Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Staff Report & ExhibitsREQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SITE DATA: ACCESS: WATER: BOCC 7/19/99 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit to allow timber harvest above and below escarpments, on the plateau and talus slopes, but excluding the valley floor. Colorado Timber & Land Company Contacts: Shirley Chavez & Ken Roberts The Clear Creek, Brush Creek, and Garden Gulch areas north of Parachute & DeBeque Various sites, labeled A -G & I, of widely varying sizes. The number of acres was not provided. County Roads 215, 204 (Roan Creek Rd), 209 (Brush Creek Road), 211 de- vatii.u' , (C(Ietb None SEWER: None EXISTING ZONING: R/L Resource Lands I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN According to the 1984 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, this site lies in districts C to F which range from minor to severe environmental constraints. The stated industrial/commercial goal of the comp plan is: Maintain and support the existing economic base of the County and encourage further diversification, which will broaden employment opportunities and help stabilize the economic future of the region. The applicable industrial policies of the Comp Plan are as follows: ❑ la Environmental impact and assessment statements will be reviewed carefully prior to the issuance of any special or conditional use permits. The application does not adequately address impact and assessment statements. See further 1 of 10 discussion contained in this report. u lb The County may require any identified environmental and/or fiscal impacts resulting from large scale commercial or industrial development be mitigated. Environmental and fiscal impacts have not been adequately addressed. See further discussion contained within this report. ✓ 3a Commercial vehicular movement should be concentrated along major roadways. _- , n Vehicular movement is from private to County roads to the Interstate. �� `\ V n^ 5 The performance standards of the Comp Plan state: 40o C�c c��4 Dust, odors, and fumes should be contained within the site generating such emissions and should not negatively affect any surrounding land use. Proposed land uses which may cause a noise or disturbance or nuisance to adjacent or surrounding properties should be prohibited, unless the noise disturbance can be effectively controlled within the proposed project site. H. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The application includes: 7 Q jAatt, ivaiwt©f eiGtA 4 • a douglas fir timber harvesting plan for parcels A, F, , & I • an aspen timer harvesting plan for parcel E • an aspen timber harvesting plan for parcels A, B, C, & D 1 G�IICCep '- - - %'c . ct/ VY1d4.)S The douglas fir timber harvesting plan for parcels A, F, G, & I concern lands in the Garden Gulch area (A & I) which will be accessed by CR215 and lands in the Clear Creek and Brush Creek areas (F & G) which will be accessed by CR204, CR211, and CR 209 atfil County roads The harvest areas are at elevations between 6,000 and 8,000 feet and do not contain live streams within cut areas. The slope is 60%-70% with a east or north aspect. The average acre has about 9,000 board feet of commercial timber and regeneration that has not reached commercial size. Competition and lack of moisture prevents larger trees from developing. The application proposes "to leave a continuous cover and reduce the stocking of commercial trees by 75% and to leave all sub -merchantable trees". Hand falling with chainsaws, which results in stumps no taller than 10", and helicopter yarding will be used to cut the douglas fir while loading and hauling will be done with conventional means. Limbing and bucking will be done in the woods with the tops left to return nutrients to the soil. The hand fell logs will be flown to landings where they will be decked or loaded onto conventional trucks for transport to a sawmill. The fifteen landings are shown on the maps. The application proposes "...only 10 loads per day on the County Road during the logging season... the roadbeds were built to handle heavy loads so no damage is expected". The helicopters proposed for use log between 8 and 16 truck loads per day and will work about 140 days per year. 2of10 The aspen timer harvesting plan for parcel concerns land above the escarpment, on the mesa top at the head of Clear Creek, at an elev ion between 7,500 and 8,700 feet. There are no live watercourses within any cut area. The erage slope is less than 30% however, the steepest slope is about 32%. Access will be via CR204 and CR211 to Mesa County roads. Mature aspen stands that are 70-90 feet in height and 50-90 years old are planned for cutting. 75 tons per acre is expected to be removed from cut areas. A mechanical feller-buncher, which leaves stumps only 4"-6" tall, will be used to cut the trees as the location is not steep. The entire tree is skidded with a rubber tire skidder. The stroke delimber will remove the limbs and tops at the landing. The shovel loader will then deck and load the logs and pile the limbs and tops. These four machines and four people will produce about 10 loads per day with about 160 work days per year. The aspen timber harvesting plan for parcels A, B, C, & D concerns lands above the escarpment, on the mesa top, between Roan and Parachute Creeks. The elevation ' etween 7,500 and 8,700 feet and there are no live watercourses within any cut area. T average slope is less than 30% however, the steepest slope is about 32%. Access will be via CR215 and private roads to the Rio Blanco County border and Rio Blanco Road #5. Mature aspen stands that are 70-90 feet in height and 50-90 years old are planned for cutting. 75 tons per acre is expected to be removed from cut areas. A mechanical feller-buncher, which leaves stumps only 4"-6" tall, will be used to cut the trees as the location is not steep. The entire tree is skidded with a rubber tired skidder. The stroke delimber will remove the limbs and tops at the landing. The shovel loader will then deck and load the logs and pile the limbs and tops. These four machines and four people will produce about 10 loads per day with about 160 work days per year, yielding approximately 40,000 tons annually. Each truck load carries about 25 tons of material. III. REVIEW AGENCIES This application was sent to the following review agencies/departments: 1. Bookcliff Soil Conservation District: See page % . In a letter dated 8/25/99 Charles Ryden states the following: The Board has reviewed the application and has some concerns about noxious weeds, erosion prevention, and improper application of fertilizers and pesticides which could affect water quality. 2. Town of Parachute: No response was received. 3. Town of DeBeque: No response was received. 4. Grand Valley Fire Protection District: See page)----? In a letter dated 8/27/99 David Blair makes some very specific comments and has requested more details. He has found discrepancies in the application. 5. DeBeque Fire Department: No response was received. 6. Colorado State Forest Service: See page) ' / In a letter dated 8/20/99 Kelly Rogers 3 of 10 notes that helicopter logging is the best way to harvest timber on these sites. However, the plan lacks detail in terms of how much timber is actually planned for harvest. Any harvest plan should include a quantifiable measure of how much timber is proposed for removal in terms of acres, tons, board feet, etc. The harvest plan refers to a "sample cruise". This timber cruise information should be presented in the harvest plan. It is impossible to determine overcutting of timber without a decent timber inventory. Although Colorado is one of the few western states where there is no Forest Practices Act governing the way timber is cut, specific silviculture practices have been addressed in the letter. 7. Colorado Division of Wildlife: See page (0 "'l7 In a letter dated 8/30/99 Steve Yamashita urges Garfield County to delay consideration or approval of this application until more specifics are forthecoming. He finds the application unnecessarily vague and incomplete. It is not clear how much timber is to be cut and consequently the effect on wildlife can not be assessed however, the proposed cut appears to be excessive removal of wildlife cover and habitat. There is much information in the currrent forestry literature that the assumptions made about aspen are not necessarily valid across the board. Some of the aspen are small and appear marginally merchantable which may not regenerate as expected particularly if grazing is not restricted. In general the wildlife statements are speculative and subjective and the assertions are only partially true. Two separate cuts have been helicopter logged on the Albertson Ranch. The second cut is "exemplary" and the applicant would benefit from the example. The recommendation is that the applicant consult with the CDOW, the CO State Forest Service, and local lessees so a comprehensive plan can be developed. Specific page-by-page comments are then made. 8. Bureau of Land Management: No response was received. 9. Garfield County Road & Bridge: No response was received. 10. Garfield County Vegetation Management: See pagelfr In a memo dated 9/2/99 Steve Anthony states concerns about a noxious weed inventory, weed management plan, and a revegetation bond. 11. Garfield County Emergency Management: See page. In a memo dated 8/2/99 Guy Meyer suggests the applicant review the old emergency plan submitted and include any hazards not identified. How will a fire ban effect the applicant? Perhaps if a permit was obtained from the Fire District continued operations, if appropriate, could be insured. 12. Garfield County Engineer: Returned the comment sheet with a note stating development documents are no longer being reviewed. f' 13. Garfield County Sheriff Department: See page I . In a memo dated 8/9/99 Tom Delassandri made the following observations/recommendations: The Sheriff's department needs assurance that roads into the harvest area are adequate for passage by fire, medical, and Sheriff's vehicles. A site map with the roads highlighted and updates throughout the process should be provided. Immediate notification in the event of a fire 4of10 is necessary. The applicant can be held financially responsible for the cost of fighting a man made fire. Familiarization with fire conditions and fire restrictions during the time frame of the timber harvest is necessary. A list of emergency contact phone numbers needs to be provided. The Sheriff prefers the helicopters be available to emergency service workers and deputies in the event of an emergency. 14. Rio Blanco County: No response was received. 15. Mesa County: No response was received. W. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: The site lies in the R/L Resource Lands zone district. Section 3.10 states that extraction on the plateau, escarpment, and talus slopes requires a conditional use permit. Section 2.02.30 defines timber cutting as extraction, which is an industrial operation. All industrial operations must meet the standards set forth in Section 5.03.07 and 5.03.08. B. Conditional and Special Uses: Conditional Uses are subject to the standards set forth in Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution: (1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Environmental Health officer shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; The proposed operation has no need for fixed utilities. (2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; At this point in time no street improvements are proposed. No legal access has been provided at this point in time. See Access section of this report for further discussion. (3)U" design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. The application does not formally address this section. Without the location of adjacent Obuildings/residences shown on the plan it is difficult to determine whether or not intensively utilized areas are located to minimize impact-Adj-aeent Ianduwner coma s ---are-attached_tc_ihii.s-mart' W e, /1RAA"M -- > —et'— aticll c � ^ Git. LA_ C. Industrial Operations: All industrial operations must meet the standards set forth in 5 of 10 Section 5.03.07 and 5.03.08. Section 5.03.07 states the following: (1) The applicant for a permit for industrial operations shall prepare and submit to the Planning Director ten (10) copies of an impact statement on the proposed use describing its location, scope, design and construction schedule, including an explanation of its operational characteristics. One (1) copy of the impact statement shall be filed with the County Commissioners by the Planning Director. This information has been provided although it lacks adequate detail as mentioned in the review agency comments. The impact statement shall address: (A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, stream flow or ground water; The only proposed water use is to take water from the Colorado River in the event of a fire. The impact statement shall address: (B) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; The harvest plans state "negative effects on neighbors and local communities are noise generated from the logging trucks, chain saws, and helicoptor... the noise created during logging operations should be minimal on adjacent lands...the project will have very little traffic, so not much dust will be created... there are no expected negative impacts from generation of vapor, noise, glare, vibrations, or other emanations". The applicant states in a letter dated 7/19/99 that the decibel level of noise generated is minimal. The trucks and helicopters are quiet and dust on shale based roads is minimal. The applicant should understand that impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations is not permissable under County regulations. The impact statement shall address: (C) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions; The aspen harvest plans state positive and negative impacts on wildlife. Old growth aspen will be converted to young growth and will create more browse for deer, elk, and raptors. The felling and skidding will have temporary negative effects. The douglas fir plan states improved habitat for deer, elk, and other bird and wildlife due to increased browse material. Noise and human activity may initially cause the deer and elk to move a short distance from the logging operation for a few days. The wildlife information contained in the harvest plans is vague. No real impact has been assessed and no real mitigation has been proposed. Staff recommends that the CDOW recommendations in the 8/30/99 letter be followed. The impact statement shall address: (D) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and their impacts to areas in the County; The harvest plans state that all loads will be legal in weight and will not cause excessive road damage. Ten loads per day per side should not be enough traffic to cause accelerated 6 of 10 road damage. These statements are vague. "Excessive and accelerated" are not defined. It should be noted that if areas E, F, & G are all being cut at the same time and each has 10 loads "per side" the result will be 60 loads per day on CR204. The impacts of truck and automobile traffic have not been affirmatively shown. More information is needed. The impact statement shall address: (E) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s); The distances to adjacent residential uses has not been provided. The impact statement shall address: (F) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution (2) Permits may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate mitigation for the following: (A) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approved by the County Commissioners before a permit for conditional or special use will be issued; The aspen timber harvest plan states that spontaneous regeneration of vegetation is expected to rehabilitate the site. Skid roads planned for closure will be cross-ditched to prevent erosion. Landings will be smoothed by machine and seeded and mulched. The douglas fir timber harvest plan states there will be no skid roads since helicopters will be utilized. After hauling is complete all roads will be inspected and drainage will be added or rebuilt as needed to prevent erosion. Landings will be sloped for drainage, ripped to alleviate compacting, and seeded. Landings will be inspected for two years and any noxious weeds sprayed with herbicide. All site slash will be piled at a "mutually agreeable location". After the landing site slash is burned CTLC will reseed and otherwise reclaim each landing site. The Garfield County Vegetation Manager and Bookcliff Soil Conservation District have made some specific recommendations which should be followed. (B) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank commitment of credit, bond, certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan in workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications' and construction schedule established or approved by the County Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds or check shall be payable to and held by the County Commissioners; No security was provided. Security for damage to County Roads and for site rehabilitation is needed. In the past Garfield County has required a minimum $100,000 bond. (C)Impacts set forth in the impact statement and compliance with the standards contained in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution. (A. 93-061) Section 5.03.08 states the following: 7 of 10 Industrial Performance Standards: All industrial operations' in the County shall comply with applicable County, State, and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards; 5,©3, oe) tz) (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. (A. 93-061) The application does not contain a written statement to this effect. (2) Vibration generated: every use ?sha t be." o operaed that the- ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated 's -not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; The harvest plans state "there are no expected negative impacts from generation of... vibrations... ". (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; The harvest plans state "there are no expected negative impacts from generation of... dust... ". (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision; The harvest plans state "there are no expected negative impacts from generation of vapor... glare... or other emanations". D. Access: Section 5.03.12 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution states: All conditional uses and special uses must be provided with access routes of adequate design to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access for the use constructed in conjunction to the proposed use. The minimum design standards shall be the Garfield County Road Specifications. Access routes have not been secured. The application does not contain written consent from Mesa or Rio Blanco Counties to haul on their roads. The application does not contain signed right-of-way agreements for almost all the proposed private roads. The only signed right-of-way agreement is from Shell Oil and concerns two very short pieces along the Logan Wash road in section 27. The applicant has been informed that, in the 8of10 event permission to access the proposed right-of-ways can not be secured and the access routes change, the application must be re -opened and heard at a noticed Public Hearing so that staff and the Board can evaluate the new access route. Pursuant to section 5.03.12 and 5.03 (2) no conditional use permits can be issued until signed consent from private road owners and concerned Counties is provided to staff. No firm calculations for increased traffic have been provided. The harvest plans state that all loads will be legal in weight and will not cause excessive road damage. It further states ten loads per day per side should not be enough traffic to cause accelerated road damage. These statements are vague. "Excessive and accelerated" are not defined. It should be noted that if areas E, F, & G are all being cut at the same time and each has 10 loads "per side" the result will be 60 loads per day on CR204. The impacts of truck and automobile traffic have not been affirmatively shown. More information is needed regarding existing road conditions, firm increased traffic numbers on each and every County road, the amount of security that will be posted, and the proposed method and construction schedule of road repairs. The harvest plan states "A system of sign posting to warn other road users will be in place. If your transportation planners would like to offer advice on content and placement of signs it is welcome." This is not sufficient detail. The "system" needs to be presented to staff and the Board at this point in time for review by themselves, the public, and other concerned review agencies. Once this information is provided advice on content and placement can be offered. The harvest plan states some new seasonal temporary roads will need to be constructed on private lands. The approximate length of the new roads is 1-1/2 miles. After use, they will be blocked and water barred. An adequate road system is needed to remove timber, move equipment, and to adequately protect against fire. The application should contain the standard to which these roads will be built and the standard to which existing roads are built. E. Fire Protection: The harvest plan states that at all times internal engines shall be equipped with USDA Forest Service 4p av&d spark arresters. All motorized equipment shall be equipped with a round point shovel "0" size or larger and a double bitted ax 2-1/2 pounds or larger. The tools will have serviceable handles and will be sharp. A logging company employee, whose sole duty will be to look for and extinguish fires, will be present at the operating area for 30 minutes after all operations cease for the day. There is a risk of the logging starting a fire but the long term effects of logging are that the trees are removed before the die so a build up of dead fuels does not reach dangerous levels. �� -c�''t cc.i, Uc� t. ( DCCchik P(;It k tv,o;L l ticakd tcul-`�;I�IJ?J F. # of Employees and Hours of Operation: The application states that 4 peop e will be1JMu 9of10 employed. It is unknown if this is per location (4 people x 8 properties=32 people) or the maximum number employed at any given time. No hours of operation have been provided. Will equipment be operated 7 days per week or limited to any time of day? A c: ct4,0tt How many years will the logging operation last? IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. 2. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 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 meeting. 0± 411ALk} L4 U (tt t{() 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed conditional use permit has notsr- ; n been shown to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, -{v prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. s1 4 LGo .z x .-i-i J J vY' +0 R. 4. That the application is not in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. V. RECOMMENDATION ° . A.Lec.aft.A Staff recommends CONTINUANCE, for the following reasons: At this point in time the application lacks the necessary level of detail needed to determine compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. Therefore, it can not be shown to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. &gr. suggests the applicant address the issues raised within this report and by review agencies. (Please Note: From the date all the necessary information is submitted staff and the applicable review agencies involved will need at least 45 days prior to the date of the Hearing to review and comment on the new submittal. This puts the earliest ' ' date at November 1, 1999 given all needed materials are submitted by Sept. 13) 4 l\ i r ° kLoc el A ik 4- a VII-DTNfl `I19 it& ) 44\1_ INZGO 04;6 (&.‘14 l0 of 10 Imo' PAANti-P-Vb—(A cooki L. i BOOKCLIFF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 1302 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 August 25, 1999 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8TH St. Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sir: At the regular monthly meeting of the Bookcliff Soil Conservation District, the Board reviewed the application and plan for the timber harvest by the Colorado Timber and Land Company. The District has some concerns about the project. The board is always concerned about noxious weed control. In Colorado Timber and Land Company's proposal, they stated all areas will be inspected for two years and any noxious weeds will be sprayed with a herbicide and they will do the work. We suggest that if noxious weeds are present during the first two years of harvesting, the time needs to be extended to have no noxious weeds for a period of two years. The property should be inspected by Garfield County Weed Management before and after harvesting. Any cuts for roads or construction should be revegetated to prevent erosion. Weed free seed and mulch should be used for any reseeding of the area. Monitoring of all seeding should be done to see if the grass is establishing or if weeds are becoming a problem. Reseeding or weed control practices should be implemented if a problem is noticed. The District Board suggests that the Planning Commission require bonds to insure revegetation is completed and vegetation is established to assure reduction of erosion. With increased concerns about Water Quality, the District is concerned about improper application of fertilizers. and pesticides. Chemicals should be applied by properly licensed and bonded applicators to insure safe and proper use of pesticides. All chemical label directions should be followed. The landowners should be aware of the possibility that the chemicals will soak into the soils and enter ground water as well as run off into surface waters. Sincerely, Charles Ryden, President Bookcliff Soil Conservation District cc: Sreve Aa'rntoa'y G*.er,e..o C. as a. /fc7 P(L 1 CC GRAND VALLEY 1 AUG 2 7199g FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 1777 E. BATTLEMENT PARKWAY PO BOX 295 PARACHUTE, CO 81635 (970) 285-9119, FAX (970) 285-9748 August 27, 1999 Kit Lyon, Planner Garfield County Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Review of the Colorado Timber & Land Co. Application Reference: Documents supplied by the Garfield County Building and Planning Department Kit, I have reviewed the letters sent between your office and Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP, and the three attached harvest plans and offer the following comments: The Letters packet • The answer to item 12 of Ms. Kit Lyon's letter — "As stated in the harvest plan, dust on the shale based roads is minimal." It is obvious that Ms. Chavez does not live in Garfield County. During the oil shale days, the road up to the UNOCAL mine site and current oil field roads are both proof as to how dusty shale based road can get over an extended period of constant use. • The answer to item 15 of Ms. Kit Lyon's letter addressing the fire protection issues. You state that the "helicopters are equipped with bladders which can, and frequently are, used to lift water from a convenient source (i.e.: Colorado River) to any fire area." How many "helicopters" are you going to be using for this project since you've used it in the plural sense? • How large are the bladders and are they remote or cable controlled? Have you identified which areas of the river you can dip from? Do you realize you may not necessarily be able to use a helicopter on "any fire area", especially in the event of overhead fall hazards with firefighters working below, high winds, and nighttime operations? Helicopters are a great resource, but they do have limitations and "any" is probably not a good word to use. Second paragraph: "At all times ...... Will equipment/motorized vehicles be carrying a fire extinguisher on each as well? Size and type? Do you plan to have any water and a means of delivering it on site for fire protection? I believe it would be advantageous to all parties, if the Garfield County Commissioners require equipment necessary to meet county fire bans be included on any minimum equipment list. This could prevent shut downs of logging operations during such a fire ban period if equipment had to be obtained in order to meet this requirement. c Third paragraph: "In addition, during fire season, there... What do you perceive the dates of fire season to be? Will you have one employee at the cutting sites, skidding sites and landing sites or do propose to have one employee monitoring all sites. Fourth paragraph: "We also have emergency ...... I met with Nick Marx in DeBeque, August 11, 1999 and he stated he was unaware of this whole project. I explained to him that it was still being reviewed and that he may want to be involved in the review since a large portion of this project is within the DeBeque Fire Department service area. As to what was given to Guy Meyers, I have not seen it. Since it is the responsibility of the Grand Valley Fire Protection District to provide fire and ems care to those within our boundaries, we would very much like to be included in any proposed, "Emergency Preparedness Plans". I do not see anywhere what actions will be required from the local ems provider in the event of a trauma/medical emergency. Is the helicopter equipped to handle such instances? Will you have Emergency Medical Technicians on site? Are they certified in the state of Colorado? Will medical equipment be available at each work site? How will the roads to the logging operation areas be maintained during periods of inclement weather? We do not have a four wheel drive ambulance. Is Colorado Timber and Land Company willing to provide one to the district? • The answer to item 19 of Ms. Kit Lyon's letter concerns me. I believe the Garfield County Commissioners, Town of Parachute, and the Grand Valley Fire Protection District can set limits as to where they can fly. In the past we have had helicopters "buzz" the Town of Parachute and Battlement Mesa areas. It may or may not be unlawful to do such, but it becomes a safety issue as well as a nuisance issue. During fire season, if I request the helitack unit out of Rifle, air attack or slurry out of Grand Junction to respond to fires within our district, especially near any logging operations which may also be going on at the same time involving the use of a CTLC contract helicopter(s), I reserve the right to ground any such helicopter(s) in the area which may pose a hazard to inter -agency helitack crew or air craft working such fire. I also reserve the right to tell any CTLC contracted pilot "what to do and how to do" as it pertains to coordinating fire fighting efforts should a fire occur during logging operations and they choose to assist until such other fire crews can respond. This is not to demean the training of the contracted pilots in any way. Realistically, unless a pilot has the same radio frequency as the ground fire crews, they may be ordered to land any way. The inability to communicate between ground and air attack is a major safety concern. Also, helitack crews, if available, will always be requested as the primary air method of delivering water. Trained fire crews are much more effect in the event of a wildfire than a single pilot who is given a 'just in case water bucket" I further think that CTLC contracted pilots should have a pre -arranged flight path to and from designated dip sites if they are to be used as fire suppression units or just carrying water to the jobsite. We do not want helicopters flying over populated areas with 1600 pounds (standard 200 gallon bucket) of water and having it pre-release. • Lastly, from a personal note and not that of the Grand Valley Fire Protection District, the answer to item 24 of Ms. Kit Lyon's letter has me a little concerned. The people you mention are your contracted forester, forestry technician, and biologist. Why weren't the local resources used, i.e.: Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, White River Forest Service personnel? It appears that the fox is guarding the henhouse and the reports may reflect the desired outcomes of the company. Again, this is an observation and it is not meant to discredit the training, experience and qualifications of the personnel working for CTLC. Douglas Fir Timber Harvesting Plan • Aspect: You have stated that timber is only located on the East and North facing slopes. According to the maps provided: Pg 11— Timber is predominately on the SW aspect Pg 13 — Timber is predominately on the SE aspect Pg 14 — Timber is approximately 25% on the SE aspect Does this mean you will only be harvesting on the East and North facing slopes or would it be best to delete the "only located on the East and North" statement from this and other portions of the plan"? • Timber types: You have stated that you will be removing 75% of the commercial trees and leaving all sub -merchantable trees. This will provide for less moisture competition and allow the younger and smaller trees to grow, hopefully to larger sizes. In the section Proposed Silviculture Treatments: You have stated by leaving some of the "old growth trees" and all of the younger trees, we are leaving enough thermal cover for the same populations; etc. Then in the section Schedule of Operations: You have stated `Because the target is the small Douglas Fir a lighter smaller ship (helicopter) is the best way to go and make this an economical operation." Which is it? Are you taking the 75% of old growth, merchantable trees or the younger, sub -merchantable trees? • Proposed Haul System: You have stated that the helicopter that is planned to be used can move enough timber for about 10 loads per day on the days it flies. On page 7, Schedule of Operations, you have stated you will be able to log between 8 to 16 truckloads per flying day. Is this to mean that because trucking will be limited to between 10 loads to 7 loads a day, depending on which part of the plan you're reading, there will be stock piles of trees at the landing sites waiting to be shipped? With the need to temporarily stockpile timber (fuels), what additional if any fire protection will you be providing at these storage sites. • Proposed Rehabilitation Guidelines: You have stated that CTLC will pile all landing site slash at a mutually agreeable location(s). Who will you be agreeing with? To what height will slash and tops, from bucking operations, be left at the felling sites? Who will be inspecting disturbed areas, roads and drainages? • Potential Impacts and Planned Mitigation: Dust, I've previously commented on above. • Wildlife Habitat Impacts: Is CTLC aware there is Black Bear in the area? • Fire Protection: I've previously commented on. • Enforcement of Logging Plan: Number one, the plan should reflect that it is the Colorado Division of Wildlife and not the "Colorado Game and Fish Department". Number two, since the Grand Valley Fire Protection District is charged with the extinguishment of privately owned land fires within it boundaries; it might be good to include them as apart of this and other plans. Likewise, DeBeque Fire Department, a pre- defined service area, may as well want to be included in this and other plans. I would suggest that a better statement may be: Any fires and subsequent action occurring within the Grand Valley Fire Protection District should be reported to the Garfield County Emergency Communications Dispatch Center by dialing 911 and reporting the exact location of such fire and the pre -designated response agency needed. They in tum 7 r_. will notify the fire department and the sheriff's department having jurisdiction. AAn fires and subsequent action occurring within the DeBeque Fire Department service area should be reported to the Mesa County Dispatch Center by dialing 911 and reporting the exact location of such fire and the pre -designated response agency needed. They in turn will notify the fire department and the sheriff's department having jurisdiction. Pre - designated response agencies will be determined prior to the start of any work and will be based on the jurisdictional boundaries of each agency. As it pertains to fire protection and the potential need for ems care & coverage, the Grand Valley Fire Protection District retains the right to meet with company personnel and make periodic site inspections. Aspen Timber Harvesting Plan, Clear Creek location • This site is not within the Grand Valley Fire Protection District. Aspen Timber Harvesting Plan, lying mesa, between Roan and Parachute Creeks. • Sections A (most) & B lie within the Grand Valley Fire Protection District. Sections C & D are within the DeBeque Fire Department service area. • Current Access Roads: Unit A, Southerly of Garden Gulch, should exit to Logan Wash Road and Garfield County Road # 204 to I-70 at DeBeque. Garfield County Road #205 is just east of Douglas Pass, north of the Fruit/Mack area. • Proposed Logging Systems: You have stated in the last sentence, at the bottom of paragraph 3, that Garfield County Road #215 is a high standard road, etc. According to the Maps and above mentioned Current Access Roads, Garfield County Road #215 should not need to be used for any hauling of aspen timber, unless you intend to helicopter it to the Douglas Fir landing sites and truck it down to Garfield County Road #215. • Fire Protection, Page 7: "Fire protection, whether it is natural (lightning) or man caused is always an impact." I don't understand this statement. Was the word "protection" meant to be used in this sentence? We in the fire service realize we are constantly making impacts, however I have never seen lightning used as a part of fire protection. • Enforcement of Logging Plan: I offer the same comments as the Douglas fir. If you have any questions regarding this review, I can be reached at (970) 285-9119. David A. Blair District Fire Chief, GVFPD Cc: Gary Mahaffey, Department Fire Chief, P/BMVFD file � Y 1c > L -O kik i 60er CTL C T LA -4 3» tom. O ,-J G QTH d - /-(,R Z 0K44-7- $' i owito c, C7, S 1511 5 -cv-s rS o d'tZ /9-0faru.?3 cc° / FP`+ci ci r( E,s- - rcox.F'vt z r,D lA-G r 7 H 6 -, co etc'k ('vas j Sci cr/ ? 77 -1& -Re- , r yti 5 August 20, 1999 Kit Lyon Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Colorado Timber and Land Co. Application Ms. Lyon, Col FOREST SERVICE State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone: (970) 248-7325 I have reviewed the application for timber harvest submitted by the Colorado Timber and Land Co., and have the following comments: The harvest plans submitted seem to generally follow the outline for logging plans that the State Forest Service proposed for use in Garfield County a few years ago. The plans give a general idea of what is proposed. In addition, I personally visited the Albertson property during logging operations above Kimball Creek in May 1998. My impression was that this is a relatively low impact, "pick and pluck" type of harvesting that in most cases does not radically alter the nature of these Douglas -fir timber stands. Although helicopter logging has never been used extensively in this state, it should definitely be endorsed on steep, highly erodible sites such as those being considered in this proposal, due to the minimal ground disturbance and road construction necessary to remove timber. Helicopter logging is definitely the best way to harvest timber on these sites in order to minimize environmental concerns. However, I think this proposal lacks detail in terms of how much timber is actually planned for harvest. Any harvest plan should include at least a rough estimate of how much timber is proposed for removal, in terms of acres, tons, board feet, or some other quantifiable measure. It's important to provide this estimate in order to show the scale of the project, the expected duration of cutting and hauling activity, and to ensure that sustainable silviculture is being proposed. On page 6 of the harvest plan for Douglas -fir, reference is made to a "sample cruise". Any timber cruise data they have should be presented in the harvest plan, along with at least a rough estimate of how many acres are proposed for cutting. It would also be useful to know what the pre -sale volume, composition, and structure are of these stands. Similarly, the aspen harvest plans refer on page 3 to a "75 tons per acre" expected removal volume. Again, some pre -sale cruise data should have been included. My concern is that without a decent timber inventory, it is impossible to tell if this proposal amounts to overcutting of the property's timber. This is of particular concern since the plan states on page 4 that a "75% removal rate" will be used in Douglas -fir. However, there is no RECEIVED AUG 2 4 1999 indication of whether this 75% refers to board foot volume, stems per acre, basal area, or something else. Whatever it refers to, I feel this figure is too high. As you may realize, Colorado is one of the few western states wherethere is no Forest -- Practices ' Practices Act governing the way private timber is but, -and neither the State Forest Service nor any other entity has any control over how a private landowner cuts his timber. I'm not sure if the county permitting process is the best place to debate proper silvicultural practices on private land. However, in reviewing this harvest plan, I feel compelled to address silviculture 8s` part of my comments, since improper cutting of this timber could possibly lead to substantial negative off-site impacts. There is little published research on silviculture of Rocky Mountain Douglas -fir. I have included a page from a US Forest Service handbook, which describes this timber type in general terms and may be of some use to you. What 1 typically recommend for management in this timber type involves some sort of partial cutting, under what is known as a "shelterwood" system. This is where the forest is managed in "layers", taking out the mature overstory of a stand in a series of cuts as the residual stand releases and grows up underneath it. However, the initial entry of a shelterwood cut should remove only about a third to one-half of the basal area of the overstory, rather than the "75%" mentioned in this plan. I think a removal rate of up to 50% of the basal area of the overstory would be more responsible for this timber type. Overcutting on these steep slopes could potentially lead to erosion, downstream sedimentation, and windthrow problems in the residual stand. I also have concerns about the level of cutting in the aspen type. The harvest plan mentions a 20-40 acre size limit on patchcuts, along with a 300 -foot buffer, both of which are reasonable requirements. However, it should also be required that they state how much aspen timber is available, as well as what percentage they plan on harvesting. I do not recommend harvesting more than 50% of the available aspen acreage in a single entry, since a regeneration cut of this scale would do little to diversify age classes in this timber type. In addition, it should be noted that aspen regeneration following clearcutting is not a sure thing. Personal experience in low elevation, dry aspen site patchcuts has shown that some aspen clones do not always regenerate vigorously or at all following cutting, especially when subjected to heavy grazing or browsing pressure from cattle, elk, or deer. If these clearcuts do not regenerate as aspen, they have effectively been converted to a brush or grassland, which would have definite disadvantages for wildlife in this area. Therefore, a more conservative cut taking less than half of the available acreage in the first entry would seem in order until regeneration is assured. A minor recommendation would be to possibly combine the three harvest plans into one document, in order to avoid the redundancy of many of their statements. Finally, I would welcome an opportunity to do an on-site visit with the applicant, a representative of the landowner, you, and others interested in reviewing this proposal. I feel it might be instructive to look over not only some of the proposed harvest areas, but possibly some of the past cutting done on Dale Albertson's land, if at all possible. Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this proposal, and feel free to call me with any questions at 248-7325. Sincerely, Kelly Rogers Assistant District Forester or other diseases and are thus unsuitable for further management. Ponderosa pine has excellent juvenile growth rates. Growth rates are generally slower for Douglas -fir. Young Douglas -fir trees appear to grow best with partial shade; whereas ponderosa pine requires full sunlight (7, 10). Insects and disease can play a major role in establish- ment and development of trees in this forest type. Outbreaks of the western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis Freeman) have caused serious defoliation and growth loss of Douglas -fir. Heavy feeding by the budworm severely reduces seed production by Douglas -fir and is apparently responsible for regeneration failures in some areas (4). The Douglas -fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins) can cause seri- ous losses. Old, dense stands containing a high proportion of Douglas -fir are most susceptible (8). The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) is a primary killer of ponderosa pine trees. Group killing occurs in mature forests and in young over -stocked stands. The dwarf mistle- toes (Arceuthobium douglasii Engelm. and A. Campylopodum Engelm.) are major enemies of Douglas -fir and of ponderosa pine in some areas. They infect trees of all ages, and although mortality is low, significant growth loss can occur along with lower lumber quality. On Douglas -fir sites, fire has played an important role in the maintenance of seral stands of larch and pine (3). On the drier Douglas -fir sites, pure ponderosa stands were main- tained by fire. On the more mesic sites within the range of western larch, the larch was favored as it is slightly more fire resistant than ponderosa pine and is less affected by crown scorch because it grows a new crop of needles each year. Though older Douglas -fir trees are also fire resistant, burning that destroys seedlings and saplings favors the aggressive pioneer species, larch and pine. On cooler sites lodgepole pine is the seral species maintained by fire. Although lodgepole pine can withstand light ground fire, it is generally considered susceptible to fire at all ages. It is, however, aggressive in reestablishment following a stand -destroying fire. Depending on site and stand conditions, both even -aged and uneven -aged management systems are feasible. On dry climax ponderosa pine sites, prompt natural regeneration is difficult to obtain because of the need for the combination of good seed crops, good site preparation, and favorable weather during the first two growing seasons. Single tree and group selection cutting methods are usually prescribed. Site prepara- tion in the openings should coincide with good seed crops. Heavy infections of dwarf mistletoe in many stands in Idaho and eastern Washington may limit the choice to clearcutting and planting in order to prevent infection of the regenerated stand. When ponderosa pine is managed in uneven -aged stands, low stand densities are needed to maintain reasonable individual -tree growth rates. On moderate sites where Douglas_fir and ponderosa or lodgepole pine occur in mixture, group selection and shelterwood cutting methods are preferred, but the choice often depends on the amount of dwarf mistletoe. If a merchantable stand of ponderosa pine and Douglas -fir is vigorous and relatively free of dwarf mistletoe, these methods may be used. In stands where most of the Douglas -fir trees are badly infected with dwarf mistletoe and little mistletoe -free understory is present, a silviculturally satisfactory method is to clearcut the mer- chantable trees, dispose of remaining trees, prepare the site with mechanical equipment or fire, and establish a new stand by planting. In lightly infected stands, any partial cutting should be accompanied by cutting or killing infected trees. On moist sites, Douglas -fir and ponderosa pine may occur in mixture with lodgepole pine, western larch, and grand fir. The seed tree, shelterwood, and clearcutting 54 methods are appropriate depending on insect and disease infestations and site and stand conditions. The shelterwood method is increasingly used in mature even -aged stands, but seed tree cutting is occasionally used, especially for regenerat- ing western larch on northerly aspects. The clearcutting method is frequently used in overmature stands. Clearcutting is particularly useful in efforts to control insects and dwarf mistletoe. It also facilitates slash disposal and site preparation. -s7 On higher elevation dry sites, Douglas -fir occurs in pure stands. The sites are severe, establishment of natural regener- ation is slow, and juvenile growth rates are low. Often the Douglas -fir is heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe, and badly damaged by -the western spruce budworincIf a mer- chantable 'stand ;is healthy and relatively free of dwarf mistletoe, a shelterwood or selection method of cutting may be used, but the regeneration period will be long. In stands heavily infected with dwarf mistletoe or badly damaged by the budworm, the only reasonable method is to clearcut if the timber is to be salvaged. However, clearcuts on these sites are difficult to regenerate even by planting. The forests in this type are truly multiple -use forests. Some of the most important forest range for livestock found in the Northern Rocky Mountain region occurs in this forest type. Timber harvest and prescribed fire can significantly increase livestock and wildlife forage. Though this type is a low to moderate water producer, excessive soil disturbance can impact the many large streams Flowing through the type, adversely affecting fish populations and increasing sedimenta- tion in reservoirs. The majority of the present deer and elk winter range occurs in this type. Portions of the type are used by the grizzly bear and wolf. Because this forest type is located on lower elevations, esthetics and recreation must also be important management considerations. Literature Cited • I. Amo, Stephen F. Forest regions of Montana. Res. Pap. INT -218. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1979. 39 p. 2. Baker, F. S.; Korstian, Clarence F. Suitability of brush lands in the Intermountain Region for the growth of natural or planted western yellow pine forests. Tech. Bull. 256. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture; 1931. 82 p. 3. Davis, Kathleen M.; Clayton, Bruce D.; Fisher, William C. Fire ecology of Lolo National Forest habitat types. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT -79. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1980. 77 p. 4. Dewey, Jerald E. Damage to Douglas -fir cones by Choristoneura occidentalis. J. Econ. Entomology 63(6): 1804-1806; 1970. 5. Eyre, F. H., ed. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 1980. 148 p. 6. Foiles, Marvin W.; Curtis, James D. Regeneration of ponderosa pine in the Northem Rocky Mountain region. Res. Pap. INT -145. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1973. 44 p. 7. Fowells, H. A., comp. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. Agric. Handb. 271. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1965. 762 p. 8. Furniss, Malcolm M.; Livingston, R. Ladd: McGregor. Mark D. Development of a stand susceptibility classification for Douglas -fir beetle. In: Proceedings, Hazard -rating systems in forest insect pest management symposium; 1980 July 31 -August 1; Athens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO -27. Washington. DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 1981. 115-128. 9. Meyer, Walter H. Yield of evenaged stands of ponderosa pine. Agric. Handb. 630. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1938. 59 p. 10. Minore, Don. Comparative autecological characteristics of northwestern tree species -a literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-87. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1979. 72 p. Ponderosa Pine and Rocky Mountain Douglas -fir Russell A. Ryker Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station Jack Losensky Northern Region In the interior Northwest States of Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws. var. ponderosa) and Rocky Mountain Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Beissn.) Franco) forests cover about 20 million acres (8 million ha). The two species occur together over an elevation range of about 4,000 feet (1220 m). Ponderosa pine is found from 1,000 to 6,000 feet (305 to 1830 m), and Douglas -fir from 1,800 to 8,000 feet (550 to 2440 m) (7). On the lower edge of its range, ponderosa pine is the climax tree species in the first forest zone above grasslands. Above this narrow zone, it is a topographic climax on steep southerly slopes or is a seral species on Douglas -fir and grand fir (Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl.) sites (II). With increasing elevation and precipitation, ponderosa pine gives way to Douglas -fir, which in turn gives way to grand fir on mid -elevations in northern Idaho and northwestern Montana and to subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.) on higher elevations throughout the Northern Rocky Mountains. These forests are represented by two Society of Ameri- can Foresters forest cover types (5): Interior Ponderosa Pine (type 237) and Interior Douglas -fir (type 210). They include pure forests of ponderosa pine or Douglas -fir, or various mixtures of these two species and their major associates grand fir, western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm.). Tim- ber productivity rates vary from 10. to more than 100 cubic feet per acre (0.7 to 7.0 m3/ha) per year, depending on site and stand conditions (9, 11, 14). The distribution of ponderosa pine and Douglas -fir is strongly influenced by climate and available soil moisture. Ponderosa pine is not found in north -central and northeast Montana because of cold and windy conditions (I). Similarly, its distribution is limited in southwest' and south-central Montana and central and eastern Idaho because of too little precipitation during May and June, a critical time for the survival of new seedlings (2). At higher elevations where moisture is adequate, the temperatures are too low. Though both species occur on a variety of soils, their distribution on drier sites is related to supplies of available soil moisture that, in turn, are related to soil texture and depth (7). Ponderosa pine extends into drier areas on sandy soils and along streams. Douglas -fir can be found on dry soils too, but only on higher elevations where temperatures are lower. Douglas - fir does not tolerate poorly drained soils or soils normally subjected to flooding during part of the year. Precipitation ranges from about 14 inches (355 mm) on the lower ponderosa pine sites to 40 inches (1015 mm) on the higher elevations (7), but throughout the type July to August rainfall is deficient, often less than 1 inch (25 mm) (1, 5, 7). During the establishment of a new stand, the scant summer rainfall creates a need for protecting sites from the extremes of temperature and moisture losses that occur on exposed sites on southerly aspects. Natural regeneration of ponderosa pine and Douglas -fir is sporadic. On the drier sites successful natural regeneration is thought to be the result of a chance combination of a good seed crop and favorable weather during the next growing season. Regeneration is enhanced by leaving enough trees to ameliorate temperature and moisture extremes in the openings, and to provide larger quantities of seed. On the driest sites, where ponderosa pine is the climax and only tree species, prompt natural regeneration is difficult to obtain no matter what cutting method is used, because the combination of good seed crops and moisture conditions favorable for seedling survival is infrequent. On more moist sites, ponderosa pine natural regeneration depends on timing the site prepara- tion to coincide with a good seed crop. The number of seedlings can be increased by protecting the cone crop from tree squirrels and by reducing populations of seed -eating rodents (13). Seed production directly influences regeneration and the cutting method that may be applied. Ponderosa pine is a poor seed producer west, and a fair producer east, of the Continen- tal Divide in Montana. Most seed falls to the ground within 130 feet (39.6 m) of the parent tree. Douglas -fir is somewhat more prolific, and the effective dissemination distance is about twice that of ponderosa pine (7). Prescribed fire and scarification are the methods most often used to create favorable conditions for regeneration. On the dry sites, it is imperative to control vegetation competing for the limited soil moisture. Seed germination and seedling establishment are best on mineral soil seedbeds; however, Douglas -fir can establish seedlings on litter if it is not more than 2 inches (5 cm) deep. Both species do well on burned seedbeds (6, 12, 15). Planting of bareroot and container -grown trees has been widely used to reestablish ponderosa pine and Douglas -fir. Because of the low predictability of natural regeneration, these species are planted whenever prompt regeneration is needed. Successful planting requires good site preparation to control competing vegetation, and vigorous seedlings capa- ble of initiating root growth soon after planting. Survival often depends on maintaining contact with the receding soil moisture level during summer drought. New growth on young Douglas -fir trees is occasionally damaged by late -spring and late -summer frosts. Plantations established on high elevations with trees grown from seed collected at somewhat lower elevations are especially susceptible. Damage also occurs in some lower elevation valley bottoms that collect cold air when the protective cover of trees is removed. Ponderosa pine is seldom damaged by frost. The potential of understory Douglas -fir to respond, grow, and become a vigorous forest once the overstory trees are cut, is most important in deciding on a cutting method. Some stands contain healthy understory trees that have large, vigorous crowns that enable them to grow rapidly once the overstory is removed. However, other mature stands contain small but old understory trees that have small crowns and do not possess the vigor to grow when released from competition. Many trees, though alive, are infected with dwarf mistletoe T. 53 G-30 99 13:09 FROM: DIU. WILDLIFF _NEST RG 970-255-6111 •STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYep John W. Mumma, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: 1303) 297-1192 Area 7 711 Independent Avenue Grand rurntion, CO 81505-7126 (970) 255-6100 Kit Lyon, Planner Building and Planning Department Garfield County 109 8t St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Colorado Timber & Land Co. Application Dear Ms. Lyon: TO:97n 945 7785 August 30, 1999 PAGE:001 For Wildlife - For People The Colorado Division of Wildlife has reviewed Colorado Timber & Land Company's application and plans for timber harvest in Roan and Parachute Creeks. In general the proposal appears unnecessarily vague and incomplete. We urge Garfield County to delay consideration or approval of this application until more specifics are forthcoming. The proposal is vague when referring to how much timber is to be cut. There is no mention of how many board feet of timber are to be removed. The plan refers to a 75% removal of Douglas fir, but there are no units for measurement of 75%. The magnitude of the cut could vary depending on whether 75% refers to acres, stems per acre, basal area (a standard forestry measurement), or the number of board feet of in a. stand. Consequently, it is difficult for us to assess the effect of the proposal on wildlife. Nonetheless, we believe that a cut of 75% of basal area would more than twice what it should be in Douglas fir on steep slopes. In addition to being an excessive removal of wildlife cover and habitat, a cut of that magnitude would make these stands susceptible to windthrow and subsequent soil erosion. Similarly, the plans for the aspen harvests lack specifics ix terms of how much timber is being removed. We can only assume from the proposal that 100% of the aspen on the maps will be removed in a fairly short period of time. We have some serious wildlife concerns about removal of that much aspen, which provides important fawning and nursery areas for mule deer, which we consider a limiting factor for mule doer in the area. Aspen stands are also heavily used by elk as calving areas. The proposal makes assumptions that that all aspen stands arc even -aged, shade -intolerant, and need disturbance to regenerate. There is much information in the current forestry literature that these assumptions are not necessarily valid across the board. It is likely that at least some of the aspen stands on the Roan Plateau are self -regenerating. No attempt has been made to differentiate aspen stands on, this basis. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg Welcher, Ekecuthie Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Chuck Lewis, Chairman • Mark LeVetey, Vice•Chebmen • Bernard L. Black Jr., Secretary Rick Enstiom, Member • Philip James, Member • Marianna RaRopoulos, Member Amold Salazar, Member • Bob Shoemaker, Member RUG -30-99 13:04 FROM:DIU.WILDLIFE.WEST RG 970-255-6111 K. Lyon Page 2 TO:970 945 7785 i,. PAGE:002 Many of the aspen stands identified for cutting are quite small, not only in acreage, but also in the size of the trees themselves. Many of these smaller trees appear marginally merchantable. In addition, most of these stands are growing at the lower range of elevation and moisture required by aspen. These stands may not regenerate and grow as quickly as the proponent believes, particularly if grazing is not restricted to some' extent in the growing seasons immediately following the harvests. In general, there is a great deal of speculation and subjectivity in the statements about wildlife and what the positive and negative impacts will be for wildlife. Numerous statements are made about how harvesting timber will open up the stands and increase forage available to wildlife, thus leading to an increase in deer and elk. These assertions are only partially true. Timber harvest may well lead to more forage, but if forage is not timiting to deer and elk in an area, it will not lead to more deer and elk. Limiting factors for deer and elk on the Roan Plateau are fawning, calving, and hiding cover. One more point we would emphasize: Examples of Douglas fir timber harvest on the Roan Plateau do exist for the applicant to study and learn from, contrary to the applicant's claim. Helicopter logging has been done on the Albertson Ranch in Roan Creek, under permit by Garfield County. Two separate cuts have been conducted, with different harvest rates and post harvest results. Assistant District Forester Kelly Rogers considered the second cut "exemplary", and we concur. We refer you to Mr. Rogers's letter of May 5, 1998 to Eric McCafferty, Garfield County Planning Department. We recommend that the applicant consult with the CDOW, Colorado State Forest Service and local lessees of this property so that a comprehensive plan could be developed. An on-site review of this proposal would help us better understand the potential negative and positive impacts to the land and wildlife. Specific page -by -page comments are attached. If you have any questions or if the CDOW can be of assistance, please contact John Toolen at this office or by telephone at 970-255-6192. xc: Broderick Gumber Graham Toolen Kelly Rogers, CSFS Sincerely, , Steve Y iitfa Area Manager RUG -30-99 13:04 FROM:DIU.WILDLIFE WEST RG 970-255-6111 TO:970 945 7785 PAGE:003 Specific Comments on Colorado Timber and Land Company Timber Harvest Proposal Colorado Division of WildlifkArea 7 August 30, 1.999 Comments specific to the Douglas Fir Harvest Plan Pg2 - The plan states that there are no live streams within the cut area. According to CTLC's map, the upper end of Clear Creek (stream) is directly within the cut area. - The plan states that Douglas fir timber is located only ou east and north facing slopes. Yet, the map shows cut areas on the south and west facing slopes of Clear Creek Canyon. District Wildlife Manager Joe Cumber visited this area on 8-22-99 and found the mapped cut areas on the Clear Crock map almost devoid of forest cover or only sparsely forested. The north and east facing slopes of Clear Creek Canyon are densely forested with Douglas fir. The applicant has apparently mapped the cut areas in Clear Creek on the wrong side of the drainage. - Douglas fir provides fawning, calving and escape habitat for big game, not just thermal cover and forage. The canyons of Clear Creek and Brush Creek, where Douglas fir stands are abundant, are both vital in winter for elk, with the lower portions mapped as "severe winter range" in our Wildlife Resource Information System database. - What species of raptors are present? What type of inventory was performed and how extensive was it? Was the DOW consulted for species and nest locations? Nesting boreal owls were confirmed on the adjacent Naval Oil Shale area this year. The CDOW has a "Raptor Database" with nest locations and nest data available upon request. This database contains has considerable information for the Parachute Creek area due to the extensive eaviromnental analysis conducted over the years in connection with oil shale development - Commercial timber will be removed at a 75% rate. What is the density and estimate of commercial timber available and how much residual forest will be left for habitat? The plan says that younger trees will "hopefully' grow to a larger size. If it is uncertain that younger trees will grow, then perhaps some larger tress should be left. Pg4 - Deer. elk and other "large" game habitat will be improved by removing large "old growth trees." How many of these trees make up the stand and what is the estimate of total removal? How many of these "old growth trees" will be left standing for wildlife habitat? Pg5 - To what size will slash be limbed and bucked and how will the slash be distributed on the forest floor? What are the specific "Best Management Practices" that are to be adhered to as suggested by the Colorado State Forest Service? - How close are the landing areas to the live streams of Brush Creek and Clear Creek? Landings should be at least 100 ft from live streams to reduce the potential for soil erosion/ runoff entering the stream and to reduce the risk of toxicants/fuels accidentally entering the stream. Pg6 - No new stream crossings are planned. However, the map of lower Clear Creek shows a new haul road in section 15 that lies westward from the County Road and crosses Clear Creek to a landing site. How is this stream crossing to be negotiated and what provisions are made to control streambed erosion and maintain water quality? RUG -30-99 13:04 FROM:DIU.WILDLIFE_WEST RG 970-255-6111 TO:970 945 7785 PAGE:004 Pg7 - We did not get a copy of the plan for water bar spacing. The potential for heavy soil erosion is barely mentioned in this plan. What steps are going to be taken to prevent or monitor soil erosion? - Dust on the roads is a concern with the Clear Creek Rd and Brush Creek Rd being very susceptible to dusty conditions when climates are dry. Excessive dust could affect adjacent vegetation and wildlife values. This plan should include dust control measures for at least the county roads. Pg8 - 75% harvest rate is not considered "modest" but Genially excessive, as previously advised by the Colorado State Forest Service. This harvest rate will increase soil erosion whish is a direct loss of habitat and affects aquatic wildlife in stream habitats. There are fisheries in both Clear Creek and Brush Creek that are susceptible to negative impact. A 75% harvest rate will reduce habitat value for big game and cause big game movement out of these drainages. This will put grazing pressure on adjacent ranches - increased game damage could result, especially if elk move out of Clear Creek and Brush Creek. Both Clear Creek and Brush Creek have wintered in excess of 300 elk in each drainage during severe winters. - An inventory of raptor nest locations should be performed prior to a permit being issued instead of surveying areas just before cutting. All potential nesting areas should be surveyed during the nesting season for the survey to have any validity. - The impact to hunting on these Lands could be assessed by soliciting information and comment from the lessees of this property. There are numerous lessees that hunt this property, one of which is a licensed outfitter (Jim Brennan). Pg9 - A 75% harvest of Douglas fir will disturb the elk and deer populations and it is improper to say that such a harvest would not "hurt" the elk population and aid the deer population. If excessive amounts of cover are removed, these big game animals will leave the property. A harvest of 25-30% basal area should be considered the maximum. - Blue grouse is a forest species that does rely on conifers as a food source during winter periods. Excessive Douglas fir removal will impact blue grouse in these drainages. Continents specific to Aspen Timber Harvest Plan Pg2 - There arc live streams within this cut area. The parcel in Section 13 is in the headwaters of Tom Creek that flows into Clear Creek. This is in the area of BLM land known as "Camp Gulch". This section of stream flows year round just above the canyon rim. There is perennial water in upper Clear Creek, Willow Creeks and No Name Creek. All of these streams feed into the Clear Creek drainage. The applicant is proposing to use an existing road in the right-hand fork of Camp Gulch as a haul road. The existing roads on Red Point, No Name Creek and Bar -D ridge are proposed as haul roads as well. - Wildlife. Aspen stands and adjacent habitats can also be used during the winter periods by elk during light winters, not just spring through fall. Blue grouse are present, of course, as well as sage grouse that utilize the adjacent sage and shrub habitats. Raptors utilize aspen not just for hunting. Numerous raptor species nest throughout the aspen stands. Flanunulated owls have been documented in aspen on the Square S Summer Range (State Wildlife Area) and No Name Creek areas. What type of inventory was performed on this project? When was the inventory performed and by what qualified individual? There is an active sage grouse lek in the vicinity of the Garden Gulch aspen cut. Also, there is an active sage grouse lek on "Bar -D" Ridge within the Clear Creek - Willow Creek cut area. The CDOW has not been consulted for data and species information on this project. RUG -30-99 13:05 FROM:DIU.WILDLIFE_WEST RG 970-255-6111 TO:970 945 7785 Pg3 - Will grating or the type of stand- seral or climax inhibit regeneration? PAGE:005 ' - Aspen stand communities have numerous other plant species that grow beneath the stand and canopy. Grass forb and shrub species can all be found within aspen stands. Pg4 - Cut arcas are barely visible on the maps we received. There is no estimate of total area disturbed in the aspen stands. It is difficult to measure the overall habitat loss and wildlife displacement without this estimate. - The statements regarding unpalatable grasses and forbs as a result of aspen leaf excretions lack credibility. Aspen stands are a major source of forage for deer, elk, and cattle. Pg5 • Post harvest conditions may reduce deer and elk carrying capacity if aspen harvest rates are excessive. Adequate densities of fawning, calving and escape cover must be left intact or big game animals will not use the areas and be forced to move to adjacent preferred habitats. Overall carrying capacity could actually decrease, as aspen habitat types are relatively limited on the Roan Plateau. - Rehabilitation should include weed control for as long as it is necessary to prevent invasion of non-native plant species. - A system of monitoring should be placed into effect to measure the regeneration of aspen in cut areas. It is possible that grazing may inhibit successful regeneration. Pg6 - Streams. There are live streams in the Camp Gulch (Tom Creek) cut area, Willow Creeks, No Name Creek and upper Clear Creek. - Removal of nearly 100% of aspen in the area would cause more negative impact to wildlife and outweigh any benefit to wildlife. Harvest of aspen stands should be staggered to insure a landscape that would have different age classes of aspen, not just predominantly young or old age classes. - Tt is not likely that hunter succuss for big game will occur due to increased sight distance. Increased sight distance will likely result in deer, elk and bear seeking and occupying areas of heavier cover, making them Less available to hunters. Increased browse does not necessarily translate to more big game animals. Forage is not as limiting to deer and elk in this area as are fawning, calving and escape cover. - There is at least one licensod outfitter operating on Chevron property that could experience negative economic impact as a result of fewer deer and elk inhabiting the Chevron property. This outfitter is Iim Brennan, who operates in the Clear Creek and Willow Creek drainages. - Raptor species would suffer direct, immediate and negative impact if aspen stands are excessively harvested. It appears that the applicant has not yet inventoried the proposed cut areas for raptor activity; but would inventory and look for nests while marking each stand for cutting. What are the considerations or "adjustments" that would be made for nesting raptors when the applicant discovers a raptor nest? - The Garden Gulch cut is in the vicinity of an active sage grouse lek (breeding site). The "Bar -D -Ridge" sage grouse lek has proposed aspen cuts to the south. Traffic and harvesting activity should not occur within 1 mile of these sites during the period of March I through August 1 to insure successful breeding, nesting and brood rearing. RUG -30-99 13:05 FROM:DIU.WILDLIFF-WEST RG 970-255-6111 TO:7945 7785 PAGE:006 Pg7 - T&E Species. How, when and where were raptors inventoried? CROW was not asked to provide information from our raptor database. Excessive aspen removal will reduce nesting habitat for these species. Not alt of these species are ground/rodent hunters. Some species, such as goshawk are dependent on songbirds and game birds that, in turn, are dependent upon the aspen communities. We recommend an inventory during nesting season so that a harvest plan can be made with specific raptor nesting areas in mind. - Recreation impacts. The plan states that there is no "public access" to the aspen zones. The large tract of BLM land in the Tom Creek and Camp Gulch area is accessible to the public and is utilized by "public" and private hunters during all of the big game seasons. The helicopter activity and trucking of timber out of Camp Gulch will directly impact the availability of deer and elk and will .result deceased hunter success on these BLM lands. Logging activity and helicopter flights in and over this area of BLM should be avoided during the period August 15 through November 30 to accommodate the hunting public in this area. Memorandum To: Kit Lyon From: Steve Anthony Re: Colorado Timber and Land Co. Application Date: September 2, 1999 My comments are as follows: 1. The applicant should conduct a noxious weed inventory on all the proposed harvest areas. The access roads may already serve as "vectors" for noxious weeds. Any disturbances adjacent to these roads may accelerate an already existing weed problem and could adversely impact neighboring agricultural operations. The plants to be inventoried shall be those on Garfield County's primary noxious weed list. (See attached) 2. After completing the noxious weed inventory the applicant should submit a Weed Management Plan that is specific to each site and to the weeds found in that area. Weeds shall be monitored and treated during each year of timber harvest and for a period of two years after the harvest. 3. To insure timely and proper revegetation, it is suggested that the applicant post a revegetation bond of 5 cents per square foot of area to be reclaimed. This bond should be held by the county and released upon successful establishment of the vegetation. STEVE ANTHONY VEGETArtorrwmaGamw Listed by State Law 90-1175 Approved by County Commissioners and Advisory Commission Garfield County VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GARFIELD COUNTY PRIMARY UNDESIRABLE PLANTS 1. Leafy Spurge 2. Biffuse Knapweed 3. Spotted Knapweed 4. Russian Knapweed 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 17. 13. 14. 15. 16. Euphorbia esula Centaurea diffusa Centaurea maculosa Centaurea repens Canada Thistle Houndstoncue Eoary Czess Dalmation Toadfla Yellow Toadfla.x Musk Thistle Scotch Thistle Bull Thistle Common Rurdock P1ume1ess Thistle Jointed Goatgrass Halogeton Cirsium arvense Cynoglossum officinale Cardaria dra:2a Linaria dalmatica Linaria vulgaris Carduus nutans Onopordum acanthium Cirsium vulcare Arctium minus Carduus acathoides Aegilaps cylindrica Ecst Halogeton clomeratus GARFIELD COUNTY SECONDARY UNDESIRABLE PLANTS .1. Russian Thistle 2. 3. Foothill 4. Meadow Deathcama S. Whorled Milkweed 6. Orange Snee 7. Tall L slot= 8. arkspur . Cocklebur, Common 10. Platte Thistle camas Salsola ie r• a Kochia oparia Z' enus paniculatus igadenus venenosus sclepias subverticillata Duo hoopesii identale Delphinium Delphinium ceveri Xanthium strumarium Cirsium canescens Garfield County Undesirable Plant Advisory Commission John Sample, Chairman Paul Limbach, Secretary P. 0. Box 1112 . Rifle, Colorado 81650 . Telephone (970) 625-3969 7 ---- Cell: (970) 618-0587 . Fax (970) 625-3917 ) Memo To: Kit Lyons RECEIVED AUG 0 2 1959 From: Guy Meyer Subject: Colorado Timber and Land Co. Application Date: August 2, 1999 Please be advised that I have reviewed the attached application and have the following comments. 1. As indicated in the application a previous Emergency Plan has been submitted to this office and is on file. However, I would suggest that the applicant review the old document to include any new hazards not identified in the old document. 2. If a Fire Ban is implemented during harvesting operations, how will this effect the applicant? Some permit process should be identified either in the permit or emergency plan to insure continued operations if appropriate. This maybe accomplished by the applicant requesting a permit by the Fire District. You may want to have a discussion with County Attorney Don Deford regarding this issue. THOMAS P. DALESSANDRI Sheriff of Garfield County DATE: August 9, 1999 TO: Kit Lyon, County Planner FROM: Sheriff Thomas Dalessandr RE: Colorado Timber & Land Co. Application GARFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. P.O. Box 249 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 (970) 945-0453 Fax (970)945-7651 I have reviewed the application by the Timber & Land Co. harvesting plan. As such 1 have made the following observations and recommendations. As Sheriff and Fire Marshall for the unincorporated portions of the County my concerns stem from a position of public safety. It appears that the applicant has satisfied requirements to mitigate fire risk and subsequent erosion problems which could later lead to flash flooding. These issues are of particular importance to the safety and well being of those living or using this area during the harvest or subsequent to the harvest some time into the future. The Sheriff's Office immediate needs include assurance that roads into the harvest area are adequate for passage by fire, medical and Sheriffs vehicles, a site map of roads highlighting their access along with updates throughout the process should be provided as well. As assured in the application, the Sheriff's Office would be notified in the event of a fire. This should be amended to state "immediate notification", and they should be made aware that the applicant can be held financially responsible for cost of fighting a man made fire. The applicant should familiarize themselves with current fire conditions and fire restrictions during the time frame of their harvest. Finally, a list of emergency contact phone numbers should be provided to us in the event that we must contact someone in charge. A helicopter was noted as part of their harvesting equipment. Some discussion should be had with applicant in regards to the use of the helicopter should deputies or other emergency personnel need to access the site quickly. We would like to include this aircraft as a resource but if not, we would like to know that it is not available for our use. Thank you for the opportunity to review this application and make comments. If I can be of any additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. RECEIVED SEP 1 1999 GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 Yani ST, - SUITE 303 NWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 THE COLORADO TIMBER AND LAND COMPANY, RLLP Remington Square Business Center 129 West 4th Street Rifle, CO 81650 June 9, 1999 Mr. John Barbee GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 8t11 Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 625-4440 • (949)-945-5804 Fax: (970) 625-1809 • (9995 -9450960 - Ken Roberts • Shirley Chavez Re: Special Use Permit for harvesting timber on Chevron Shale Oil Company property Dear John: Pursuant to our telephone conservation on Tuesday, June 7, I am forwarding to you as much information as I have in my hands at the moment so you can begin looking over the requested Special Use Permit for the Chevron Shale Oil properties on which we hope to harvest both Aspen and Douglas Fir Timber in the very near future. I'm enclosing several pages of descriptions which will accompany the various contracts. We anticipate that we will have both an Aspen contract and a Douglas Fir contract for each of the following parcels: 1) Chevron/Conoco properties 2) Chevron Clear Creek properties and Logan Wash/Parachute Creek properties 3) Wallace Creek properties. The application for a Special Use Permit states that a copy of the deed must accompany this application, however Chevron has acquired most of these properties by buying the stock of other companies or merging older oil shale companies into Chevron Shale Oil, so I don't think we can furnish actual deeds. Can we somehow rely on the Garfield County Assessors records to satisfy this requirement or maybe you have a suggestion? We will use already existing roadways for removing the timber from the Nal and 2 above described properties. We will access the Chevron/Conoco properties and the Clear Creek properties by using the Roan Creek Road (No. 204) from DeBeque to the Clear Creek road as far as the Clear Creek Road is County Road No. 211. From that point we will have access through Getty Oil Exploration Company property and Chevron properties along an already existing roadway that is adequate for logging trucks to remove the timber from both the canon areas and the plateau area known as Chevron/Conoco Property. I have enclosed copies of the requests to use the Logan Wash Roadway from the various owners who have an interest in the Logan Wash Roadway. Once off of the Logan Wash Plateau, we will use Garfield County Road No. 204 to Mesa County Road 45 to I-70 at DeBeque. The Parachute Creek properties will either be accessed along the Logan Wash Roadway or through Chevron properties that lie along Parachute Creek with direct Access to County Road 215 and then to I-70 at Parachute. We are still considering access to the Wallace Creek properties and will have to build a road into that area, so that is one reason we may want to delay bringing that pemrit forward at the present time. We don't want complications with that permit to delay the progress of the Chevron/Conoco, Clear Creek and Logan Wash/Parachute Creek permits. We will actually have six separate contracts with Chevron. One each for Aspen and Douglas Fir for each of the above three areas. We will be putting of record in Garfield County a Memorandum of Agreement with appropriate legal descriptions attached for each contract. I amu hoping Memorandums will satisfy your requirements for contract information, but if those are not adequate I will furnish you with a copy of the signed contracts when they are in my hands. Also once I have the timber harvest plan , I will forward to you the required ten copies of everything. I am working on getting the Emergency Response Plans in place and will forward those to you. The following items are enclosed with this letter: 1) Garfield County Assessors maps with Chevron lands marked as well as adjoining landowners, 2) List of adjoining landowners, with their addresses, whom we will need to notify, 3) Copies of Memorandum of Agreements, with legal descriptions attached 4) Large topo map showing Chevron properties as well as various other properties, 5) Copies of correspondence with various entities requesting use of rights of way I will forward to you as quickly as possible the timber harvest plan and properly signed documents from Chevron Shale Oil, but hopefully the items enclosed will get everything started. Please don't hesitate to call with any questions or comments. We sincerely appreciate you help. 945 N. Pasadena, #161 Mesa, AZ. 85201 Telp. 480-833-2520 Fax. 480-833-3804 Cell Phone. 602-321-8942 as GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department July 2, 1999 Shirley Chavez Colorado Timber & Land Company 945 North Pasadena, Unit #161 Mesa, Arizona 85021 Re: Chevron Timber Harvest Application Dear Shirley: Thank you for the application submitted for timber harvest. I am the staff planner who has been assigned to handle the review of the application. I have done a preliminary review and am in need of further information: • Some of the assessor's maps are missing: Sections 15-17,19-22,27-30,32-34 of T6S R 98W Sections 3,5 T7S R97W Sections 9,10,14-17,33,34 T7&8S, R95W • If the assessor's maps are missing, the adjacent landowners may be missing as well. • The area in Sections 9,10,14-17,33,34 T7&8S, R95W abuts Mesa County and is the only area shown on the map you provided that lies in the A/R/RD district. This area will require a Special Use Permit. All the other areas lie in the R/L district and require a Conditional Use Permit. It appears that the area south of this area may also be harvested. If this is the case, an Intergovernmental Agreement may be needed in order to haul materials from Mesa County on Garfield County roads. Perhaps you would prefer to hold off on this area? Please let me know. I will need the Mesa County information if you prefer to proceed. • Which area of harvest are you most eager to get started on? • I see some roads have been highlighted to some areas. Other areas are just floating without any access indicated. I need to see the specific routes in and out of each area. Perhaps it would simplify things if you could differentiate areas according to their access routes and label them so that each area can be easily referred to. • A key has not been included on the map which indicates the meaning of the blue, orange, and Tel: 945-8212/Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 yellow highlighting. I would like to arrange for a site visit at some point in the future. Perhaps it would be helpful if we could arrange to meet together to discuss the application. I am looking forward to receiving the items mentioned here and working with you on this proposal. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these matters further, please contact me. Sincerely, Kit Lyon Planner Tel: 945-8212/Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED JUL 9 1r THE COLORADO TIMBER AND LAND COMPANY, RLLP Remington Square Business Center 129 West 4th Street Rifle, CO 81650 July 7, 1999 Ms. Kit Lyon Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re; CHEVRON TIMBER HARVEST APPLICATION Dear Kit In reply to your letter of July 2, 1999: 1) Enclosed are copies of Garfield County Assessors plats for: Tp. 6 S., Rg 98 W., 6th P. M Sections 15, 17, 19-22, 27-30, 32-35 Tp.7 S.,Rg.97W.,6thP.M Sections 3 and 5 Phone: (970) 625-4440 • (970) 9445-5804 Fax: (970) 625-1809 • (970)945-0960 Ken Roberts • Shirley Chavez 2) Adjacent landowners appear to be correct, however I did make a corrected list for the "Clear Creek Lands" , just to make some technical corrections. 1) We will need to apply for the Special Use Permit for the Wallace Creek Properties at a little later date. We are still trying to get access to that property so that our Forester can get up there to make the harvest plan. 4) We are eager to get all the properties permitted ASAP, with the exception of the Wallace Creek Property. 5) Although I do not have all the rights of way agreements in hand, I have highlighted the anticipated haul routes on the enclosed map. These anticipated routes conform to what is stated in our harvest plans. 6) The different colors on the maps you have are only to show which areas are covered by the various contracts and harvest plans. On the current map I just colored all the parcels blue to save confusion You , or any other county official, are most welcome to view any of the contracted lands at any time. These are private lands and very remote, so will take some time to see them and of course it is too dangerous to be too near the helicopter when it is flying, but we are happy to take you on site at your convenience. You should let either myself or Ken Roberts know when you would to see the operations and we will make proper arrangements. RECEIVED JUL 9 1999 Page 2 Ms. Kit Lyon Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 It would probably be more convenient and helpful if we could do the permitting in person, however since I am in Arizona that may not be possible, so will do the best I can from here. Do appreciate your help and patience. We are still anticipating going before the County Commissioners on July 19, 1999, as that is the time John Barbee said he would set aside for us and our cutters and helicopter are scheduled around that time frame. Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, 945 N. Pasadena,#161 Mesa, AZ. 85201 Telp. 480 833 2520 Cell Phone 602 321 8942 GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department July 15, 1999 Shirley Chavez Colorado Timber & Land Company 945 North Pasadena, Unit #161 Mesa, Arizona 85021 Re: Chevron Timber Harvest Application Dear Shirley: I have reviewed the application once again and still find it inadequate. Reading the timber harvest plans brought to light many questions. One reason for this may be that the maps provided as part of the plan are totally illegible. I have made copies for you to demonstrate to you that neither I, nor the County Commissioners, will be able to discern them. The maps need to be reproducible and clearly show as much information as possible such as creeks, intermittent streams, seasonal roads, channel crossings, geology, existing roads, new roads, cut areas, etc. I made a quick list of questions as I read through the reports and they are as follows: • Delineate smz's • Where are "unit A, B, C, D" as referred to in the report? • Where will each and every road be located? To what standard will they be built? • Where are the existing roads referenced in the report? How wide are they, in what condition? • Will cut & fills be seeded? • Which roads will be re -used and which will be closed? • Show all creeks, intermittent streams, wetlands, classes of streams, ephemeral areas, etc. • Where are the cuts occurring? There are some references to mesa tops and some to areas below escarpments. These landforms determine what type of permit is needed. • How, exactly, and where, will channels be crossed? • I have no information which clearly depicts the cut areas • How much noise, in decibels, is expected to be generated? • Are any dust abatement measures proposed? • When, where, by whom were nesting areas checked? Please provide report. • What are the concerns of the State biologists mentioned in the plan? • Will water be supplied for fire suppression? Exactly how will fire risk be mitigated? • Statement made that all loads will be within legal weight. What are the legal weights? • Locate any slump/slide prone areas Tel: 945-8212/Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 2 • Provide detailed geology report and map • Identify the areas that the helicopters will avoid. Where are the gas wellheads and trespass areas? • Who will inspect the roads after hauling is complete? • Provide photos of how Doug fir regenerates or of areas that have been cut in a similar way. • Ken provided the last pages of two contracts (SC -99-2 & SC -99-3) to me just today. Please provide the entire contracts for review. • Provide r -o -w agreements • Where did the wildlife information come from? Please provide documentation. I have enclosed copies of another application for timber harvest we recently reviewed. It provides a good example of the level of detail and information needed to process these types of permits. The maps and graphics are very clear and easy to quickly review. This makes the process much less frustrating for all parties involved. Please be aware that the cutting, harvesting, hauling, etc. of timber, without the necessary permits in hand, is in violation of the code and may jeopardize your ability to obtain a conditional/special use permit. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kit Lyon Planner Tel: 945-8212/Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED JULC 9 1999 THE COLORADO TIMBER AND LAND COMPANY, RLLP Remington Square Business Center 129 West 4th Street Rifle, CO 81650 July 19, 1999 Attn: Kit Lyon Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Chevron Timber Harvest Application Conditional Use Permits Dear Ms. Lyon: Phone: (970) 625-4440•(970)945-5804 Fax: (970) 625-1809 • (970) 945-0960 Ken Roberts • Shirley Chavez We are in receipt of your letter requesting additional information on the Chevron Timber Harvest Plan, which I will attempt to provide to you. Please be aware that if you are using the "Teepee Park Management Plan" as your guideline, that plan was made using California rules and regulations and those rules and regulations are not applicable to Colorado timber harvesting. I am attaching the Garfield County guidelines that were provided to us by Eric McCafferty, a previous Garfield County Planner, as well as the Colorado State Forestry guidelines. Ron Cunnington, our forester, did his best to follow the guidelines provided to us. Included is a new map showing the harvest areas, which is color coded to the harvest plans and the contracts. Hopefully, this will help you locate various roads, streams, etc. 1) The only live streams within our harvest areas are Parachute Creek, Clear Creek and Brush Creek. All harvesting done along these streams will be by helicopter so that there is no soil erosion. The only stream we will cross is Parachute Creek. We will cross Parachute Creek on an already existing bridge on private land owned by Chevron. The bridge is owned and maintained by Chevron and they, of course, are allowing us to use it. Access will be direct through Chevron land to Garfield County Road #215. No harvesting will be done within 50 feet of a live stream. 2) Units are marked on map and color coded to Timber Harvest Plans. Ms. Kit Lyon - 2 - July 16, 1999 3) As stated in our harvest plan, we will use already existing roadways with the exception of one road in Parcel E. This road will be a "haul road", very temporary in nature and reclaimed at termination of harvest in that area. 4) Existing roads that we will be using are highlighted on the new map. I have color coded them for your benefit. Also marked the short temporary "haul road" that will be reclaimed. These roads are also shown on small maps included with harvest plans. Existing roads are wide enough for our trucks and in adequate condition for the trucks. In fact, the private roads are very good. Garfield County roads are also adequate for our hauling. 5) Not applicable as we are building no new roads. 6) The one temporary "haul road" will be closed and seeded. 7) All intermittent streams are shown on map. Parachute Creek, Clear Creek and Brush Creek are highlighted on map. There are no wetlands. We are not familiar with classes of streams and ephemeral areas. . 8) Part of Parcel A above the escarpment will be aspen harvest. All of Parcels B, C, D, and E are aspen harvest and all those parcels are on high mesas above the escarpments. Part of Parcel A, known as Garden Gulch, all of Parcels F, G, H and I are steep talus slopes, lying below the escarpment, but well above valley floors. L As shown in the timber harvest plans the aspen will be clear-cut in 20-40 acre parcels with an uncut buffer strip of 300 feet around each clear cut. (See page 4) of aspen harvest plans. The douglas fir will be a selective cut of approximately 75% of old growth timber leaving all younger, faster growing young growth. (See Page 4 of Douglas Fir Timber Harvest Plan.) According to guidelines previously provided to us, all these harvest areas qualify for Conditional Use Permits. 0 Ms. Kit Lyon July 16, 1999 9) There will be no live stream crossings with the exception of Parachute Creek where we will use Chevron's already existing bridge. 10) Cut areas are shown on harvest plan maps and my new map. 11) Public is not allowed into any cut area! This is private land and no access is allowed. All access is gated onto Chevron property. Nevertheless, decibel level is minimal. The helicopter is new and quiet. The trucks are muffled and quiet. 12) As stated in harvest plan, dust on the shale based roads is minimal. 13 & 14) Nesting areas were checked by Ron Cunnington (see resume attached). Gretchen Cross, an independent forestry technician and William Vetter, an independent biologist. Reports are given in timber harvest plans. 15) Water is in very short supply on the high mesas; however, the helicopters are equipped with bladders which can, and frequently are, used to lift water from a convenient source (i.e.: Colorado River) to any fire area. We will have "cats" and loaders on all sites which can be used in case of fire. Also, as addressed in harvest plans: "At all times all internal engines shall be equipped with USDA Forest Service approved spark arresters. All motorized equipment shall be equipped with a round point shovel "0" size or larger and a double bitted ax 2 1/2 lbs. or larger. These tools must have serviceable handles and be reasonably sharp. In addition, during fire season, there will be an employee of the logging company present at the operating area for 30 minutes after all operations cease for the day, whose sole duty will be to look for and extinguish any fire that may be found. The reason for this requirement is to keep any accidentally caused fires from becoming a major problem as this is the time of day when problems may develop." We also have emergency preparedness plans in place with Nick Marx, Fire Chief, Town of DeBeque and Guy Meyer, Department of Community Correction, Glenwood Springs. 16) Weight limits were supplied to us by King Lloyd of the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. They are 15,000 lbs. per axle on County Roads and 16,000 lbs per axle on I-70. J I Ms. Kit Lyon - 4 - July 16, 1999 17) All talus slopes are subject to slumping. That is why we are removing logs by helicopter. The removal by helicopter will negate any slumping or sliding. 18) Geology has been provided by the USDA Soil Conservation Service. "The Soil Survey of parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties published by USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station was consulted and verified by on the ground observations. The soils seem to be 60% Utso Channery Loam and Rock outcrop. These soils are deep and well drained. They are also highly water erosive. Permeability is moderately rapid with low water holding capacity. Rooting depth is about 60" so windfall is not much of a problem. The water holding capacity is a problem for fast growth of trees. Trees that do not have enough moisture in the dry part of the year shut down and do not grow even if sunlight, nutrients and the right temperatures are present." As shown on page two of Douglas Fir Harvest Plan: "The Soil Survey of Garfield and Mesa Counties", published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station, provided information on the ground surveys. This information was verified by the agencies involved. The soils are potts, parachute, or rhone; all of these soils are similar and have characteristics in common, such as lower soil temperatures and average soil moisture holding capacity. Aspen grows on these kinds of soil and is a good nutrient for the soil. The litter, such as leaves, break down quickly and are pumped back into the soil; therefor, they are modifiers of the soil. As a result of these types of attributes, soils under aspen do not lend themselves to an easy identification. All soils where aspen grow are moderately deep, up to a 60" rooting zone. These soils are mostly loam, have cobbles present and on steeper slopes are erosive; therefore, water bars are necessary to control accelerated surface erosion." " As shown on page two of the aspen harvest plans. L�� Ms. Kit Lyon - 5 - July 16, 1999 19) The helicopter company we have contracted with are professionals in the logging industry and flight paths and patterns as well as when to fly are entirely in their hands. We rely completely on their judgment ourselves as does Chevron. They are not going to endanger their own lives and equipment by flying in an unsafe manner. We do not presume to tell them what to do and neither should you. 20) Gretchen Cross will be our "on site" inspector and will make progress reports. 21) We do not have photos available at this time. We are pioneers in Western Colorado for helicopter logging. 22) Neither Chevron nor CTLC wants these contracts in public hands. If you would like to review them in our Rifle office, you may do so. We do consider these contracts as CONFIDENTIAL. 23) We do not have all rights-of-way in place, but I am including requests to various entities and what we do have signed. I believe I covered this in my previous letter. 24) Ron Cunnington, Gretchen Cross and William Vetter, as well as Ken Roberts have all been on site to observe wildlife. Report is set out in Timber Harvest Plans. I hope that this will address all of the issues that were of concern to you as both Chevron and Colorado Timber & Land Company are eager to get on with this project. We would sincerely appreciate being included on the County Commissioners Agenda on August 2, 1999. Sincerely, Shirley Chavez Colorado Timber & Land Company, RLLP SC:nar GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department July 21, 1999 Shirley Chavez Colorado Timber & Land Company 945 North Pasadena, Unit #161 Mesa, Arizona 85021 Re: Chevron Timber Harvest Application Dear Shirley: Thank you for your letter dated 7/19/99 and the information that you provided. The new colored maps are very helpful and demonstrate what the intentions are. This new information has cleared up most of the questions raised. The color copies do not copy well. Please supply this department with 24 more originals or color copies, of the timber harvest plans. There is no way to reproduce the large overall map so that it can be included it in the meeting packets for the Commissioners (3), the Planning Commission (9), or included in the review agency referrals (12) to the other review agencies. Please provide the needed 24 copies. I would like to further clarify a few issues you brought up in your letter: 1) The "Tepee Park Management Plan" was submitted to this department for review under Garfield County regulations in April of 1996. Although the forester, David Levy, operated out of Nevada City, CA, he submitted the application under the same rules and regulations that you are submitting your application under, although you are based in Mesa, AZ. This information was provided to you as a useful example as a courtesy by this department. The information provided to you by Eric McCafferty is the same information which has been used as a checklist to review the application. The regulations have not changed. 3) I understand that the general public will not be permitted on any public lands. My request to know the # of decibels of noise generated were based on Section 5.03.07 (B) which states that no noise impacts shall occur on adjacent lands. You state in the harvest plan that "negative effects on neighbors and local communities are noise generated from the logging trucks, chain saws, and helicopter". Knowing in an objective number rather than a subjective statement is usually helpful in reviewing these matters. Tel: 945-8212/Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 4) It is stated in the harvest plan that "the pilots may need to alter flight paths to avoid trespassing public and other hazards such as the gas wellheads". It was assumed that since this statement was made in the report that these hazards were identified in some manner. It is difficult to avoid hazardous areas that you have no knowledge of. I do not presume to "tell them what to do" as you stated in your letter. I don't expect that lack of this information will cause any delays. I was only requesting clarification on behalf of the Board. The question was not intended to be presumptive or rude. 6) I have received conflicting information in regards to public vs. private roads. The map I received on July 9, 1999 indicated the road along Brush Creek was privately owned. The most recent submittal indicates that it is a County Road. I assume from my maps that it is a County Road, but please notify me if this is not the case. 7) I have enclosed a copy of policies adopted by our Commission concerning supplemental information after an application is determined to be complete. As you can see, no new information will be accepted by staff after an application is deemed complete. If supplemental information is supplied at a meeting, the meeting will be continued so that the new data can be adequately reviewed. However, the planning department may accept a supplemental item if it is determined that this new data merely elaborates upon an existing item contained within the completed submission and does not alter the design of the plan in any way. Please be aware that the signed right-of-way agreements will be accepted by staff once you obtain them. Hopefully these will be obtained before the public meeting. However, in the unfortunate event that you are unable to obtain permission to use the private roads shown on your plan, and the access routes change, this may cause delays in the processing of the application since new/changed routes constitute an alteration of the design and staff would need adequate time to review the new information. 8) No right-of-way agreements were provided for the larger portion of B, C, D, E, F, G, H, or I. The agreements provided only reference the accesses to A and the smaller B. Is it your intention to pursue a Conditional Use Permit without proof of legal, adequate access to the parcels included in the application or, has this been an oversight? 9) You have indicated on the plan that a private access runs north along East Willow Creek up into Rio Blanco County. If you are intending to haul on roads that lie in Rio Blanco County, as the plan currently indicates, a letter of agreement from Rio Blanco will be needed. Please provide a copy of a Rio Blanco map which shows the intended haul route that lies in Rio Blanco County and a letter of approval from that County. 10) The map of Garfield County does not designate the small dashed lines as roads. The small dashed lines are identified either as "pack trails" or "jeep trails" in most cases. I realize the map is dated 1975 and that the information is probably outdated. From the written information that has been provided it is assumed that all the accesses indicated Tel: 945-8212/Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 are roads and not pack trails. Please inform me otherwise if this is not the case. 11) Since no cutting will take place on "gentle slopes and lower valley floor", as defined in the code, obtaining a conditional use permit would allow the uses described in the application. No special use permit will be needed. 12) The Douglas Fir Harvesting Plan failed to include a colored site plan for area H. The Aspen Timber Harvesting Plan failed to include a colored site plan for areas D and E. Please provide these pages so that they can be attached to the file copies. The time and effort you have invested in making the application legible is greatly appreciated. I look forward to receiving the right-of-way agreements, the Rio Blanco letter, the missing pages which shows areas H, D, and E, and the 24 copies of both the harvest plans and large overall map mentioned previously. On August 2, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners will determine whether or not to refer the application to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Please be aware that the application will not be reviewed on August 2 but that only a determination concerning referral of the application will be made. I understand that you would prefer the process be streamlined and not be referred to the Planning Commission. I will notify you of the Board's decision. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, a 14$4 Kit Lyon Planner Encl. Tel: 945-8212/Fax: 945-7785 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 TO: Garfield County Board of Commissioners and Planning Commission RE: Policies FROM: Planning Staff DATE: 18 February 1999 On Wednesday, 17 February 1999, the Planning Commission discussed and set policies for the following items: A. Acceptance of Supplements: 1. The planning department will not accept supplemental information after staff has rendered a determination of completion on an application. If the applicant has supplemental information which they desire to submit, the planning commission may accept such supplemental submission items at the public meeting/hearing at which time the commission will continue the meeting/hearing to the next reg=ularly scheduled planning commission meeting,. Such a continuance will allow the staff, applicable review agencies, public, and commission adequate time to review the supplemental information. 3. The same number of copies as was required for the initial submission will be required of the supplemental data. 4. The planning department may accept a supplemental item if it is determined that this new data merely elaborates upon an existing item contained within the completed submission and does not alter the design of the plan in any way. B. Recommendation of Continuance: I The planning commission may allow one continuance of an application at their discretion per the existing regulations. If the planning commission agrees to continue an application, such an application shall be continued to the next regularly scheduled planning commission meetimehearing. 3. A second request by an applicant for a continuance will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis given that extenuating circumstances prevail. C. Field Visits by the Planning Commission: 1. The planning commission may conduct field visits for projects when the planning staff recommends that such a field visit may assist the commission in their review and understanding of an application. '_. The planning commission may elect not to conduct a field visit recommended by staff at their consensus. The Commission may also elect to undertake a field visit for an application. which was not suggested by the planning staff, through their consensus. 3. Only those planning commission members who attend the scheduled field visit may vote on the application at the public meeting/hearing. Low,6 O kw .-frumbe AI n, at4 /,ctos c or -6(( -fie coR ® L-0-0-6( corra,,t pu'reviev-C&e_ • / 6u01.M, Ckc0-1 (1-6a.u.oh) MC 1' RECEIVED JUL 2 61999 THE COLORADO TIMBER AND LAND COMPANY, RLLP Remington Square Business Center 129 West 4th Street Rifle, CO 81650 July 23, 1999 Attn: Kit Lyon Garfield County Building and Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 625-4440 • (970) 945-5804 Fax: (970) 625-1809 • (970) 945-0960 Ken Roberts • Shirley Chavez Re: Chevron Timber Harvest Application Dear Ms. Lyon: Thank you for your letter of July 21 and for scheduling with the commissioners our request for a conditional use permit. Just to clarify a couple of your comments, I would state as follows: Re No. 6: I did make a mistake on the original plat I supplied to you. I thought the Brush Creek Road was private but upon further checking with the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department we are now sure that this is Garfield County Road # 207, at least as far up the canyon as the Chevron lands. According to the Road & Bridge Department the County Road 207 extends 11.4 miles up Brush Creek from its beginning on Roan Creek Roa Re No. 7& 8: I believe we will now only need rights-of-way to that part of Parcel A above the escarpment, all of Parcels B, C, D, E, F, H, and I. Parcels E & F will only require rights-of-way from Getty Oil Company and we are in final negotiations for that. Rights-of-way for the remaining parcels are farther from final completions, especially for Parcel A above the escarpment. We would hope to have the County Commissioners grant the Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the acquisition of all appropriate rights-of-way. If that is the case, we could at least start harvesting douglas fir timber in the Garden Gulch area (Parcel A below the escarpment) where access is direct from Chevron to County Road 215. Also harvesting douglas fir on Clear Creek (Parcel F) and aspen on Parcel E where our only access will be through Getty Oil - we are close to the right-of-way with Getty. n1116-- Th * &u,tAti cA» e vof 41/4ate s&A,(s A, 9)-e_ rf4 tLOJA , ((4Lit a k) 6SLfflAg,coSkotk m t cARaeg , -a.� Gu-eAP- Qvt wQ (JIQ. W tw - c- p et^- toy , -, C Ct m =wee , CLL& - RA) uu-eao rrot, wiE2 cut yr ewt h . -ow'r Ms. Kit Lyon - 2 - July 23, 1999 Parcel B access will use same agreements as Parcel A. Parcels E & F will exit down Clear Creek to Clear Creek Road and then Roan Creek Road to I-70. (Only Getty access needed.) Parcel G will exit down Brush Creek Road to Roan Creek Road to I-70. (No private access needed.) Our plans are to exclude Parcel H from the current permitting process and include that in our application for the Wallace Creek parcel. Parcel H will exit through B.L.M. and Unocal to County Road 215 and to I-70. Re No. 10: The maps we have to use are very outdated. All roads that are indicated as our haul routes are all upgraded and completely adequate for logging trucks. Most of these roads were improved during the "oil shale boom" or as a result of oil and gas drilling. Re No. 11: Great! We appreciate your time and effort in moving us along with the permitting process. Sincerely, Shirley Chavez Colorado Timber & Land Company, RLLP SC:nar urent 04A -el Cv ' cdiomdtzd 0 CcrJ c, t7 _ p, c2-)tk-Th e-6 v2.. (7. e l,U . co U /lP fie. , l/9Jv� m L4rr ✓ISR Q trw , 004,2„ 0 �totGfv ,e, Quti lnn L4 +-oc5 vtAirm ,t }j e. b-114- t ufej -t PAAALL- , Tat) Limfe 1 c0 rQ lane) SQ. (AA, ela/ce, 1tv e.bottsb» . a, v e- pt Q x -- t o It ' Q • (0 3 .4":e v lofaa oLolfin WLa^ «ttk v Lon fly. qVt_tit ei3Opeakm �.0 ;S `tV "X31 �J0. v t 1 Dui LeTy -}2 1 Nocf.e. c�,L.l t U , 4 iitJeLx,M-e.-� �I- U .�D v - 41/4 10 .. et, j . ttAs orotoa CVLY a ycfr ut " utU _ P5) &Waif' Olt g.,Qx. &ta- vtd.eet R olefrAm otikai 4- OtA4t centyls-e, �,U�, otaild C6"2)1 aeltraikoa3 $p Co b. X Pate(' ( etie,,. RECEIVED JUL 1 9 1999 Aspen Timber Harvesting Plan for Chevron Shale Oil Company Lands are owned by Chevron Shale Oil Company Lands as described in "Exhibit A" This plan is submitted by Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP Ken Roberts, General Partner Remington Square Business Center 129 West 4111 Street Rifle, CO 81650 970-625-4440 Prepared by Ronald R Cunnington, Forester CA. RPF 11290 1954 Union Ridge Placerville, CA 95667 (530) 622-4166 CU>4c.."Z//9 Date • 1. LOCATION OF PROPOSED TIMBER HARVEST The proposed timber harvest lies on the Mesa, between Roan and Parachute Creeks. See the attached addendum for the complete legal description of the included property. 2. DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE LOGGED Terrain The proposed harvest area varies in elevation from about 7,500 feet to 8,700 feet. There are no live watercourses within any "cut area". I Slope The average slope where cutting is planned is less than 30%. The steepest slope measured, where harvest is planned, is approximately 32%. Aspect Soils This is a rolling mesa top and aspect is in all directions. "The Soil Survey of Garfield and Mesa Counties", published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station, provided information on the ground surveys. This information was verified by the agencies involved. The soils are potts, parachute, or rhone; all of these soils are similar and have characteristics in common, such as lower soil temperatures and average soil moisture holding capacity. Aspen grows on these kinds of soil and is a good nutrient for the soil. The litter, such as leaves, break down quickly and are pumped back into the soil; therefore, they are modifiers of the soil. As a result of these types of attributes, soils under Aspen do not lend themselves to an easy identification. All soils where Aspen grow are moderately deep, up to a 60" rooting zone. These soils are mostly loam, have cobbles present and on steeper slopes are erosive; therefore, water bars are necessary to control accelerated surface erosion. Streams and Ponds There are no live streams on any proposed "cut" area.,There are no ponds that are yearlong in nature. There are some intermittent ponds associated with the natural gas recovery systems. These areas will not be disturbed. Wildlife (T & E Species) The Aspen stands that are proposed for management, support several wildlife species. There are Elk and Deer present during the spring, summer and fall periods. There are also grouse and songbird species present most of the year. Some of the Raptors use the area for hunting. No nesting sites were observed. There are some considerations of impacts to the wildlife populations and to their habitats which is discussed in another section of this report. 2 •• Property Boundaries, Monuments There are property monuments and some lines established. There will need to be some more lines flagged with a plastic ribbon. Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP has a licensed surveyor and forestry technician on staff who have considerable experience to do any necessary work. Current Access, Roads Access from each unit will be as follows: 1) Unit A Northerly of Garden Gulch will exit northerly across BLM and private lands to Rio Blanco County Road #5. Southerly of Garden Gulch will exit to the Logan Wash Road and Garfield County Road #205 to I-70 at DeBeque. 2) Unit B, C, & D Will exit northerly across BLM and private lands to Rio Blanco County Road #5. We are currently negotiating for rights-of-way for the above access needs. Most of the roads that are in the cutting areas are existing and were built to do mining, ranching and natural gas drilling. There are some additional seasonal temporary roads that will be needed, all are on Chevron Shale Oil Company land. Timber Types Aspen is the timber type that is proposed for management. Aspen is a unique species and has certain requirements. Some of these requirements are discussed in a later section of this report. The volume per acre to be removed is expected to be 75 tons per acre on the cut areas. Not all areas are planned for treatment at this time, for a variety of reasons. The areas that are planned for cutting are mature aspen stands that are 70 to 90 feet in height and are 50 to 90 years old, with an average life of 70 years and 82 feet in height. The areas are fully stocked now and as aspen is a sprouting, as opposed to a seeding species, it will immediately be fully stocked with regeneration. Other Vegetation (T & E species) Aspen is a unique species that inhibits other forms of vegetation from growing under mature stands. Therefore, no other species were identified as being present. After the aspen are cut there are some native grasses and fobs that will grow for a few years until the aspen canopy closes again. No listed species of plant, animal or bird were observed; however, Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP has a biologist on staff who will be helping lay out cut boundaries and monitoring for any listed species that may develop. 3 3. PROPOSED LOGGING SYSTEMS AND SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTIONS a) Proposed Logging Systems It is planned to log the aspen, which are generally on gentle ground, with a mechanical system, doing the felling and bunching with a feller-buncher. The skidding of the entire tree is done with a rubber tired skidder. At the landing will be a stroke delimber, which removes the limbs and tops. Also at the landing is a shovel loader that decks and loads the logs and piles the limbs and tops. This kind of operation uses four machines and four people and produces about ten loads per day. The machines are smaller than are used for conventional logging and do not damage residual trees or do a lot of soil disturbance. The proposed road system is to utilize the existing roads on the property. There may need to be some short segments of low -standard seasonal temporary roads built to landings. Locations of these roads are shown on the map. These roads will be built on ground that will not need extensive cuts or fills as they will follow the natural contour of the land. Signs will be posted warning of log truck traffic at all intersections that have significant road use. There are no new watercourse crossings planned. Road and trail maintenance will be performed as the right-of-way grantor requires. As the Garfield County roads, Clear Creek Road #211 and Parachute Creek #215 are high -standard roads that will support an additional ten loads of logs with ease, no maintenance should be needed. The closure of the project roads on Chevron Shale Oil Company land will depend on the location and plans by the company for further use. Most existing roads will be water - barred to prevent any accelerated erosion and the water bars will be left in place. New project roads that the company has no use for will be cross -ditched and made impassable to vehicular traffic. b) Aspen Profile Aspen is a member of the poplar or willow family, which includes 5 genera and over 200 species worldwide. Aspen is the most widely distributed tree species in the United States. There are over 3 million acres in Colorado alone. Aspen is intolerant in that it does not do well unless it is in full sun. This means that a stand of aspen will always be about the same size and age. Aspen does produce seeds, but primary regeneration is by sprouting. Growth of juvenile trees is rapid, about 2 feet of height growth per year. Aspen is a short- lived species, 70 to 120 years is maximum. Mature aspen excretes a sap from the green leaves that makes the grasses and fobs underneath it unpalatable to livestock and wildlife. In addition, it grows so thick that passage by livestock, big game and people is difficult. Aspen is an invader species, that means in the succession process, it is early in the serial stages and in order for it to be in the landscape, it needs to be disturbed without killing the root phenotypes, as we are relying on the roots to sprout to provide for regeneration. Logging in clear -cuts is the best way to manage aspen and to arrest the successional process. I recommend the clear -cuts be 20 to 40 acres in size with an uncut buffer strip of 300 feet around each clear-cut. After a few years, then we should go back and log the buffer strips. The actual layout of the cut areas has not been completed, but it will be done by a biologist and a technician after consulting with the land owners agent and the logger. The clear cuts will be marked by surveyor ribbon. 4 The aspen will be logged using mechanical equipment, feller-bunchers and whole tree skidders, with a delimber on the landing. The tops and limbs will be stacked on the landings and burned in the fall of the year, after the fire season, and the slash is dry. Most of the material will be hauled to a mill for chipping, which allows for almost total utilization of the tree. The feller buncher uses a shear to sever the tree from the stump, so generally it is within 4 to 6 inches from the ground. c) Post Harvest Conditions Defined After logging and burning and closure of the temporary roads, sprouting will begin — that's the nature of aspen. Attached are some photos of aspen stands that have been harvested. They show the regrowth at periodic times. We expect the same kind of response. The wildlife and livestock will benefit for a few years from more grazing and will have the buffer strips for thermal protection and cover. As the stand starts to achieve canopy closure the benefits will dwindle but in a management scheme there will be more fresh clear -cuts and fringe cover, so the total carrying capacity will be increased for both large game and livestock. 4. PROPOSED REHABILITATION GUIDELINES Skid roads planned for closure will be cross -ditched (water -barred) to prevent erosion by following the standards contained in the attachment document labeled "Water Bar Construction Standards". Some of the low -standard temporary roads built for this project will be treated the same. Roads that are planned to be used again by Chevron Shale Oil Company will have driveable water -bars installed and will be left in a usable condition. Landings will be smoothed by machine and seeded with certified weed -free grasses and mulched with straw to a depth of three inches. This work will occur after the piles of slash are burned. The grass mixture is Mt. Bromgrass 30%, Western Wheat Grass 30%, Idaho Fescue 30% and Rocky Mt. Pennstream 10%, applied at 15# per acre. Replanting will not be necessary. Aspen is a species that sprouts from the roots and requires full sun. By treating the land with clear -cuts it will sprout back and in a few years will actually have more volume per acre than is now being carried. 5. SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONS Each "side" can produce about ten loads per day and with about 160 work days per year (because of weather conditions) the yearly production would be approximately 40,000 tons. Each truck load is about 25 tons of material. Work will commence as soon as this permit application is approved and continue as long as weather conditions allow. There is a possibility that more than one side will be operating. This kind of operation is ground based; so damage to roads, trails and landings can occur during periods of wet unfrozen ground. Operations also cannot occur when snow is too deep, therefore the estimate of 160 work days per year may be optimistic. Dates of starting and stopping are dependent on weather, as discussed above, or on land the owner desires. It is estimated that start dates are about the middle of May and will run into the fall and winter as long as weather permits. 5 6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PLANNED MITIGATION Streams A streamside buffer strip would be established for 50 feet each side of all live streams with no entry allowed if there were any live streams in the planned cut areas. As there are no live streams, there is no impact and mitigation is not needed. For intermittent watercourses, there will be no cutting allowed within 25 feet of the channel. Crossings may per permitted if done at right angles and no damage to the channel is done. The layout of the actual cut areas will be done by a trained forestry technician employed by Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP. Soils Attached is a water -bar spacing and construction standards guideline. This will take care of protecting the soil resource. Noise There will be some noise created during the logging process. It should be minimal on adjacent lands. There are no neighbors near the falling and skidding and loading areas. The only impacts to anyone will be the truck traffic and that should be brief and transitory and should be minimal. Dust The project roads will have very little traffic, so not much dust will be created. Overall dust will be have minimal impact on project ground and less impact to adjacent lands and neighbors. Wildlife Habitat Impacts There will be some positive and negative impacts to wildlife habitat. The overall impacts for deer, elk and raptors will be improved by converting part of the old grown aspen to young growth aspen. There will be more browse for a few years and because only a portion of the ground is being treated, there will be plenty of old growth aspen to provide thermal cover and travel corridors. The edge effect of open space and thick old growth cover around the openings will favor many species of birds. The increased browse will also attract more vertebrae critters like pocket gophers, mice and voles which will provide more food for raptors such as eagles, goshawks and owls. The negative impacts include temporary disturbance during the felling and skidding phases of the operation. This disturbance is temporary and will be mitigated somewhat by watching for nests and E.T.C. and avoiding same when the cut areas are being marked by the forestry technician and biologist. With the increased forage for the large game animals and increased sight distance within the cut areas, there may be an increased chance of hunter success for a few years which has to be considered as a negative impact on the large game animals. The possible mitigation is that because of more browse, there will be a better winter carryover of animals which may offset the suspected increased hunter caused mortality of the large game populations. Chevron has informed us they have no professional outfitters, so increased hunter caused mortality should not impact these lands. 6 Listed Species (T. & E. Species) Known to use the area for hunting are Goshawks, Flammaluated Owls and Eagles (both species). No nesting of these species was observed. There may be a short term negative effect for these species due to the increased human activity. There may be a long term beneficial impact to these same species. The increased grasses and young aspen growth in the open areas will increase critter like grouse, mice pocket gophers and voles which are prey for the raptors. There has been concern expressed by the state biologists about nesting sites in the Harvesting areas. Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP has a biologist on a call - when -needed basis. If there is any increased activity by birds or if requested, the biologist will do surveys and modify the cut areas as needed. Adjacent Lands and Emissions There are no expected negative impacts expected from generation of vapor, noise, glare, vibrations or other emanations created by this project. The Chevron Shale Oil Company land is on top of a mesa with no close neighbors that live on the adjacent lands. The neighbors are all absentee owners very much like Chevron Shale Oil Company. Recreation and Aesthetics The proposed harvest is on private ground that is isolated from neighbors and access is controlled by the land owners; therefore, there should be no public recreation impacts. The proposed harvest scheme will increase browse for large game animals for a few years. This activity is on a mesa with no public access. Aesthetics values are commonly expressed as a person views the area from the near (less than 1/4 mile) or far view (greater distance to about 3 miles maximum). Near and far view is not possible because the project is on a mesa with controlled private access for more than 3 miles. The adjacent landowners may be able to view the project area when they visit their properties but most of these visits are infrequent as they are absentee land owners. Fire Protection Fire protection, whether it is natural (lightning) or man caused, is always an impact. Increased human activity always creates an increased risk. At all times all internal engines shall be equipped with USDA Forest Service approved spark arresters. During fire season, all motorized equipment shall be equipped with a round point shovel size "0" or larger and a double bitted ax 2 1/2# or larger. These tools must have serviceable handles and be reasonably sharp. In addition during fire season, there must be a person on the landing for %z hour whose sole duty is to look for sparks and fires and control the same after operations have stopped for the day. The reason for this requirement is to control any "start" while it is small. Neighboring Land Owners and Communities USDI BLM is a neighbor that does logging on some of their land. Some of the neighbors raise cattle. Some of the neighbors have natural gas wells, neighbors hunt for large game on their properties and some do all of the above. Colorado has several right to farm statutes on the books. The raising of timber and subsequent harvest is an agricultural endeavor. The negative impacts on neighbors are noise from the trucks. The beneficial impacts are new jobs, increased income to the land owner and less risk of a catastrophic fire after the first year. 7 County/State Infrastructure Impacts Weight restrictions apply to the hauling of logs on county and state roads. All loads will be legal in weight and will not cause excessive road damage. The truck owners pay their share of road taxes by levees on fuel and licenses. Ten loads per day per side should not be enough traffic to cause accelerated road damage. Catastrophic fire can be severe both to the neighbors and to Garfield County. There is risk of the proposed logging starting a fire but with care that risk is mitigated. The long term impact of logging is that trees are removed before they die, and accumulate build-up of dead fuels to dangerous levels. By keeping the vegetative growth on younger trees likelihood of a catastrophic fire is considerably lower. 7. ENFORCEMENT OF LOGGING PLAN All contractors and subcontractors of Colorado Timber & Land Company, RLLP, are required to post a one million dollar comprehensive liability bond to cover redemption requirements. Any accidental "take" of a listed species will immediately be reported to the Colorado Game and Fish Department. Any fire and subsequent action will be reported to the Garfield County Sheriffs Office. Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP and Chevron Shale Oil Company have a contract that spells out terms of what each will do. Colorado Timber and Land Co., RLLP will monitor the actions of subcontractors. It is expected that any dispute that cannot be settled by the parties will be settled in a civil court. Any dispute with Garfield County or its agents will be heard by the Board of Commissioners of Garfield County. This report has been prepared with help from experts in other disciplines by a consulting forester with over 35 years of experience and who is available to help solve any problem that may develop. 8 WATERBAR CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Maximum Distance Between Water Breaks Estimated Road or Skid Trail Gradient in Percent Hazard Rating 10 or less 11-15 26-50 Over 50 Feet Feet Feet Feet Severe 100 75 50 50 High 150 100 75 50 Moderate 200 150 100 75 Slight 300 200 150 100 1. Water breaks shall be cut so as to allow the discharge water into vegetative matter or large rocks (energy dissipaters). 2. Water breaks shall be cut at a diagonal at a minimum of 6" into the firm roadbed, skid trail, fire break or ETC and shall have a continuous firm embankment immediately below and adjacent to the lower edge of the water break cut. 3. The throat shall be open so that the water break is self -maintaining. 9 EXIT 'A' To Agreement Effective the _ day of June, 1999 Chevron Clear Creek Properties Note: The term "escarpment" as used in this description, refers to a geologic formation commonly referred to in the description of oil shale formations in the area of Garfield County, Colorado. Tp. 5 S., Rg. 97 W., 6a' P. M. Section 22: S/2 Section 21: S/2 Section 27: All Section 28: SW/4 Tp. 5 S. Rg. 99 W., 6th P. M. Section 25: Lot 1 Section 36: Lot 1 Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W. 6's P. M. Section 30: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, SW/4SE/4 Section 31: Lots 7, 9, 10,11,12,15,17,18, 19 and 20 All of Resurvey Tracts 40 (in Sec. 30, 5-98 and Sec. 25, 5-99), 41(in Sec. 30 & 31,5-98), 42(in Sec. 31 5-98), 87 (in Sec. 23, 24, 25 & 26 ,5-99), 89 (in Sec. 24 & 25, 5-99), 90(in Sec. 25, 5-99) and 91(in Sec. 25 & 26, 5-99), and those parts of Resurvey Tracts 92, 93, 95, 96, 97 and 98 lying below the escarpment AND Resurvey Tract 45 lying in Section 31 of Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W., Section 36 of Tp. 5 S., Rg 99 W., and Section 4 of Tp. 6 S., Rg. 99 W., Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W. 6t P. M. Section 13: Lots 1, 2 and 9, S/2N/2 Tp. 6 S., Rg. 98 W., 6th P. M. Westerly portion of Tract 98, lying Southerly of Tract 97, Sub -Tracts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, S, W, X, Y, Z, AA, and BB of Tract 77, All of Resurvey Tracts 41, 42, 43, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84 and 109 Westerly Part of Tract 96, Tp. 6 S. Rg. 98 W., 6th P. M., con't. All of Resurvey Tracts 97D, 112, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, and 131,Sub-Tract A of Tract 132, Sub -Tract A of Tract 133 and Sub - Tract A of Tract 134 Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W. 6`s P. M. All of Tracts 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114 All those parts of Tracts 47, 51, 52, 56, 60, 62, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, and 94 lying below the escarpment Tract 57, excluding those portions in Section 18, Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W., lying above the escarpment Section 5: All that part of SW/4 lying below the escarpment Section 6: All that part of Lot 25 lying below the escarpment Section 7: All those parts of Lots 12, 14 and SE/4NE/4 lying below the escarpment and all of Lot 13 Section 8: All those parts of said section lying below the escarpment Section 17: All those parts of Lots 1 and 6 lying below the escarpment and all of Lots 3, 4, 5 and 7 2. Chevron Logan Wash and Parachute Creek Properties Tp. 6 S., Rg. 96 W., 6`s P. M. Section 4: All those parts of Lots 1, 5 and 11 and of S/2NW/4 and NW/4SW/4 lying Westerly of the center of Parachute Creek, Excluding therefrom a parcel of land described as follows: Starting at the NW comer of the SW/4 of Section 4, T. 6 S., Rg. 96 W. (This comer is located on the south side of a gulch) running down the gulch south of east 582 feet to the creek; from thence down the creek, west of south 207 feet; from thence, west 336 feet; from thence, north 363 feet. (Said excepted parcel containing about 4.25 acres and is also known as the Granlee School Tract.) Section 5: Lots 1 through 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 23 Section 6 Lots 1 through 18, SW/4, W/SE/4 (All) Section 7: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, W/2NE/4, NW/4, SW/4, W/2SE/4 (All) Section 8: Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, S/2SW4, NW/4SW/4, SE/4SE/4 Section 17: Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17, NE/4NE/4, E/2SE/4 Section 18: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, W/2NE/4, NW/4, SW/4, W/2SE/4 (All) Section 20: Lots 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, NE/4, NW/4NW/4, S/2NW/4, E/2SW/4 Section 21: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 Section 29: Lots 3 and 4, W/2NE/4, NE/4NW/4 Tp. 5 S. Rg. 96 W. 6th P. M.. Section 19: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E/2 (All) Section 20: All Section 29: N/2, N/2S/2 Section 30: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, E/2 (All) Section 31: Lots I, 2, 3 and 4, E/2 (All) Section 32: SW/4SW/4, SE/4NE/4 Section 33: S/2NE/4, S/2NW/4, SE/4, West 32 rods ofNW/4NW/4 Section 34: SE/4 Section 35: S/2 Section 36: SW/4, and all that part of the S/2SE/4 lying Westerly of Parachute Creek Tp. 7 S., Rg. 96 W., 6`s P. M. Section 5: N/2 and SW/4 Tp. 6 S., Rg. 97 W., 6th P. M. Section 1: Lots 13 and 14, S/2 Section 12: All Section 13: All 3 • a\v v sts N Ir% i 5C C) to accompany Chevron Aspen Harvest Plan Map 2 of 2 Scale 1" = 1 mile LEGEND Chevron Property Boundary Areas of Aspen Stands there are some smaller 5-10 acres patches not shown ,,: Primary access Roads sus -ft* +a. Secondary Access Roads Temporary Roads to be built t� Landings , planned . • / //./ .; •; Y1 / • J Lti I— • Id Map to accompany Chevron Aspen Harvest Plan Map 1 of 2 Scale I" = I mile LEGEND 11111111111110 Chevron Property Boundary Areas of Aspen Stands there are some smaller 5-10 acres patches not shown Primary access Roads Jj •,, 2 -k— k • Secondary Access Roads -TRA4 • . Q.11 ••••• . \ Temporary Roads to be built 0 Landings , planned •-• i ;)` • r• • \\\\l it'\ 1 Vi 1rr1\1,= ))t \ (l(I, <.`\ ,� \ 1k4� v F.42 • .1[. ,rt. .. V-•••,.. � . • '. II . ,•)) .:._•�- r- • azo .oro. 'risk ;LI • • '•••)•.:' --5--- ter.••-� fir• • • Ti Chevron Property Boun ft)y ,4Q DI Ir1 .0 C4 Ur 72 � �4 ryr") 13) 'A 9, a access Roads 2_ 1 Temporary Roads to be built • • • 1.1 It • 0 ,x = -- )lir=L\\\\\e REGROWTH CHARTED, 1 YEAR & 2 YEAR year cold - 2 feet tall 1/ v e1rt - 4 1(..'('t t<?II 3. REGROWTH CHARTED, 3 YEAR St 4 YEAR - c‘oi ton Aspen Timber Harvesting Plan for Chevron Shalt Oil Company & Conoco Lands are owned by Chevron Shale oil Company & Conoco Lands as described in "Exhibit A" This plan is submitted by Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP Ken Roberts, General Partner Remington Square Business Center 129 West 4'J` Street Rifle, CO 81650 970-625-4440 Prepared by Ronald R Cunnington, Forester CA. RPF #290 1954 Union Ridge Placerville, CA 95667 (530) 622-4166 T 'd te8=10871 01 'XII `0J 01 9NIdJ�7Di00H NOdd Wd9e:e0 666T -9T -L0 1. LOCATION OF PROPOSED TIMBER HARVEST The proposed timber harvest lies on the Mesa, between Roan and Parachute Creeks at the head of Clear Creek. See the attached addendum for the complete legal description of the included property. 2. DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE LOGGED Terrain The proposed harvest area varies in elevation from about 7,500 feet to 8,700 feet. There are no live watercourses within any "cut area". Slope The average slope where cutting is planned is less than 30%. The steepest slope measured, where harvest is planned, is approximately 32%. Aspect Soils This is a roiling mesa top and aspect is in all directions. "The Soil Survey of Garfield and Mesa Counties", published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station, provided information on the ground surveys. This information was verified by the agencies involved. The soils are ports, parachute, or rhone; all of these soils are similar and have characteristics in common, such as lower soil temperatures and average soil moisture holding capacity. Aspen grows on these kinds of soil and is a good nutrient for the soil.. The litter, such as leaves, break down quickly and arc pumped back into the soil; therefore, they are modifiers of the soil. As a result of these types of attributes, soils under Aspen do not lend themselves to an easy identification, All soils where Aspen grow are moderately deep, up to a 60" rooting zone. These soils are mostly loam, have cobbles present and on steeper slopes are erosive; therefore, water bars are necessary to control accelerated surface erosion. Streams and Ponds There are no live streams on any proposed "cut" area, There arc no ponds that are yearlong in nature. There are some intermittent ponds associated with the natural gas recovery systems. These areas will not be disturbed. Wildlife (T & E Species) The Aspen stands that are proposed tor management, support several wildlife species. There are Elk and Deer present during the spring, summer and fall periods. There are also grouse and songbird species present most of the year. Some of the Raptors use the area for hunting. No nesting sites were observed. There are some considerations of impacts to the wildlife populations and to their habitats which is discussed in another section of this report. 2 0d b08=808t't 01 ' JN [ `00 01 ON 1 d8371)1008 W08d Nd92 : 0 GLEE -ST -La Property Boundaries, Monuments There are property monuments and some lines established. There will need to be some more lines flagged with a plastic ribbon. Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP has a licensed surveyor and forestry technician on staff who has considerable experience to do any necessary work. Current Access, Roads Access is planned via Garfield County Roads #204 (Roan Creek Road) and #211 (Clear Creek Road) to the project area. Then access will be over private roads. Rights -of -ways are presented in a separate document (attached). Most of the roads that are in the cutting areas are pre-existing. There are some additional seasonal temporary roads that will be needed; all will be on Chevron Shale Oil Company and Conoco lands. These roads are shown on the accompanying map. They total Tess than one and one-half miles, after use they will be blocked and water -barred. Timber Types Aspen is the timber type that is proposed for management. Aspen is a unique species and has certain requirements. Some of these requirements are discussed in a later section of this report. The volume per acre to be removed is expected to be 75 tons per acre on the cut areas. Not all areas are planned for treatment at this time, for a variety of reasons. The areas that are planned for cutting are mature aspen stands that are 70 to 90 feet in height and are 50 to 90 years old, with an average life of 70 years and 82 feet in height. The areas are fully stocked now and as aspen is a sprouting, as opposed to a seeding species, it will immediately be fully stocked with regeneration. Other Vegetation (T & E species) Aspen is a unique species that inhibits other forms of vegetation from growing under mature stands. Therefore, no other species were identified as being present. After the aspen are cut there are some native grasses and fobs that will grow for a few years until the aspen canopy closes again. No listed species of plant, animal or bird were observed; however, Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP has a biologist on staff who will be helping lay out cut boundaries and monitoring for any listed species that may develop. 3. PROPOSED LOGGING SYSTEMS AND SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTIONS a) Proposed Logging Systems It is planned to log the aspen, which are generally on gentle ground, with a mechanical system, doing the felling and bunching with a feller-buncher. The skidding of the entire tree is done with a rubber tired skidder. At the landing will be a stroke delimber, which removes the limbs and tops. Also at the landing is a shovel loader that decks and loads the logs and piles the limbs and tops. This kind of operation uses four machines and four people and produces about ten loads per day. The machines are smaller than are used for conventional logging and do not damage residual trees or do a lot of soil disturbance. 3 20'd h08222808hT 01 'DN[ `00 01 0NId33?171005 N021d WdL2:.O 666T -91-L0 The proposed road system is to utilize the existing roads on the property. There may need to be some short segments of low -standard seasonal temporary roads built to landings. Locations of these roads are shown on the map. These roads will be built on ground that will not need extensive cuts or fills as they will follow the natural contour of the land. The next road is the private road which ties in to Garfield County, Clear Creek Road #21 1 . The right to use documents are in a separate attachment, Signs will be posted warning of log truck traffic at all intersections that have significant road use. There are no new watercourse crossings planned. Road and trail maintenance will be performed as the rights-of-way grantor requires. As the Garfield County, Clear Creek Road #211 is a high - standard road that will support an additional ten loads of logs with case, no maintenance should be needed. The closure of the project roads on Chevron Shale Oil Company and Conoco lands will depend on the location and plans by the company for further use. Most existing roads will be water -barred to prevent any accelerated erosion and the water bars will be left in place. New project roads that the company has no use for will be cross -ditched and made impassable to vehicular traffic. b) Aspen Profile Aspen is a member of the poplar or willow family, which includes 5 genera and over 200 species worldwide. Aspen is the most widely distributed tree species in the United States. There are over 3 million acres in Colorado alone. Aspen is intolerant in that it does not do well unless it is in full sun. This means that a stand of aspen will always be about the same size and age. Aspen does produce seeds, but primary regeneration is by sprouting. Growth of juvenile trees is rapid, about 2 feet of height growth per year. Aspen is a short- lived species, 70 to 120 years is maximum. Mature aspen excretes a sap from the green leaves that makes the grasses and fobs underneath it unpalatable to livestock and wildlife. In addition, it grows so thick that passage by livestock, big game and people is difficult. Aspen is an invader species, that means in the succession process, it is early in the serial stages and in order for it to be in the landscape, it needs to be disturbed without killing the root phenotypes, as we are relying on the roots to sprout to provide for regeneration. Logging in clear -cuts is the best way to manage aspen and to arrest the successional process. I recommend the clear -cuts be 20 to 40 acres in size with an uncut buffer strip of 300 feet around each clear-cut. After a few years, then we should go back and log the buffer strips. The actual layout of the cut areas has not been completed, but it will be done by a biologist and a technician after consulting with the land owners agent and the logger. The clear cuts will be marked by surveyor ribbon. The aspen will be logged using mechanical equipment, feller-bunchers and whole tree skidders, with a delimber on the landing. The tops and limbs will be stacked on the landings and burned in the fall of the year, after the fire season, and the slash is dry. Most of the material will be hauled to a mill for chipping, which allows for almost total utilization of the tree. The feller buncher uses a shear to sever the tree from the stump, so generally it is within 4 to 6 inches from the ground. 4 he'd h082a808t7T 01 'DN1 '00 01 DNId33)1>1008 14063 Nd82:20 666T -9T -LO c) Post Harvest Conditions Defined After logging and burning and closure of the temporary roads, sprouting will begin — that's the nature of aspen. Attached arc some photos of aspen stands that have been harvested. They show the regrowth at periodic times. We expect the same kind of response. The wildlife and livestock will benefit for a few years from more grazing and will have the buffer strips for thermal protection and cover. As the stand starts to achieve canopy closure the benefits will dwindle but in a management scheme there will be more fresh clear -cuts and fringe cover, so the total carrying capacity will be increased for both large game and livestock. 4. PROPOSED REHABILITATION GUIDELINES Skid roads planned for closure will be cross -ditched (water -barred) to prevent erosion by following the standards contained in the attachment document labeled "Water Bar Construction Standards". Some of the low -standard temporary roads built for this project will be treated the same. Roads that are planned to be used again by Chevron Shale Oil Company and Conoco will have driveable water -bars installed and will be left in a usable condition. Landings will be smoothed by machine and seeded with certified weed -free grasses and mulched with straw to a depth of three inches. This work will occur after the piles of slash are burned. The grass mixture is Mt. Bromgrass 30%, Western Wheat Grass 30%, Idaho Fescue 30% and Rocky Mt. Pennstream 10%, applied at 15# per acre. Replanting will not be necessary, Aspen is a species that sprouts from the roots and requires full sun. By treating the land with clear -cuts it will sprout back and in a few years will actually have more volume per acre than is now being carried. 5. SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONS Each "side" can produce about ten loads per day and with about 160 work days per year (because of weather conditions) the yearly production would be approximately 40,000 tons. Each truck load is about 25 tons of material. Work will commence as soon as this permit application is approved and continue as long as weather conditions allow. There is a possibility that more than one side will be operating. This kind of operation is ground based; so damage to roads, trails and landings can occur during periods of wet unfrozen ground. Operations also cannot occur when snow is too deep, therefore the estimate of 160 work days per year may be optimistic. Dates of starting and stopping are dependent on weather, as discussed above, or on land the owner desires. It is estimated that start dates are about the middle of May and will run into the fall and winter as long as weather permits. 5 SO ' d h08222808h T 01 'DNI ' 0J 01 JN I d33>i7IO0S Wald Wd82 : 2@ 666T -91-L0 6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PLANNED MITIGATION Streams A streamside buffer strip would be established for 50 feet each side of all live streams with no entry allowed if there were any live streams in the planned cut areas. As there are no live streams, there is no impact and mitigation is not needed. For intermittent watercourses, there will be no cutting allowed within 25 feet of the channel. Crossings may per permitted if done at right angles and no damage to the channel is done. The layout of the actual cut areas will be done by a trained forestry technician employed by Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP. Soils Attached is a water -bar spacing and construction standards guideline. This will take care of protecting the soil resource. Noise There will be some noise created during the logging process. It should be minimal on adjacent lands. There are no neighbors near the falling and skidding and loading areas. The only impacts to anyone will be the truck traffic and that should be brief and transitory and should be minimal. Dust The project roads will have very little traffic, so not much dust will be created. Overall dust will be have minimal impact on project ground and less impact to adjacent lands and neighbors. Wildlife Habitat Impacts There will be some positive and negative impacts to wildlife habitat. The overall impacts for deer, elk and raptors will be improved by converting part of the old grown aspen to young growth aspen. There will be more browse for a few years and because only a portion of the ground is being treated, there will be plenty of old growth aspen to provide thermal cover and travel corridors. The edge effect of open space and thick old growth cover around the openings will favor many species of birds. The increased browse will also attract more vertebrae critters like pocket gophers, mice and voles which will provide more food for raptors such as eagles, goshawks and owls. The negative impacts include temporary disturbance during the felling and skidding phases of the operation. This disturbance is temporary and will he mitigated somewhat by watching for nests and E.T.C. and avoiding same when the cut areas are being marked by the forestry technician and biologist. With the increased forage for the large game animals and increased sight distance within the cut areas, there may be an increased chance of hunter success for a few years which has to be considered as a negative impact on the Targe game animals. The possible mitigation is that because of more browse, there will be a better winter carryover of animals which may offset the suspected increased hunter caused mortality of the large game populations. Chevron has informed us they have no professional outfitters, so increased hunter caused mortality should not impact these lands. 6 90'd 708£22808171 01 'DNI '00 01 9N1d33NN008 WOdd Wd62:20 6661 -9r -L0 Listed Species (T. & E. Species) Known to use the area for hunting are Goshawks, Flammaluated Owls and Eagles (both species). No nesting of these species were observed. There may be a short term negative effect for these species due to the increased human activity. There may be a long term beneficial impact to these same species. The increased grasses and young aspen growth in the open areas will increase critter like grouse, mice pocket gophers and voles which are prey for the raptors. There has been concern expressed by the state biologists about nesting sites in the Harvesting areas. Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP has a biologist on a call - when -needed basis. If there is any increased activity by birds or if requested, the biologist will do surveys and modify the cut areas as needed. Adjacent Lands and Emissions There are no expected negative impacts expected from generation of vapor, noise, glare, vibrations or other emanations created by this project. The Chevron Shale Oil Company & Conoco lands are on top of a mesa with no close neighbors that live on the adjacent lands. The neighbors are all absentee owners very much like Chevron Shale Oil Company and Conoco. Recreation and Aesthetics The proposed harvest is on private ground that is isolated from neighbors and access is controlled by the land owners; therefore, there should be no public recreation impacts. The proposed harvest scheme will increase browse for large game animals for a few years. This activity is on a mesa with no public access. Aesthetics values are commonly expressed as a person views the area from the near (less than 1/4 mile) or far view (greater distance to about 3 miles maximum). Near and far view is not possible because the project is on a mesa with controlled private access for more than 3 miles. The adjacent landowners may be able to view the project area when they visit their properties but most of these visits are infrequent as they are absentee land owners. Fire Protection Fire protection, whether it is natural (lightning) or man caused, is always an impact. Increased human activity always creates an increased risk. At alt times all intemal engines shall be equipped with USDA Forest Service approved spark arresters. During fire season, all motorized equipment shall be equipped with a round point shovel size "0" or larger and a double bitted ax 2' h# or larger. These tools must have serviceable handles and be reasonably sharp. In addition during fire season, there must be a person on the landing for 'A hour whose sole duty is to look for sparks and fires and control the same after operations have stopped for the day. The reason for this requirement is to control any "start" while it is small. Neighboring Land Owners and Communities USD! ELM is a neighbor that does logging on some of their land. Some of the neighbors raise cattle. Some of the neighbors have natural gas wells, neighbors hunt for large game on their properties and some do all of the above. Colorado has several right to farm statutes on the books. The raising of timber and subsequent harvest is an agricultural endeavor. The negative impacts on neighbors are noise from the trucks. The beneficial impacts are new jobs, increased income to the land owner and fess risk of a catastrophic fire after the first year. 7 L0'd b08£££808b1 01 'DNI '00 01 ONId33NN008 WUdd Wd6d:d0 6661-91-L0 County/State Infrastructure Impacts Weight restrictions apply to the hauling of logs on county and state roads. All loads will be legal in weight and will not cause excessive road damage. The truck owners pay their share of road taxes by levees on fuel and licenses. Ten loads per day per side should not be enough traffic to cause accelerated road damage. Catastrophic fire can be severe both to the neighbors and to Garfield County. There is risk of the proposed logging starting a fire but with care that risk is mitigated. The long tern impact of logging is that trees are removed before they die, and accumulate build-up of dead fuels to dangerous levels. By keeping the vegetative growth on younger trees likelihood of a catastrophic fire is considerably lower. 7. ENFORCEMENT OF LOGGING PLAN All contractors and subcontractors of Colorado Timber & Land Company, RLLP, are required to post a one million dollar comprehensive liability bond to cover redemption requirements. Any accidental "take" of a listed species will immediately be reported to the Colorado Game and Fish Department. Any fire and subsequent action will he reported to the Garfield County Sheriffs Office. Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP and Chevron Shale Oil Company & Conoco have a contract that spells out terms of what each will do. Colorado Timber and Land Co., RLLP will monitor the actions of subcontractors. It is expected that any dispute that cannot be settled by the parties will be settled in a civil court. Any dispute with Garfield County or its agents will be heard by the Board of Commissioners of Garfield County. This report has been prepared with help from experts in other disciplines by a consulting forester with over 35 years of experience and who is available to help solve any problem that may develop. 8 90'd 1709£££90917i 01 "0N( '09 01 9NId33NN0011 W021d Wd0£:20 6661 -9I -L0 60'd 1U101 WATERBAR CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Maximum Distance Between Water Breaks Estimated Road or Skid Trail Gradient in Percent Huard Rating 10 or less 11-15 26-50 Over 50 Feet Feet Feet Feet Severe 100 75 50 50 High 150 100 75 50 Moderate 200 150 100 75 Slight 300 200 150 100 1. Water breaks shall be cut so as to allow the discharge water into vegetative matter or large rocks (energy dissipaters). 2. Water breaks shall be cut at a diagonal at a minimum of 6" into the firm roadbed, skid trail, fire break or ETC and shall have a continuous firm embankment immediately below and adjacent to the lower edge of the water break cut. 3. The throat shall be open so that the water break is self -maintaining. 9 60'd 700£££80871 01 'DNI '00 01 ONId33NN009 Woad Wdi£:20 6661-91-L0 cc Ct or 1 0 • • 11.11 ! • J • r _"t v ;�. '�:'.r- •`�w ill js� ;I' 0 • .411 • ) - rt N YID _SI n'e(• • ,•:„.:"•;::::7-'"-''' ,kms -- 1 / r }.11L 'uI e 4 • • Jri i}If�» \ . • 11 • ;ms▪ s ,� - t • 'r 1, d'> Yah • - 4\ 1- In in EXHIBIT "A" To Agreement Effective the day of , 1999 Chevron/Conoco Properties All of that certain real property (exclusive of mineral rights) located in Garfield County, Colorado, and more particularly described as follows, but excluding in all cases, whether or not referred to specifically, all property lying below the "escarpment" (being a geologic formation commonly referred to in the description of oil shale formations in the area of Garfield County, Colorado): Property Group 1 A. The following patented placer mining claims as described in United States Patent to the Garfield County Exploration Company dated July 11, 1920, recorded in Book 168, Page 35, Garfield County, Colorado, records: Township 4 South, Range 98 West, 6th P.M. GOOD HOPE NO. 66 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, the NW1/4 SEI/4 and the N1/2 SW1/4 of Section 32 and the E1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 31. GOOD HOPE NO. 67 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4, the SW1/4 NE1/4 and the S1/2 NW1/4 of Section 32 and the E1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 31. GOOD HOPE NO. 68 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4, the NW1/4 NE1/4 and the N1/2 NW1/4 of Section 32 and the E1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 31. GOOD HOPE NO. 70 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 NEI/4 NE1/4, the NW1/4 NE1/4 and the N1/2 NW1/4 of Section 33 and the E1/2 NE1/4 NEI/4 of Section 32. GOOD HOPE NO. 71 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4, the SW1/4 NE1/4 and the S1/2 NW1/4 of Section 33 and the E1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 32. GOOD HOPE NO. 72 OII. SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, the NW1/4 SE1/4 and the N1/2 SW1/4 of Section 33 and the E1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 32. GOOD HOPE NO. 73 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, the SW1/4 SE1/4 and the S1/2 SW1/4 of Section 33 and the E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 32. GOOD HOPE NO. 74 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, the SW1/4 SE1/4 and the S1/2 SW1/4 of Section 34 and the E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 33. GOOD HOPE NO. 75 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, the NW1/4 SE1/4 and the N1/2 SW1/4 of Section 34 and the E1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4 of Section 33. GOOD HOPE NO. 76 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4, the S1/2 NW1/4 and the SW1/4 NE1/4 of Section 34 and the E1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 33. GOOD HOPE NO. 77 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising the W1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4, the NW1/4 NE1/4 and the N1/2 NW1/4 of Section 34 and the E1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 33. B. The following patented placer mining claims as described in United States Patent to the Garfield County Exploration Company dated October 22, 1931, recorded in Book 208, Page 536, Garfield County, Colorado, records: The portion of the GENERAL PERSHING *13 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM above the escarpment comprising Lot 24 and por- tions of Lot 25 of Section 6; portions of the S1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4, the SW1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, the SW1/4 SW1/4 and the W1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 5; portions of the N1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4 and the NW1/4,NE1/4 NW1/4 of Section 8; Township 5 South, Range 98 West, 6th P.M. THE GENERAL PERSHING *20 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM com- prising Tract 129, Township 5 South, Range 98 West, and Township 5 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. THE GENERAL PERSHING #21 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM com- prising Tract 128, Township 5 South, Range 98 West, 6th P.M. The GENERAL PERSHING *22 OIL SHALE PLACER MINING CLAIM com- prising Lots 21, 22 and 23 of Section 6 and the S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4, the W1/ 2 SW1/4 NW1/4, the S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4, the S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SE1/4 NW1/4, the N1/2 WW1/4 SW1/4 and the NW1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 5, Township 5 South, Range 98 West, 6th P.M. 2 C. The following patented placer mining claims as described in United States Patent to the Garfield County Exploration Company dated April 26, 1933, recorded in Book 208, Page 535, Garfield County, Colorado, records: Township 5 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. GENERAL PERSHING NO. 28 CLAIM comprising Lots 10, 11 and 12 of Section 1. GENERAL PERSHING NO. 29 CLAIM comprising Lots 13 and 14 of Section 1 and Lot 5 of Section 2. GENERAL PERSHING NO. 38 CLAIM comprising Lots 6, 7 and 8 of Section 2. GENERAL PERSHING NO. 39 CLAIM comprising Lots 9 and 10 of Section 2 and Lot 5 of Section 3. D. The following patented placer mining claims as described in United States Patent issued to the Garfield County Exploration Company dated April 3, 1931, and recorded in Book 178, Page 323, Garfield County, Colorado, records: BITUMEN NO. 25 PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising Lots 13, 14 and 15 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 98 West, 6th P.M. BITUMEN NO. 26 PLACER MINING CLAIM comprising Lots 16 and 17 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 98 West, 6th P.M., and Lot 9 of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. E. The following patented mining claims described in United States Patent to the Garfield County Exploration Company dated July 6, 1960, and recorded in Book 331, Page 503, Garfield County, Colorado, records: Township 4 South, Range 98 West, 6th P.M. GOOD HOPE NO. 62 CLAIM, embracing; Section 31, W1/2 E1/2 W1/2, E1/2 W1/2 W1/2; GOOD HOPE 63 CLAIM, embracing; Section 31, W1/2 W1/2 E1/2, E1/2 E1/2 W1/2; GOOD HOPE 64 CLAIM, embracing; Section 31, W1/2 E1/2 E1/2, E1/2 W1/2 E1/2; GOOD HOPE 65 CLAIM, embracing; 3 Section 31, E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4; Section 32, W1/2 SE1/4, SE1/4, SW1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 SW1/4; Township 5 South, Range 98 West GOOD HOPE NO. 47 CLAIM, embracing; Section 3, S1/2 51/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4; Section 4, S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4, 51/2 S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 SW1/4, S1/2 51/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4; Section 9, Lots 3, 8 and 9; GOOD HOPE NO. 48 CLAIM, embracing; Section 3, S1/2 51/2 SW1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4, NW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4; Section 4, S1/2 S1/2 S1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 SEI/4 SE1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 51/2 51/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 S1/2 S1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 SW1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SEI/4, NI/2 51/2 51/2 SW1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 S1/2 S1/2 NE1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 51/2 SE1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4, S1/2 51/2 SEI/4 NW1/4 SW1/4, NEI/4 SW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 49 CLAIM, embracing; ' Section 3, S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4, NW1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 SW1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4; Section 4, N1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 51/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 S1/2 51/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 51/2 NW1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 S1/2 51/2 SE1/4 NW1/4, N1/2 NE1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 NE1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 51/2 51/2 NE1/4 SW1/4, S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4, NE1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 SE1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 51/2 SE1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 S1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 50 CLAIM, embracing; Section 4, S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4, W1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4; Section 5, S1/2 51/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4, E1/2 NEI/4 SE1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4, NEI/2 51/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4; NW1/4 SW1/4, NE1/4 SE1/4, GOOD HOPE NO. 51 CLAIM, embracing; Section 4, Lot 10, NW1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 SEI/4 NW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 NW1/4; N1/2 S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 NW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 NW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 NW1/4, Lot 13; 4 Section 5, Lots 12 and 14, N1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4, NE1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 52 CLAIM, embracing; Section 4, Lots 11 and 12; Section 5, Lots 11, 13 and 16; GOOD HOPE NO. 69 CLAIM, embracing; Section 5, Lots 9, 15, 17 and 18, S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4, NW1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 SE1/4 NW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 NW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 NW1/4, NE1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4, N1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4, N1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4; Section 6, Lots 19 and 20; CORAL T. No. 71 CLAIM, embracing; Section 4, S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SE1/4 SW1/4, S1/2 S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4; Section 5, S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4; Section 8, NE1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4; Section 9, Lot 10, N1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4; BITUMEN NO. 24, CLAIM, embracing; Section 5, S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4, S1/2 S1/2 S1/2 SW1/4 NE1/4, S1/2 S1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 NW1/4, NW1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4, NE1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4; GENERAL PERSHING NO. 12 CLAIM, embracing; Section 5, SW1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4, SE1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, W1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, SW1/2 SE1/4, E,1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4; Section 8, NW1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 NW1/4 NE1/4, NE1/4 NE1/4 NW1/4. E. The following patented mining claims as described in United States Patent to the Garfield County Exploration Company dated July 6, 1960, and recorded in Book 330, Page 310, Garfield County, Colorado, records: Township 4 South, Range 99 West GOOD HOPE NO. 1 CLAIM, embracing; Section 35, E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4; Section 36, W1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, SW1/4 SE1/4, 51/2 SW1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 2 CLAIM, embracing; Section 34, E1/2 E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4; 5 Section 35, W1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, SW1/4 SE1/4, GOOD HOPE NO. 3 CLAIM, embracing; Section 34, NE1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4, E1/2 SE1/4 N1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4; Section 35, W1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, NW1/4 SE1/4, GOOD HOPE NO. 4 CLAIM, Section 35, N1/2 NE1/4 Section 36, W1/2 NE1/4 GOOD HOPE NO. 5 CLAIM, Section 35, E1/2 SE1/4 Section 36, W1/2 SE1/4 GOOD HOPE NO. 6 CLAIM, Section 35, W1/2 SE1/4 embracing; SE1/4; SE1/4, NW1/4 SE1/4, embracing; NE1/4; NE1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, embracing; NE1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, GOOD HOPE NO. 7 CLAIM, embracing; Section 34, E1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4; SECTION 35, NW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 NW1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 8 CLAIM, Section 35, E1/2 NE1/4 Section 36, W1/2 NE1/4 GOOD HOPE NO. 9 CLAIM, Section 25, W1/2 SE1/4 Section 26, E1/2 SE1/4 GOOD HOPE NO. 10 Section 26, W1/2 Section 27, E1/2 GOOD HOPE NO. 11 Section 26, W1/2 Section 27, E1/2 GOOD HOPE NO. 12 Section 25, W1/2 Section 26, E1/2 GOOD HOPE NO. 13 Section 26, W1/2 Section 27, E1/2 GOOD HOPE NO. 14 Section 26, W1/2 Section 27, E1/2 embracing; NE1/4; NE1/4, NW1/4 NE1/4, embracing; SE1/4, SW1/4 SE1/4, SE1/4; CLAIM, embracing; SE1/4 SE1/4,.SW1/4 SE1/4, SE1/4 SE1/4; CLAIM, embracing; NE1/4 SE1/4, NW1/4 SE1/4, NE1/4 SE1/4; CLAIM, embracing; NE1/4 SE1/4, NW1/4 SE1/4, NE1/4 SE1/4; CLAIM, embracing; SE1/4 NE1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, SE1/4 NE1/4; CLAIM, embracing; NE1/4 NE1/4, NW1/4 NE1/4, NE1/4 NE1/4; 6 S1/2 SW1/4; NE1/4 SE1/4, N1/2 SW1/4; N1/2 SW1/4; S1/2 NW1/4; S1/2 NW1/4; W1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 NW1/4; S1/2 SW1/4; S1/2 SW1/4; N1/2 SW1/4; N1/2 SW1/4; S1/2 NW1/4; N1/2 NW1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 15 CLAIM, embracing; Section 25, W1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, S1/2 NW1/4; Section 26, E1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 16 CLAIM, embracing; Section 25, W1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4, NW1/4 NE1/4, N1/2 NW1/4; Section 26, E1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 61 CLAIM, embracing; T. 4S., R. 98 W., Section 31, Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8; T. 4S., R. 99 W., Section 36, E1/2 E1/2 E1/2; GOOD HOPE NO. 79 CLAIM, embracing; T. 45., R. 98 W., Sec- tion 30, W1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, SW1/4 SE1/4, SE1/4 SW1/4, Lot 4; T. 45., R. 99 W., Section 25, E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 80 CLAIM, embracing; T. 45., R. 98 W., Section 30, W1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4, NW1/4 SE1/4, NE1/4 SW1/4, Lot 3; T. 4S., R. 99 W., Section 25, E1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4; GOOD HOPE No. 81 CLAIM, embracing; T. 4S., R. 98 W., Section 30, W1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, SE1/4 NW1/4, Lot 2; T. 45., R. 99 W., Section 25, E1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4; GOOD HOPE NO. 82 CLAIM, embracing; T. 45., R. 98 W., Section 30, W1/2•NE1/4 NE1/4, NW1/4 NE1/4, NE1/4 NW1/4, Lot 1; T. 4S., R. 99 W., Section 25, E1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4. G. The following patented mining claims as described in United States Patent to the Garfield County Exploration Company dated July 6, 1960, and recorded in Book 331, Page 336, Garfield County, Colorado, records; GENERAL HAIG NO. 10 CLAIM, embracing; T. 4S., R. 99 W., Section 34, E1/2 E1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4, SW1/4 SE1/4, W1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, W1/2 E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 S1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 SW1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4, SW1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 NE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, S1/2 N1/2 S1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 N1/2 SW1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4, S1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4, SE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4; T. 5S., R. 99 W., Section 3, Lots 6, 7 and 8. GENERAL HAIG NO. 11 CLAIM, embracing; T. 45., R. 99 W., Section 34, SW1/4 SW1/4, W1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4, W1/2 E1/2 SE1/4 SW1/4, S1/2 S1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4, 7 S1/2 SW1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, SW1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, S1/2 N1/2 S1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4, S1/2 N1/2 SW1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, S1/2 NW1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4; T. SS., R. 99 W., Section 3, Lots 9 and 10; Section 4, Lot 12. Property Group 2 The General Haig No. 1 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract 62, Township 5 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. The General Haig No. 2, Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract 59, Township 5 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. The General Haig No. 3 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract 61, Township 5 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. The General Haig No. 4 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract 67, Township 5 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. The portion of the General Pershing No. 3 Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising a portion Tract 56, of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 98 West, 6th P.M. The portion of the General Pershing No. 4 Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising portions of the S1/2 N1/2 SE1/4 All of Lots 10, 11, and 18 and a portion of Lot 12 of Sec- tion 7, Portions of Lots 2 and 7, W1/2 W1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4 S1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 of Section 8. The portion of the General Pershing No. 5 Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising all of S1/2 S1/2 NE1/4 N1/2 N1/2 SE1/4, Lots 16 and 17 of Section 7. Portions of W1/2 W1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 NW1/4, SW1/4 SE1/4 NW1/4, 8 S1/2 SW1/4 NW1/4, W1/2 W1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, NW1/4 NE1/4 SW1/4, N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 of Section 8. The portion of the General Pershing No. 6 Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising all of Lots 6, 7, and a portion of Lots 14 and 15 A portion N1/2 S1/2 NE1/4 of Section 7. A portion N1/2 SW1/4 NW1/4 of Section 8. The portion of the General Pershing No. 10 Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising a portion of Tract 51, of Section 7 and 18, Township 5 South Range 98 West, 6th P.M. Sections 12 and 13, Township 5 South Range 99 West, 6th P.M. The General Pershing No. 11 Tract 50, Township 5 South, South, Range 99 West, 6th P Placer Mining Claim comprising Range 98 West, and Township 5 M. 'The General Pershing No. 16 Oil comprising Tract 49, of Section West and Section 12, Township 5 6th P.M. Shale Placer Mining Claim 7, Township 5 South Range 98 South Range 99 West, The General Pershing No. 17 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract 71, of Section 12, Township 5 South Range 99 West, 6th P.M. The General Pershing No. 32 011 Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract No. 72, Township 5 South Range 99 West, 6th P.M. The General Pershing No. 33 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract No. 73, Township 5 South Range 99 West, 6th P.M. The General Pershing comprising Tract 68, 6th P.M. The General Pershing comprising Tract 66, 6th P.M. No. 34 Oil Shale Township 5 South No. 35 Oil Shale Township 5 South 9 Placer Mining Claim Range 99 West, Placer Mining Claim Range 99 West, Property Group 3 IN TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 98 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., according to the independent Re -Survey of said Township: Tract 57 EXCEPT those portions of said Tract 57 lying below the escarpment, being further described and limited to the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (N1/2 SW1/4 NE1/4), the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4) and portions of the West Half of the Northeast Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Half (W1/2 NE1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4), the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (S1/2 SW1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4) and the South Half of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (S1/2 S1/2 NW1/4 NE1/4) of Section 18. IN TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGES 98 and 99 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., according to the Independent Re -Surveys of said Townships: Tract 52 except that portion of said Tract 52 lying below the escarpment. The portion of the General Pershing No. 14 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising a portion of Tract Forty-seven of Sections Six and Seven in Township Five South of Range Ninety-eight West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; I0 The General Pershing No. 15 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract Forty-eight of said Sections Six and Seven and Sections One and Twelve in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Pershing No. 18 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract Seventy in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Pershing No. 19 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract Thirty-eight in Township Five South, Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The Lucky Strike No. 28 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Sixty-five of Sections Nine, Ten, Fifteen and Sixteen in Township Five South of Range Ninety-eight West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The portion of the Lucky Strike No. 29 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising a portion Tract Sixty-six of said Sections Nine and Sixteen; The Lucky Strike No. 30 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Trace Sixty-three of said Section Nine; The Lucky Strike No. 31 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising the Lots One, Five, Six, and Seven and the South half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section Nine; and the South half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the Lot Five and East half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the East half of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the East half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, and the East half of the West half of the Northeast Quarter of the South- west Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Eight in Township Five South of Range Ninety-eight West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The Lucky Strike No. 32 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Sixty-four of Sections Nine and Ten in Town- ship Five South of Range Ninety-eight West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The portion of the Lucky Strike No. 10 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising Tract Eight -one said Township Five South of Range Ninety-eight West; 11 The portion of the Lucky Strike No. 11 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising Tract Sixty-two of Sections Nine and Sixteen in said Township Five South of Range Ninety-eight West; The portion of the Lucky Strike No. 12 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising Tract Sixty of said Sections Eight, Nine, Sixteen and Seventeen in Township Five South of Range Ninety-eight West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The portion of the Lucky Strike No. 13 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising the Lots One, Four and Six, the East half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the East half of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the East half of the East half of the West half of the Southeast Quarter, and the East half of the West half of the East half of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section Eight and the Lots One, Four, Five and Six of said Section Seventeen; The portion of the Lucky Strike No. 14 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising the West half of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the West half of the West half of the East half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the West half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the West half of the West half of the East half of the West half of the Southeast Quarter, the West half of the West half of the Southeast Quarter, the East half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, the East half of the West half of the Southeast Quarter of the North- east Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, the East half of the East half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, the East half of the West half of the East half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, the East half of the East half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, the East half of the West half of the East half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the Lot Eight of said Section Eight and the Lots Three and Seven of said Section Seventeen; The portion of the Lucky Strike No. 27 Oil Shale ?lacer Mining Claim above the escarpment comprising a portion of Tract Sixty-seven of Sections Fifteen and Sixteen in Town- ship Five South of Range Ninety-eight West of the Sixth 12 Principal Meridian, situate North of the drift fence as now constructed extending through and across said claim; Also all that part of the Good Hope No. 45 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising the West half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, and Lot Three of Section Ten in Town- ship Five South of Range Ninety-eight West of the Sixth Principal Meridian situate North and West of the drift fence as now constructed extending through and across said claim; Also all that part of the Good Hope No. 46 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising the West half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the Lots One and Two of said Sec- tion Ten and the Lot Two of Section Nine in Township Five South of Range Ninety-eight West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, situate North and West of the drift fence as now constructed extending through and across said claim. The General Haig No. 5 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Sixty-five in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Haig No. 6 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Sixty-three in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Haig No. 7 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Sixty in Township Five South of Range Ninety- nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Haig No. 8 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Fifty-seven in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Haig No. 9 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Fifty-five in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian.; The General Haig No. 12 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Fifty-four in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Haig No. 13 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Fifty-six in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; 13 The General Haig No. 14 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim com- prising Tract Fifty-eight in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Pershing No. 30 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract Thirty-nine in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Pershing No. 31 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract Sixty-nine in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Pershing No. 36 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract Sixty-four in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Pershing No. 37 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract Forty-two in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian; The General Pershing No. 40 Oil Shale Placer Mining Claim comprising Tract Forty-four in Township Five South of Range Ninety-nine West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. 14 REGROWTH CHARTED, 1 YEAR & 2 YEAR 1 year old - 2 feet tall • - • • (.4. . •••., 2 years old - 4 to.21: tall 7 9 i)6,,,s id. .4 r•-•6' REGROWTH CHARTED, 25 YEAR )4, w/A, . C, Ia. I.t)rcsf A. Douglas Fir Timber Harvesting Plan '' •R CEiyEQ sup 19 19 for Chevron Shale Oil Company Lands as described in "Exhibit A" These lands are owned by Chevron Shale Oil Company Submitted by Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP Ken Roberts, General Partner Remington Square Business Center 129 West 41h Street Rifle, CO 81650 970-625-4440 Prepared by Ronald R Cunnington, Forester CA. RPF #290 1954 Union Ridge Placerville, CA 95667 (530) 622-4166 g..(a Signature 1. LOCATION OF PROPOSED TIMBER HARVEST The proposed timber harvest area lies in the Clear Creek and Parachute Creek drainage and includes all or parts of the lands owned by the Chevron Shale Oil Company in this area. The legal description is given on the attached pages. 2. DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE LOGGED Terrain The proposed harvest area varies in elevation from about 6,000 feet to 8,000 feet. There are no live streams within a cut area. Slope The average slope where the timber is Iocated is 60 to 65%. The steepest measured was 70%. Aspect: Aspect is defined as the direction a piece of ground faces. In this area of Colorado and at these elevations, timber is only located on East and North facing slopes. This block of land owned by Chevron Shale Oil Company is no different. Soils: The Soil Survey of parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties published by USDA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station was consulted and verified by on the ground observations. The soils seem to be 60% Utso Channery Loam and Rock outcrop. These soils are deep and well drained. They are also highly water erosive. Permeability is moderately rapid with low water holding capacity. Rooting depth is about 60" so windfall is not much of a problem. The water holding capacity is a problem for fast growth of trees. Trees that do not have enough moisture in the dry part of the year shut down and do not grow even if sunlight, nutrients and the right temperatures are present. Streams and Ponds: There are no live streams within a "cut" area. There are no ponds that are yearlong in nature. There are some holding ponds that are intermittent. Most of these are part of the natural gas recovery system. These areas are not close to a cut area and will not be affected. Wildlife (T&E Species): The Douglas Fir species that is proposed for harvest is on steep north and east facing slopes. Most of the use by Wildlife is for thermal cover and forage by Elk and Deer during part of the year. Also present are Raptors such as some owls and Eagles that are using the steep slopes as hunting areas. No nests were observed. 2 Property Boundaries, Monuments: Colorado Timber and Land Company will flag with plastic ribbon all lines near another ownership where cutting is planned. Current Access, Roads Primary access is planned using Garfield County Roads #205 (Roan Creek Road) from I-70 at DeBeque to the harvest areas, County Road #211 (Clear Creek Road) and County Road #215 (Parachute Creek Road). There are four general locations where landings are planned. 1) The first location is up Clear Creek Road #211 where seven landings are planned. Please consult attached maps for exact locations. (Unit F) 2) The second location is off Parachute Creek Road #215 where three landings are planned in Garden Gulch. (Unit A) 3) The third general location is also off of Roan Creek Road on the Garfield County Road #209 (Brush Creek Road) where three landings are planned on Chevron Property. (Unit G) 4) The fourth location on Riley Gulch in the Parachute Creek drainage. Access will be County Road #215, BLM and private roadways. (Unit I) Timber Types: The timber type that is planned for management is Douglas Fir. Douglas Fir in Garfield County Colorado at 6-8 thousand feet elevation is a relatively uniform tree that reaches 100 feet tall and has an average diameter breast height of 14 to 20 inches at maturity. The average acre has about 9,000 board feet of commercial timber and a lot of regeneration that is not of commercial size. It is growing so thick that a larger tree does not develop because of competition for moisture. Water holding capacity of the soils is the limiting factor as there is adequate rainfall, sunlight and nutrients in the soils. To bring the land into a managed state it is proposed to leave a continuous cover and to reduce the stocking of commercial trees by 75% and to leave all sub merchantable trees. This will provide for less moisture competition and will allow the younger and smaller trees to grow, hopefully to larger sizes. Other Vegetation (T & E species) Under the Douglas Fir Overstory there are native grasses and brush species mostly oak brush. There were no listed species of vegetation found in our field examinations. There is an adequate amount of Douglas Fir regeneration to ensure that the site will not be lost to having Douglas Fir as the primary species present. 3. PROPOSED LOGGING SYSTEMS AND SILVICULTURAL PRESCRIPTION Proposed silvicultural prescription by timber type Timber types: There is only one timber type proposed for management at this time. Douglas Fir stands on the steep North and East facing slopes and is the only species that is proposed for harvest. 3 Proposed Silviculture Treatments: A partial cut of Douglas Fir on the North and East facing steep slopes is proposed with hand falling and helicopter yarding. Loading and hauling is to be done with conventional means. Objectives a) To bring the steep North and East facing slopes that are carrying commercial Douglas Fir under management. b) To reduce the loss incurred by a wildland fire, A fire would destroy the timber values that is now present and if it were a "hot" fire it would cause some negative impacts such as burning the organic material in the soils and would increase runoff which would Iead to accelerated soil erosion, c) To improve pasture for cattle grazing. By removing part of the older, larger canopy growth is expected to increase in the younger smaller vegetation such as young trees, grass and brush which will provide more grazing for a few years. This benefit is somewhat marginal, as cattle do not use the steep slopes very much. d) To improve deer, elk and other large game habitat. Every acre given the soils present rainfall amount and number of frost -free days will grow a certain amount of vegetation each year. By removing a portion of the old growth (the larger older trees) the inherent growth is transferred onto younger trees, grass and brush which will provide more foraging for the large game populations. By leaving some of the "old growth trees" and all of the younger trees we are leaving enough thermal cover for the same populations; and in fact the quality of the habitat is increased which should lead to the area being able to provide for more animals. e) To provide a cash income to the landowner and at the same time to increase the number of jobs for people of Garfield County. f) To remove some of the recent insect killed trees and to reduce stress on the remaining trees so the insect population will decrease. Logging Systems: To meet these objectives it is proposed to selectively log with helicopters on this plan area. Helicopter logging while more expensive to perform does not disturb the ground and does not cause increased soil erosion. The proposal is to log the old growth to about a 75% removal while leaving all of the younger, faster growing young growth. By transferring the growth inherent in the ground onto fewer trees the trees will grow faster and should become Iarger. 4 Conventional falling with chain saws is proposed. On steep ground (over 50%) it is not wise to use machines for falling and bunching. They do not work on ground this steep and disturb the soil, which is what we are trying to avoid with helicopter logging. Limbing and bucking will be done in the woods with the tops left to put nutrients back into the soil. All stump heights are to be as low as possible and will not exceed 10" on the high side. The Colorado State Forest Service has developed some suggested Best Management Practices, which will be followed. Proposed Haul System: The logs are to be flown to landings where the logs will be decked or loaded onto conventional trucks for transport to a sawmill. There are fifteen proposed landings for this project, which are shown on the attached maps. 1) There will be eight proposed landings on the Clear Creek property, as shown on the attached map. All landings will be on Chevron property. Access will be through Chevron and Getty Oil Exploration Company to Clear Creek Road #211 to Roan Creek Road #204 to 1-70 at DeBeque. (Unit F) 2) There will be three proposed landings on Brush Creek Property, as shown on the attached map. All landings will be on Chevron property. Access will be through private property to Brush Creek Road #209 to Roan Creek Road #204 to 1-70 at DeBeque. (Unit G) 3) There will be two landings in the Garden Gulch area off of the Parachute Creek Road (County Road #215). Chevron's property lies adjacent to County Road #215, so no outside access will be required here. (Unit A) There will be two landings in the north part of Riley Gulch area near Parachute Creek. Access will be through BLM and then down County Road #215 to 1-70. (Unit 1) The helicopter that is planned to be used can move enough timber for about 10 loads per day on the days it flies. It cannot fly when it is foggy or windy so the average will be about 7 loads per day during logging season. The impacts of new road construction and of hauling will not be significant as the one new road will be short and will be seasonal and temporary. With only 10 loads a day on the County Road during the Iogging season the other public that uses this road will not notice much additional traffic. The roadbeds were built to handle heavy loads so no damage is expected. Fuel and license taxes are available to help pay for road maintenance. A system of sign posting to warn other road users will be in place. If your transportation planners would like to offer advice on content and placement of signs it is welcome. 5 Stream Crossings: There will be no new stream crossings. Public Access and Safety Considerations: This project involves using helicopters for yarding timber. Helicopter logging attracts attention from the public. All of the planned landings are on private property off of the county roads, which will be closed to public entry. Signs will be posted warning of overhead danger and the pilots may need to alter flight paths to avoid trespassing public and other hazards such as the gas wellheads. The landings are dangerous when a load of logs is being "dropped" so it is vital that there be no public access. 4. PROPOSED REHABILITATION GUIDELINES There will be no skid roads to close as helicopter yarding is being used to avoid ground disturbance. After log hauling is complete all roads used for hauling will be inspected and drainage will be added or rebuilt as needed to prevent any erosion from this project. Landings will be sloped for drainage and ripped to alleviate compacting and seeded with certified grass seed. A mixture of Mt. Brongrass 30%, Western Wheat Grass 30%, Idaho Fesue 30% and Rocky Mtn. Pennstreamin 10% applied at 15 pounds per acre by broadcast seeding and covered straw. Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP will pile all landing site slash at a mutually agreeable location(s). Landing site slash piles will be burned by Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP when the fire danger is Iow and when such slash is readily combustible. Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP shall keep excessive soil out of the landing site slash piles in order to assure such piles will burn efficiently. After the landing site slash has been burned Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP will reseed and otherwise reclaim each landing site. While it is anticipated landing site slash will likely be burnable within a year of being cut and piled, Colorado Timber and Land Company's obligation to burn such piles and reclaim the landing sites shall continue until such piles are fully burned and the landing sites reclaimed to Chevron's satisfaction, notwithstanding any earlier expiration or termination of this agreement. All disturbed areas (i.e. landings) will be inspected for two years and any noxious weeds sprayed with a herbicide. Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP will do this work. Replanting will not be necessary. The sample cruise shows that the areas to be logged are overstocked with natural regeneration that will be released by the logging and will be free to grow. 6 5. SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONS The amount a helicopter can log per day is dependent on the aircraft to be used. Because the target is the small Douglas Fir a lighter smaller ship is the best way to go and make this an economical operation. These kind of ships Iog between 8 to 16 truck loads per flying day and will work abut 140 days per year. The helicopter will not fly, for safety reasons, on days of high winds (over 30 miles per hour). It is also anticipated that during storms the ship will not be able to fly. During the summer on days of high temperatures and extreme fire danger the ship will not fly. This makes the estimate of 140 flying days a year extremely optimistic. Conditions for flying the helicopter are at the discretion of the helicopter company. 6. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PLANNED MITIGATION Impacts Streams: A streamside buffer zone is established for 50' each side of all live streams (ones that are flowing water). No timber is to be cut or felled in this zone. Along all dry watercourses there is a 25' buffer strip established with all trees to be felled away from the watercourse and 50% of the commercially sized timber to be left and all of the unmerchantable vegetation left. Soils: Attached is a water bar spacing and construction guidelines, this will take care of protecting the soil resource. Noise: There is some noise created during the logging process. It should be minimal on adjacent lands. There is no housing on or near the planned landings so there will be no impact on neighbors. Dust: Water on the landings may be necessary to prevent damage to the helicopter and for workers safety. Water will be procured from the Colorado River or from the landowner. The native material roads all have a shale surface and do not dust easily. With the light loads that this project will generate, no impacts are expected. 7 Wildlife Habitat Impacts: The overall effect on deer, elk and other bird and wildlife will be improved by the removal of some timber. There will be more browses available after harvest and there will be adequate thermal cover left. The slash generated will be left in place which will provide for food and cover for some of the smaller species such as mice, etc; which in turn provides more food for the raptors that hunt in the timber. The effect of logging all of the timber in western Colorado in a short time would not be beneficial as all large game needs all stages of succession present but at the modest rate that helicopter logging is proposed there will be all stages of succession present at all times. Noise and human activity may initially cause the deer and elk to move a short distance from the logging operation for a few days. But from past experience they are not bothered by the activity and sometimes must be chased away from the browsing off of the fallen trees. Listed Species (T&E Species) Suspected to occasionally use the proposal area are Goshawks, Flammaluated Owl and Eagles. No nesting sites were observed; I do think that the area is used as hunting grounds for all of these species. There will be a short-term negative effect for hunting by these species as they are disturbed by both timber falling and flying the logs. There will be a long-term beneficial effect for these same species. The increased growth of younger trees, other vegetation and cover (slash) provide for a buildup of critters such as mice, rabbits, voles and wood rats. All are prey to the Raptors and will provide an additional food source. There is some concern about nesting sites of Raptors in the harvest areas. Colorado Timber and Land Co. LLP has a biologist on call when needed and surveys will be done with modifications of cut areas and cut timing if necessary. This work is done in spring periods when birds are nesting. This work is not necessary in the late summer, fall or in the winter. There should also be a build-up of populations of grouse and other woodland species that feed on grasses and seeds. These species are also prey of the Raptors. The impacts on the general hunting seasons of deer, elk, turkeys and other large game species is difficult to assess. This is all private, posted land where access is limited to invited guests of the landowner. Adjacent Lands and Emissions There will be no impacts on adjacent lands by the generation of vapor, noise glare, vibrations or other emanations for the most part. 8 Recreation and Aesthetics: The proposed harvest is on private ground where access is controlled by the landowners; there should be no public recreation impact. The harvest will not hurt the elk population and will aid the deer population so the long-term impacts will help the public. Aesthetics values can be measured as a person views the project from the near view and the far view, less than a'' 'A mile and greater to a maximum of 3 miles. Near view is not possible because the project is on private land more than 'A mile from public access. The far view will not change it looks like a timbered slope now and will look the same after the planned logging is completed. Fire Protection At all times all internal engines shall be equipped USDA Forest Service approved spark arresters. All motorized equipment shall be equipped with a round point shovel "0" size or larger and a double bitted ax 2'A pounds or larger. These tools must have serviceable handles and be reasonably sharp. In addition, during fire season, there will be an employee of the logging company present at the operating area for 30 minutes after all operations cease for the day, whose sole duty will be to look for and extinguish any fire that may be found. The reason for this requirement is to keep any accidentally caused fires from becoming a major problem, as this is the time of day when problems may develop. Neighboring Land Owners and Communities: The USDI-BLM is an adjacent landowner that does logging on some of its land. Some of the neighbors engage in cattle raising, some of the neighbors have natural gas wells and some neighbors hunt on their lands. Colorado has right to farm statues and the raising of trees and the subsequent harvest is an agricultural endeavor. The negative effects on neighbors and local communities are noise generated from the logging trucks, chain saws and the helicopter. The positive effects are new jobs, income to the landowner and lower fire danger after the first year. It is suggested that over time the negative impacts are out weighed by the positive impacts. County/State Infrastructure Impacts: Weight restrictions apply to the hauling of logs on county and state roads. All loads will be legal in weight and will not cause excessive road damage. The truck owners pay their share of road taxes by levees on fuel and licenses. Ten loads per day per side should not be enough traffic to cause accelerated road damage. 9 The impacts of a wildland fire can be severe both to the neighbors and to Garfield County. There is a risk of the logging starting a fire but with care that risk is lowered. The long-term effects of logging are that the trees are removed before they die and accumulated build up of dead fuels occur to dangerous levels. By keeping the vegetative growth on younger stems the likelihood of a catastrophic fire is lowered. 7. ENFORCEMENT OF LOGGING PLAN All contractors and subcontractors will be required to post a comprehensive liability insurance policy of one million dollars to take care redemption requirements. Any accidental "take" of a "T&E" species will be immediately be reported to the Colorado Game and Fish Department. Any fire and subsequent action will be reported to the Garfield Sheriffs Office. It is expected that any arbitration between parties in this project will take place in a civil court except disputes involving Garfield County and its Agents in which case the Board of Commissioners will hear the arbitration. This report has been prepared with help from experts in other disciplines by a consulting Forester that is licensed in another state with over 35 years of experience and who is available to help solve any problem that may develop. 10 et?y8 Scale 1" = 1 mile Chevron Lands 7`! r N' r 1 • J's • U l �; • • ? • 0 0 H 0 Ua a '00 3 �N - 2 Z , c. O 1 ...0. y rs Gi c cel X c7 — ▪ o U 2co vD o o td 0 ad 0 v < Y ' r �� t41 /, %,Y'---,.. _ .," -..<714 IL .-,-1 1 ri.':.-, . i,•-,fi�--- -;.l Fr -7 f `rl. i.' i - -- Prc rya y • • �5.-_ { t • ` 1- In n\\ �', - - I c n 1 14,4 c 'l I • i 1. r.'--\ N. Is • t ] eT U• .y /./ 4= 1 -C O Ua g tar E U o .-, 0 >, cam„ W t�� o t a 0 n Co O E v at v U V rimary access Roads Secondary Access Roads Temporary Roads to be built Landings , planned til `1• \„`�\� !Ir• Map to Accompany Chevron Harvest Plan yil Scale 1" = 1 mile LEGEND Chevron Lands 4110 Location of Douglas Fir to be Harvested Pz Proposed Landings Access Roads Logan Wash R oad Ca 'vie A I/L •/!r r sc < 82'0 I • (, )98r.1� 1 lLr��Y Ij� vi.i �1r� 'rf 2539`, 1 EXHIBIT 'A' To Agreement Effective the _ day of June, 1999 Chevron Clear Creek Properties Note: The term "escarpment" as used in this description, refers to a geologic formation commonly referred to in the description of oil shale formations in the area of Garfield County, Colorado. Tp. 5 S., Rg. 97 W., 6a' P. M. Section 22: S/2 Section 21: S/2 Section 27: All Section 28: SW/4 Tp. 5 S. Rg. 99 W., 6th P. M. Section 25: Lot 1 Section 36: Lot 1 Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W., 6t P. M. Section 30: Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, SW/4SE/4 Section 31: Lots 7, 9, 10,11,12,15,17,18, 19 and 20 All of Resurvey Tracts 40 (in Sec. 30, 5-98 and Sec. 25, 5-99), 41(in Sec. 30 & 31,5-98), 42(in Sec. 31 5-98), 87 (in Sec. 23, 24, 25 & 26 ,5-99), 89 ( in Sec. 24 & 25, 5-99), 90(in Sec. 25, 5-99) and 91(in Sec. 25 & 26, 5-99), and those parts of Resurvey Tracts 92, 93, 95, 96, 97 and 98 lying below the escarpment AND Resurvey Tract 45 lying in Section 31 of Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W., Section 36 of Tp. 5 S., Rg 99 W., and Section 4 of Tp. 6 S., Rg. 99 W., Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W., 6th P. M. Section 13: Lots 1, 2 and 9, S/2N/2 Tp. 6 S., Rg. 98 W. 6a' P. M. Westerly portion of Tract 98, lying Southerly of Tract 97, Sub -Tracts A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,W,X,Y,Z,AA, and BB of Tract 77, All of Resurvey Tracts 41, 42, 43, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84 and 109 Westerly Part of Tract 96, Tp. 6 S. Rg. 98 W., 6th P. M., con't. All of Resurvey Tracts 97D, 112, 113, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, and 131,Sub-Tract A of Tract 132, Sub -Tract A of Tract 133 and Sub - Tract A of Tract 134 Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W., 6a' P. M. All of Tracts 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114 All those parts of Tracts 47, 51, 52, 56, 60, 62, 66, 67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, and 94 lying below the escarpment Tract 57, excluding those portions in Section 18, Tp. 5 S., Rg. 98 W., lying above the escarpment Section 5: All that part of SW/4 lying below the escarpment Section 6: All that part of Lot 25 lying below the escarpment Section 7: All those parts of Lots 12, 14 and SE/4NE/4 lying below the escarpment and all of Lot 13 Section 8: All those parts of said section lying below the escarpment Section 17: All those parts of Lots 1 and 6 lying below the escarpment and all of Lots 3, 4, 5 and 7 Chevron Logan Wash and Parachute Creek Properties Tp. 6 S., Rg. 96 W., 6th P. M. Section 4: All those parts of Lots 1, 5 and 11 and of S/2NW/4 and NW/4SW/4 lying Westerly of the center of Parachute Creek, Excluding therefrom a parcel of land described as follows: Starting at the NW corner of the SW/4 of Section 4, T. 6 S., Rg. 96 W. (This corner is located on the south side of a gulch) running down the gulch south of east 582 feet to the creek; from thence down the creek, west of south 207 feet; from thence, west 336 feet; from thence, north 363 feet. (Said excepted parcel containing about 4.25 acres and is also known as the Granlee School Tract.) Section 5: Lots 1 through 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 23 Section 6 Lots 1 through 18, SW/4, W/SE/4 (All) Section 7: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, W/2NE/4, NW/4, SW/4, W/2SE/4 (All) Section 8: Lots 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, S/2SW4, NW/4SW/4, SE/4SE/4 Section 17: Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17, NE/4NE/4, E/2SE/4 Section 18: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, W/2NE/4, NW/4, SW/4, W/2SE/4 (All) Section 20: Lots 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, NE/4, NW/4NW/4, S/2NW/4, E/2SW/4 Section 21: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 Section 29: Lots 3 and 4, W/2NE/4, NE/4NW/4 Tp. 5 S. Rg. 96 W.,6t P. M.. Section 19: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, E/2 (All) Section 20: All Section 29: N/2, N/2S/2 Section 30: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, E/2 (All) Section 31: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, E/2 (All) Section 32: SW/4SW/4, SE/4NE/4 Section 33: S/2NE/4, S/2NW/4, SE/4, West 32 rods ofNW/4NW/4 Section 34: SE/4 Section 35: S/2 Section 36: SW/4, and all that part of the S/2SE/4 lying Westerly of Parachute Creek Tp. 7 S., Rg. 96 W., 6th P. M. Section 5: N/2 and SW/4 Tp. 6 S. Rg. 97 W. 6th P. M. Section 1: Lots 13 and 14, S/2 Section 12: All Section 13: All