cloud on the title to the land, because the property is no longer being used for timber harvesting. I do want to make clear the actual resolution runs with the land; but, not the bond. Commissioner McCown asked how we would impose the road bond on the new owners if they chose not to cut timber. Carolyn stated; we can't. We have to do it through their over -weight and over -use regulations under our..... Commissioner McCown — We are assuming they will be overweight and over length. Carolyn stated then they needed to be getting permits through Marvin's shop and that is where we would get their security. Commissioner McCown -- They will be prohibited from using this section of road that would be overlaid. Marvin stated right. Commissioner McCown stated the timber folks were allowed to use this section of 320; no other oil and gas activity is. Marvin state they had a meeting with the gas company and they assured us they would not be harvesting any timber. Carolyn — If indeed you want to revoke the permit so that no one else can go in there and pick up that permit for timbering; then we need to have a revocation hearing under section nine (9), whatever it is of your regulations. I'm 99% sure that everyone involved will say great; get rid of the old permit, we don't care any more. Commissioner Martin — Except the reclamation needs to be verified; because the reclamation was a requirement as well. Commissioner McCown stated a big void between our State Forrester that is supposed to check into this. Carolyn — He is supposed to give a report every year; the new owner of the property, whether or not they were logging, is supposed to be coming in and having a formal meeting with you, has not happened. Commissioner McCown asked if the responsibility lay on the initial applicant for the special use permit to make that reclamation, or does it transfer to the new owner who has no interest in logging. Don DeFord as Carolyn indicated; the permit runs with land and that is what you referred to the clot on the title that is the problem. It really runs to new property owner when they acquired the property and that is who we seek relief from for violation of the special use permit is the current property owner. So they acquired that liability along with the benefit of the special use permit. They may not, as a company view it as a benefit because they had no intention to log on it. But; nevertheless it was a befit to that property had they chose to do so. Commissioner McCown asked if the bond would remain in place at that time. Don stated no because the bond is written personally, that is why they are in violation of the special use permit right now. They do not have in place a bond as required by that resolution. But; that doesn't eliminate the rest of the requirements of the special use permit such as regulations. That is one element for which they are not in compliance. Carolyn — What I am hearing is; I didn't know this that there were actual violations. Commissioner McCown stated I don't know that there is. We haven't dismissed the bond; so there is no violation, there is a bond in place. Carolyn stated; no the bond is useless because it is not in the name of the current owner. Commissioner McCown asked; why are you before us today asking that we release this bond. Carolyn -- Because it is useless and the bonding company wants a forma] document from you so they can finish their process. But; we can hold on to it and say no and tel] Norm Carpenter, x -owner, to show up in front of you along with the new owner and give you a report on what has and hasn't been done on the property. Commissioner McCown — Maybe that would be the leverage we need to get Norm Carpenter back in here to comply with this reclamation on his slash piles. 22 Carolyn stated she didn't know it was an issue, the reclamation on his slash piles. Commissioner McCown stated that a report was given to at least two (2) of us that it is; but, the only way to get that information is to trespass. I'm a little reluctant to go forward with that; I haven't seen the slash piles. Carolyn stated the SUP has not been revoked so those responsibilities are still on the book. We would normally notify the current property owner; in this case I'll notify the current and the old property owner and say come talk to us about your reclamation. But in terms of this using this bond; it's gone. Commissioner Martin — That may be; but, the cloud is still there and to get some type of action in front of us we need to say we are not doing anything until you come before us. Don stated he thought it was the right approach; refuse to issue a formal release. Although I agree with Carolyn we probably couldn't enforce it; but, in any event don't release it and issue notice appearing to the current owner and the issuee of the permit to appear before you for a report on why the permit should not be enforced, or revoked, and then have a hearing. Commissioner Martin stated they would expect the state forester to verify because that was part of the action. Commissioner McCown stated it would probably be at least thirty days (30) days before they could verify. Don stated we would have to give appropriate notice anyway. He felt this was something the planning department needed to be doing through their enforcement office. June 9, 2008 • Black Diamond Minerals LLC, Update on TeePec Park Ranch — Jack Luellan, Esq and Jim Beckwith, Esq. Jack Luellan, Black Diamond Minerals and Jim Beckwith, on behalf of Mr. Carpenter were present. Carolyn stated everyone was here because the Commissioners were asked to release road bonds related to TeePee Park and that was not done. Your decision not to release the bonds had to do, from my understanding, was whether or not you felt the underlying SUP for logging; the conditions had been met for that SUP. One of the conditions included was that any new owner of the property would come and talk with you. The old owner is no longer logging as represented by Mr. Beckwith. In your packets you have the actual Resolution, and you have the reports that were required back in 2003. Some of the obligations under the old SUP; although no longer consistent with what the new use of the property is, are interestingly covered by the new watershed permit which Rifle has given the new owner. She has not actually reviewed the document. Her understanding of what your action was; you were concerned that reclamation had not occurred under the old SUP which runs with the land. The new owners get the rights and obligations of that old SUP. If they don't want to log, so be it; but they still have to deal with their obligations under the old SUP until that SUP is relinquished and revoked. Commissioner Martin asked if Carolyn was basing that on two different articles under the Resolution of 2003-39; which is number three (3) and number ten (10). This transfer of ownership as well as the road itself has to be completed after logging no matter what. Carolyn stated there is a question; the current resolution deals only with one (1) road not two (2) roads. The old resolution dealt with two (2) roads. Today we are not asking you to take any action. I'll have to schedule a re -consideration of the release of the bonds. Commissioner McCown asked; when you are saying old resolution which one are you referring to? Carolyn — The 1997 Resolution which was replaced by the 2003 Resolution. Commissioner McCown stated; so the 2003 is the only one in place at this time. Carolyn stated yes. Commissioner McCown stated and it's the one that has the road issue in it; one road number four (4). Commissioner McCown asked if the timbering was completed. Jim Beckwith stated oh yes; last load under the permit went out m October, 2004. Jack Leuallen stated; just for the record the new owner has absolutely no interest in logging whatsoever. Carolyn stated, that being the case perhaps we should schedule this for an agreed upon revocation and relinquishment. Commissioner McCown stated no you misunderstand. Upon completion of the timbering; County Road 320 was to get an overlay. Mr. Beckwith just testified that timbering has been completed. So I see that the overlay needs to happen per that agreement. My question to you Mr. Beckwith was had the timbering been completed and you said yes. 23 Jim — I believe the date was October 24, 2004. Commissioner McCown stated; to me once that timber harvest was completed that's what triggered the paving of the road. Commissioner Houpt stated the wording is very clear and read the resolution. Jim stated he understood; but the road bond that remained in place was by Resolution 97-70, which is the other resolution and that bond is for repair of the road caused by logging trucks. I have asked Carolyn recently for any reports, any quantification or any thing else relative to what damage our logging trucks did to County Road 320. For reference; our equipment never went in by CR 320. Our equipment went in through Rulison which would have been a different route getting into County Road 317, Beaver Creek Road. We are not involved in the issue of equipment. First of all it is undisputed. Commissioner McCown, we are done with our thinning of the forest. And that has been done for well over three (3) years. The issue has been whether or not CR 320 has to be repaved; if we have any assessment to Mr. Carpenter relative to the cost of repaving. That assessment must be in proportion as to what damage his equipment did. Our logging trucks were legal loads; they were not overweight toads, and we have yet to see that. There has always been a question and a dispute relative to the 2003 Resolution. That came about because as many of you will recall; you told us we could not amend an existing SUP. And yet if you look at the original resolution and the second resolution; in order to understand what we had to do, we had to interpret them together. So there is a legal question Commissioner Houpt; whether one is separate or you have to look at both. Relative to the bondsman; you have to look at both because the bond was already in place when you came down with your 2003 Resolution. We already notified you way back in 2003 with this document; which was our harvest project report to you in the application that we had the dispute relative to County Road 320. From the stand point of should the permit continue; as far as we are concerned, terminate the permit. Whether it's consensual or otherwise; that's four (4) years ago almost. Anything that is current ecologically or environmentally; I have no doubt it is going to be discussed and covered in existing applications or future permits, oil and gas whatever else. This one is history. The only issue between us is County Road 320 and I request that you release the bond. Commissioner Haupt stated; and our position is on our resolution. Jim stated; your position I don't know it because I haven't seen any written report; all I have had is a series of phone calls from Carolyn and a series of emails from Carolyn, indicating you wanted this meeting perhaps to answer questions. But; it is not a hearing, not being set down for a hearing as far as I know, perhaps it needs to be. We feel it is long ago and that bond, if you look at the original 97-70, it's only effective period was during the active period of logging_ if the period of logging was done, then that bondsman has in fact a defense to any claim that you make. From that standpoint, we can debate it, we can dispute it; but that is our position. I think that is essentially what you were asking me to come and talk to you about today; what is Mr. Carpenter's position? Commissioner McCown stated; 1 think you left out one other gate, and that is litigate. Jim stated he would hate to see us get into litigation. Commissioner McCown stated he was not advocating that he was just saying you left that possibility out; because I clearly understand, or 1 clearly read and remember my motion differently than you just presented here today. If you look at number nine (9), the haul route will be along County Road 320 to the intersection and up CR 317 in Rifle. This is on the 2003 Resolution. That's why 1 asked our counsel which resolution is the only one in effect and that is the 2003-39 Resolution. This ane superseded the other one and it is null and void upon the approval of this one. Carolyn stated that's how this issue carne up. 1 received a communication from the bonding company that is still reflecting the old resolution. Carolyn wrote back to the bonding company and stated they had the wrong resolution. That is what started the whole debate. We may need to continue this and you may need to look at the minutes from your own meetings in 2003 to see what representations were made and what was behind this resolution. Jim asked Ms. Dahlgren; is there a record that Resolution 97-70 was ever repealed. Carolyn stated she has not reviewed the minutes; however, her memory is that in that discussion it was said that this resolution would get rid of the old ones, and only this ane would be in place. But you are right, it's still a record; nobody ever put in a resolution repealing the underlying ones. Jim stated; and the 2003-39 Resolution nowhere refers.....okay. Commissioner Martin stated we will wait for a report and put on the agenda for a discussion or a public hearing. Carolyn stated it will come out of the Building and Planning Department. 24 Commissioner McCown stated to make sure Mr. Beckwith and the other gentlemen are kept in the loop as far as scheduling this hearing, they will have to be noticed. Commissioner McCown asked if we would be the noticing party. Carolyn stated yes. I take it this will be on the release of the bonds. The question of the release of the bonds as well as the revocation and relinquishment of the SUP. Commissioner McCown stated yes and he thought there were still questions; we were hoping for some type of documentation from the State Forrester as far as the disposition of slash piles and how it was handled. Carolyn stated she wanted to caution them that under that resolution, the last one 2003, number thirteen (13) states on or before October 1, 2003 the consulting forester will do an on-site inspection to review applicants compliance; a report will be prepared after the site review presenting the findings. You have that; that happened. Commissioner McCown stated for one (1) year. Carolyn stated that in this resolution it did not make it an annual event. Commissioner McCown stated he realized that; but, if we are going to terminate this timber harvest special use permit we have to make sure that everything has been property disposed of as agreed to in their harvest management plan. Carolyn stated she thought the new owners would have something to tell about that. Jim — Mr. Gherardi was not scheduled to be here. Commissioner Martin stated what we are saying is we need the final report from him stating that everything had been completed in reference to this resolution of 2003. Carolyn asked; do you want that from Mr. Gherardi, or do you want Mr. Hofer who was your consulting engineer. Commissioner McCown — I don't care. Carolyn stated there will be a question about who pays for that person's services. As I said at the beginning guess what, Black Diamond as the new owners, the obligations of the underlying SUP, which has not been revoked, ends up on your shoulders. Normally the Building and Planning Department would schedule that consultant and then bill you for the fees. Commissioner Martin stated; again you are looking at number ten (10) the transfer of ownership of the property subject to the special use permit issued according to this resolution. The new owners shall meet with the Board at a regular scheduled meeting and publish an agenda item. I think they should also live up to the requirements if necessary; we'll see if we go that far, lets schedule it. Commissioner McCown asked; do you want a date certain from us today or do you want to let the conversation between the Planning Department and these individuals drive that schedule. Carolyn thought that was better. The bonding company has been a part of this series of telephone calls and emails as well. The decision was made by the bonding company; I think appropriately that there wasn't really anything for the bonding company to do today. Clark Gilbert plans to be here when the next one is scheduled. Jim stated; for the record I won't worry about next Monday. Commissioner McCown stated he would anticipate a minimum of 30 days. Carolyn stated the new owners have a few words and Jack stated they really didn't need to say anything today. Commissioner McCown asked Jack; do you anticipate the next meeting, the scheduled hearing if you will, fulfilling the obligation of meeting with us and letting us know your plans as to number ten (10) I believe. Commissioner Martin stated it needs to be an agenda item. Jack — Absolutely. I do have representatives from Black Diamond here in case you have specific questions; otherwise we are more than happy to provide all that at the next hearing. Carolyn stated there is a question about whether or not there is a special use permit applied for by the new owners for something totally unrelated to logging. As you know we have talked before about your zoning enforcement powers being different than your zoning granting powers, so I am assuming that the new SUP at that hearing will happen as scheduled. Commissioner Haupt --- I would think so, we are just trying to clean up this old agreement with the previous owners. Commissioner Martin — Okay we will schedule it as a public hearing 25 HOEFER ASSOCIATES David R. W. Hoefer 440 Meadows Way Grand Junction Colorado 81503-2525 September 24, 2003 Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 198 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81 601 Dear Mark: EXHIBIT Enclosed in my report as requested by the Garfield County Commissioners at their April 21, 2003 meeting. Their request was to look at the timber sale operations in relation to the Teepee Park Timber Harvest Project Special. Use Permit. The logging operations observed were those conducted in 2002, prior to the permit review. There was no logging during the past summer. When I visited the area September 12, 2003, there was some road construction taking place and the removal of right-of-way trees. As indicated in my report, 1, as a professional forester, feel the logging operation is in conformance with their Special Use Permit Application. With few minor exceptions, the Colorado Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Colorado have been followed. The roads within the sale area are adequate for the logging operation. I have noted in the report that some of the roads seem excessively steep and cross slopes greater than 50%. If the roads could have been constructed on National Forest lands some of these situations could have been avoided. It would have been desirable to manage the total forest ecosystem including National Forest lands in a cooperative effort. Having been in the Forest Service, I also know this would have been difficult with budgets, priorities, NEPA requirements, and overall coordination. This timber sale should have a positive effect on forest health. The stands of spruce are generally very healthy. Very little rot was observed. The subalpine fir within the spruce stands is showing signs of bark beetle attack. By removing the fir, which is more susceptible to insect and disease attack, and reducing the density (basal area) of the spruce, tree vigor will be retained or increase. This will reduce the treat of insect attacks on the spruce. In the longer term, fire susceptibility will also be reduced. Sincerely, 8/ David R. W. Hoefer Consulting Forester Enclosure �5. A REVIEW OF THE TEEPEE CREEK TIMBER SALE Norman A Carpenter, Landowner Intermountain Resources, Timber Owner GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 BY DAVID R. W. HOEFER Consulting Forester Teepee Creek Timber Sale Review At the request of the Garfield County Commissioners at their April 21, 2003 meeting, 1 conducted a review of the Teepee Creek Timber Sale special use permit. This review was made September 12, 2003 with applicant Chris Meyers (Intermountain Resources) and consulting forester Bill Gherardi accompanying ine for most of the review. The review was made by driving and hiking major logging roads and walking through some of cutting areas. SUMMARY: It is obvious that Chris Meyers and Bill Gherardi understand the silvicultural practices needed to manage spruce stands and understand the Best Management Practices for Colorado. This is indicated in the timber management and logging operations on the ground. They are doing a good job. The timber sale has been conducted in a professional manner and should be an overall benefit to Garfield County. POSITIVE OBSERVATIONS: Cutting practices look good and the silvicultural objectives stated in the Plan should be obtained. Previously 1 had questioned the amount of trees cut resulting in a basal area (density of leave trees) lower than desired for the silvicultural system being implemented. [The stated desired level was at least 60%.] This does not appear to be an overall problem_ There are pockets within the timber stands with high densities of subalpine fir. One of the Plan objectives was to reduce the amount of fir to improve the overall spruce stand. This is one reason for the more open stands that indicated in the plan. A second reason is mortality to the fir from bark beetles. A third is previous blowdown. One concern with having a light density of trees (low basal area) is that blowdown of the residua] trees can occur. This was not a problem last year as there were very few blown over trees observed within the cutting areas. I saw very little damage to residual trees. Damage from improper cutting and skidding is indicated with trees having broken tops and barked skinned off the trunks. Utilization of the trees was good. There were very few high stumps and tops were cut to 6 inches or less. Trees that were left for future growth and, to serve as seed trees, were healthy with good form and vigor. The sale area was not high graded. Logging slash has been lopped and scattered. Some areas had very high existing natural concentrations of woody debris on the ground Skid trails are not very obvious; a good sign. -2- I did not observe any skiiding on slopes over 45%. All culvert locations are marked with a fence post on the uphill side so they can be located if they get plugged, The main roads have a ditch for drainage. Many sections were graveled. All live drainages had culverts and culverts were placed intermittently along the road. Streamside zones have been protected. NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS: Roads are quite steep with some grades at 25%. It would be better if grades were less that 15%. However, there are tradeoffs involved since the terrain may not permit lower grades without excessive switchbacks and more ground disturbances. Soils within the sale area are quite forgiving with regard to erosion; however, channeling on the road surface can occur. These steep roads should not be a problem as long as they are water barred and seeded when the logging has been completed. One large road fill by Porcupine Creek has slid out. The road is on a very steep side slope and makes a switchback. Though the road itself is a bench cut, i.e., the roadbed is on natural round and not fill, a large fill was needed for logging trucks to tum. Much of this fill has slid and will need to replace if logging trucks are to use the road. l am not sure this could have been avoided other than a different road location. A different road location would have possibly involved crossing the White River National Forests. Some of the roads did have rutting down the middle of the road. surface. 1 recommended more dips be installed during construction and outsloping of areas on roads already constructed, Outsloping of the roads will also discharge and disperse road surface runoff. In one area, where there is a switchback on a steep slope, some road fill has entered the streamside zone and will erode into the live creek. In this case, it would be difficult to prevent the fill from encroaching on the stream.- Heavy seeding is recommended though the area to be seeded is in shade. Woody debris might be placed on the fill to reduce the amount of soil movement. WORK REMAINING: Before winter, the road ditches need to be pulled (cleaned) and the road graded. The entrances to a few culverts were clogged so need to be cleaned. Also, the entrances of some culverts need to be cleared of rocks and other debris so they do not plug. Additional grass seeding is needed along some of the road cut and fill slopes. This is not a serious problem but will help stabilize soils. Roadside and landing slash piles need to be burned. Some slash is bunched against live trees so many need to be pulled back prior to burning. -3- HOEFER ASSOCIATES David R. W. Hoefer 440 Meadows Way Grand Junction Colorado 81507-2525 August 28, 2008 Kathy Eastley, Senior Planner Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Ms. Eastley: EXHIBIT loso Enclosed is my report as requested. I trust this meets your expectation. If additional information or details are needed please give me a call and I will try to get it to you before your deadline. I am grateful to Black Diamond for providing an ATV for the review. Walking and mountain bike riding would have taken considerably more time. I feel the past timber sale operations were in conformance with what I have reviewed as the Special Use Permit and the requirements suggested in the 1996 Teepee Park Forest Management Plan. If there had been a performance bond on the timber operation I would recommended it be released. As noted in my September 24, 2003 letter to Mark Beam, this timber sale should have a positive effect on forest health. The spruce stands in the Beaver Creek drainage are healthy. They are mature in age rather than over -mature as are many of the spruce stands in Colorado. The timber operations and the age of the stands are a deterrent to the spruce bark beetle which is beginning to become epidemic in parts of the State. If bark beetle activity does appear, I advised the owner to consider additional harvest in the affected areas. This would need to be done quickly. As a forester, I do not have the technical knowledge as to whether roads need reclamation. From what I have observed, County road 317 and the Forest Service portion of the Beaver Creek road are in good condition. After review of my report and if everything is found acceptable, I will send my invoice which is in the amount of approximately $1,400. I have enjoyed working with you and Garfield County on this project. Sincerely, sl David R.W. Hoefer Consulting Forester A REVIEW OF THE TEEPEE CREEK RANCH TIMBER HARVEST GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO August 26, 2008 BY DAVID R. W. HOEFER Consulting Forester 1 TEEPEE CREEK RANCH TIMBER HARVEST Teepee Park and the head of Beaver Creek Timber harvest unit in timber just above and right of park. BACKGROUND On August 25, 2008, accompanied by Scott Hall and Robert Vincent of Black Diamond Minerals along with forester Bill Gherardi, I examined the Teepee Park Ranch timber sale. This review was at the request of the Garfield County Senior Planner, Kathy Eastley. A similar review had been made on September 12, 2003 to confirm the timber sale operations were in compliance with the Teepee Park Timber Harvest Project Special Use Permit. This Plan had been submitted to Garfield County on February 21, 2003 by Mr. Norman Carpenter and Intermountain Resources, LLC. Prior to the field review I reviewed documents given to me by Kathy Eastley, including the Timber Management Plan for Teepee Park dated April 1996, Resolution 2003-39, minutes dated May 19, 2008 and June 9, 2008 (assumed to be County Commissioner meetings), and my previous reports and comments to the Plan and Special Use Permit. In addition, I review the Best Management Practices Guidelines for Colorado. 2 REVIEW PROCEDURES When conducting a review, one looks at the standards or requirement to be applied and if the standards were applied. There are different kinds of standards applied to timber sales. Some of this deal with road construction such as not mixing stumps and vegetative debris in the road fills, cut slope angles, culvert locations, etc. Other standards pertain to log utilization such as stumps not higher than 12" or tops less the 6". Standards also are developed for fire hazard reduction and include lopping and scattering slash to 2' in height or less, spark arresters on equipment, time of operations, etc. Standards are developed for sediment reduction and water quality. Others may be for esthetic purposes such as elimination of logging debris within 50' of roads and cutting stumps lower to the ground. In conducting this review, I looked at the general standards for timber sales and those standards that might be a specific concern to Garfield County, especially those regarding water quality. FINDINGS I stated in my previous report that forester Bill Gherardi and Intermountain Resources owner Chris Meyers understood the Best Management Practices for Colorado and the silvicultural systems being applied to the various forest stands. They and the loggers did a superb job of timber harvest and forest management. For a private land timber sale, this one was made for the future health of the forest and not just for profit. What is the basis for this statement? Many large spruce trees were left, as they should have been under the silvicultural systems of group selection and a one step shelterwood. All logging slash was lopped and scattered. Damage to residual live trees was minimal. Skid trails and temporary logging roads were laid out very well. Ground disturbance was not excessive. What I found on this review was: Positive Observations The main road into and on the property and timber sale was in good shape. It had been graded, the ditch cleaned, culverts (corrugated metal pipes) inlets armored with rock, and a few silt settling areas put in along the ditch where practicable. All cut and fill slopes had been seeded to grass with establishment on an estimataed 90% of the cut and fill slopes and road surfaces. Logging roads to be retained but put to bed (closed) had culverts installed at live and intermediate stream crossing. Seeps were ditched and had culverts. These 3 were also seeded with grass as required. A large cut and fill slope along Teepee Cr. had been heavily seeded and grass was growing. Some woody debris had been placed on the slope. This was a concern to me in my previous inspection but is now satisfactory. All live streams crossed by the roads had culverts. All logging slash had been lopped and scattered. It is unlikely much if any soil erosion from the road is getting into Beaver Creek. Negative Observations As suspected, some windthrow or blowdown did occur in a large shelterwood cutting area near the top of a ridge between Beaver Cr. and Porcupine Cr. The result is the area looks more like a clearcut rather than a shelterwood cut retaining at least one-half the trees. This is not an uncommon event in spruce stands and the area will regenerate but in a longer period of time than if the event had not occurred. Most of the road construction slash and timber landing slash along with cull wood had been piled for burning. The burning did not occur. During the operating season of 2001-2004, this region was in a drought condition. Burning of slash piles would not have been prudent until there was a snow cover. When early snows did occur they came with depths of 2-3 feet rather than 6-12 inches. This phenomenon is also not uncommon but the result was no opportunity for disposal by burning. The slash piles are not doing any harm and are more an esthetic or visual problem rather than a fire hazard or other resource dilemma. Some sections of the logging roads that are to be retained but not kept open were lacking water- bars aterbars or were not outsloped. Water has channeled and run down the center or edge of these roads. Though they have grass and forb cover, erosion is still taking place. Road with erosion on right. 4 Road outsloped and vegetated. Though we did not go to the large road cut and fill at the head of Porcupine Creek, I am sure there has been some sloughing of the road but should now be stabilized and usable by ATVs or pickup trucks.. Placing light slash on the fill slope will reduce erosion if any is occurring. Based on the observations of other road cuts and fills, I would assume the area has establishment of grasses. Recommendations Before the onset of winter, the major temporary toads need to be outsloped and waterbarred to divert water off the road. In a few places the culvert inlets should be cleaned. The mad and logging slash that has been piled for burning can be left as it is or burned if the landowner desires to dispose of the slash in that manner. Some piles can also be broken apart with a dozer and debris scattered. A few piles are compacted and are showing signs of decay. It is best to leave these as they are. The slash piles and old log decks will not create any fire hazard. Disposal of this slash at this point would be mainly for esthetic purposes. Since the road is closed to the public, there is no need for that effort. These recommendations were discussed with Scott Hall and Rob Vincent. They agreed the logging roads needed attention and were working toward getting that done_ Some roadside slash piles will probably be broken apart and debris scattered though this is will not likely be a high priority. The new landowners seem concerned with maintaining a healthy forest ecosystem and in reducing any potential for erosion. Conclusions Except for the few minor problems, I have found this timber sale area to be in good condition. Logging was done in a manner that met the standard requirements one would expect for a timber sale. Though the cutting areas may look "rough" to someone not used to forestry operations, in another 20 years, the area will have young trees and will look much different. The timber cutting areas have helped break up the forested spruce stands to give more diversity and health to the overall existing and future forests. References Colorado Forestry Stewardship Guidelines. Best Management Practices for Colorado. Foresters Field Handbook. 1994. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service. Forestry Handbook. 1984. Society of American Foresters. Silviculture of the Spruce -fir Forests, Sheppard and Alexander. An Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Health in the Southwest, 1997. USDA Forester Service GTR 295. 5