Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application• • TIMBER HARVEST PLAN for JOHN W. SAVAGE, JR. P.O. Box 1926 Rifle, CO 81650 (303) 625-1470 Portions of unsurveyed sections: 28, 29, 30, 32, 33 Township 7 south, Range 94 west of the 6th P.M. Garfield County, Colorado Prepared by: Kelly Rogers, Assistant District Forester Colorado State Forest Service 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 (303) 248-7325 December, 1994 • • 1 1 Table of Contents page II I. Description of Proposed Harvest Area 2 2 A. Location 2 i B. Current Road Access 2 C. Topography and Climate 3 D. Soils E. Wildlife 3 43 i F. Timber Types -6 II. Proposed Silvicultural Treatments 7 17 A. Objectives � B. Aspen Harvest 7 C. Spruce -fir Harvest IIII. Proposed Harvest System 9 I A. Logging System 9 B. Hauling System 9 IV. Proposed Rehabilitation Guidelines 10 II V. Schedule of Operations 10 IIVI. Potential Impacts and Planned Mitigation 11 A. Soil and Water Resources 1111 i B. Recreation and Aesthetics 12 C. Wildlife Habitat and Range Values 13 D. Fire Protection E. Impact on Neighboring Landowners and Communities13 IIVII. Enforcement of Timber Harvest Plan 14 15 II VIII. References II IX. Appendix Maps: A. Property Location Map I B. Vegetation Type Map C. Proposed Sale Area Map II D. Sample Timber Sale Agreement 1 I. Description Of Proposed Timber Harvest Area A. Location IThe proposed harvest area lies within the Cache Creek drainage, approximately 9 air miles southwest from the town of Rifle. The I property is part of a private inholding encompassing approximately 960 acres within the White River National Forest. The complete legal description for the property is as follows: 1 T. 7 S., R. 94 W., 6th P.M. The Ideal Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Placer Mining Claims, being United States Mineral Survey 20357, as more I particularly described in the Patent No. 1037629, recorded 6/11/30, Reception No. 107261, Book 160, Page 466. (Portions of unsurveyed sections: 28, 29, 30, 32, 33). IThe property has not been surveyed recently, and the boundaries are not delineated by fencing. A brass cap at the section corner 1 between sections 19, 20, 29, and 30 in Township 7 south, Range 94 west was located as a reference point for the sale area. No other survey monuments were located. Refer to the Property Location Map 11 in the Appendix for a detailed description of the boundaries. B. Current Road Access IThe property is currently accessed from I-70 by paved county roads, a gravel road, and a rough dirt road. From I-70, 'approximately 4.6 miles are either paved or gravel road. The remaining 4.1 miles are currently 4 -wheel drive only, with several extremely rough sections of large boulders, stream crossings, and steep grades. Work is currently underway to I improve the existing road to minimum log truck standards. Refer to Section III of this plan for information on planned road improvements and construction. II C. Topography and Climate ' The Savage property lies along the north side of Battlement Mesa. Topography is benched to gently sloping as the terrain rises from the Colorado River on the north toward the relatively flat top of 11 Battlement Mesa to the south. The sale area has a fairly consistent slope of 15 to 20 percent. Theslopeigradually f ye increases to 40 to 50 percent on the upperp ' property. Elevation ranges from 7800 to 9800 feet Several intermittent and perennial drainages flow northward across the property, including Cache Creek. Two small ridges parallel these drainages. One of the most notable features on the 2 • • property is a series of long rock outcrops or basalt Theerockloutcropsvisible arefrom directlyrabove andatothe theRwestoexit. of the These r proposed harvest area. According to the soil survey published by Service, the average annual precipitation 30 inches, average annual air temperature and the frost -free period .is less than 75 snowfall is 200 to 300 inches. the Soil Conservation for this area is 20 to is about 40 degrees, days. Average annual D. Soils Soil information for this property was furnished by the White River National Forest. The soil type within the planned harvest area is described as the "Wetopa-Doughspon-Echemoor families complex, 5 to 40% slope". Typically, the surface layer is a dark gray silty clay loam under an aspen and forb covering. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more, and the depth to seasonal high water table is greater than 6 feet. Available water capacity is high, permeability is moderately slow, and runoff is moderate. Mass movement potential (landslides, debris flows, and snow avalanches) for this soil is low. Suitability for cut and fill slopes and improved unsurfaced roads is moderate due to fine grained material and low load bearing strength. Revegetation limitations are slight, since aspen regenerates naturally. E. Wildlife The aspen forests within the proposed harvest area provide important habitat for many species of wildlife. Wildlife sign noted on the property includes that of elk, mule deer, black bear, coyotes, porcupines, rabbits and other small rodents, and a variety of birds. The area seems especially well suited to raptors, as several red-tailed hawks were continually spotted in the same area. The riparian areas are well suited to beavers, with a good food source and running water. Old evidence of beaver dams can be seen in the major drainages, but no recent activity was evident. In the Rocky Mountains, the range of aspen coincides almost exactly with the range of elk; aspen is obviously a preferred habitat for this species. According to local Division of Wildlife personnel, this property is well suited as "transitional" range for elk, since it is too high for winter range and probably not high enough for true summer range use (Will, pers. comm.). As transitional range it is important as elk calving grounds, with the readily available forage under aspen, the cover of nearby dense fir stands above, and the available water from Cache Creek 3 II and its tributaries. The property is also seen as important summer range for deer. I An important concept in wildlife habitat is diversity. It is widely recognized that a diversity of vegetation supports a variety of wildlife species, with higher densities of each species. Many big game species, especially, prefer this "edge 1 effect" or diversity within their habitat. The ideal cover to forage ratio for a given area is 40% cover to 60% forage. On this property, the ratio is currently about 95% cover to 5% forage. ICache Creek and several other streams on the property have year- round running water. However, the flow is reduced to little more IIthan a trickle in late fall, and the streams are probably not capable of fish habitat in their current state. According to the Division of Wildlife, these streams might be able to support some I small fish like Brook trout, if some ponds were present. There are no known endangered plants or animals inhabiting the area. Occasional use by bald eagles is possible. Planned IIactivities would not cause any significant adverse impacts. F. Timber Types As determined by aerial photo imagery, approximately 898 out of the 960 total acres of the property are forested. Pure aspen I stands cover about 340 acres; mixed stands of Subalpine-fir, Engelmann spruce, and aspen occupy about 558 acres. II The various vegetative types are shown on the Vegetation Type Map in the Appendix, and are explained in more detail in the following sections. 1 ASPEN Aspen is the most widely distributed tree in North America. It II typically grows on all aspects and slope positions in the Rocky Mountains and is associated with montane and subalpine ecosystems between 7,000 and 11,500 feet elevation. Productivity and development of aspen in the Rockies is largely dependent upon I available water; typical aspen sites receive between 16 and 40 inches of precipitation per year (DeByle, 1985). This is II especially evident on this property, where oak brush on the lower slopes slowly gives way to aspen as the elevation and available water increases. r Aspen is normally a seral, or temporary, species and an aggressive invader following fire, avalanches, beaver activity in riparian areas, or major disturbances in coniferous stands. It is likely that the aspen on this property is the direct result of 11 fires that occurred in the area 100 to 150 years ago. Generally, 4 II II aspen will be slowly "invaded" over time by more shade -tolerant conifer species like spruce or fir. Aspen is relatively short- lived (clones over 120 years old are rare), and is difficult to 11 maintain in any particular stand condition for a long period of time. Aspen is a clonal species, with many stems growing from the same parent root system; thus all members of a clone are II genetically identical. Even in conifer stands with only a few aspen stems remaining, the aspen can be regenerated successfully if the root system is healthy and intact. I Aspen reproduces almost exclusively by suckering, where a number of stems are produced by sprouting from the single parent root system. This sprouting response is intensified by complete removal of the overstory, which will stimulate the root system to sprout. It is this characteristic that is most important in aspen management; in order to attain adequate regeneration, clearcutting or patch -cutting is the best method to use. The aspen clones on this property are fairly typical of Colorado aspen. It is evident from the timber cruise that the aspen clones II vary considerably in size, productivity, and density of the timber. The differences are the result of different growing site characteristics, as well as how much time has elapsed since the II clone was established. Overall site productivity can best be compared by looking at the Site Index, a correlation of age and height. The lower elevation, drier sites generally have a lower site index; even though trees will attain good diameter growth, Iheight growth is usually sacrificed on these poorer sites. The proposed aspen timber sale areas have only been partially II cruised. Available data is shown below for some of the cutting units. Before the sale is finalized, all cutting units will be cruised to at least ± 10% accuracy. This level of accuracy is the il standard for lump -sum, tree measurement sales. Please refer to the Proposed Sale Area Map in the Appendix for cutting unit locations. IISale Area Cruise (partial) Volume Volume Ave Ave Stems Ave IIUnit Acres Tons/Ac BdFt/Ac DBH HT_ BA LAcrg Age_ SI II 1 8.2 149.4 16,115 10.2 80 180 320 115 68 2 10.5 70.7 7,327 9.5 56 130 265 96 54 II5 11.5 52.7 4,251 9.5 53 98 199 86 56 Overall volume per acre on these cutting units is fair to excellent. The clone within cutting unit 1, in particular, has 5 1 1 excellent volume largely due to the exceptional height growth of the trees. Other cutting unit volumes are expected to be between 80 to 120 tons per acre. Cutting units are almost entirely aspen, with very few spruce or fir mixed in. II SPRUCE -FIR The Engelmann spruce -subalpine fir forest is widely distributed II throughout Colorado and generally occurs as the highest elevation forest type, normally extending to treeline. Subalpine fir is usually found in conjunction with Engelmann spruce and blue spruce, but occasionally forms pure stands. On this property, it II was noted that subalpine fir is the primary species represented in the spruce -fir mix. Typically, subalpine fir is the first to invade an aspen stand, then Engelmann spruce gradually becomes M established. The higher the percentage of Engelmann spruce, the older the stand. Spruce has established well within the drainages and on the higher elevations of the property. Subalpine fir was found to some degree in almost every aspen stand on the property. II In places it has completely replaced the aspen and has formed a climax stand; other fir stands have a much higher percentage of aspen. IIAs expected, some of these spruce -fir stands are considerably younger than the surrounding aspen, since the conifers are the more shade tolerant species. In other places, the spruce -fir II appears as a survivor of the fires that created the surrounding aspen. The spruce -fir stands are generally dense, with a high volume per acre. Subalpine fir is not a highly valued commercial II species, since the wood has a high moisture content and typically high defect from rot, and does not make good lumber. These stands make excellent thermal and hiding cover for. wildlife. Spruce I trees are highly regarded for sawlogs. The data below was collected from a single 50 acre stand of spruce -fir in the southeast corner of the property. It is IIprobably representative of other spruce -fir stands. Spruce -fir Cruise Data 1 BDFT/ CUFT/ AVE AVE BA/ AVE STEMS/ REGEN/ Species acre acre DBH HT ACRE AGE ACRE ACRE 11 Aspen 4,980 1,142 13.8 76 40 144 38 156 Spruce -fir 21,323 4,801 12.0 75 156 151 199 860 IIDead 3,050 711 11.6 73 24 - 33 - ilTotal 26,304 5,943 12.3 76 196 150 237 1016 6 II OTHER VEGETATION 11 About 21 acres of the property are covered with oakbrush. This is commonly a mixture of oak, serviceberry, and snowberry. There are also approximately 19 acres of small parks or grasslands scattered across the property. The remaining 23 acres are boulderfields. II. Proposed Silvicultural Treatments A. Objectives 11 The long term objectives for the property, as expressed by the landowner, are as follows: •To improve the wildlife habitat, especially for elk. •To improve the grazing capacity for cattle. •To provide revenue through a commercial timber sale. .Possible future ski area development. II B. Aspen Harvest A commercial aspen harvest is planned for the property in order to meet several of the landowner's objectives. Patch -cutting of II mature aspen in 5 to 20 acre cutting units is proposed. As discussed in section F above, clearcutting is the preferred silvicultural method used to regenerate aspen. A regeneration cut II will have the additional benefits of improved wildlife habitat, increased available forage for livestock,, and will provide a positive cash flow to the landowner as well as improving vehicle access to the area. Potential impacts of the proposed harvest are II discussed more thoroughly in Section VI of this plan. Aspen cutting units have been selected based on merchantability, 11 operability, and stand condition. Older, more decadent stands with signs of obvious decay were selected, as well as stands that had the best site potential. Younger, more vigorous standswereve II retained, as well as stands growing on more marginally p rosites. Size of cutting units varies from 7 to 16 acres. A total of 75 to 100 acres will be selected for cutting in the initial sale, out of the 340 acres of aspen available on the property. II Cutting units have been located so as to provide a mosaic pattern, maximizing the edge effect and leaving uncut strips between units and leave islands within hix ufnits.r Rlocation, size,er o aand I Proposed Sale Area Map in the App shape of cutting units. 7 1 411 !II The following guidelines should be followed for aspen patchcuts: • The boundaries of all cutting units will be well marked with paint. This will ensure irregular borders for maximum edge effect, provide area control for acreage and volume determination, and ensure that silvicu.ltural objectives are being 1 followed. • All stems should be cut within cutting units in order to maximize aspen regeneration, decrease slash loads, and prevent damage to the root system. Exceptions should be marked leave islands. •If aspen sprouting following cutting becomes so profuse as to limit cattle movement and forage production, the landowner may take subsequent actions to limit aspen regeneration. 1 •Harvest should be by whole tree skidding of merchantable logs. All material that is at least 6" diameter at the small end and 50% sound should be removed from the cutting unit. Remaining slash within the sale area should be lopped and scattered to less than 18" height. Slash within cutting units will thus be kept to a minimum. Landing slash should be piled and burned when 1 conditions allow. •Stump heights should not exceed 8" on the uphill side. •Patch -cuts should be located so as to avoid wet areas, seeps, and skidding over live or intermittent drainages. Perennial streams should have a buffer of at least 75 feet on each side of ' the high water line, where no heavy machinery is allowed to operate. •Harvesting operations should be limited to either summer or 1 winter, avoiding the wet seasons in spring and fall. •Perennial streams will have a buffer zone of at least 75 feet on 11 each side of the high water line. Heavy equipment is excluded from this zone. Within this zone, felling and tree removal will be allowed only by directional felling and winching of trees up from (not across) the riparian area. I C. Spruce -fir Harvest Future harvest of spruce• -fir stands on the property will be done either by patch -cutting, group selection, or the shelterwood I method. Patch -cutting should be used where there is an aspen component within the stand that has a viable root system, in order to regenerate aspen. Group selection and shelterwood II systems should be used where aspen is no longer a component in the stand. This plan covers only the aspen timber sale as 8 1 • • outlined above. Harvest of spruce -fir on the property is possible after the initial aspen sale is completed, and will be addressed through an addendum to this timber harvest. plan. III. Proposed Harvest Systems IA. Logging System It is anticipated that conventional tractor skidding will be used II on the initial aspen harvest. Rubber tired skidders are recommended to reduce damage to the aspen root system; these can be either grapple or cable skidders. It is also anticipated that II a tree shear will be used for felling trees. The shear can be either track -mounted or rubber tired. Hand felling may also be used. In any case, the trees should be whole tree skidded to II reduce the slash load within the cutting units. Winter logging has definite resource protection advantages, but may not be economically feasible due to snow removal costs. II B. Hauling System II The existing road system is described in Section I.B, above The expected haul route will be: Road Section Surface Milage rTop of sale area to County Road 301 dirt 5.2 1 County Road 301 gravel .6 County Road 301 to County Road 309 paved 1.5 ' County Road 309 to County Road 320 paved 1.5 County Road 320 to County Road 323 paved 2.5 11 County Road 323 to I-70 Rulison Exit paved .5 11 Total Milage to I-70 11.8 Currently, the driveable road ends in the large grassy park in II the SE corner of landowner's 160 acre parcel in section 20. An old road continues south from this point across a quarter mile section of the White River National Forest and then enters II landowner's private property and continues south. The existing road will be improved across the WRNF lands and a new road, entirely on the landowner's property, will be constructed to access the cutting units. The new road construction required to Iaccess the aspen timber sale is shown on the Proposed Timber Sale II 9 1 Area map in the Appendix. Minimum haul road standards are 14 foot width, with maximum adverse grade of 8%. Maximum favorable grade is 15%. Road base will be native material in most places, although it may be necessary to haul in gravel to cover some of the rockier stretches of this road. There are four new stream crossings that will be required on the new construction. These crossings should be at right angles to ' the streambed, and should consist of steel or ADS culverts at least 18" in diameter. Culverts should be placed on a 2 to 4% grade, should be covered with at least one foot of dirt, and an 1 apron of rock provided for outflow to spill on. There are approximately 2.1 miles of new road construction required to access the sale. The new road will be of the minimum ' standard necessary to remove logs, with very little road base or ditching. None of the new road constructed will be accessible to public use. Some of the unit access roads will be maintained 1 indefinately for access to subsequent cuts on upper portions of the property. Temporary spur roads may be necessary to access parts of the cutting units; these temporary roads will be rehabilitated by grading and seeding after the sale is completed. i Theaspen en sale will total approximately 7,000 to 8,000 tons. This p will amount to between 230 and 270 truckloads. At 2 to 4 loads per day, log hauling should be completed in 5 to 6 months. 11 IV. Proposed Rehabilitation Guidelines Rehabilitation of the sale area should be largely unnecessary. On II productive aspen sites such as the proposed sale area, natural regeneration is expected to be profuse and almost immediate. No replanting will be required. Landing slash will be piled for subsequent burning when conditions allow. Large landing areas, I temporary roads, and well used skid trails may require some grading and re -seeding with grass. 1 1 V. Schedule of Operations As mentioned previously, work has begun on road improvement of existing roads into the sale area. Road improvement across WRNF land and beyond will commence again in the spring of 1995 when snowmelt allows. Sale preparation has also been started on about half of the aspen cutting units. Harvest operations could begin as early as January 1995, with subsequent hauling after completion of the road system. This initial sale of 7,000 to 8,000 tons should take 2 years to complete. A second entry into the aspen type within 5 years is possible, and it is probable 10 Ithat additional aspen harvest in this area will be an adjunct to harvesting of spruce -fir stands. Subsequent sales in the spruce - fir timber type on this property will be evaluated as a separate tproject from this initial aspen sale. Only about 5-6 months of the year are typically available for 1 logging. Seasonal shut -downs of work are anticipated for spring runoff in April -June, elk calving season in June, and possibly for the big game hunting seasons in October and early November. Heavy snows typically limit logging operations from January 1 to the end of March. Logging and hauling are least damaging inthe early to mid winter months of November and December, when the ground is frozen and before snow removal costs are prohibitive. 1 VI. Potential Impacts and Planned Mitigation A. Soil and Water Resources The proposed treatment will improve the watershed value of the I area with increased yields of one-third to one-half acre-foot of water for each acre of aspen treated . The increased water collection will provide benefits for ten to twenty years as the Iaspen forest rapidly regrows (DeByle, 1985). Any increased sediment production may be attributed to poor road I design rather than aspen treatment. The matted root system and vigorous sprouting of a regenerating aspen stand ensure soil stability on the moderate slopes planned for treatment. Water degradation is unlikely with the proposed treatment. ILogging operations or road building on unstable soils with high mass movement potential could trigger surface displacement associated with steep slopes. There is no history of slumping, Imass movement, or known indicators of unstable soils in the proposed sale area. Available soils information for the area indicates that mass movement potential is low, and slopes within I the sale area are well below 40%. Logging and road construction have been carefully planned to I avoid steep slopes, wet areas, or suspected unstable soils. Mitigation measures will include prompt revegetation of disturbed areas, road drainage systems with proper culvert placement, and I stabilization of cut/fill slopes. B. Recreation and Aesthetics ISince the sale area is located on private lands, public recreational opportunities are not available. The proposed timber I sale will improve the vehicle access for the landowner or any hunters allowed on the property. Elk and deer may be temporarily 1 11 • • displaced from the area during logging and hauling operations. Mitigation will involve shutting down harvest operations during the elk calving season in May and June, and also during the fall big game hunting seasons in October and early November. Parts of the sale area are visible (at a distance of about 8 miles) from Interstate highway 70. The area is low -slope, background scenery from the Interstate. The size and shape of the cutting units will duplicate natural, existing openings nearby. Aspen regeneration will quickly provide a forested landscape within a few years. Experience in San Miguel county has shown that visitors cannot distinguish between natural and recent. openings created by aspen harvesting, if the openings have irregular edges. C. Wildlife Habitat and Range Values One of the main objectives in treating the aspen on the property is to improve the elk and deer habitat. As mentioned previously, the proposed timber sale will help create optimum feeding and cover requirements for these big game as well as a variety of other wildlife species. The aspen sprouts and associated herbage that invade clearcuts are heavily used by elk herds. These openings have been designed for adequate regeneration to accommodate heavy elk impact without jeopardizing formation of new aspen stands. Layout of openings using irregular perimeters and leave islands in the larger cutting units will also increase wildlife utilization. These openings will create a diversity of age classes in the aspen on the property. Such forest stand age diversity greatly benefits a wide variety of wildlife. Immediately following an aspen harvest, understory vegetation may increase by 300 to 400 pounds per acre over pre-treatment levels, due to reduced competition from the aspen overstory (Johnston, 1985). Most of this increase is in grasses and forbs that are palatable to cattle and other grazers. This increase is relatively short-lived; within 5 years, the area will usually be producing about the same amount of forage as before harvest. The aspen cutting units are expected to sprout vigorously following harvest. Aspen sprouting is variable, depending on the aspen clone genetics, parent aspen stand age and condition, climate, and soil conditions. Research indicates between 15,000 to 50,000 aspen sprouts per acre is typical within two years of harvesting. Movement of wildlife and domestic livestock may be reduced through thick sapling stands. Fortunately, aspen self --thin, beginning at an early age. A 50 to 75% reduction in density is typical within a few years. Aspen is 12 I very intolerant of shade, and those aspen suckers that fall behind in growth are quickly overtopped by surrounding stems. 1 D. Fire Protection I As with all private land in Colorado, responsibility for fire control on this property ultimately lies with the County Sheriff. The property is outside of any local fire protection district. The nearest fire district is Rifle, one mile north. The entire I parcel is within a mile of US Forest Service land, thus it is within a mutual aid zone for the first burning period. Initial response to a wildfire on the property would likely be by the I Rifle Fire Protection District and US Forest Service personnel. Following the initial burning period, the Garfield County Sheriff, assisted by the Colorado State Forest Service, would have to determine the resources needed to control a fire, and how Ito pay for them. The aspen timber type is typically low in fire hazard. Aspen I timber does not readily burn; fires are usually confined to the ground vegetation and are of low intensity. Cache Creek and its tributaries offer easy access to water for firefighting in many II places on the property. The proposed timber sale activity on this property will increase the risk of fire somewhat due to the operation of chainsaws and heavy equipment. The risk will be mitigated by requiring operational spark arrestors on all I chainsaws, and by requiring a minimum of one shovel and one fire extinguisher for each piece of equipment on the sale. Improving the road will also improve the access for firefighting vehicles, I not only on this property but on surrounding lands. The presence of heavy equipment such as bulldozers and skidders to suppress a fire, whether natural or man -caused, is beneficial. A timber sale agreement will specify that contractors working on the property I are liable for the cost of suppressing any wildfire that they start. The sale agreement will also specify that the landowner may shut down operations if the fire danger is high. E. Impact on Neighboring Landowners and Communities ILand in close proximity (within a mile) to this property is entirely undeveloped. The proposed on-site logging activity is not expected to impact neighbors at all. There will be a short I term increase in traffic along the proposed haul route on Holms Mesa, with a resultant increase in noise and some dust along a 1/2 mile section of gravel road. Creation of road dust along the I proposed haul route may impact one resident. Mitigation will include water or dust control chemicals and prevailing natural winds away from the house. If dust impacts become a problem further mitigation by limiting the number of loads per day and/or Ithe speed of haul trucks may be necessary. 1 13 II There is currently a strong market for aspenproducts in the of timber in area. The US Forest Service is the main supplier this region, and aspen sale offerings by the Forest Service have I dropped dramatically in recent years. Harvest of timber on the property will help support the local timber industry and will create jobs for logging contractors, truckers, and mill workers 1 in local communities. II VII. Enforcement of Timber Harvest Plan Enforcement of on-site logging operations will bethe the responsibility of the landowner, or an agent designated by II landowner as sale administr. sale A Forest,,ProductslSalesr items es Agreement shall govern the erfo�rmance bonds, damage such as sale period, payment terms, p penalty, performance standards, and arbitration. A sample copy of IIa standard sale agreement is included in the appendix. Enforcement of permits required for hauling logs on US Forest 11Service land, county roads, or state highways will be the responsibility of the appropriate jurisdictional agency involved. 1 1 1 1 14 • • VIII. References 1. Davidson, Dennis: District Conservationist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; personal communication. 2. DeByle, Norbert V., and Robert P. Winokur, editors. 1985. Aspen: Ecology and Management in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM -119, 283 p., Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 3. Harman, Jerry B., and Donald J. Murray. 1977. Soil Survey of Rifle Area, Colorado. U.S.. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 149 p. 4. Johnston, Barry C.. 1985. Examples of Aspen Treatment, Succession, and Management in Western Colorado. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 164 p. 5. Will, Perry: District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife: personal communication. 15 SAVAGE PROPERTY • Property Location Map scale: 1/2 II = 1 mile littE IDE an ALE ME ES RLBURT 11 Flat'ron • W/ Jack Pock 31 6 Cre Oil Shale ithdrawal c Pei (� TE reek3 PEE "rib 111411 1 u South Mamm P SRI • ELS _`Wwr o RESVR. /1. Oil Shale eM Windy Point Hells Hole ONE 13 RAW • TOW • • SAVA L �R pi- RTY Vegetation Type Map scale = 124.000 Key: jAspen X x x X < XXX x x x x KXXX Spruce -fir ❑akbrush H �X x x'w • x 1� XX x x )� x x X x XXX X x XIS x x x x x x , x X X X x x x x x x x x x x X x x X x XX x x X x X x x XX x - - x X x x x X + - x XX x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x XX X x X x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X XXX XX x X X X x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x XXX x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xJxxxxx X XXXXXX XX K x x x x x itti, �x x xx x x x x x x x x xx x x xxx x x x x K x x x x x xx x x x x x xx x x xx xxxxxx x xX X x x x X x x x x X xx x x xx xxxx xx x x x x ��'x x x x x X X x xX / XXXX x x x x x x x X X 1f11� x Y Y Y x x x x x x x x Meadow dock 1 Pr6posed Timber' Sot V • IHJ 00 D 9405 Cutting Units Existing - octc Txi stinc Tro.il. Pr'oDerty Boundary P opose �oac 8800 " W I -i 1 T E R I V ER • r7 u 99j3�_�J 9� �O NATIpNAL Sij /0400 /i 1 � j04oOi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • SAMPLE FOREST PRODUCTS SALES AGREEMENT SALE NUMBER THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 19_, by and between who resides at hereinafter referred to as the LANDOWNER, and whose place of business is , phone , hereinafter referred to as the PURCHASER. AGENT DESIGNATION: The Colorado State Forest Service, Grand Junction District, is designated as Sale Administrator for the purposes of overseeing on- site logging operations, payments, and compliance with other contract specifications, and has power-of-attorney for these purposes. RIGHT TO SELL: The LANDOWNER warrants that he/she is the owner of, and has the authority to sell the forest products covered by this agreement from the property located at: section , township , range principal meridian, County, Colorado. SALE LOCATION: The boundaries of the sale area are marked as follows: Cutting units are marked with double blue horizontal paint marks facing into cutting units, as set forth in Exhibit , which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, the same as if set forth in full. SALE PERIOD: The effective dates of this agreement will be from to , inclusive, and may be extended by mutual agreement of both parties per AGREEMENT MODIFICATION section. ACCESS: The LANDOWNER grants to the PURCHASER access to the above described property for the purposes of this agreement. Access will be via DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT SOLD: PRODUCT NUMBER SOLD UNIT UNIT PRICE PRODUCT VALUE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • . TOTAL SALE VALUE $ PRODUCT DESIGNATION: The products sold are designated in the following manner: Any cutting outside the designated areas will constitute a breach of this agreement and will immediately terminate this contract. VOLUME DETERMINATION: The sale volume is to be or has been determined in the following manner: This is a lump sum sale. There is no stated or implied guarantee of recovery by the PURCHASER. Volume determination was done by the Colorado State Forest Service using accepted timber cruising techniques and tables for this region. The cruise was done to a ±10% limit of error using standard statistical sampling techniques. PAYMENT TERMS: Prior to harvesting or removing any forest product from a cutting unit the PURCHASER shall pay for, in advance, for the estimated volume in that unit at the agreed upon rate ($ ). Acceptable methods of payment are cash, or certified funds. All slash treatments and other provisions of this agreement will be fulfilled prior to the PURCHASER receiving approval from the Sale Administrator to pay for and move into another cutting unit. In all cases the PURCHASER shall pay for the estimated volume in each cutting unit prior to beginning cutting in that unit. The LANDOWNER guarantees the PURCHASER exclusive rights to the timber within designated cutting units on the property described in Exhibit A, as long as the provisions of this agreement are being followed. PERFORMANCE BONDS: A performance bond in the amount of ($ 20% of total sale value) shall be deposited by the PURCHASER upon signing of this agreement. The bond shall be in the form of cash or certified funds. The bond shall be used, in part or in full, to correct deficiency in any work not completed to agreement specifications. The bond or its balance will be released to PURCHASER promptly upon satisfactory completion or termination of this agreement. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • DAMAGE PENALTY: The PURCHASER shall conduct all operations in a workman -like manner, and shall take necessary precautions to protect the remaining forest stand. Excessive damage to the remaining forest, as determined by the Sale Administrator, or the removal of undesignated products will be paid for at the rate of 810.00 per tree. PRODUCT OWNERSHIP: Change of ownership of the purchased products covered by this agreement occurs when logs leave the LANDOWNER'S property. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: Existing roads will be used whenever possible. Additional roads, skid trails, landings and decks that are required will be approved in advance, and located, constructed, and rehabilitated as required by the sale administrator. All roads and trails will be maintained by the PURCHASER in their original condition. Care will be taken to maintain drainage necessary to prevent erosion prior to and during hauling of products. All permanent improvements installed as a part of this agreement will remain the property of the LANDOWNER. Stumps will be cut as close to the ground as possible but in no circumstances will the stump height exceed eight inches as measured on the uphill side. Slash shall be lopped and scattered to a height not to exceed 18 inches. All forest products that are at least 100 inches long and four inches in diameter inside the bark on the small end, and fifty percent sound shall be removed from the property by the PURCHASER. The PURCHASER will take all necessary precautions to prevent damage to improvements on the property of the LANDOWNER. If damage occurs to any improvement the PURCHASER will restore the improvement to its original condition and will bear all costs associated with the repair The PURCHASER will exercise all possible precautions to prevent wildfire, and shall assist in the suppression of any fire that is on or threatening the property of the LANDOWNER. During the fire season the PURCHASER will have the following firefighting tools located on the sale site: one shovel for each worker on the site, and one fire extinguisher for each chainsaw and motorized equipment on the site. All motorized equipment will be equipped with an operational spark arrester. The PURCHASER shall bear the cost of suppression and damages caused by fire starting as a result of any action of the PURCHASER, including those of its employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • The LANDOWNER may suspend or limit the harvest operation of the PURCHASER if excess damage is occurring due to mud, snow, etc. The PURCHASER will provide trash containers on each landing of the sale area. Trash will be kept picked up at all times and hauled from the site on a weekly basis. Other logging requirements are: Operations begun on any cutting unit shall be completed in accordance with this agreement before cutting may begin on another unit, unless such cutting is authorized in writing by the Sale Administrator. No oil, gas, or similar material shall be drained onto the ground. No oil, gas, or similar material shall be drained within 100 feet of a live stream. No concentrations of logging equipment of any kind shall be permitted within 100 feet of live streams. Skidding across live streams or drainages shall be done only upon written permission of the Sale Administrator. Gates entering the property shall be kept closed and locked at all times. No firearms shall be permitted on the property. INHERENT DANGERS: The LANDOWNER is informing the PURCHASER that the following physical hazards are located on the property and may not be obvious: SUBCONTRACTING: This agreement, or any interest therein, may not be assigned by the PURCHASER without prior, written consent of the LANDOWNER. LAW COMPLIANCE: The PURCHASER agrees to comply with all of the laws, rules, and regulations of the State of Colorado and its subdivisions. AGREEMENT TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement of both parties or upon receipt of written notice from the LANDOWNER to the PURCHASER for noncompliance by the PURCHASER. Specific noncompliance items shall be listed in said written notice. All prepayments and products will revert to the LANDOWNER. AGREEMENT MODIFICATION: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 • • This agreement may be modified in writing by mutual consent of both parties. ARBITRATION CLAUSE: In case of a dispute over the terms of this agreement both the LANDOWNER and the PURCHASER agree to accept the decision of a three- person arbitration board as final. The LANDOWNER and the PURCHASER will each select one person for the arbitration board, with the selected people selecting the third person to form the board. Decision by majority of such arbitrators will be made within fifteen days and shall be binding on the LANDOWNER and the PURCHASER. HOLD HARMLESS: The PURCHASER shall indemnify and save harmless the LANDOWNER against all suits or actions of every kind and nature brought against the LANDOWNER for or on account of any injuries or damages received or sustained by any person, firm, or corporation in connection with, or on account of, the performance of the work under this agreement, or by any consequence of any negligence in connection with the same, or on account of any act or omission or commission of the PURCHASER or his subcontractors, agents, servants, or employees, or for any cause arising out of the performance of the subcontractors, agents, servants, or employees relating to this agreement. The LANDOWNER shall indemnify and save harmless the PURCHASER against all suits or actions of every kind and nature brought against the PURCHASER for or on account of any injury or damage received or sustained by any person, firm, or corporation in connection with, or on account of, the performance of the LANDOWNER'S obligations under this agreement, or by any consequence of any negligence in connection with the same, or on account of any act or omission or commission of the LANDOWNER or his subcontractors, agents, servants, or employees, or for any cause arising out of the performance of the subcontractors, agents, servants, or employees relating to this agreement. BINDING ON HEIRS: The terms and conditions of this agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, or successors and assignee of either party. LANDOWNER DATE 1 PURCHASER DATE 1 1 SAVAGE, JOAN L. • • FLPMA PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT Page 2 C. Upon change in ownership of the land or facility served by this road, the rights granted under this easement may be transferred to the new owner upon written notification to the Forest Supervisor. D. This easement shall continue for as long as needed for the management and harvesting of the natural resources on the Grantee's land served by this road; Provided, That the Grantor shall review the terms and conditions of this easement at the end of each 30 -year period from the date of issuance, and may incorporate in the easement such new terms, conditions, and stipulations as existing or prospective conditions may warrant. These shall have the same force and effect in the future as if incorporated in this grant. E. All construction or reconstruction of the road shall be in accordance with plans, specifications, and written stipulations approved by the Grantor prior to beginning such construction or reconstruction. F. Grantee shall have the right to cut timber upon the easement area to the extent necessary for maintaining the road. Timber so cut shall, unless otherwise agreed to, be cut into standard log lengths or other products as specified by the authorized officer and decked along the road for disposal by the owner of such timber. G. The Grantee shall maintain the right-of-way clearing by means of chemicals only after the Grantor has given specific written approval. Application for such approval must be in writing and must specify the time, method, chemicals, and the exact portion of the right-of-way to be chemically treated. H. The Grantee shall provide maintenance so that there is no damage on adjacent National Forest land. The Grantee shall construct and maintain lead-off drainage and water barriers as necessary to prevent erosion. I. Grantee shall pay annually in advance a sum determined by the Forest Service to be the fair market value of the use authorized by this easement. The initial payment is set at $ fee waived in exchange for reciprocal right-of-way, 36 CFR 251.57(b) (5) for the remainder of the calendar year. Payments for each subsequent calendar year shall be the amount of $ fee waived 36 CFR 251.57(b) (5) adjusted using the Implicit Price Deflator -Gross National Product index (IPD-GNP), or other factor selected by the Forest Service, to reflect more nearly the current fair -market value of the use. At intervals to be determined by certain changes in the indexes used to establish the linear rights-of-way fee schedule, the fee shall be reviewed and adjusted as necessary to assure that it is commensurate with the value of the rights and privileges authorized. Failure of the Grantee to pay the annual payment, late charges, or other fees or charges shall cause the easement to terminate. Grantee shall pay an interest charge on any fee amount not paid by the payment due date.. Interest shall be assessed using the most current rate prescribed by the United States Department of Treasury Financial Manual (TFM-6-8020). Interest shall accrue from the date the fee payment was due. In addition, certain processing and handling administrative costs may be assessed in the event the account becomes delinquent and added to the amounts due. SAVAGE, JOAN L. • FLPMA PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT Page 3 A penalty of 6 percent per year shall be assessed on any fee amount overdue in excess of 90 days from the due date of the first billing. Payments will be credited on the date received by the designated collection officer or deposit location. If the due date(s) for any of the above payments or fee calculation statements fall on a nonworkday, the charges shall not apply until the close of business of the next workday. J. This easement shall terminate in the event an easement is granted subsequently by the United States to a public road agency for operation of this road as a public highway. K. Grantee shall pay the United States for all injury, loss, or damage, including fire suppression costs, in accordance with existing Federal and State laws. L. Grantee shall indemnify the United States for any and all injury, loss, or damage, including fire suppression costs the United States may suffer as a result of claims, demands, losses, or judgments caused by the Grantee's use or occupancy under this easement. M. Upon termination of this easement, the Grantee shall remove within a reasonable time the structures and improvements and shall restore the site to a condition satisfactory to the Grantor, unless otherwise waived in writing. If the Grantee fails to remove the structures or improvements within a reasonable period, as determined by the Grantor, the Grantor may remove and dispose of any improvements and restore the area and all costs shall be paid by the Grantee. If the Grantor waives the removal of the improvements and restoration of the site, all improvements shall become the property of the United States. The foregoing notwithstanding, this easement is granted subject to the following reservations by Grantor, for itself, its permittees, contractors, and assignees: 1. The right to cross and recross the road at any place by any reasonable means and for any purpose in such manner as will not interfere unreasonably with Grantee's use of the road. 2. The right to all timber now or hereafter growing on the right-of-way, subject to Grantee's right to cut such timber as herein provided. 3. The right alone to extend rights and privileges for use of the road constructed on the premises to other users, provided that nonfederal users shall bear a fair share of the current replacement cost less depreciation of the road and shall reconstruct the road as necessary to accommodate their use. 4. The Grantor reserves the right to use or authorize the use of the road by other Federal agencies, without cost other than the performance or payment, as it may elect, for its proportionate share of maintenance costs. 5. The Grantor retains the right to occupy and use the right-of-way, and to issue or grant rights-of-way for other land uses, for other than road purposes, upon, over, under, and through the easement area provided that the occupancy and use do not interfere unreasonably with the rights granted herein. 411 • FLPMA PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT Page 4 6. The right to terminate this easement if the Grantor assumes jurisdiction and control of the road as a Forest Development Road and issues a replacement easement providing only for use of the road. The replacement easement shall be in the current standard format, which provides the Grantee the right to use the road for the purposes and for the period authorized by this easement, subject to such traffic control regulations and rules as Grantor may impose reasonably upon or require of other users of the road without unreasonably reducing the rights herein granted. The Grantor may take action to suspend, revoke, or terminate this easement under the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudicatory Administrative Proceedings Instituted by the Secretary Under Various Statutes in 7 CFR 1.130-1.151. An administrative proceeding is not required when the easement terminates on the occurrence of a fixed or agreed-upon condition, event, or time. SAVAGE, JOAN L. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor, by its Forest Supervisor, Forest Service, has executed this easement pursuant to the delegation of authority by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Conservation, the delegation of authority by the Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Conservation, to the Chief, Forest Service, 7 CFR 2.60, and the delegation of authority by the Chief, Forest Service, dated August 16, 1982, (47 FR 36465), to the Regional Forester of each Forest Service Region under authority of Title V of the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 (U.S.C. 1761, et seq.), on the day and year first above written, and the delegation of authority by the Regional Forester to the Forest Supervisor under authority of letter of Delegation of Authority dated May 24, 1994. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOREST SUP VISOR White River National Forest Forest Service Department of Agriculture CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF COLORADO SS: COUNTY OF GARFIELD /D-Za•-95 Date The fore of acknowledged.�L g g instrument was before me this 2d day of 195:, by Ve46 L.a..Sai j j.a-- Witness my hand and official seal. AS. I Notarylic 4 My Commission Expires 57 19 V .�PRY.PU I DENNIS J. MOUTAND j `i 0 FOF CD`" .SAVAGE, JOAN L. •110 FLPMA PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT Page 5 Public reporting burden for this collection of information, if requested, is estimated to average 1 hour per response for annual financial information; average 1 hour per response to prepare or update operation and/or maintenance plan; average 1 hour per response for inspection reports; and an average of 1 hour for each request that may include such things as reports, logs, facility and user information, sublease information, and other similar miscellaneous information requests. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Agriculture, Clearance Officer, OIRM, AG Box 7630, Washington D.C. 20250; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB # 0596-0082), Washington, D.C. 20503. ACCEPTANCE This easement is accepted subject to all terms and conditions. Date: 2-�I an L. Savage, Grantee iOAN L. SAVAGE ROAD EASEMENT EXHIBIT A I Scale .5 mile 1 mile THE RIFLE HOUSE 201 RAILROAD P.O. BOX 1926 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 February 15, 1995 JOHN W. SAVAGE, JR ATTORNEY AT LAW Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Sirs: 10,1 4 , ,, 1i1 FEB 1 6 i99Pi HOI�D , . hr a:eL.1.J ,,,briY 03) 625-1470 03) 625-0803 Re: Special Use Permit Applicant: Joan L. Savage Activity/location: Timber harvesting, Cache Creek Our file No.: 017.004 (GARCO SUP) Enclosed is the original of a Timber Harvest Plan drafted by the Colorado State Forest Service. This was one of the contin- gencies for issuance of the subject Special Use Permit. We expect to receive the U.S. Forest Service right-of-way permit shortly which will complete the requirements for issuance of the permit. Enclosure xc: Joan L. Savage w/o encl. Roy Savage w/o encl. Marshall Savage w/o encl. Dan Savage w/o encl. s, SEP Q. 1 41, Ci1FLG COUNTY FOREST SERVICE State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone (303) 248-7325 September 1, 1994 Mr. John Savage P.O. Box 1926 Rifle, CO 81650 Dear Mr. Savage, Enclosed is a copy of the Logging Plan outline as agreed upon by Garfield County Planning Dept. This outline was presented for discussion at an August 23, 1994 meeting in Rifle with members of the High Sierra Corp., which is planning to do some timber harvesting in the Rifle watershed. Not all factors may need to be addressed for every proposal, and certainly some may be addressed by "not applicable" or very briefly. The more sensitive the area in terms of off-site impacts, and the larger the project, the more detail on the various factors would likely be required by the Garfield Co. Planning Dept. The Colorado State Forest Service and many professional consultant foresters would be able to develop a qualifying plan for private landowners. The Garfield Co. Planning Dept. has asked us to be the review agency for forest management plans involving logging on private lands. Kelly Rogers of our office has been working with you on the forest management plans you have for your property and we would like to continue that relationship if that is your desire. The next step would be to sign a service agreement between you and CSFS to define and schedule the setting up of a 100 acre aspen timber sale that has been mentioned; if you want to continue with that plan. Sincerely, John Denison District Forester Lark Bean, Director, Garfield Co. Planning Dept. JOHN W. SAVAGE, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW THE RIFLE HOUSE 201 RAILROAD P.O. BOX 1926 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 October 24, 1995 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PHONE: (303) 625-1470 FAX: (303) 625-0803 6ARAELD COUNTY Re: Special Use Permit Applicant: Joan L. Savage Activity/location: Timber Harvest, Cache Creek Our file No.: 017.004 (GARCO SUP) Dear Mr. Bean: We have finally obtained the USFS Private Road Easement, copy enclosed, which was the final condition to the Special Use Permit approved 9/6/94. Please issue the Special Use Permit. If you prefer that I prepare a draft permit for your review and comment, please send me a sample Special Use Permit to work from. Enclosure xc: w/o encl: Joan L. Savag Roy Savage Marshall Savage Dan Savage ly you U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT Act of October 21, 1976 (PL 94-579); 36 CFR 251.50, et seq Holder No. 5 5 5 6-0 1 Type Site 7 5 2 411 FS -2700-9j (01/93) OMB No. 0596-0082 (Expires: 06/30/96) Issue Date Expir. Date 10 /20 /95 10 /20 /25 Authority 6 7 6 Region/Forest/District 0 2/ 1 5/ 0 8 Auth. Type _ 10 _ State/County 0 8/ 0 4 5 Cong. Dista Latitude Longitude 0 3 1 3 9-2 3-3 0 1 0 7-5 4-3 0 1 THIS EASEMENT, dated this 20th day of October States of America, acting by and through the Forest Service, Department of ed Agriculture, hereinafter called Grantor, to Joan L. Savage an individual of the State of Colorado , hereinafter called Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantee has applied for a grant of an easement under the Act of October 21, 1976 (90 Stat. 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1761), for a road over certain lands or assignable easements owned by the United States in the County of Garfield , State of Colorado , and administered by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. NOW THEREFORE, Grantor, for and in consideration of a recipricol easement across the Grantee's land, does hereby grant to Grantee, subject to existing easements and valid rights, a nonexclusive easement for use of a road, along and across a strip of land, over and across the following described lands in the County of Garfield , State of Colorado : The location of said easement is shown approximately on exhibit A attached hereto. It is located within T.7 S., R.94 W., Sec. 20. Said easement shall be 30 feet on each side of the centerline with such additional width as required for accommodation and protection of cuts and fills. If the road is located substantially as described herein, the centerline of said road as constructed is hereby deemed accepted by Grantor and Grantee as the true centerline of the easement granted. This grant is made subject to the following terms, provisions, and conditions applicable to Grantee, its permittees, contractors, assignees, and successors in interest. A. Grantee shall comply with applicable Federal or State law and shall comply with State standards for public health and safety, environmental protection, and siting, construction, operation, and maintenance of or for rights-of-way for similar purposes, if those standards are more stringent than applicable Federal standards. B. The rights herein conveyed do not include the right to use the road for access to developments for short- or long-term residential purposes, unless and until the Grantor and the Grantee agree upon traffic control regulations, rules, and other provisions to accommodate such use of the road. • • JOHN W. SAVAGE, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW THE RIFLE HOUSE 201 RAILROAD P.O. BOX 1926 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 December 17, 1998 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Dept. 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PHONE: (970) 625-1470 FAX: (970) 625-0803 1' DE Re: Special Use Permit, Resolution No. 94-111 Applicant: Joan L. Savage Activity/location: Timber Harvest, Cache Creek Our file No.: 017.004 (GARCO SUP) Dear Mr. Bean: Per recent discussions with Garfield County Road and Bridge Department, enclosed is a new Bond in the amount of $225,000.00 per paragraph 8 of the conditions of said Special Use Permit. The amount of this bond was calculated pursuant to the re- vised Garfield County Road Bond Schedule. We have been advised by Garfield County Road & Bridge that the weight limits on CR 320 and CR 323 to Rulison Bridge have been reclassified to 80,0001bs., therefore overweight permits will not be required. To eliminate the road use issues that arose during K&K Lumber's operations, we built a private road between Cache Creek and Spruce Creek and will therefore be able to avoid log hauling on CR 309 and 301. The new log haul route will intersect CR 329 (Spruce Creek Road south of the maintained section of that road and will then follow Spruce Creek Road (dirt/gravel surface) to CR 320 (asphalt) and then west to CR 309 intersection and continuing on CR 320 to CR 323 and the Rulison Bridge and State Hwy. 6 & 24 and I-70. We calculate the road bonding amount as follows: GRAVEL CHIP/SEAL ASPHALT CR 329 (from gate south) 9,000' CR 320 to CR 309 4,500' CR 320 from CR 309-323 14,000' CR 323 to Hwy. 6 2,000' 23,000' 6,500' John W. Savage letter to Mark Bean, GARCO PTan.Dept. Re: Joan L. Savage Special Use Permit Road Bond December 17, 1998; 2 of 3. 23,000'/5280 (4.35miles) @ $10,000/mile = 6500'/5280 (1.23miles) @ $145,000/mile = • $43,500 $174,000 $217,500 We request that the Special Use Permit me amended to reflect the following circumstances (para. nos. correspond to those in Resolution No. 94-111): 3. Amend to the following: Except during periods when pri- vate or county roads are subject to thawing during the day, all timber hauling on County Roads be on Monday through Friday, be- tween the hours of 7 a.m to 7 p.m. During periods when private or county haul routes are thawing later in the day, hauling peri- ods on County Roads shall be limited to 5 a.m to 1 p.m. During periods of hard freeze up, hauling may be conducted seven days a week for a maximum of 14 consecutive days. REASONS FOR AMENDMENT: During periods when private or county roads are thawing during the day, in order to get two loads hauled out a day we need to start earlier so that the second load can be on pavement by 11:00 am or 12:00 at the latest. The local supply of log hauling trucks is limited and they need to be able to make two round trips a day to mills in the Delta/Montrose area. This will entail some early morning disturbance, but it will be limited to those times when we have wet and thawing con- ditions, an infrequent occurrence. For the few weeks in the win- ter when road conditions are ideal, i.e. hard frozen without thawing, we can limit the hauling to day time hours, but need 78 days a week for short periods. We are trying to do most of hauling in the winter to avoid road and environmental damage, limit dust, and avoid higher traf- fic times, summer and fall (no timber harvesting is allowed dur- ing big game hunting seasons). Road conditions will also pro- hibit operations for a substantial period in spring and early summer. These factors already substantially limit the times when logs can be hauled, therefore we need to take full advantage of the limited hauling days we have available. 4. Amend the haul route to CR 329 to CR 320 to CR 323. This altered route will eliminate loaded trucks from CR 309 and 301, roads with higher traffic volumes, design limitations, and many more residences than the new route. John W. Savage letter to Mark Bean, GARCO Plan.Dept. • Re: Joan L. Savage Special Use Permit Road Bond December 17, 1998; 3 of 3. 8. Amend to reflect the new road bond schedule, route, and substitution of a Bond for a Letter of Credit. In all other respects the existing Timber Harvest Plan re- mains in effect. Additional cutting units, in conformance with the Timber Harvest Plan, will be designated as work progresses. Please advise if any additional information is required. Enclosure xc: w/encl: Joan L. Savag Roy Savage Kelly Rogers (CSFS) my yours, hn W. Sav e 0 1%11 NORWEST BANKS 11111 11\/1 December 18, 1996 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ,',cut D Arnold D gurX Y 0 Marian Awl Art .1 • Norwest Bank Colorado, N.A. Rifle 1542 Railroad Avenue P.O. Box 752 Rifle, CO 81650-0752 970/625-3223 RECEIVED DEC; ? 3 1996 G.ARFIELD COUNTY COMr,,AI;;SICNFrr-, Dear County Commissioners: Please be advised that Letter of Credit #145, issued December 6, 1995 with an expiration date of December 6, 1996 for Joan L. Savage is hereby extended to December 6, 1997. All terms and conditions of the above referenced letter remain the same. Sincerely, Lillian L. Dahlin Business Banker b. MN NORWEST BANKS NEM II 71111 December 18, 1996 L Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 tis rte Arnold } G Buc'ki'1 I C 9i arisri AIS Norwest Bank Colorado, N.A. Rifle 1542 Railroad Avenue P.O. Box 752 Rifle, CO 81650-0752 970/625-3223 RECEIVED DEC 2 3 1996 G4RFIELD COUNTY COMMl;>SiC NE;:'-, Dear County Commissioners: Please be advised that Letter of Credit #145, issued December 6, 1995 with an expiration date of December 6, 1996 for Joan L. Savage is hereby extended to December 6, 1997. All terms and conditions of the above referenced letter remain the same. Sincerely, Lillian L. Dahlin Business Banker • yo • SPECIAL USE PERMIT BOND Permit Holder: Joan L. Savage Resolution No. 94-111 Cache Creek Timber Harvest Bond No.: FS 3 97 45 47 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That the Undersigned Joan L. Savage, as Principal, and GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY as Surety are held and firmly bound unto GARFIELD COUNTY, Colorado as obligee in the penal sum of TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND 001100--($225,000.00)—DOLLARS for the payment of which, well and truly to be made the said Principal and the said Surety, bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, the Principal has obtained a Special Use Permit for natural resource extractions (commercial logging operation); and WHEREAS, said Special Use Permit requires Principal to provide financial security based on the number of County Road miles traveled by log hauling trucks. NOW, THEREFORE, if the principal shall faithfully perform its duties under the terms of the permit, then this obligation shall be null and void, otherwise to remain in full force and effect. PROVIDED, that if the Surety shall so elect, this bond may be canceled as to subsequent liability by giving (30) days notice in writing to both the Principal and Obligee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and Surety have hereunto set their hands and seals on the dates set forth below. Date: / e • ncipal, Joan L. Sa, 'ge, by John W. Savag , Attorney n fa y GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY Date: DECEMBER 11, 1998 Surety Vis() it By:. • 4MARG RET IUFFMAN , Attorney in fact GIRT ANNERICCN INSURANCE COMPANY 580 WALNUT STREET • CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202 • 513-369-5000 • FAX 513-723-2740 The number of persons authorized by this power of attorney is not more than No. 013678 EIGHT POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint the person or persons named below its true and lawful attorney-in-fact, for it and in its name, place and stead to execute in behalf of the said Company, as surety, any and all bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship, or other written obligations in the nature thereof; provided that the liability of the said Company on any such bond, undertaking or contract of suretyship executed under this authority shall not exceed the limit stated below. Name Address Limit of Power ROBERT A. BALLIN MARGARET HUFFMAN ALL OF ALL RAY PAIEMENT LARRY C. BUCK EUGENE, UNLIMITED FRED .E. GREATWOOD STEVEN J. HANSON OREGON PAT CELLERS BEVERLEY VERBANIC This Power of Attorney revokes all previous powers issued in behalf of the attorney(s)-in-fact named above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed and attested by its appropriate officers and its corporate seal hereunto affixed this 3rd day of April , 19 96 Attest GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF HAMILTON — ss: On this 3rd day of April, 1996 , before me personally appeared GARY T. DUNBAR, to me known, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resided in Cincinnati, Ohio, that he is the President of the Bond Division of Great American Insurance Company, the Company described in and which executed the ;above instrument; that he knows the seal; that it was so affixed by authority of his office under the By -Laws of said Company, and that he signed his name thereto by like authority. This Power of Attorney is granted by authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Great American Insurance Company by unanimous written consent dated March 1, 1993. RESOLVED: That the Division President. the several Division Vice Presidents and Assistant Vice Presidents, or any one of them, be and hereby is authorized, from time to time, to appoint one or more Attorneys -In -Fact to execute on behalf of the Company, as surety, any and all bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship, or other written obligations in the nature thereof; to prescribe their respective duties and the respective limits of their authority; and to revoke any such appointment at any time. RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Company seal and the signature of any of the aforesaid officers and any Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Company may be affixed by facsimile to- any power of attorney or certificate of either given for the execution of any bond, undertaking, contract or suretyship, or other written obligation in the nature thereof, such signature and seal when so used being hereby adopted by the Company as the original signature of such officer and the original. seal of the Company, to be valid and binding upon the Company with the same force and effect as though manually affixed. CERTIFICATION I, RONALD C. HAYES, Assistant Secretary of Great American Insurance Company, do hereby certify that the foregoing Power of Attorney and the Resolutions of the Board of Directors of M4ch I, 1993 have not been revoked and are now in full force and effect. Signed and scaled this // S I(129P 14 91) day of , 19 97)/ THE RIFLE HOUSE 201 RAILROAD P.O. BOX 1926 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 Date: .51/ 7/9v • • JOHN W. SAVAGE, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th St., #300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Ideals Timber Cutting Special Use Application Dear Commissioners: PHONE: (303) 625-1470 FAX: (303) 625-0803 Application is hereby made for a Special Use Permit to allow harvesting of timber from a 960 acres parcel owned by Joan L. Savage in Cache Creek and Cottonwood Creek Drainages southwest of Rifle. Our plan is to cut approximately 50% of the available saw timber, aspen, and firewood from the tract over a one to three year period. Harvesting will be done by contract crews under our supervision or by timber companies pursuant to contract. Attached are the following in support of this application: 1. Vicinity Map showing property and roads. There are no buildings or structures on adjacent lots. 2. The names and addresses of the adjacent lots are: USFS: 0094 Cty. Rd. 244, Rifle, CO 81650 Ruth McLaughlin Trust: c/o Grant Erickson, Esq., 1625 Shermer Rd., Northbrook, IL 60062. Howard Hardy: 18725 63rd NE, Seattle, WA 98155 3. Impact Statement. 4. Timber Cut Plan. 5. Excerpts from White River National Forest Management Plan re timber harvesting. Very truly yours, an L. Savage Enclosures • 1 IMPACT STATEMENT RE SAVAGE APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TIMBER HARVESTING 1 I. LOCATION: On 960 acres of privately owned property located in unsurveyed Sees. 29, 30, and 32, T. 7S, R. 94 W. 6th P.M.; practical description: 10 miles southwest of Rifle, 6 miles south of Rulison, betw;en Cache Creek and Cottonwood Creek. II. SCOPE: Applicant plans to cut approximately 3.5 million board feet of saw timber and 20,000 tons of Aspen off of a 960 acres tract. This is approximately 1/2 of the presently standing timber. Activities will include: minimal improvements to 3 miles of existing 4 whael drive road, construction of approximately 5 miles of haul roads, and construction of 2-3 timber gathering yards of approximately 2 acres in size. Timber is being harvested for: commercial timber, construc- tion of a cabin (to be permitted separately), to increase live- stock forage and increase water absorption into the soils and acquifers. III. DESIGN: Timber will be harvested in a prudent and workman- like manner pursuant to a timber cutting plan to be prepared by consultants. Actual location of hauls roads and yards have not been determined. IV. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Applicant plans to improve the ac- cess roads in June of 1994, and start cutting timber in late fall/winter of 1994/95. Rate of cutting will be dictated by mar- ket conditions and weather. V. EXPLANATION OF OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS: Operations will consist of road construction and timber harvesting by one or more crews of 5-6 men each. Most of the area will be cut by chainsaw and skidded with rubber tired or track equipment. Some areas, due to grade, may require use of a highline to yard cut timber, and some areas, particularly Aspen, may be cut and skidded mechanically. VI. IMPACTS: (A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pol- lution of surface run-off, stream flow, or ground water. Timber harvesting on this parcel will be water use neutral or may increase runoff. Applicant intends to use best available technology and methods to limit pollution of run-off, stream flow or ground water. All natural streams will be protected by 50 to 100 foot se- lective cut buffer zones. Adequate water bars will be placed in all roads, following harvest, to prevent excessive runoff. • • 2 (B) Impacts on adjacent land from vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, vibration, or other emanations Adjacent lands, primarily parts of the White River National Forest will be slightly impacted by engine exhaust, dust, smoke from slash burning, some vibration from intermittent equipment operation and noise of operations. These are vacant lands, in- frequently used. Because of the relative size of the tract, most of the impact will be limited to the private land owned by Applicant. (C) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals, hazardous attractions, alteration of existing vegetation, block- ade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. The area is used by big game animals for summer pasture and an elk calving ground has been identified to the northwest. The area is used for summer grazing of cattle. Applicant will not conduct timber cutting operations during the elk calving season. Applicant does not foresee its operations being anymore than a temporary disruption of other wildlife uses of the area and a longterm benefit to wildlife. One of the purposes for this project is to increase the wildlife and domestic livestock forage values on the property which will result from timber harvesting and reclamation. Existing vegetation will be altered by cutting standing tim- ber, much of which is at a mature stage. The area shows some signs of beetle kill damage. Timbering may inhibit the spread of this investation to and from USFS lands. (D) Affirnatively show impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses and their impacts to ar- eas in the County Applicant Estimates approximately 300 truck trips from the site to a railhEad at Rifle. Probable route will be Cty. 301 to Cty. Rd. 309 to Rulison or Rifle Interchange and then I-70 or frontage road tc siding west of Rifle. Some loads, particularly Aspen and firewood may be trucked out of the area via I-70. The estimated truck traffic spread over one or more years is not expected to create any undue disturbance or road damage. Worker access and related traffic (6-10 round trips daily) will not significantly increase existing traffic loads. (E) Sufficient distances shall separate uses from abutting property to avoid damages by operations Applicant plans to leave a buffer of trees at appropriate boundaries of at least 50 feet to limit impact on adjoining property. • • 3 (F) Mitigation measures proposed for foregoing impacts and for standards identified in 5.03.08 Applicant expects its operations to result in decreased stream siltation due to improved drainage and creek crossings on existing access roads. Timber haul roads and yards will be reseeded and/or, barred and stabilized to eliminate erosion. All streams will be left with a buffer of undisturbed areas and slash will be windrowed strategically to eliminate erosion. • • TIMBER MANAGEMENT EXCERPTS FROM WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN • • Period Average Annual Use Period Average Annual Use 1981-1985 170 MAUM 2001-2010 178 MAUM 1986-1990 172 MAUM 2011-2020 181 MAUM 1991-2000 175 MAUM 2021-2030 185 MAUM The local economic base will likely continue to shift away from agriculture. Economics will demand that permittees be able to sell their property quickly. The net result could be a reduction in livestock numbers available to the White River National Forest under term permit. Grazing permits will be con- solidated as smaller ranchers sell their base property. There will be a continued trend to invest in those areas that yield the greatest benefit for the cost incurred. A local government entity expressed concern about the Forest's priority for noxious weed control. The Forest is in the process of developing a noxious weed control plan. When that plan is approved, it will set the priorities for weed control. In the interim, the Forest's priorities will be: 1. Critical target species such as yellow toadflax, knapweed, and leafy spinge will take priority over Canada thistle, Scotch thistle, sow thistle, etc. 2. National Forest System land that is located within counties with established weed boards will receive priority for funding over those counties that do not have weed boards. 3. Preventing the spread of critical target species will take priority over controlling or eliminating critical target species. 4. Projects that are the most cost-effective will be given priority over those that are less cost-effective. TIMBER Timber management on the White River National Forest has not been a cost- effective program in recent years when considering only the direct costs and revenue of selling trees. However, when other associated resource benefits are considered, a timber management program may be a cost-effective management tool. The other resource objectives provide the impetus for a coordinated timber management program and in so doing improve the effectiveness of these programs. Without a timber management program, many other resource management programs would cost a great deal more or could not be accomplished at all. In a sense, wood products are both an objective and a by-product of multiple use management. Some examples of this concept follow: 1. About 2,800 acres of the aspen type needs to be regenerated annually in order to maintain the aspen type near present levels (a desirable goal for wildlife and visual management). Without regeneration treatments, much of the aspen type would eventually be replaced by II -62 rt • • other vegetation types through natural succession. Regeneration by burning or felling accomplishes this goal, but at a large cost with no monetary returns. Commercial sales of aspen can accomplish the same goal at a reduced or equivalent cost and realize a partial return from the aspen sold. 2. The skewed age class distribution towards an older, mature to over - mature forest makes the trees on the forest highly susceptible to insects and disease attacks. Direct control of epidemics is an expensive short-term solution. Silvicultural treatments through commercial timber sales offer an opportunity to provide long-term protection at a reduced cost and realize the additional benefits of the timber harvested. 3. An additional benefit of changing the Forest's age class distri- bution from its present mature condition is the increase of early successional/structural stages, an important habitat needed by many wildlife species. The balance of structural stages can be improved artificially by regenerating mature forests. Such changes in age classes can be efficiently accomplished with a commercial timber sale. 4. The importance of water in the arid west is receiving increasing attention as demand increases substantially and the available supply remains relatively constant. It is welly, documented that vegetation management can increase water yields. The opportunity for the largest increases occur iu the subalpine forests from small patch clearcuts. The timber sold and harvested from such cuts reduce the costs of creating the openings. 5. The aesthetic beauty of the Forest is important to thousands of pe27 ple who visit the White River National Forest annually. Studies of visual perception indicate that most people enjoy the appearance of a younger, vigorous, healthy forest over that of an over -mature forest with dead and dying trees evident to the viewer. A coordin- ated visual management/vegetation program can significantly enhance visual quality in scenic areas as well as provide wood products. 6. Downhill skiing is a major recreational activity on the White River National Forest. Forest vegetation is essential to a quality skiing experience because it improves snow retention and snow quality; it provides better depth perception; and it creates a pleasurable out- door experience. An overmature, decadent forest which is highly susceptible to wildfires and insect epidemic is not a desirable con- dition. A younger, vigorous forest with a more balanced age class distribution provides the desired benefits at much less risk. A por- tion of the required vegetation management costs may be recovered by selling the resultant wood products. 1/ "Watershed Management in the Rocky Mountain Subalpine Zone," Charles F. Leaf, USDA Forest Service, February 1975. 2/ In Proceedings, 1979 Convention, Society of American Forester, Octo- ber 14-17, 1979, Boston Massachusetts, pp. 95-102. 1I-63 • • improvement. While the short-term objective is to reduce beetle populations and subsequent tree mortality, the ultimate goal is to create a mosaic of age and size classes and to increase species diversity. Reconnaissance flights in 1981 and 1982 identified four other concentrations of mountain pine beetles on the Forest. They were Located in the Rock Creek and Min turn areas of the Holy Cross District, on Itardscrabble Mountain on the Eagle District, and in the Fryingpan drainage of the Sopris District. The widespread occurrence of the beetle and the large acreage of susceptible lodgepole pine stands suggest the potential for continued mountain pine beetle activity. The Forest's timber management program in past years has not been at a suffic- ient level to apply the stocking control and harvesting of mature timber necessary to maintain healthy, vigorous stands. As a result of this lack of sil.vicul.tural treatment, many areas on the Forest are susceptible to epidemic insect populations. A large portion of the forested vegetation is overmature and considered highly susceptible to insects and disease. At the present time, the lodgepole pine stands which became established near the beginning of the twentieth century are the most susceptible. Spruce beetle, Denroctonus rufipennis (Kirby), has been a major pest on the Forest. Current populations are endermic. Outbreaks are initiated from blow - down or accumulations of slash. Normally, the beetle infests weakened or felted Euglemaun spruce. The Forest will be "risk rating" spruce stands for outbreak potential during the Plan period. Management actions will be taken to reduce risk on areas outside of wilderness. Diseases. Dwarf mistletoe, Arccuthobium americanum (Nutt.), is a widespread disease of lodgepole pine on the Forest. A 1979 survey estimated 35 percent of the lodgepole pine acreage (poleti.nrber rind sawtimber stands) was infected with a total volume loss/year of 31,200 cubic feet. '1'o date, there has been only one dwarf mistletoe control project beyond the normal timber sales pro- gram in lodgepole pine. Surveys were conducted on two Districts (Blanco and Eagle) in 1981 to deLetwine the extent and severity of infestation. A small suppression project is currently being conducted on the Eagle District. The predominance of mature Limber stands on the Witite River National Forest provides conditions suLtabLe for a number of other diseases such as broom rusts, decaying agents, and cankers. While none of these cause unacceptable losses Forest -wide, they have a significant impact in sensitive areas such as ski areas and campgrounds. Air quality The Clean Air Act and 1977 amendments give the states most of the authority and responsibility for managing air quality within their boundaries. The role of the Forest Service in air quality management is to coordinate Forest activities with Slate air quality control efforts. This Includes assuring that resource management activities and uses permitted on the National Forest comply with air quaLity standards. 11-97 u .i� IJ; �R04.,t.`as' i u�>•�aiui T _�4rilM =1 S_1s _t b b'�__w_'. �G j .,:,;.. .. .,..,., .e to the are ual ha t the the is the er- re- Lon en t on- tal No the as +ad e udy s a eed ado uder low er, Jill ge- es. ,gin .a t - s on not not n is ugly . • NEED TO ESTABLISH OR CHANGE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION A determination of the need to change or establish management direction was accomplished by assessing the current situation, determining production potentials, reviewing the public issues and management concerns of the Forest, and analyzing where current management direction would lead. Based on this review, it was determined the complex multiple -use resource management issues faced by the Forest Service are best addressed in a comprehensive Forest Land and Resource Management flan required under the Act's regulations. The following possible changes in management direction were identified and will be responded to in this Plan: Vegetation Vegetation is a dominant feature of the landscape and its managment is, to a large degree, how the Forest will attempt to meet the Goals and Objectives of the Forest flan. Low Levels of vegetation management in the past combined with an active program of wildlife suppression have resulted in a situation where most of the Forest .is covered with mature vegetation. This situation is not likely to change dramatically in the future since large acreages of the Forest are classified wilderness or are inaccessable. In these areas the pattern of natural succession will continue. The exceptions to the general pattern of mature vegetation are the spruce stands killed by the spruce beetle epidemic of the 1940's and 195U's, other forested areas regenerated by com- mercial timber sales, areas cleared for ski area development, and areas where fires have occurred. 1b better address the issues and concerns, the Plan has been developed to manage vegetation where physically possible, such as on slopes less than 40 percent, and where favorable economic conditions exist. The direction in the Plan is to use the management activities of prescribed fire, fencing, seeding, limber harvest, and thinning to enhance and protect a wide range of resource values that involve visual quality, recreation, and wildlife habitats. When these management activities are properly located and tuned, they will signifi- cantly reduce the risk of catastrophic loss of vegetation from insect infesta- tion, disease, and wildfire. Socially, the attractiveness of the natural mountain environment depends largely -on healthy vegetation. Economically, most of the communities close to the Forest are dependent, at least to a degree, on vegetation as a source of products or natural beauty. Radical changes in the vegetation patterns caused by insects, disease, fire, or other activity are most unattractive and probably would result in fewer visitors and the loss of property values. One vegetation type, aspen, does not regenerate successfully in. this area except by fire or clearcutting. It is all important vegetation type particu- larly for scenery in the fall of the year and for wildlife habitat. Increased aspen treatment is needed to successfully perpetuate the aspen stands on the Forest. 11-105 n' . in- ading 'ected dis- rails ��'moval cient at tion on of access uffi- mid - sites range ed to in use 2rness con- isitor seater al re- objec- ersity r man- ut the ent to Vege- lty and nphasis • Emphasis should be placed on fisheries habitat management to bring key fish- eries up to productive potential. Expansion of fishing demand will continue to require artificial stocking programs. Range More intensive range management is needed to increase forage for domestic Livestock and wildlife. Range management practices that increase forage pro- duction, increase livestock grazing capacities, and protect soil and water resources should be implemented. - Timber There is a need for a more comprehensive timber management program. Forest cover types need insect and disease control, fire hazard reduction, wild- life habiat diversity improvement, and perpetuation of healthy and visually pleasing forest conditions. Forest cover should be managed for efficient use of water throughout the Forest. Management emphasis is needed in two areas to accomplish this program: a. Financially profitable sales of sufficient quantity to support a viable timber industry. b. Sound and defensible silvicultural principals must be applied in all management practices. Water Expected future demands for water within the Colorado River Basin far exceed supply. Management emphasis should be directed toward increases in water yield within those watersheds having the greatest water yield increase poten- tial. Vegetation treatments should be designed to assure stable stream channels are maintained. Minerals Surface resource management should be better integrated with mineral potential and exploration and development. Lands A larger program in non -recreation special uses should be developed to meet increased demands for roads, powerlines, electronic sites, and water lines. A program should be developed to allow a reduction in the backlog of land exchanges. THE FUTURE This section describes the expected future condition of the Forest after implementation of the Plan. It is divided into two parts: the physical and biological future, and the social and economic future. 3 11-107 w • • IDEALS TIMBER CUT PLAN Feb. 11, 1994 HES I. Acreages: Ideals -927 acres Reeves Homestead- 160 acres I1. Cutting Tracts: A. Tract A-80 acres of conifer 1. Old growth with possibly 309 Englemann. 2. Access good; 1.5 mile road. 3. Drainage; directly into Cache Creek on half of tract. a. Windrow slash along property line. b. Buffer strip on Cache Creek. 4. Lower reaches have numerous lone conifers which could be taken selectively. B. Tract B-40 acres of conifer 1. 20% Englemann. 2. Access poor; 3 miles road through Tracts C and D. 3. Drainage into Alligator Jaws boulder field 4. Numberous boulder fields. C. Tract 0-80 acres conifer. 1. 20% Englemann. 2. Access; fair, 2 ani. road. a. Numerous water crossings. b. Road cut around toe of Oil Shale Ridge 3. Drainage into west Cache. a. Sediment pond at Tombstone Park. b. Long low grade slope through aspen. 4. Numerous lone conifers for selective cuts. D. Tract D-40 acres conifer. 1. 50% Englemann, excellent timber. t� a. Bettie kill. starting. P b. Access to 40 acres of McLaughlin Trust Limber adjacent. 2. Access; good, 1 mile road, easy grade. a. Option of forking from Cache Creek road. b. Permitting Forest road from Tombstone. 3. Drainage; Cottonwood Creek. a. Sediment ponds at springs on Reeves. b. Cottonwood Creek has only seasonal spring flow. Ideals Timber Cutting Plan Page 2. E. Tract E and misc. select cuts -10 acres. 1. Selective cutting of lone and isolated conifers taken opportunistically. 2.. Englemann @ 23,000 11f/ac. F. Aspen; patch cut prime aspen- 100 acres. 1. 200 tons/acre. 2. • • LEGEND SAVAGE TIMBER CUTTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION 5/18/94 SUBJECT PARCEL OTHER LANDS OWNED BY APPLICANT U.S. WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY COUNTY ROADS APPLICANT PRIVATE ROAD ek+ftsw USFS RIGHT OF WAY 4! 17 iCN •1f 12 �� • )2 e 7 ••.. • 1,11. Tv� • • i • — • c'►•♦ • • r. Auxiliary • •0 CJ • • ••' 4 U: • • w.- a • - i� r ✓i • • • • •• N • N rn • �X o • m ••• .• • 0 i .r,• N,•r.t yr, -,..-L-__:`,._ — S tv r'• • •0)• • N U! N N• •e *n w r Z. United States Aiiprest White River MAW Ranger District partment of rvice National 00County Rd 244 riculture ►4r �y Rifle. CO 81650 • 4 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Garfield County Courthouse Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Sirs: Reply to: 1950 Date: July 29, 1994 Enclosed please find the comments of the White River National Forest, an adjacent landowner to Joan L. Savage, regarding her proposal for a logging operation on private land. We have reviewed her application and offer the following for consideration. Ms. Savage should ensure that the timber being harvested is on private land. That is, if she is unsure of a boundary between National Forest and private land it should be surveyed or the timber not harvested in that area. A right-of-way should be obtained across National Forest lands prior to timber being hauled out on the existing road. Ms. Savage has submitted an application to the Forest Service and scoping for comments has begun. The right-of-way should match up with proposed internal logging roads. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to contact Cindy Hockelberg at 625-2371. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, TERRY WOOD Distr �� t Ranger cc: John Savage Caring for the Land and Serving People FS -6200-28 (7-82) MAY261994 • • JOHN W. SAVAGE, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW THE RIFLE HOUSE 201 RAILROAD P.O. BOX 1926 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 May 25, 1994 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 PHONE: (303) 625-1470 FAX: (303) 625-0803 GARFIELD COMITY Re: Savage Timber Cutting Special Use Permit Dear Mr. Bean: Per your phone call of 5/24/94, we submit the following ad- denda to our Special Use Permit Application: 1. Legal description: T. 7 S., R. 94 W., 6th P.M. The Ideal Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Placer Mining Claims, being United States Mineral Survey 20357, as more par- ticularly described in the Patent No. 1037629, recorded 6/11/30, Reception No. 107261, Book 160, Page 446. (Portions of unsurveyed sections: 28, 29, 30, 32, 33) PRACTICAL DESCRIPTION: 6 miles south of Rulison I-70 Inter- change, between Cache Creek and Cottonwood Creek. 2. Copies of four deeds conveying property to John W. Savage and Joan L. Savage and Personal Representative's Deed con- veying the interest of John W. Savage to Joan L. Savage. 3. HAUL ROUTES AND METHODS: Cut timber will be transported by log truck via private roads to Cty. Rd. 301 and then via Cty. Rd. 301 to Cty. Rd. 309 to Cty. Rd. 323 to I-70. Cut timber may then be loaded on rail cars at Rifle, trucked to the Louisiana Pacific Mill at Delta, trucked to local saw mills, or yarded for later delivery. If yarding becomes necessary, a separate Special Use Permit Application will be submitted. 4. SEWAGE AND WASTE WATER DISPOSAL: Portable bathrooms will be provided on site for sewage disposal. The project will not generate any waste water. Very)t ruly yours, Jo n W. Sa Enclosures xc: Joan L. Savage, w/o encl. JOHN W. SAVAGE, J ATTORNEY AT LAW THE RIFLE HOUSE 201 RAILROAD P.O. BOX 1926 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 May 19, 1994 Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th St., #300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 MAY 2 4 199° 03) 625-1470 03) 625-0803 r t_O L,&Y N Y Re: Joan L. Savage Timber Cutting Special Use Application Dear Sirs: Enclosed are ten copies of an application for a Special Use Permit and a check in the amount of $400.00 for the application fee. Please call if you have any questions. Please advise as to the hearing date at least 30 days in ad- vance so that we can get the required Notices published and mailed. Enclosures THE RIFLE HOUSE 201 RAILROAD P.O. BOX 1926 RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 Date: S//97 JOHN W. S ' VAGE, JR. ATTORNE AT LAW Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th St., #300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Ideals Timber Cutting Special Use Application Dear Commissioners: PHONE: (303) 625-1470 FAX: (303) 625-0803 Application is hereby made or a Special Use Permit to allow harvesting of timber from a 960 acres parcel owned by Joan L. Savage in Cache Creek and Cotton ood Creek Drainages southwest of Rifle. Our plan is to cut approximately 50% of the available saw timber, aspen, and firewood from the tract over a one to three year period. Harvesting will be done by contract crews under our supervision or by timber compani-s pursuant to contract. Attached are the following in support of this application: 1. Vicinity Map showing p operty and roads. There are no buildings or structures on adjac nt lots. 2. The names and addresse_ of the adjacent lots are: USFS: 0094 Cty. Rd. 244, Rile, CO 81650 Ruth McLaughlin Trust: c/o rant Erickson, Esq., 1625 Shermer Rd., Northbroo', IL 60062. Howard Hardy: 18725 63rd NE, Seattle, WA 98155 3. Impact Statement. 4. Timber Cut Plan. 5. Excerpts from White Ri er National Forest Management Plan re timber harvesting. Very truly yours, jn an L. Savage Enclosures IMPACT ST TEMENT RE SAVAGE APP ICATION FOR SPECIAL SE PERMIT TIMBER RVESTING I. LOCATION: On 960 acres of in unsurveyed Secs. 29, 30, and practical description: 10 miles of Rulison, between Cache Creek II. SCOPE: Applicant plans to board feet of saw timber and 20, acres tract. This is approximat timber. Activities will include of existing 4 wheel drive road, miles of haul roads, and constru yards of approximately 2 acres i Timber is being harvested f tion of a cabin (to be permitted stock forage and increase water acquifers. III. DESIGN: Timber like manner pursuant consultants. Actual been determined. will be har to a timber location of : 1 rivately owned property located 2, T. 7S, R. 94 W. 6th P.M.; outhwest of Rifle, 6 miles south nd Cottonwood Creek. ut approximately 3.5 million X00 tons of Aspen off of a 960 ly 1/2 of the presently standing : minimal improvements to 3 miles onstruction of approximately 5 tion of 2-3 timber gathering size. .r: commercial timber, construc- separately), to increase live- .bsorption into the soils and ested in a prudent and workman - cutting plan to be prepared by hauls roads and yards have not IV. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Applicant plans to improve the ac- cess roads in June of 1994, and start cutting timber in late fall/winter of 1994/95. Rate of cutting will be dictated by mar- ket conditions and weather. V. EXPLANATION OF OPERATION C consist of road construction an crews of 5-6 men each. Most of and skidded with rubber tired o due to grade, may require use o and some areas, particularly As mechanically. VI. IMPACTS: RACTERISTICS: Operations will timber harvesting by one or more the area will be cut by chainsaw track equipment. Some areas, a highline to yard cut timber, en, may be cut and skidded (A) Existing lawful use owater through depletion or pol- lution of surface run off, stream flow, or ground water. Timber harvesting on this .arcel will be water use neutral or may increase runoff. Applic.nt intends to use best available technology and methods to limit pollution of run-off, stream flow or ground water. All natural streams will b: protected by 50 to 100 foot se- lective cut buffer zones. Adeq ate water bars will be placed in all roads, following harvest, t. prevent excessive runoff. 2 (B) Impacts on adjacent la d from vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, vibratio , or other emanations Adjacent lands, primarily parts of the White River National Forest will be slightly impacted by engine exhaust, dust, smoke from slash burning, some vibrati.n from intermittent equipment operation and noise of operations. These are vacant lands, in- frequently used. Because of the relative size of the tract, most of the impact will be limited to the private land owned by Applicant. (C) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals, hazardous attractions, alteration of existing vegetation, block- ade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. The area is used by big ga e animals for summer pasture and an elk calving ground has been identified to the northwest. The area is used for summer grazing of cattle. Applicant will not conduct timber cutting operatio s during the elk calving season. Applicant does not foresee its .perations being anymore than a temporary disruption of other wildlife uses of the area and a longterm benefit to wildlife. One of the purposes for th's project is to increase the wildlife and domestic livestock forage values on the property which will result from timber h-rvesting and reclamation. Existing vegetation will b altered by cutting standing tim- ber, much of which is at a matu e stage. The area shows some signs of beetle kill damage. Tmbering may inhibit the spread of this investation to and from US S lands. (D) Affirmatively show im•acts of truck and automobile traffic to and from s ch uses and their impacts to ar- eas in the County Applicant estimates approx site to a railhead at Rifle. P Cty. Rd. 309 to Rulison or Rifl frontage road to siding west of Aspen and firewood may be truck The estimated truck traffi not expected to create any undu Worker access and related will not significantly increase (E) Sufficient distances property to avoid dam Applicant plans to leave a boundaries of at least 50 property. r. mately 300 truck trips from the obable route will be Cty. 301 to Interchange and then I-70 or Rifle. Some loads, particularly d out of the area via I-70. spread over one or more years is disturbance or road damage. raffic (6-10 round trips daily) existing traffic loads. hall separate uses from abutting ges by operations buffer of trees at appropriate eet to limit impact on adjoining 3 (F) Mitigation measures proposed for foregoing impacts and for standards identified in 5.03.08 Applicant expects its opera stream siltation due to improved existing access roads. Timber haul roads and yards and stabilized to eliminate eros All streams will be left wi and slash will be windrowed stra tions to result in decreased drainage and creek crossings on will be reseeded and/or, barred ion. th a buffer of undisturbed areas tegically to eliminate erosion. TIMBER EXCERP WHITE RIVER N FOREST MAN • AGEMENT S FROM TIONAL FOREST GEMENT PLAN la • Period Average Annual Use 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-2000 170 MAUM 172 MAUM 175 MAUM Period 2001-2010 2011-2020 2021-2030 1 Average Annual Use 178 MAUM 181 MAUM 185 MAUM The local economic base will likely contiiue to shift away from agriculture. Economics will demand that permittees be able to sell their property quickly. The net result could be a reduction in livestock numbers available to the White River National Forest under term permit. Grazing permits will be con- solidated as smaller ranchers sell thei base property. There will be a continued trend to invest in those areas that yield the greatest benefit for the cost incurred. A local government entity expressed cone noxious weed control. The Forest is in weed control plan. When that plan is a for weed control. In the interim, the For rn about the Forest's priority for he process of developing a noxious proved, it will set the priorities st's priorities will be: 1. Critical target species such as yellow toadflax, knapweed, and leafy spinge will take priority over Canada thistle, Scotch thistle, sow thistle, etc. 2. National Forest System land slat is located within counties with established weed boards will re eive priority for funding over those counties that do not have weed •ards. 3. Preventing the spread of critical target species will take priority over controlling or eliminating critical target species. 4. Projects that are the most co t -effective will be given priority over those that are less cost-e'fective. TIMBER Timber management on the White River N. effective program in recent years when c revenue of selling trees. However, whe are considered, a timber management progr tool. The other resource objectives pr timber management program and in so doin programs. Without a timber management pr programs would cost a great deal more or a sense, wood products are both an objec management. Some examples of this concep tional Forest has not been a cost- nsidering only the direct costs and other associated resource benefits m may be a cost-effective management vide the impetus for a coordinated improve the effectiveness of these grain, many other resource management ould not be accomplished at all. In ive and a by-product of multiple use follow: 1. About 2,800 acres of the aspen ype needs to be regenerated annually in order to maintain the aspen ype near present levels (a desirable goal for wildlife and visual management). Without regeneration treatments, much of the aspen type would eventually be replaced by • other vegetation types through natural succession. Regeneration by burning or felling accomplishes this goal, but at a large cost with no monetary returns. Commercial sales of aspen can accomplish the same goal at a reduced or equivalent cost and realize a partial return from the aspen sold. _ 2. The skewed age class distribution towards an older, mature to over - mature forest makes the trees on the forest highly susceptible to insects and disease attacks. Direct control of epidemics is an expensive short -tern solution. Silvicultural treatments through commercial timber sales offer an opportunity to provide long-term protection at a reduced cost and realize the additional benefits of the timber harvested. 3. An additional benefit of changing the Forest's age class distri- bution from its present nurture condition is the increase of early successional/structural stages, an important habitat needed by many wildlife species. The balance of structural stages can be improved artificially by regenerating mature forests. Such changes in age classes can be efficiently accomplished with a commercial timber sale. 4. The importance of water in the arid west is receiving increasing attention as defraud increases substantially and the available supply remains relatively constant. It is well]/ documented that vegetation management can increase water yields. The opportunity for the largest increases occur in the subalpine forests from small patch clearcuts. The timber sold and harvested from such cuts reduce the costs of creating the openings. 5. The aesthetic beauty of the Forest is important to thousands of pe27 ple who visit the White River National Forest annually. Studies of visual perception indicate that most people enjoy the appearance of a younger, vigorous, healthy forest over that of an over -mature forest with dead and dying trees evident to the viewer. A coordin- ated visual management/vegetation program can significantly enhance visual quality in scenic areas as well as provide wood products. 6. Downhill skiing is a major recreational activity on the White River National Forest. Forest vegetation is essential to a quality skiing experience because it improves snow retention and snow quality; it provides better depth perception; and it creates a pleasurable out- door experience. An overmature, decadent forest which is highly susceptible to wildfires and insect epidemic is not a desirable con- dition. A younger, vigorous forest with a more balanced age class distribution provides the desired benefits at much less risk. A por- tion of the required vegetation management costs may be recovered by selling the resultant wood products. 1/ "Watershed Management in the Rocky Mountain Subalpine Zone," Charles F. Leaf, USDA Forest Service, February 1975. 2/ In Proceedings, 1979 Convention, Society of American Forester, Octo- ber 14-17, 1979, Boston Massachusetts, pp. 95-102. I1-63 • 1 improvement. While the short-term objective is to reduce beetle populations and subsequent tree mortality, the ultiunte ,)al is to create a mosaic of age and size classes and to increase species diversity. Reconnaissance flights in 1981 and 1982 iden of mountain pine beetles on the Forest. The and Min turn areas of the holy Cross District, Eagle District, and in the Fryingpan dralna widespread occurrence of the beetle and th lodgepole pine stands suggest the potential fo activity. The Forest's timber management program in past lent level to apply the stocking control a necessary to maintat.n healthy, vigorous stand sil.vicullural treatment, many areas on the Fo insect populations. A large portion of the f and considered highly susceptible to insect time, the lodgepole pine stands which became e the twentieth century are the most susceptible Spruce beetle, Dcnroctonus ruf[pennis (Kirby) Forest. Current populations are endemic. Ou down or accumulations of slash. Normally, felled Englemaun spruce. The Forest will be outbreak potential during the Plan period. 11 to reduce risk on areas outside of wilderness. i[ied [our other concentrations were located in the Rock Creek on Ilardscrabble Mountain on the e of the Sopris District. The large acreage of susceptible - continued mountain pine beetle years has not been at a suffic- id harvesting of nature timber . As a result of this lack of est are susceptible to epidemic rested vegetation is overmature and disease. At the present tablished near the beginning of , has been a major pest on the breaks are initiated from blow - the beetle infests weakened or "risk rating" spruce stands for nagement actions will be taken Diseases.. Dwarf mistletoe, Arceuthobius amer canum (Nutt.), is a widespread disease of lodgepole pine on the Forest. A 1979 survey estimated 35 percent of the lodgepole pine acreage (po.lolimhcr and sawtimber stands) was infected with a total volume loss/year of 31,200 cubic feet. To date, there has been only one dwarf mistletoe control project beyoid the normal timber sales pro- gram in lodgepole pine. Surveys were conduct d on two Districts (Blanco and Eagle) lu 1981 to determine the extent and se erity of infestation. A small suppression project is currently being conduct.d on the Eagle District. The predominance of mature limber stands on provides conditions suitable for a number o rusts, decaying agents, and cankers. While n losses Forest -wide, they have a significant ii ski areas and campgrounds. Air Quality The Clean Air Act and 1977 amendments give 11 and responsibility for managing a.Lr quality role of the Forest Service in air quality man activities with Slate air quality control of that resource management activities and uses p comply with air quality standards. H-97 he White lover National Forest other diseases such as broom ne of these cause unacceptable pact in sensitive areas such as e states most of the authority within their boundaries. The gement is to coordinate Forest arts. This includes assuring nnitted on the National Forest gi, .e to he re al ha t the the is the er- re- ion ent on- tal No the as' ad e udy s a eed ado der low er, 111 es. 4011 :a t- on not not A is tgly. • 1 NEED TO ESTABLISH OR CHANGE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION A determination of the need to change or establish management direction was accomplished by assessing the current situation, determining production votentials, reviewing the public issues and management concerns of the Forest, and analyzing where current management direction would lead. Based on this review, it was determined the complex multiple -use resource management issues faced by the Forest Service are best addressed in a comprehensive Forest Land and Resource Management Plan required under the Act's regulations. The following possible changes in management direction were identified and will be responded to in this Plan: Vegetation Vegetation is a dominant feature of the landscape and its managment is, to a large degree, how the Forest will attempt to iucet the Goals and Objectives of the Forest Plan. Low Levels of vegetation management in the past combined with an active program of wildlife stppression have resulted in a situation where most of the Forest is covered with mature vegetation. This situation is not likely to change dramatically in the future since large acreages of the Forest are classified wilderness or are inaccessable. In these areas the pattern of natural succession will continue. The exceptions to the general pattern of mature vegetation are the spruce stands killed by the spruce beetle epidemic of the 1940's and 1950's, other forested areas regenerated by com- mercial timber sales, areas cleared for ski area development, and areas where fires have occurred. To better address the issues and concerns, the Plan has been developed to manage vegetation where physically possible, such as on slopes less than 40 percent, and where favorable economic conditions exist. The direction in the Plan is to use the management activities of prescribed fire, fencing, seeding, timber harvest, and thinning to enhance and protect a wide range of resource values that involve visual quality, recreation, and wildlife habitats. Mien these management activities are properly located and timed, they will signifi- cantly reduce the risk of catastrophic loss of vegetation from insect infesta- tion, disease, and wildfire. Socially, the attractiveness of the natural mountain environment depends Largely on healthy vegetation. Economically, most of the communities close to the Forest are dependent, at least to a degree, on vegetation as a source of products or natural beauty. Radical changes in the vegetation patterns caused by insects, disease, fire, or other activity are most unattractive and probably would result in fewer visitors and the loss of property values. One vegetation type, aspen, does not regenerate successfully in this area except by fire or clearcutting. It is an important vegetation type particu- larly for scenery in the fall of the year and for wildlife habitat. Increased aspen treatment is needed to successfu ly perpetuate the aspen stands on the Forest. 11- 05 "e3Miet in- nding ected dis- rails 'moval icient action lon of lccess suf f i- mid - sites -range ed to n use erness con- isitor reater aI re- objec- ersity r mao- ut the ent to Vege- ty and ,phasis Emphasis should be placed on fishe ies habitat management to bring key fish- eries up to productive potential. Expansion of fishing demand will continue to require artificial stocking programs. Range More intensive range management is needed to increase forage for domestic livestock and wildlife. Range man gement practices that increase forage pro- duction, increase livestock grazilg capacities, and protect soil and water resources should be implemented. Timber There is a need for a more compre cover types need insect and dise. life habiat diversity improvement, pleasing forest conditions. Forest of water throughout the Forest. Management emphasis is needed in tw a. Financially profitable s viable timber industry. b. Sound and defensible silv cultural principals must be applied in all management practices. ensive timber management program. Forest se control, fire hazard reduction, wild - and perpetuation of healthy and visually cover should be managed for efficient use areas to accomplish this program: les of sufficient quantity to support a Water Expected future demands for water ithin the Colorado River Basin far exceed supply. Management emphasis shout be directed toward increases in water yield within those watersheds Navin, the greatest water yield increase poten- tial. Vegetation treatments shou d be designed to assure stable stream channels are maintained. Minerals Surface resource management should b• better integrated with mineral potential and exploration and development. Lands A larger program in non -recreation increased demands for roads, power A program should be developed to exchanges. THE FUTURE special uses should be developed to meet ines, electronic sites, and water lines. llow a reduction in the backlog of land This section describes the expect d future condition of the Forest after implementation of the Plan. It is divided into two parts: the physical and biological future, and the social aneconomic future. 3 11-107 SAS w%S;Its IDEALS 'TIMBER C T PLAN Feb. 11, 1994 LIES I. Acreages: Ideals -927 acres Reeves Homestead- 160 acres 11. Cutting Tracts: A. Tract A-80 acres of conifer 1. Old growth with possibly 30% Englemann. 2. Access good; 1.5 mile road. 3. Drainage; directly into Cache Creek on half of tract. a. Windrow slash along property line. b. Duffer strip on Cache Creek. 4. Lower reaches lave numerous lone conifers which could be taken selectively. D. Tract B-40 acres of coni er 1. 20% Englemann. 2. Access poor; 3 miles road through Tracts C and D. 3. Drainage into lligator Jaws boulder field 4. Numberous boul er fields. C. Tract C-80 acres conifer. 1. 20% Englemann. 2. Access; fair, . mi. road. a. Numerous w: ter crossings. b. Road cut a ound toe of Oil Shale Ridge 3. Drainage into est Cache. a. Sediment pc nd at Tombstone Park. b. Long low g ade slope through aspen. 4. Numerous lone .onifers for selective cuts. D. Tract 1)-40 acres conifer 1. 50% Englemann, excellent timber. a. Bottle kil starting. IOi' b. Access to 0 acres of McLaughlin Trust timber adj cent. 2. Access; good, mile road, easy grade. a. Option of orking from Cache Creek road. b. Permitting Forest road from Tombstone. 3. Drainage; Cott nwood Creek. a. Sediment ponds at springs on Reeves. b. Cottonwood Creek has only seasonal spring flow. Ideals Timber Cutting Plan Page 2. E. Tract E and mise. select cuts -10 acres. 1. Selective cutting of lone and isolated conifers taken opportunistically. 2. Englemann @ 23,000 llf/ac. F. Aspen; patch cut prime aspen- 100 acres. 1. 200 tons/acre. 2. i • LE SAVAGE TI SPECIAL USE PE 5/1 e 1: • END ER CUTTING IT APPLICATION /94 SUBJECT PARCEL OTHER LANDS OW ED BY APPLICANT U.S. WHITE RIV:R NATIONAL FOREST U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT OTHER PRIVATE "ROPERTY COUNTY ROADS APPLICANT PRIV TE ROAD USFS RIGHT OF AY V 200 46300 / A," /HQLMS ` --,/lq4,6 6070 N 6'00 1 11 \ Y WC 640 �. 67/OJT .� • 1 OS II SIM 1\ 7" 11 l Y f• • .a• • • 0 0 W 0 • 9 • • e •f 0 W 0. W o 0 • • £%. 1' • • •• • iW • co W ..•• • 00 0 u•11ror VI N - 0 • 00 •1 3 I 0 W A ■ • .•i L • 4 • y (41 • • • • _ ...1 e, w (d . • ni . ! �.'N N 1 c,lN � a.. -.a. ▪ •n • .• • 0 • N f•:- --h .--�-- fV r •__. r - December 9, 1993 Mr. Arnold Mackley Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th St. Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioner Mackley, FOREST SERVICE State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone (303) 248-7325 I enjoyed visiting with you over lunch an Tuesday about the Unocal - Virginia Corp. property, and I will attempt to put together some of my thoughts in this letter concerning timber harvesting on private land. As you know, the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) works with private landowners in the state and helps them achieve their land stewardship goals. Often these goals involve timber harvesting, and we try to educate landowners about their different options so they can make informed decisions. We do not regulate or enforce any laws, though we have been active in legislation that affects forest management on private lands, such as the recent (1990) H.B. 1229 that allows Forest Agriculture classification. The emphasis of our forest management program is the necessity of a forest management plan prepared by a local professional forester. Such a plan and inventory of the resource is critical for any decision making. You need to know what and how much you have in order to manage it, regardless of the commodity. Since trees are a renewable resource, a responsible land stewardship ethic will ensure the continuation (regeneration) of that resource and the avoidance of long-term negative impacts. We have worked with the planning departments of both Pitkin and San Miguel counties in their efforts to deal with tree cutting as a land use issue. Too often subdivision covenants restrict all cutting of trees, and this is sometime extrapolated to larger ownerships as well. The harvesting and managing of forested land is a private property right, and my attitude is that preventing the harvesting of trees amounts to taking without compensation. On the other hand, timber harvesting can be done in a manner that will create long term negative impacts such as: off site water quality impairment, excessive erosion, noxious weeds, wildlife and fish disruptions, infrastructure impacts such as those on county roads and bridges, etc. Timber harvesting can be done responsibly with concern for the future and one's neighbors, but it must be planned that way. I have included a copy of the "Management Plan Outline For Forest Agriculture Classification" as a guide for the items that should be considered in a forest management plan. Under H.B. 1229 a plan following this outline must be prepared by a professional forester and it must be approved by CSFS. Mr. Mackley, to my knowledge, a harvesting on private land in C at the county level. Many other acts" that regulate such activi Colorado State Forest Service p necessary, and we view our role regulation. I would be happy to work with y staff on this matter, if you wo hearing from you. Sincerely, John W. Denison District Forester • tempts to regulate timber lorado have strictly been handled states have "forest practices y at the state level. The efers local control when as one of education rather than u and/or your planning department ld like, and look forward to cc: Tom Ostermann, CSFS, Ft. Collins 241 LLDCc' March 23, 1994 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield Co. Planner 109 8th Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mark, Enclosed is some information on the F the standards for a qualifying stewar might be better than the guide I ment Classification under H.B. 1229, becau analysis. Trees, as a renewable resource, can b that will ensure the continuation of term negative impacts. A forest manag negative impacts such as: off-site wa erosion, noxious weeds, wildlife and such as those on county roads and bri responsibly with a concern for the fu planned that way. In lieu of a Colorado State Forest Pr Sierra Corp. be required by Garfield that meets the guidelines of a Forest submitted to the Colorado State Fores as Forest Stewardship plans are. Such an adequate analysis of resource valu A review of this scope would require and we are required to recover a port provided. Our fee schedule is based o assessed by the Planning Dept. as par Corp. Garfield Co. is not alone in its conc harvesting on private land. I have be departments in both Pitkin and San Mi Ostermann tells me that the role of C a more active pursuit of a uniform st will likely be a long process of cons above, I believe, will be a good inte I look forward to hearing frau you s Sincerely, John W. Denison District Forester ; TY FOREST SERVICE State Services Building 222 S. 6th Street, Room 416 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Telephone (303) 248-7325 rest Stewardship Program in Colorado and ship plan. Tom Ostermann thought this 'oned to you for Forest Agricultural e this emphasizes an all -resources responsive to a land stewardship ethic hat resource and the avoidance of long nt plan is necessary to avoid such er quality impairment, excessive ish disruptions, infrastructure impacts ges, etc. Timber harvesting can be done ure and one's neighbors, but it must be ctices Act, I suggest that the High unty to file a forest management plan Stewardship Plan. This plan could be Service for review and approval, just a system would ensure Garfield Co. gets impacts. significant time commitment by CSFS, on of our costs for all services $24/hr. Ideally, this fee would be of the application fee from High Sierra rns about impacts of major timber n actively involved with the planning uel counties on similar issues. Tam FS is changing from one of education, to tewide policy on forest practices. This nsus building, and the process outlined im measure. n. 4oxEST • Colorado's • Stewardship Incentives Program This information sheet and the attached SIP Practice Fact Sheets provide a general review of Colorado's Stewardship Incentives Program. For more information contact your local Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) office. Pay particular attention to the Participation Requirements, Program Procedure and Payment Limitations on the reverse side. BACKGROUND The 1990 Farm Bill formally recognized stewardship of private forest land and land suitable for growing trees as vitally important to the conservation of this nation's natural resources. The bill authorized the Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) and the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP). FSP helps private landowners develop and implement comprehensive forest stewardship plans. SIP assists landowners with the implementation of conservation practices recommended in their forest stewardship plan. The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) are jointly responsible for SIP in Colorado. The CSFS coordinates program delivery, while the ASCS processes applications and arranges landowner payments. One of the unique aspects of FSP is its broad based support. A state Forest Stewardship Committee meets regularly to recommend program direction to the state forester to meet the unique needs of Colorado. This twenty member group consists of representatives of federal, state and private conservation organizations and private landowners. LANDOWNER ELIGIBILITY Those who own 1,000 acres or less of private land suitable for growing trees, have a land management plan that meets FSP standards (except when applying for SIP -1), and belong to one of the following groups are eligible to participate in SIP: •individuals, including foreign owners •joint owners •American Indian tribes or other native American groups •groups and associations •corporations without publicly traded stock •other private legal entities Note: Landowners with more than 1,000 acres, but not more than 5,000 acres, may submit a waiver request to the state forester. Approval of such request is based on unique attributes of the property and potential for public benefit. ELIGIBLE PRACTICES Nine SIP practices are available for cost -share assistance: SIP -1 Landowner Forest Stewardship Plan Development SIP -2 Reforestation and Afforestation SIP -3 Forest and Agroforest Improvement Revised 9/24/93 PPCTICE ELIGIBILITY (continued) SIP -4 Windbreak and Hedgerow Establishment and Maintenance SIP -5 Soil and Water Protection and Improvement SIP -6 Riparian and Wetland Protection and Improvement SIP -7 Fisheries Habitat Enhancement SIP -8 Wildlife Habitat Enhancement SIP -9 Forest Recreation Enhancement Each practice is accomplished through the implementation of one or more components. Enclosed are SIP Fact Sheets for requested practices. PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS Implementation of any SIP practice is subject to the following requirements: •Cost -shared practices must be implemented according to a landowner forest stewardship plan. •Treatment area must be protected from destructive grazing and wildfire. *All chemicals must be used according to federal, state and local regulations as well as label instructions. •After establishment, each practice must be maintained for a minimum of 10 years. •Prescribed fire will be used only in accordance with state and local regulations. •Fencing will be cost -shared only when a practice cannot be adequately established without it. •Before a practice is implemented, consideration must be given to its potential impact on flora and fauna listed or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. PROGRAM PROCEDURE The following procedures are generally followed by SIP: Note: 1. After consultation with CSFS, landowner signs up for SIP at local ASCS 2. SIP request is forwarded to CSFS Service Forester for eligibility determin 3. Service Forester visits site to determine need and practicality of requested 4. Eligible requests are prioritized and approved, disapproved or deferred by based on state priorities and availability of funding. 5. CSFS approved requests are implemented by the landowner. 6. Upon practice completion, landowner notifies CSFS Service Forester and cost documentation. 7. Service Forester certifies practice(s) completed according to specifications payment. 8. ASCS issues landowner payment. Steps 2, 3, 4, and 7 may result in project ineligibility, disapproval or decentif be notified of this determination by the ASCS office. office. ation. SIP practice. CSFS Area Forester provides a appropriate and approves landowner ication. Landowner will PAYMENT LIMITATIONS Cost Share payments can not exceed any of the following: Note: 065% of eligible and documented landowner costs. •The established maximum rates for each practice component. •$1,000 per acre. • $10,000 per landowner, per year. The combination of two or more of these limitations may result in cost -share payments of less than 65% of actual landowner expenditures. COLORADO SIP GUIDELINE NUMBER 30 September, 1991 COLORADO FOREST STEWARDSHIP LANDOWNER PLAN DEVELOPMENT (acre) Definition: Stewardship Management Plans are plans developed to guide and assist the landowner to actively managing their forest, woody vegetation, and associated resources. Purpose: Active management will keep these lands in a productive and healthy condition for present and future owners as well as increase the economic and environmental benefits of these lands. Planning Considerations: 1. The plan should cover a ten year period and be written for all land managed as a unit. This may include blocks of land that are not necessarily contiguous. 2. A plan may cover more than one landowners property if the combined properties are to be managed as a unit. 3. The plan is intended to be a working document and should be amended as necessary or a minimum of every five years, by the landowner(s) and the preparing resource professional, to take into account changing biological conditions, markets, disasters, and program practice updates or changes. 4. The following resource values are to be addressed, as appropriate: * Fish and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement. * Soil and Water resources must be maintained or improved. * Recreation and Aesthetics - Recreational objectives should be considered in keeping with the landowner's objectives. Plans should provide recommendations which will increase opportunities for quality recreational experiences on private lands. * Forest Management and Forest Products Harvesting - Sound silvicultural prescriptions should be developed to maintain and enhance forest productivity. Residual timber stands must be protected from fires, insects and disease. Landowner's objectives must be discussed and management plans prepared before harvest. Harvest recommendations must address measures needed to assure adequate regeneration, as well as incorporating practices previously mentioned. * Threatened and Endangered Species - Recommended management practices will be done consistent with Federal and State laws. * Wetlands and riparian areas must be recognized for their unique role in the ecosystem. TG30. 1 • • 5. The plan should give equal consideration to environmental and economic management principles. 6. The outline is intended to be "TICKLER LIST" of items to be considered when developing the plan. The plan does not have to be formatted exactly like the outline. It should be written so that it is easy to read and be understood by the landowner. The plan is to document the landowner objectives, what the resource is on the ground, management decisions made by the landowner and the resource professional to achieve the objectives, and guide the landowner as to which management activities are to be completed each year. 7. An annual work plan should be prepared and based on the priorities in section VI. 8. Starred (*) items may not apply to each property. If starred items are not present on the property or are not pertinent a statement should be made indicating that fact. Forest Stewardship Management Plan Outline: I• Cover Page A. Name, address and phone number of landowner(s). B. Legal description of property covered by plan. C. County that the land is located in. D. Preparing resource professional's name, address and phone number. E. Date plan was prepared. F. The following Management Plan acceptance statement signed by the landowner: "This management plan has been prepared at my request to guide my stewardship management activities which I will voluntarily apply on my property. I believe that the activities recommended in this plan are appropriate to meet my objectives and will benefit the natural resources on my property. I intent to apply the recommended practices and to maintain them for a period of at least ten years, thus helping me to be a good steward of the forest and associated resources entrusted to me on my property. (Name) Date" II. Table of Contents (optional) III. Objectives Prioritized land management objectives of landowner, Objectives may vary for each management unit. IV. General Description/Discussion A. General location of the property covered by the plan. B. Topographic & climatic characteristics. C. Current and historical land use which created existing conditions. D. Desired condition to achieve landowner objectives. * E. Impact on neighbors, and surrounding communities. * F. Social, economic, and market conditions of county and how these factors may influence management decisions. G. How management units and/or compartments were identified. If plan covers multiple ownership each ownership should be a management TG30. 2 unit further broken into compartment. INCLUDE A MAP of 1:24,000 or larger scale showing management units and compartments. V. Inventory Discussion of what is found in each management unit or subunit. Summarized data may be included in the appendix. Inventory of forest stands should include a +/- 20 percent cruise. Items to be covered are: A. Vegetative species, age, height, DBH, stocking level, condition, site index etc. INCLUDE A VEGETATIVE TYPE MAP. B. Insect and disease presence, damage, or risk. C. Wildlife and fish species found, habitat available. D. Soil types, productivity classification, possible limitations or concerns for erosion, water quality, productivity, suitability of soils to support tree and woody vegetation growth. INCLUDE A SOIL MAP and written description. * E. Water, riparian or wetlands features on the property. Limitations or concerns to protect and maintain water quality, wetland and riparian function & value. INCLUDE ON A MAP. * F. Access, roads, and trails; specific or possible limitations INCLUDE ON A MAP. * G. Features such as buildings, fences, wells, power lines etc. * H. Presence and abundance of noxious weeds. * I. Fire hazard and risk ratings. * J. Endangered species (plant and animal) found or known to be in the area. * K. Recreation opportunities or features such as unique aesthetic qualities, archeological sites and special concerns for their use and protection. VI. Prescriptions and implementation schedule A. Specific management practices, general specifications, by implemented by unit. B. If SIP is to be used what practices is specified. C. Implementation schedule and priority. VII. Implementation Record (to be completed as practices are implemented) A. Recommended practices from VI. A, dates completed. B. Record and map showing treatments, volumes harvested, prices received, cost of implementation, etc. VIII. Appendices (As needed) A. B. C. D. E. F. Summarized inventory data for each management unit. Listing of individuals and agencies participating in evaluation and recommendations. Bibliography of reference material utilized. Glossary. Photos (features identified in item V., before treatment, etc.). Other pertinent information. TG30. 3 Annual Work Plan: The landowner and the preparing resource professional should annually complete an work plan based on item VII. The annual work plan will list those items from VII that will be implemented that year. The annual work plan will include a PROJECT PLAN which gives the specifications and standards of the projects to be implemented that year. The project plan should include restrictions or special requirements for practices, types of equipment, timing of implementation, etc. (treatment restriction on winter range, planting site preparation, no roads, rubber tired skidders, culverts for drainage, slash treatment etc.) and standards necessary to meet the landowner's objectives. An annual work plan containing individual project plans for each project the landowner requests SIP cost share will be required. TG30. 4 4138.05 9-25-91 MANAGEMENT PLAN OUTLINE FOR FOREST AGRICULTURE CLASSIFICATION 4130 • A management plan must cover a ten year period and should be written for all forest land within the same ownership managed as a unit. This may include separate parcels of land. The plan should be amended as necessary by the landowner and his/her forester to take into account changing conditions such as markets, biological changes, disasters. The plan is intended to be a working document. A detailed management plan will be required for agriculture classification. The outline is intended to be "TICKLER LIST" of items to be considered when developing the plan. The plan does not have to be formatted exactly like the outline. It should be written so that it is easy to read and be understood by the landowner. The plan is to document the landowner objectives, what the resource is on the ground, management decisions made by the landowner and the forester to achieve the objectives, and guide -the landowner on what management activities are to be completed each year. ® The inventory must include a plus/minus twenty percent cruise of forest stands. Double starred (* *) items may not apply to each property. If these items are not present on the property a statement should be made indicating that fact. Items designated by a (+) are recommended to be included in a good management plan but are optional at the discretion of the landowner. Required maps may be a base map plus overlays of individual items. I. Cover Page A. Landowner's name, address and phone number. B. Legal description of property covered by plan. C. County that the land is located in and the assessor's parcel identification number(s). D. Preparing forester's name, address and phone number. E. Date plan was prepared. + II. Table of Contents CSFS Manual *Amendment #80 September 1991* 4130 III. Objectives Prioritized land management objectives of forest landowner, "PRODUCTION OF FOREST PRODUCTS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF MAKING A MONETARY PROFIT" from the harvest of those products MUST be included and should be high priority. Objectives may vary for each management unit. IV. General Description/Discussion A. General location of the property covered by the plan. B. Topographic & climatic characteristics. C. Economic, and market conditions of area and how these factors may influence management of the landowner's forest resources. D. How management units and/or compartments were identified, INCLUDE A MAP on 1:24,000 or larger scale showing management units. + E. Current and historical land use which created existing conditions. + F. Desired forest condition to achieve landowner objectives. + G. Impact on neighbors, and surrounding communities. V. Inventory Discussion of what is found in each management unit or subunit. Summarized data may be included in the appendix. Inventory of forest stands must include a +/- 20 percent or better cruise. Items to be covered are: A. Vegetative species, age, height, DBH, stocking level, condition, and site index. INCLIIDE A VEGETATIVE TYPE MAP. B. Insect and disease presence, damage, or risk. C. Fire hazard rating and risk factors of the area. D.Soil types, possible limitations or concerns, INCLUDE AN SCS SOIL MAP WITH SCS RANGE CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATED ON MAP and copy of SCS written description. (If SCS soil maps are not available for the property, request the SCS to give a soil interpretation and assign an SCS range classification to each vegetative type identified) E. Access, roads, and trails; specific or possible limitations INCLUDE A MAP. F. Water, riparian or wetlands features on the property INCLUDE A MAP. G. Cultural features such as buildings, fences, etc. H. Presence and abundance of noxious weeds. CSFS Manual *Amendment #80 September 1991* + I. * * * * J. K. L. • 1 4130 Wildlife species found, habitat used, condition and impact. Endangered species (plant and animal) found or known to be in the area. Unique scenic and aesthetic qualities present. Known archeological sites. VI. Prescriptions by management unit and implementation date A. Specific management and/or silvicultural practices and year to be implemented. B. Type and estimated amounts of products to be harvested. C. Restrictions or special requirements for practices, types of equipment, timing of implementation, etc. (treatment restriction on winter range, no roads, rubber tired skidders, culverts for drainage, slash treatment). * * F. Additional or improved roads and trails needed to manage the property INCLUDE A MAP. F. Standards necessary to meet the landowner's objectives. G. Implementation priority. VII. Implementation Record (to be completed as practices are implemented A. Recommended practices from VI. A., implementation and units completed B. Record and map showing treatments, volume harvested, price received, VIII. Appendices Summarized inventory data for each management unit. Listing of individuals and agencies participating in evaluation and recommendations. Bibliography of reference material utilized. Glossary. Photos (features identified in item V., before treatment, etc.). Other pertinent information. year of •dates completed, or management costs. ANNUAL WORK PLAN - In addition to the management plan the landowner will complete an annual work plan based on item VI. A. If VI. A. is not followed the rationale must be provide for the variance. A work plan for the following year will be provided to CSFS at the time of signing up for annual inspection. CSFS Manual *Amendment #80 September 1991* • LEGEND SAVAGE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION G .FiFi::LU COUNTY CACHE CREEK 5/25/94 i:':''% pki 2 7 1994 JI U APPLICANT LANDS SUBJECT OF APPLICATION OTHER LANDS OWNED BY APPLICANT U.S. WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST OTHER PRIVATE LANDS IN AREA ADJACENT PROPERTIES PARCEL NO. OWNER ADDRESS +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2405-000-00-952 United States White River Nat. Forest 0094 Cty. Rd. 244 Rifle, CO 81650 2405-000-00-953 United States same 2407-251-00-135 Ruth McLaughlin Trust c/o Grant Erickson, Esq. 1625 Shermer Rd. Northbrook, IL 60062 2407-241-00-134 Howard Hardy 18725 63rd NE Seattle, WA 98155 A - �W- e n 1 a0 l e 7 oa iQo 3z A xW 11 W V' r la o TOWNSHIP INDEX (•;E __W 2 5 -4 3 2 1 7 C 2 i01 If I r N I7 16 13 Hi 13 .2 20 21 22 23 24 _}_. _ 4- 30 2! 20 27 23 2e 31 32 33 34 33 3/ ear+/5•0 —LEGENO— ,?e, f •n r• 0.9n.oy v.0/.+oh Store and or Federal Pored Rood (oll weather) improved Rood /dirt) .hep Rood l✓n.o' trail River Stream orCrne (dry or flowing) Aesrr.oir or Logo Aodrood State Boundary Line County Boundary Line —�--- C,y Boundary Line — F— - Forest Boundary Line — T— rer-.- Ou tric! Bnvndo'r L to.nsn.P and Range Lines Section Lines to.nsh,p and Rong• L nes /unsurversdl Section Lines / 07ed1 SuOdi✓.non Bounoory Blocs Boundary LAN 2741 W,o,l,g Claims • P Found Section Corners -- Rion, of Way Llne Lot and Porch Linn IP 3 MS Ambiguous Oncrnpf.on —. —'— Parcel Boundaries .here needed to clarify boundary limits 0 P T 3i.ision of Property Taxation SNR Severed Ninero/ Ripn/e 21 Plotted 8/OCA Numbers 21 County assigned Blocs Numbers 10211 flD County Assigned Parcel Numbers County Assigned Number for /marovOnlente only Tie Bor +«c 0 c' N c c 0 4 Al / 052 I '2 1 T 24) 009 � 4 4) 1,7 2407-241-.)0.134 9 2407-251-00-135 1 2 A. Victory no 4 / Victory no. 3 2407-251-00-135 Victory no. 2 Quarter Section numbering f spuence aitAin 0 Sect,on DRA2R e5 .------ � L-7. CHECKED 25 ----.__-s L.S. REVISION BLOCK DATE e5 REMARKS L N tno.,. 001, 2.+.!1i1n Chang. 10 Ort 1- 1,44 Sm ryi.t.006,J070..114,0350.20- '1 Sm ...t• J112.071 Sec 5 0..1A 1i (50,4-. O+'+ Victory no I .z- PRAM Ideal no. I r a 0 32 fIdiot no. 10 Ns. 2 H R Ca u r 7)/ 45$ t•5 0P— Al2 Hoc()r ' t 1: »% 1) o'cl Pi'. 'f )'.. ReCISMII No. 1'} �r} 1(1115 682 82 Pm7c c19. NMILDRED ALSDORF, RECORDER GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO DEED OF PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE GARFIELJ JAN 2 2 1905 State Doc. Feu THIS DEED made by Joan L. Savage as Personal Representative of the Estate of John W. Savage, Deceased, Grantor, granting to Joan L. Savage, 5953 - 320 Road, Rifle, CO 81650, Grantee. WHEREAS, Grantor is the qualified Personal Representative of said Estate, Probate No. 84PR36, Garfield County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Grantee is entitled to the hereinafter described real property. THEREFORE, Grantor conveys, assigns, transfers and releases to the Grantee all of the Estate's interest in the following real property in Garfield County, Colorado: More particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. No documentary fee: consideration less than $500 with all appurtenances. Executed December 30, 1985. l ;i J9an L. Savage, Personal Represent- ative of the Estate of John W. Savage, Deceased eon 682 F cE492 State of Colorado ) ss. County of Garfield ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on December 30, 1985, by Joan L. Savage, Personal Representative of the Estate of John W. Savage, Deceased. My commission expires: 12/21/88 Witness my hand and official seal. Notary Public EX}iIBIT A IDEALS TRACT Fn;1K E>S2 P'GE493 T.7S., R.94W., 6th P.M. U.S. Mineral Survey 20357 being the Ideal Claims Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, patented Placer Mining Claims REEVES HOMESTEAD DEAN T.7S., R.94W., 6th P.M. Sec. 19: EASE'-4NE4, E'NE 4SE4 Sec. 20: W 2NEaSW 4, NW4SW4, W�SEaNW 4, SWaNW4 T.7S., R.94W., 6th P.M. Sec. 8: W SSW 4 SEFCOVIC T.7S., R.94W., 6th P.M. S.160 acres of the 5.200 acres of Sec. 7: SE4 + Sec. 18: L.1 + 2, S1/2NE4 D I NGMAN T.7S., R.94W. , Gth P.M. Sec. 6: S1/2SE4, Sec. 7: E 2NE4, Sec. 8: W 2NW WAYM I RE T.75., R.94W., oth P.M. Sec. 5: S ZSE1 , SW 4 , 4 acres as described. in No. 22047 Sec. 8: N zNE4 , NEaNW a TRAHERN T.6S., R.94W., 6th P.M. Sec. 28: NW4SW4, S 1/2S114, Lots 5, 6, and 7 • Recorded at 1 I LI o'clock j� M. DEC 141983 Reception Na: $4t31UG MILDRED ALSDORF, RECORDER SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED i`e'.f 983 State Doc. Fee Charles B. Williams, hereinafter called the Grantor, whose address is 10 Bluff Avenue, P.O. Box 543, Shelter Island Heights, New York 11965, for the consideration of $58,698.000, in hand paid, and the agreement of Grantees to provide ski lift passes as set forth below, hereby sells and conveys to John W. Savage and Joan L. Savage, hereinafter called the Grantees, of 1122 - 293 Road, Rifle, Colorado 81650, subject to the exceptions, reservations and other provisions hereof, the following real property in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to wit: An undivided four -twelfths (4/12ths) interest in the Ideal Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Placer Mining Claims, being United States Mineral Survey 20357, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., hereinafter called the Property, with all its appurtenances and warrants the title against all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor but not otherwise. Excepting and reserving unto Grantor: All minerals within the Property, including as examples without limitation, oil and natural gas, coal, uranium, copper, iron, lead, gold and silver, whether or not now known to exist or to have value, of whatever form or type, at whatever depth in whatever nature of deposit, whether solid, semi-solid, liquid, or gaseous, whether similar or dissimilar to any of those enumerated, and regardless of the method of extraction, whether by wells (including the use of input wells), mining by subterranean, open pit, or strip mines, surface or subsurface leaching, or any other means now or hereafter known or employed; provided that Grantor grants to Grantees and Grantees' successors, heirs and assigns the executive right to lease the minerals within the Property, so long as the royalty provided for in any lease executed by Grantees is not less than twelve and one-half percent (121/2%), but reserves to Grantor, his successor and transferees the right to receive all bonuses, rentals and royalties attributable to the minerals within the Property pursuant to any lease. As an express condition and consideration for this Deed Grantees, for themselves and their successors and transferees, covenant and agree to deliver to Grantor or to Grantor's children two freely -transferable free ski lift passes valid when and if the Grantees and/or their assigns operate a ski area on or partially BOOK 640 YAcE491 on the Property, such passes to be good for unlimited use, subject to the general rules and regulations of the ski area. The ski lift passes shall be valid for as long as any son or daughter of Charles B. Williams shall be living. Signed and delivered this i.! day of aCttel.„.;, 1983. STATE OF COUNTY OF 4 LL eL.Nzof, , t/Ut Charles B. Williams ss. G .The for gain" instrument was acknowledged before me this /; f�` day of{., �L�y, , 1983, by Charles B. Williams. My commission expires: trj- 71-5 • Witness my hand and official seal. fI ( ( .r" Notary Public k�RAPak9'1 t. 9ttlullnM gOixv PLINE14;, ate of Mew Ynrk P-4, 41'1111.;;; , Cow' t ATAVkll kxpirRs March 30, 1`..1r, Address Documentary fee: $5.87 Vacant land - no street or number BOOK 637 PAGE:���L Recorded at Q . ( 6`~ aicloct`C C_ PCOCT 27 1983 " Reception No. le.4,4(14MILDRED ALSDORF, RECORDER ORRF9933 State Doc. Fee $ / 3 Catherine G. Sitzler, formerly Catherine G. Barnett, and the National State Bank, Trustees under the will of Charles M. Barnett, Jr., whose address is One Elm Street, Westfield, NJ 07090, for the consideration of $14,675.00 dollars, in hand paid, hereby sell and convey to John W. Savage and Joan L. Savage of 1122 - 293 Road, Rifle, CO 81650, County of Garfield, the following real prop- erty in the County of Garfield, and State of Colorado, to wit: SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED An undivided one -twelfth (1/12th) interest in the Ideal Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Placer Mining Claims, being United States Mineral Survey 20357, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M. Reserving unto Grantor: A twelve and one-half percent (121/2%) non -participating royalty interest in the minerals attributable to Grantors undivided one -twelfth (1/12th) interest which shall entitle Grantors to twelve and one-half percent (122%) of one hundred percent (100%) of one - twelfth (1/12th) of all minerals or the proceeds there- from, produced and marketed from the entire property. Grartors shall not participate in any bonus, delay rental, shut-in royalty or any other payments other than royalties on minerals produced nor shall Grant- ors be entitled to execute any lease, operating agreement, or any other documents governing the right to explore for or to extract minerals. with all its appurtenances and warrants the title against all persons claiming under me. Documentary fee: $5.87 Vacant land - no street or number Signed and delivered this /'71- day of C<.' -o e ,Z , 1983. In the presence of / 1 e“. ,.) (SEAL) ) Ca€herine G. Sitzle , Trustee Jig-fi 11., \,ti:c/1,' c C dl ) r� y (SEAL) Catherine G. Barnett - Trustee �,....... ,.r ;I,.. ,,-,rtl E- S of the lust {onx 637 ?iGE972 The National State Bank, Elizabeth, NJ, Trustee BY /)'?• ' -(`-G"4' Ca.A1._ (SEAL) M. Acott Eakeley Zvtcr ., ,: I rt (CORPORATE SEAL) ATTEST: STATE OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF Zfim4..04J The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /'7)"`' day of e e'ero-t.n% , 1983, by Catherine G. Sitzler, for- merly Catherine G. Barnett, and by M. Scott, E, eley a Vice Presi- dent, and Q,4r, , '/ , as Seer -e- ary o National State Ban}/, Elizabeth, Ne Jersey, Trustees under the will of Charles M. Barnett, Jr_. My commission expires: t Lilac -c q.f 7 -Witness my hand and official seal. t L .2 G, i rr` 6 L' ` 1 Notary Public , Address / • 1.1 -2- c'Zdt . ' Q said Public Trustee. as ¢rancor. and shall convev and an+it-claim to such nelson or nerconc entitled to such need ac ar:aniee_ rte.` • 1111114 A M Recorded at `1 o'clock A M .0GT �, 19a3 cA Reception No. la)/ Ga.74 MILDR D ALSDORF, RECORDER SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED 1.3Il(1K 6:3'7 ris.E9f37 GAR; E D aaa cc. 'e3 44-7 William Baylor Barnett, hereinafter called the Grantor, also known as William B. Barnett, Sr., whose address is P.O. Box 566, Harvey, Louisiana 70059, for the consideration of $14,674.50, in hand paid, and the agreement of Grantees to provide ski lift passes as set forth below, hereby sells and conveys to John W. Savage and Joan L. Savage, hereinafter called the Grantees, whose legal address is 1122 - 293 Road, Rifle, Colorado 81650, the following real property in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, to wit: An undivided one -twelfth (1/12th) interest in the Ideal Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Placer Mining Claims, being United States Mineral Survey 20357, Township 7 South, Range 94 West, 6th P.M., hereinafter called the Property, with all its appurtenances and warrants the title against all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor but not otherwise. Excepting and reserving unto Grantor: All minerals within the Property, including as examples without limitation, oil and natural gas, coal, uranium, copper, iron, lead, gold and silver, whether or not now known to exist or to have value, of whatever form or type, at whatever depth in whatever nature of deposit, whether solid, semi-solid, liquid, or gaseous, whether similar or dissimilar to any of those enumerated, and regardless of the method of extraction, whether by wells (including the use of input wells), mining by subterranean, open pit, or strip mines, surface or subsurface leaching, or any other means now or hereafter known or employed; provided that Grantor grants to Grantees and Grantee's successors, heirs and assigns the executive right to lease the minerals within the Property, so long as the royalty provided for in any lease executed by Grantees is not less than twelve and one-half percent (121/2%), but reserves to Grantor, his successors and transferees the right to receive all bonuses, rentals and royalties attribut- able to the minerals within the Property pursuant to any lease. As an express condition and consideration for this Deed, Grantees, for themselves and their successors and transferees, covenant and agree to deliver to Grantor two freely -transferable free ski lift passes valid when and if the Grantees and/or their assigns operate a ski area on or partially on the Property, the passes to be good for unlimited use, subject to the general 49 H sang 637 rM3E968 rules and regulations of the ski area. The ski lift passes shall be valid for as long as William B. Barnett, Sr. shall be living. Signed and delivered this STATE OF Z ©j //s'/Y/1 Chi -'moi' OF O.n ewv /7t/, day of October, 1983. Will'am Taylor BZ nett /4.41'. //11/ ASV William B. Barnett, Sr. ss. tithe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me t1s�, — day of October, 1983, by William Baylor Barnett, also mss,' known:, a;s William B. Barnett, Sr. My commission expires: 4T oiy UE/97# r� ness my hand and official seal. /y to • { c, PPr ah of Orleans, Stnte of LA. -.v Cor.mitceiou }s i+mued for life. MOM 3. FC l'cJ O'119 #814-, F,1/V. If - Tony Address Documentary fee: $1.46 Vacant land - no street or number