Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application 07.11.1997APPLICATION SI'I3CIAL/C"d tt. USE PER Date: July 11, 1997 © COUNTY Y Applicant: Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP, and Meridian Trading Internati.Qnal, Inc. Address of Applicant: Remington Square, Rifle CO 81650 Special/Conditional Use: Special Use to harvest timber Legal Description: See Attached Practical Description (location with respect to highways, county roads, and residences): 15 miles northwest of DeBeque on Roan Creek Road to Kimball Creek Road, up Kimball Creek Road to Dale Albertson properties. Ite(luirements: 1. Plans and specifications I -or proposed use (hours of -operation, number olvehicles/day, location and size o[` structures, etc.). 2. Lxistirig or proposed illCtllad o€ sew.lgc, source 0[ disposal mid water. Road access and other information deemed necessary to explain proposed use. 3. A vicinity snap drawn to scale depicting the subject property, location, and use of building; aiid structures On adjacent lots. 4. An impact statement on the proposed use where required by Sections 5.03-5.03.12 of Zoning Regulations. 5. A copy of Assessor's map showing property; and a listing of all acquitting property owners of said property. 6. A base lee of $ SaSao shall be charged for each application and shall be submitted with the application, additional charges riiay be unposed if county review costs exceed the base fee. 7. Attach a copy of proof of ownership for your property (deed, title insurance). If public notice is required, notice provided by the Planning Department shall be sent out at least fifteen (1 5) days prior to hearing by return -receipt mail to all the above noted Adjoining property owners. Mailing is the applicant's responsibility and proof of hailing muss be presented at the hearing. Additionally, the same notice shall be pub] isped orle(1) time in (Ile official County newapaper at least fifteen (1 5) clays prior to such hearing date. Applicant shall bear the cost of publication and be responsible for presenting the "Proof of Publication" at the hearing. 'I'Ile above information is correct to the best of Illy knowledge. The Colorado Timber and Land Company, RLLP Applicant Ken Roberts,eneral Partner Date Names of adjoining landowners to notify for Albertson Special Use Permit Bureau of Land Management 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood CO 80215 J.V. Dougherty, Jr. Harold C. Dougherty Elizabeth Stuller Anna J. Hinchman Martha R. Baker Curtis L. Franklin Anita K. Urbanich Lawrence E. Crandall Shirley N. Pellett Karen J. Woolridge Elizabeth Stuller RR 2, Box 2270 Grand Junction CO 81505 09/08/97 11:10 '$`303 243 4611 STATE C)F COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN ]QUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPL OYklit John W, Mumma. Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 Wein Region 711. Independent Avenue Grand Junction, CO 81505 970-248-7175 Mr_ Eric McCafferty Building and Planning Department 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 WILDLIFE N N.W. 81002 For Wildlife -- For People September 8, 1997 RE: Special Use Permit for a Logging/Timbering Operation on the Dale Albertson Ranch Applicant: Colorado Timber and Land Company Dear Mr. McCafferty: For some reason our staff in Grand Junction never received notice of the recent application for this project and these comments to you are on short notice_ 1. This project, as described, has potential to benefit wildlife by improving wildlife forage areas, re- juvenating "old growth" forest, and by reducing the chance for severe wildlife habitat loss that could occur with. an unplaimed and un -controlled wildfire A small scale logging operation, such as this, should not have any significant negative impact on wildlife. There exists a potential, however, for significant wildlife impact should "old growth" forest logging operations be implemented on a large scale in the western regions of Garfield County. Optimumhabitat conditions for wildlife in this region would consist of forested areas that are of varying successional stages, "old growth" as well as new growth. 2_ The entire project area lies within year-rormd black bear habitat_ It is assumed that employees and workers will be living and camping in this project area. In order to minimize human conflicts with black bear, and, to keep fioin having to destroy any nuisance black bear in this project area, we recommend that the applicant utilize "bear proof' trash containers in and around the project work area, residence or camping areas_ The Kimball. Creek area experienced nuisance black bear problems in 1995 where CONOCO drilling rig workers were living and did not utilize "bear proof' trash containers. 3, The applicant has addressed soil erosion control in the project area and the measures described to prevent soil erosion should prove effective. However, due to the extreme susceptibility for soil erosionin the Roan Crock area, and the potential for offsite and "down stream effects" from soil erosion, we recommend that the soil conditions within the project area he monitored, even after rehabilitation, so that adjustments to the timber harvest plan can be made if needed Specifically, excessive soil erosion could have serious negative impacts on native fisb species of tla.e Roan Creels drainage, not to mention the resulting DEPARTMENT OP NATURAL RESOURCES, James Lochhead, 1.xecutive Director WILDLIFE: COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca Frank, Vice Chair • Mark LcVallcy, Secretary Louis F. Swift, Member • J tcc Langston Boyd, Jr., Member • James R. Long, Member John Stulp, Member • Chuck Lewis, Member 09/08/97 11:11 $303 243 4611 WILDLIFE N.W. Ej003 negative impacts to other wildlife habitats and livestock grazing_ The Division of Wildlife appreciates the oppommity to comment on projects such as this one. Please contact me if can provide anything further_ Our agency would be happy to discuss any concerns or ideas that the applicant may have pertaining to wildlife. Sincerely, Joseph W. Gutlnber District Wildlife Manager Debeque District file: Steve Yamashita, Area Supervisor, DOW Van Graham, Terrestrial Biologist, DOW John Toolen, Habitat Biologist, DOW File DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, James Lochhead, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Arnold Salazar, Chairman • Rebecca Frank, Vice Choir • Mark LeValley, Secretary Louis F. Swift, Member • Jesse Langston Boyd. Jr.. Member • James R. Log. Member John Stulp, Member • Chuck Lewis, Mcmlxr ti !I rI 1 84 0,0 �t D • • • • ; J= OS. • \ '_ • 0 •.o. N\ i \8495 tt��v • • \ L. �. - Le- Timber Harvesting Plan for Albertson Ranch Company, Limited Partnership Dale Albertson, General Partner 5466 County Road 202 DeBeque, CO 81630 Township 7 South, Range 100 West, 6th P.M. That Pari of -Tract 51 Known as Colorado Carbon Company Tract Lying in Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 Submitted by Colorado Timber and Land Company, LLP Ken Roberts, General Partner 129 West 4th Street Rile CO 81650 • 970-625-4440 Prepared by Ronald R Cunninffton, Forester Signature // Date 1. LOCATION OF PROPOSED TIMBER HARVEST The proposed timber harvest area lies at the head of the Kimball Creek drainage and ,encompasses all of Section 7, Township 7 south, Range 100 West, 6th P.M. This is a Part of Resurvey Tract 51, Township 7 South, Range 100 West; 6th P.M. ?. DESCRIPTION OF AREA TO BE LOGGED: - Terrain -Scope - Aspect -Soils, Geologic hazards (i.e. slippage) - Streams. ponds -� ildlrfe (T&E species) -Property boundaries, monuments - Current access, roads -Timber tees -per acre volumes -species composition -average dbh, ht, and stocking level - Other vegetation (T&E species) Terrain: The proposed harvest area varies in elevation from about 7200 feet along Kimball Creek to about 7800 feet at the highest elevation of this tract, The only live stream is Kimball. Creek. Slope: The average slope where the timber is located is about 60-65%. The steepest measured was 72%. The average, as measured from the USGS maps is 55% on all of the ground. Aspect: Aspect is defined as the direction a piece of ground faces. In this area of Colorado and at these elevations, timber is only located an North and East facing slopes. 1 Soil: Soils description, management and grass seeding_ information was provided by Jim Currier of The Natural Resources Conservation Service and is as follows: NON TECHNICAL SOILS DESCRIPTION REPORT Kimball Mountain Map S ymb al Soil name and description 71 Ursa -Rock Outcrop complex. 40 to 90 percent slopes This map unit is on side slopes. This unit is 60 percent Utso chancery lopm, and 25 percent Rock outcrop. The Utso soil_ is deep and well -drained. It formed in colluvium derived dominantly from Green River shale. The upper part of the surface laver is channery loam about 4 inches thick. The lower pan is very channery loam about 7 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 60 inches is very channery loam. Permeability is moderately rapid. available water capacity is low. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is very high. Rock outcrop occurs on very steep slopes, canyon slopes, cliffs, and steep mesa edges. WOODLAND MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY Kimball Mountain (Only the soils suitable for production of commercial trees are listed) Management concerns Potential productivity Map Ordi- Erosion Equipment Seedling Wind- Plant Common Trees Site Volume Suggested symbol nation hazard Limitation mortality throw compet- index of wood trees to and soil symbol hazard ition fiber dant name m3 /ha .1. tso---- 4r SEt•"ERE SEVERE SLIGHT SLIGHT MODERATE Rocky Mountain Douigas fir 6,5 4 Rock Outcrop WOODLAND MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY Endnote -- WOODLAND MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY This repon can be used by woodland owners or forest managers in planning the use of soils for wood crops. Only those soils suitable for wood crops are listed. The report lists the ordination symbol for each soil. Soils assigned the same ordination symbol require the same general managernent and have about the same potential productivity. The first part of the ORDINATION SYMBOL, a number. indicates the potential productivity of the soils for an indicator tree species. the first species listed under common trees for a soil is the indicator species for that soil. It is the dominant species on the soil and the one that determines the ordination classes. The number indicates the volume, in cubic meters per hectare per year, which the indicator species can produce. The second pan of the symbol, a letter, indicates the major kind of soil limitation. The letter "Rn' indicates steep slopes: "x", stoniness or rockiness; "w", excess water in or on the soil; "r, toxic substances in the soil; "D", restricted rooting depth: 'C", cla\ in the upper part of the soil; "S", sandy- texture; "F", a high content of rock fragments in the soil; and '`N", snow pack. The letter "An" indicates that limitations or restrictions are insignificant. if a soil has more than one limitation. the priority is as follows: R. X, W, T, D, C, S. F. and N. In this report, "Slight", "Moderate". and "Severe" indicate the degree of the major soil limitations to be considered in management. EROSION HAZARD is the probability that damage will occur as a result of site preparation and cutting where the soil is exposed along roads, skid trails, fire lanes, and log -handling areas. Woodlands that have been burned or overgrazed are also subject to erosion. Ratings of the erosion hazard are based an the percent of the slope. A rating of "Slight" indicates that no particular prevention measures are needed under ordinary conditions. A rating of "Moderate' indicates that erosion -control measures are needed in certain silviculturai activities. "Severe" indicates that special precautions are needed to control erosion in most silviculturai activities. 3 EQUTMENT LIMITATION reflects the characteristics and conditions of the soil that restrict use of the equipment generally needed in woodland management or harvesting. The chief characteristics and conditions considered in the ratings are slope, stones on the surface, rock outcrops, soil wetness, and texture of the surface layer. A rating of "Slight" indicates that under normal conditions the kind of equipment or season of use is not significantly restricted by soil factors. Soil wetness can restrict equipment use, but the wet period does not exceed one month. A rating of "Moderate" indicates that equipment use is moderately restricted because of one or more soil factors. If the soil is we, the wetness restricts equipment use for a period of 1 to 3 months. A rating of "Severe' indicates that equipment use is severely restricted either as to the kind of equipment that can be used or `.the season of use. If the soil is wet, the wemess restricts equipment use for more than 3 months. SEEDLING MORTALITY refers to the death of naturally occurring or planted tree seedlings_ as influenced by the kinds of soil, soil wetness, or topographic conditions. The factors used in rating the soils for seedling mortality are texture of the surface laver_ depth to a seasonal high water table and the length of the period when the water table is high, rock fragments in the surface laver, effective rooting depth, and slope aspect. A rating of "Slight" indidates that seedling mortality is not likely to be a problem under normal conditions. Expected mortality is less than 25 percent. A rating of "Moderate" indicates that some problems from seedling morality can be expected. Extra precautions are advisable. Expected mortality is 25 to 50 percent. A rating of "Severe' indicates that seedling mortality is a serious problem. Extra precautions are important. Replanting may be necessary. Expected morality is more than 50 percent. WLNDT13ROW HAZARD is the likelihood that trees will be uprooted by the wind because the soil is not deep enough for adequate root anchorage. the main restrictions that affect rooting a re a seasonal high water table and the depth to bedrock, a gragipan, or other limiting lavers. A rating of "Slight" indicates that under normal conditions no trees are blown down by the wind_ Strong winds may damage trees, but they do not uproot them A rating o -Moderate" indicates that some trees can be blown down during periods when the soil is wet and winds are moderate or strong. A rating of "Severe" indicates that many trees can be blown down during these periods. PLANT COMPS 111 ION ratings indicate the degree to which undesirable species are expected to invade and grow when openings are made in the tree canopy. The main factors that affect plant competition are the depth to the water table and the available water capacity. A rating of "Slight" indicates that competition from undesirable plants is not likely to prevent natural regeneration or suppress the more desirable species. Planted seedlings can become established without undue competition. A rating of "Moderate" indicates that competition may delay_ the establishment of desirable species. Competition may hamper stand development, but it will not prevent the eventual development of fully stocked stands. A rating of "Severe" indicates that competition can be expected to prevent regeneration unless precautionary measures are applied. The potential productivity of merchantable or COMMON TREES on a soil is expressed as a site index and as a volume number. The 511;=. 3N"DEX is the average height. in feet. that dominant and codominant trees of a given species attain in a specified number of years. The site index applies to fully stocked, even -aged, unmanaged stands. Commonly grown trees are those that woodland managers generally favor in intermediate or improvement cuttings. They are selected on the basis of growth rate, quality, value, and marketability. The VOLUME OF WOOD rMER. a number. is the wield likely to be produced by the most important trees. This number is expressed as cubic meters per hectare per year, indicates the amount of wood fiber produced in a fully stocked. even -aged stand. Cubic meters per hectare converts to cubic feet per acre per year as follows: (1 m3/ha = 14.3 ft3rac). The 14.3 number is rounded up from 14.2999. The TREES COMMONLY MANAGED FOR to plant are those that are suitable for commercial wood production. Following is the seeding recommendation developed by .lames Currier of the Natural Resources Conservation Service and which will be used for any areas disturbed by this planned logging. operation. 4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CO -ECS -5 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (180-12-11) COLORADO Rev. 4/92 PART 1 - GRASS SEEDING PLANNED Producer: Colorado Timber & Land Co. Planner: DDG/EJC Date: 12-20-96 Contract or Agreement Contract Item No. Field No. Kimball Mm. Practice Name & No. Critical Area Ac. Irrigated Drvland X Land Resources Area 48A Range Site DF Woodland Seedbed Preparation: Method Approadmate dates July or September Dead Litter Cover: Kind. Pounds residue needed Clean till. Firm Seedbed, Interseed_ Other Disturbed Areas Seeding Operation: Drill Interseed Broadcast X Date August or October Drill Spacing Type Track Pack -up & down siote where possible Planting depth Fertilizer: Pounds actual available nutrient per acre recommended. Nitrogen (N2) Phosphorus (9205) Potassium (X) Weed Control: Chemical, Kind & Amount Mechanical Flash Grazing Dates as reouired Muich: Kind Grass. Hay. or Erosion Mat Amount 4000 lbs/Ac. How applied Hand How anchored Anchored depth Seed Recommendations (1) (2) (3) Sod or Required PLS rates % of species 4 of seed per Species Variety Bch per acre (100%) in mixture species in mixture Mtn. B rome Grass Bromar B 19 30 5.7 Western Whtarass Arriba S 16 30 Idaho Fescue B 8 30 3.4 Rocky Mtn Penstemon Bandera 6 10 .6 TOTAL 13.5 4/acre (3) (4) (5) PLS seeding rate Total PLS lbs/ Broadcast per species/Ac. Planned species planned x (1) x (2) Acres (3) x (4) 2 11.4 9.6 4.8 1.2 SCS cost shared programs such as Great Plains. Watershed activities_ RCR:D measures and any other program requires the use of Certified Seed (Blue Tag) is available. Remarks Strearns and Ponds Kimball Creek bisects the property. There are no ponds or lakes within the proiect area. Property boundaries and monuments: All property monuments are in place and prior to any logging the lines will be established •with flagging by employees and/or contractors of Colorado Timber Land Company. Current access and Roads Access to the property is from 1-70 at DeBeque along Roan Creek Road (Garfield County Road 205) approximately 13 miles to the Kimball Creek Road (Garfield County Road 202). Then westerly along Kimball Creek Road approximately 11 miles to the terminus of -Kimball Creek Road (County Road 202). County Road 202 terminates at a point in the SE/4 of Section 8, Township 7 South, Range 100 West, 6th P.M. This terminus is located on property belonging to the Dougherty fimiiy, and we will use approximately 1/ mile of improved dirt road through the remainder of the Dougherty property. From the boundary of the Dougherty property, we will cross about 1/ mile of BLM property before entering the Albertson Cattle Company lands (Resurvey Tract 51). Garfield County Road 205 is a paved road from I-70 as far as the Kimball Creek Road. Kimball Creek Road is paved for a short distance and then becomes a very good dirt road as far as the Albertson residence in Section 14 of Township 7 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. From the Albertson residence, the road is dirt through the Dougherty property, the BLM property and to about the center of Section 7, Township 7 South, Range 100 West, 6th P.M. Attached is a copy of the Permit to use the already existing road across BLM property. It is planned to place magnesium chloride on all of earth surface on the roods to be used where the Dougherty cabin and Albertson ranch house is located (additional treatments are planned) and to water the landing where the helicopter landings are located. Water will be acquired from the landowner_ who has water rights or hauled from the Colorado River. Timber Types A sample cruise was performed with an average diameter breast height (DBH) of 14.0. There is an estimated eight thousand boord feet per acre (all Douglas Fir). The density pattern ranges from 100% crown closure to 75% crown closure, Measured basal area per acre is 175 sq. ft/acre. Under the canopy of Douglas Fir there are grasses and oak brush. There are no known listed species residing on the project area. Eagles are suspected to hunt for arouse and other food species. 6 Proposed Silvicuitural Prescription By Timber Tvte There is only one timber type: Douglas Fir that is proposed for management with this entity. PROPOSED SILVICULTUB L TREATMENTS (Including. social economic impacts) Objective 1. To provide monetary revenue to the land owner through the sale of timber. This will also allow the logger and trucking firms and other involved in the extraction process to increase jobs in Garfield County. 2. To reduce the losses caused by a wild land fire. A fire would destroy the timber values that is now present and if it is a "Hot" fire it would cause some negative impacts such as burning the organic material in the soils and would increase runoff winch would lead to accelerated soil erosion. 3. To improve pasture for cattle operations. By removing part of the older large canopy we would expect to increase growth to younger, smaller vegetation such as young trees. grass and brush which will provide more grazing for cattle for a few years. 4. To improve deer, elk and other large game habitat. Every acre given the soils present, rein fall, amount of sun and number of frost free days will grow a certain amount of vegetation each year by removing a portion of the "old growth" (i. e. large trees) We are proposing transferring the growth onto younger trees, grass and brush and at the same time maintaining enough of the old growth for thermal cover so as to increase the quality of the wildlife habitat, h is proposed so as to meet these objectives. To selectively tog with a helicopter on this plan area. Helicopter logging does not do any soil disturbance and therefore does not increase erosion potential on this plan area. It is proposed to selectively log all of the land where timber is present at about a 60% removal rate. The inherent limitations of helicopter logging_ makes pre -marking the trees to be left difficult. Trees must be felled so that a full "turn" is present at each pick up point. Partial turns are not cost effective. Therefore operator selection of the trees to a maximum of 60% cover removal must be allowed. h is planned that all healthy trees larger that 12" will be removed and that some trees in the 10" DBH class will be removed to provide a reduction to a basal area count of 55% of the present basal area. In other words some thinning will take place in the over grounded smaller diameter trees. Increment borings were done to ascertain growth rates, a slow down of growth was seen as 40 years of age, many of the 10" DBH class trees are 50 year old or older. 7 There is a beetle infestation in the timber at this time. Some trees are dying, from the beetle infestations each year and the rate appears to be increasing. Beetles do kill the trees but only because the trees are stressed for some reason. it appears the stress is caused by overcrowding and carrying more vegetation than the land will support. ;As part of our proposal, the land owner wants to capture all present mortality and capture future 'expected mortality at the entry? For the purpose of reducing extreme fire risk and preventing waste. Discussion of Reasons to Attempt Helicopter Yarding This project is a pilot project to see if the timber lands can be managed cost economically by using "small" large helicopters. Wnere most helicopter yarding is done the trees are larger and there is more volume per acre. Helicopter yarding is being done in places with timber the same size as we find in Garfield County at 6-8 thousand ft. elevations. A large helicopter capable of flying., at these elevations would cost more than the timber values will support. This proposal is to use a Bell 205 that has been modified and approved by the F.A.A. to provide more lift at these elevations. If this project works, a slightly larger aircraft will be tested; something like a K -MAX. These kind of aircraft are used mostly to By logs down hill. This will work for this project as the existing, roads suitable for hauling loos are in the canyon floors. The advantages of helicopter yarding is that no around disturbances occur on the steep 60-80% slopes where the timber occurs. The helicopter does not touch the ground and lifts the logs straight up therefore there will be no damage to the residual trees both large an small therefore no artificial regeneration will be needed as the ground already has enough natural regeneration in place. The major disadvantages are helicopter yarding is not cheap and it is noisy. While developing this proposal the treatment of slash, utilization standards, need for regeneration etc. was studied. The slash disposal parameters studied included flying entire trees to the landing, put the material through a processor and burn or chip unutilized portions of the tree on the landings or to lop and scatter the slash where the tree is felled. Another proposal is for lopping and scattering at the tree location to take place. All slash is to be lopped to generally 30" in height and concentration to be scattered. The reason for this is to allow the smaller type of material which contain most of the stored nutrients to decompose and build up the soils as well as add organic material to the soil. This option was selected as the best, environmentally and economically. The planned utilization standards are to take all material that is 33 113% sound and to take all tops down to 7" inside bark and 10' in length. The reason for this standard is a balance between cost of flying logs and economic return. 8 The felling system that is planned is to use conventional hand felling with chain saws to a maximum 8" stump Height (measured on the uphill side). Stream course buffer strips will be established with 50% of the over story left to provide shade. Trees will be felled away from the stream course channel. All under story will be left intact to act +•as a filter zone. These buffer strips will be 50' each side of all drainages that run water year long .ria 25' on all seasonal water courses. Wildlife lmoacts By taking the over story the growth potential of the ground will be transferred to the younger, smaller vegetation there by increasing grazing and foraging. With a partial cut to not exceed 70% we expect to maintain thermal cover for large game and to protect habitat for the raptors, hawks, eagles, goshawks, owls. etc. Just being there will create impacts on the wildlife but by leaving some vegetation for thermal cover, protecting the stream side zones and increasing young growth it is estimated that impacts to wildlife will be minimal and of short teen. The deer fawning and elk calving season is mid -lav to Early June and if operations occur during these times the areas will be monitored and areas where animals are concentrated will be avoided until after the fawning and calving season. There will be a significant increase in small rodents due to micro openings and cover (slash) which will benefit the raptors by increasing their food source. Deer normally do not fawn on these kind of slopes, they look for meadows on gentle ground. Post Harvest Conditions Defined From a distance the timber stand will appear to be unchanged. The existing residual trees will be free to grow and with decreased competition for the available water, nutrients and sunlight increased growth on younger trees is expected. There will be fewer dead trees present in the stands and there will be less mortality expected to happen for a few years. Because of the slash on the ground there will be more risk of fire during the year of logging. After the first winter and compaction of the slash due to snow, that risk will disappear. Over the next five years after logging, more organic material will be present in the soil and increased available water holding capacity is expected. 3. Proposed Logging Systems: - Systems used (conventional, cable, helicopter, etc,) - Cutting system (saw, shear, etc.) - Limbing and bucking in the woods or whole tree skidding -Proposed haul system - road locations, both existing and planned -road specifications (grade, width, surface, etc.) - (USFS spec.: 14' wide, 6-8%<grade, base=6-8" gravel) -expected number of loads per day - :maintenance requirements (dust abatement, shut down criteria) - stream crossings (#, type, locations on map) - public access and safety considerations 9 Helicopter louring is proposed to existing roads. At this time conventional felling with chain saws is expected. We are proposing, at sometime in the mature, to try an articulated shear machine that will work up to 50% ground without causing ground disturbances and that shears, limbs_ cuts to length and windrows the logs. There is a new machine from Europe on the market that is being tested in this country. The operator has ;.expressed an interest in placing one of those machines here for testing. It is my recommendation as a Forester that we try the machine but that it be watched very carefully and if erosion potential and/or residual tree damage results higher than caused by conventional cutting is noted, that use of such a machine be stopped. Y V Limbing or bucking is to occur in the woods with lopping to generally less than 30" is required. Scattering of concentration away from the residual trees is also required. Proposed Haul System The logs are to be flown to landings on existing roads where the logs will be decked or loaded onto conventional trucks for transport to a sawmill. Access to the property is from 1-70 at DeBeque along Roan Creek Road (Garfield County Road 205) approximately 13 miles to the Kimball Creek Road (Garfield County Road 202). Then westerly along Kimball Creek Road approximately 11 miles to the terminus of Kimball Creek Road (County Road 202). County Road 202 terminates at a point in the SE/4 of Section S, Township 7 South, Range 100 West; bth P.M. This terminus is located on property belonging to the Dougherty family, and we will use approximately 1/_ mile of improved dirt road through the remainder of the Dougherty property. From the boundary of the Dougherty property; we will cross about '/2 mile of BLM property before entering the Albertson Cattle Company lands (Resurvey Tract 51). Garfield County Road 205 is a paved road from 1-70 as far as the Kimball Creek Road. Kimball Creek Road is paved for a short distance and then becomes a very good din road as far as the Albertson residence in Section 14 of Township 7 South, Range 99 West, 6th P.M. From the Albertson residence, the road is dirt through the Dougherty property, the BLM property and to about the center of Section 7; Township 7 South, Range 100 West, 6th P.M. . Attached is a copy of the Permit to use the already existing road across BLM property. It is planned to place magnesium chloride on all of the earth surface roads where residences are located and to water the landing where the helicopter landings are located. While it is true that on the initial "pilot" job no new roads are planned or needed. On subsequent jobs some new roads will be needed. Attached is a road specifications list for construction of roads for the Colorado Timber and Land Co. Stream Crossings There will be no new stream course crossings. 10 Public access and safety considerations This proposal, as previously stated is a pilot project using helicopters for logging. Helicopter logging attracts attention from the public. This protect is out at the end of Kimball Mountain, and will occur on private property that does not have public access but still must be considered as an "attractive nuisance". As there will be a lot of people who want to see what is going on, there is a of a log dropping from the aircraft while in flight. There also is extreme danger on the lnaings when the logs are being dropped. Signs advising the public of extreme risk and signs prohibiting entry into these areas will be posted. The pilots of the aircraft will need to alter the flight path to avoid public trespasses, electric power lines, gas and oil well heads and transmission devises. This requirement will mitigate risk to the public. The increased hauling of forest products on Garfield County roads will create impacts on other county road users. Hauling of forest products is legal. Fuel and license taxes are available to help pay for maintaining, roads. A system of sign posting to worn other county road users is considered to be necessary and we would like advise from your transportation planners as to the signing system. 4. Proposed Rehabilitation Guidelines: - Closure of skid trails and haul roads? - Revegetation of roads, skid trails, landings, etc. - Reseeding (for erosion and noxious weed invasion) -Replanting requirements There will be no "skid roads" to close as helicopter yarding will be utilized. The haul roads on this pilot project are all existing. After hauling is complete the roads will be inspected and drainage features will be added or rebuilt as needed to prevent any erosion from this operation. Landings will be sloped for drainage; ripped to s leviate compaction and seeded with grass seed as suggested by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. A mixture of Mtn. Brongrass 30%, Western Wheat Grass 30°A, Idaho Fescue 30% and Rocky Mtn Pennsteamin 10% applied at 15 lbs to the acre by Broadcast seeding. and covered with grass, hay, or straw. Hand spread at the rate of 2 tonsiacre. All disturbed areas I.e. landings will be inspected for two years and any noxious woods sprayed. The landowner will be doing this work. Replanting will not be necessary because of this project. Our cruise sampling shows that the areas to be logged is well stocked with natural regeneration that will be released and free to grow. 5. Schedule of Operations: - Approximate annual cut -Starz and stop dates -Seasons of operation (wildlife impacts?) 11 0'd 70101 This proposal is to helicopter log using a Bell 205 (modified) to a super 205. Approximately, this ship can log 100,000 board ft. (MBF) per day and will work an estimated'140 days per year for a total of 14rnm bd ft passible annually. This pilot project does not have that much timber. Therefore, if this project works out economically, and environmentally, there will be more project proposals submitted. • It is anticipated that no operations will occur in the thaw and melt periods in the spring or in the raining and pre -freeze conditions in the fall which incidentally is about the same time as the general big game hunting season,. The helicopter also will not fly, for safety reasons, on days of high wind (over 30 knots). It is also anticipated that during the winter on days that a storm is in progress the ship will not pe able to fly. And during the summer, on days of high temperatures and extreme fire danger the ship will nod fly. Making the estimate of 140 flying days optimistic, This project proposal is for Sec 7, to be the pilot project of the 640 acres our cruise shows that 400 acres are timbered with Douglas Fir that averages 8 MBF per acre. The proposal is to remove 70% of the trees of saw timber size or 5.6 MBP/acre, 5.6 MBF x 400 = 2,240 MSF. 6. Potential impacts and Planned Mitigation: -Soil and water resources -Fish and Wildlife Habitat -endangered plant/animal species? -hunting season impacts -Fire protection (fire district?, stop logging criteria?) -reimbursement to county for cost of fire suppression due to logging activity? -Neighboring landowners and communities -Recreation and aesthetics -County/State infrastructure impacts (roads, bridges) -Ton/mile fees? IMPACTS Stearns A stream side buffer zone is established for 50' on either side of Kimball Creek. This is the only live stream within the resource area. Noise While there will be some noise created during the logging process, it should be minimal and limited to subject lands. There will be no impact to adjacent lands. Z0'd SeLLS176 01 12 'DNI '09 01 ONIdEDINOOa WOel WdOS:eT 2.66�-Le-80 Dust As mentioned previously, magnesium chloride will be used to inhibit dust along all roads close to residences. u%ildlife Habitat • The overall effect on deer, elk and other wildlife will be vastly improved by the removal of both live and dead timber. There will be significantly more grazing once the timber has been removed and the grass reseeded and release of native vegetation to increase the amount of "browse" for wildlife and grass for domestic animals. This will also make for much greater calving protection for elk and overall make their habitat much more palatable. Noise and activity may initially cause the deer asd elk to move a short distance from the fogging operation for a very few dans. However, they will then return and not be disturbed by the noise. Rare and Endangered Species Suspected to occasionally use the proposal area are Goshawks. Fiammaluated Owl and Eagles. No nestings were observed, 1 do think the area is used as hunting grounds for all of the listed species. There will be a short-term negative impact for hunting by these species. There will also be a long-term beneficial impact for those sane species. Because there will be increased young growth, vegetation and cover (slash) there will be a buildup of critters such as mice; rabbits voles and wood rats. All are prey to the raptors and will provide an additional food source. The Colorado's Department of _Fish and Game was contacted; they have concerns about nesting sites of Raptors on the area and suggest that nesting surveys be done with modifications to "cut areas' and on operating periods if necessary. This job will be done in the Spring when the birds are nesting. This work should not be necessary during the fall or winter. There should also be more birds building up populations such as grouse and other woodland species that feed on grasses and seeds. These species are also prey for the raptors. It is not anticipated there will be an impact on the general hunting season for Elk and Deer as generally this time of the year is when the wet season occurs and before freezing when operations will cease to prevent damage to roads and landings. On this project, the landowner does not allow hunting other than family and they will avoid the logging job. 13 Adjacent Lands There will be no measurable impact on adjacent lands by the generation of vapor; noise, glare, vibration or other emanations. ;Emissions There will be no emission of heat, glare, radiation nor fumes which would interfere with any adjacent lands. Recreation The proposed harvest is on private ground so there is no public recreation impact. The sale will improve game hunting for the private landowner. Fire Protection During periods of ex-treme fire danger as measured by relative humidity of less than 20%, ambient air temperatures of greater than 90' F and wind speeds of more than 20 knots all felling and yarding operations will cease. Hauling may continue. At all times all internal engines shall be equipped with USDA - Forest Service approved spark arrestors. The fallers will carry a shovel that is less than 300' of where he/she is working. All motorized equipment shall be equipped with a round point shovel "0" size or larger and a double bitted ax of 2 % lb. or larger. These tools will have serviceable handles and be reasonably sharp. In addition, during fire season, there will be an employee of the logging company present on the days operating area for thirty minutes after all operations cease for the day, whose sole duty will be to look for fires and extinguish any that may be found. The reason for this requirement is to keep any accidentally caused fire from becoming a major problem as this is the time of day when a problem may develop. Neighboring. Landowners and Communities This area of impacts or mitigation is difficult to assess and mitigate because so much of it is subjective. The USDI BLM is an adjacent landowner who does logging_ on some of their lands. Some adjacent landowners are cattlemen and some adjacent landowners drill gas wells. One of the adjacent landowners has a summer cabin. The negative impacts on communities are increased traffic including log trucks noise from the helicopter and chain saws. The beneficial impacts are over time are less fire danger, new jobs and income to the landowner, longer. It is suggested that the positive impacts balance the negative impacts and in fact will last 14 Recreation and Aesthetics The recreation potential should not be affected as the project is on private lands without public access. It is anticipated that hunting recreation potential for the landowner is increased due to better browse habitat for deer and elk. Aesthetic values can be measured as a person views the project from near view and far view less than '/2 mile and greater than 1/2 mile to 3 miles. The near view may have some impacts if there were anyone there but because of the limited public access the impacts are minimal or less. The far view will not be changed it looks like a timbered hillside now and will continue to appear the same because of the partial cut that is planned with no scars from road building etc. County/State infrastructure Impacts The hauling of logs in Colorado is legal, The truck owners pay his share of road taxes through license and fuel taxes. The heavy truck traffic may cause accelerated road surface loss. Garfield County does not have a program where they collect road use mitigation fees so it is difficult to mitigate the County. As hauling will be curtailed during the time when heavy damage occurs during the spring thaws and the fall rainy period be some freezing it is suggested that this program is mitigating problems before they are likely to occur. 7. enforcement of Logging Plan: - Who will enforce approved plan? - Bonding requirement? -Violation notification and remediation requirements -Appeal procedure (arbitration requirements) This project is being reviewed by a consulting forester with over 37 years of experience (Public and Private). At the same time a forest technician is being trained to report violations of the "reserve" ports of the plan and the Colorado Timber and Land Co is being urged to bring a forester on staff to enforce the terms of the contracts and permits. All contractors and subcontractors will be required to post a comprehensive liability insurance policy of one million dollars (S 1,000,000.00) to take care of remediation requirements. - Any accidental "take" of an endangered species will be reported as soon as detected to the Colorado Fish and Game Department. Any fire and subsequent action taken will be reported to the Garfield County Sheriff' office, who administers the suppression efforts of Garfield County. It is expected that any arbitration between parties to this proposal will take place in a civil court except disputes involving Garfield County and agents in which case the Board of Commissioners will have arbitration proceedings. l5 List of Attachments Water bar spacing guidelines Map showing cutting areas Map showing project boundary Road construction guidelines for new road construction Names of adjacent landowners Rights -of -Ways Copy of grant deed Road Construction Specifications for New Road Construction on projects by Colorado Timber and Land Co. Roads are to be single lane with inner visible turnouts. All seasonal roads are to be ripped and grass seeded after use and before the next winter season. All permanent year long use roads are to be rocked with 4" of 2" - rock. All roads will be benched '/4 of its width and outsloped. Road fill slopes are to be 2-1 and cut slopes are to be 1-1. All stream courses crossed will be either cleaned out and the ch2nnels restored to the original condition or A culvert installed with rock head walls that is sized 50% larger than the average end area of the maximum runoff. The maximum ¢rade is 15% except that minor stretches (less than 500 feet) may be as muc?t as 20% to avoid obstacles. All roads will have grades that vary to provide natural drainage. Proposed locations of all roads are to be shown on Quad. 7 'A degree Map. Ali stream course crossing will be at 90*. Waterbar Construction Standards MAXIMUM MUM DISTANCE BETWEEN WATER BREAKS 'Estimated Road or Skid Trail Gradient in per cent. F azard Rating 10 or less 11-15 26-50 over 50 feet feet feet feet Severe 100 75 50 50 High 150 100 75 50 Moderate 200 150 100 75 Slight 300 200 150 100 1. Water breaks shall be cut so as to allow the discharged water into vegetative matter or large rocks (energy dissipaters). 2. Water breaks shall be cut at a diagonal at a minimum of 6" into the flan roadbed, skid Llan, fire break or ETC. and shall have a continuous 1rm embankment immediately- below and adjacent to the lower edge of the water break cut. 3. The throat shall be open so that the water break is self -maintaining. Ronald R. Cunnington Registered State of California Professional Forester No. 290) 1954 Union Ridge Placerville, California 95667 Phone: (916) 622-4166 EDUCATION Humbolt State University Bachelor of Science in Forest Management, 1960 University of California at Berkeley Graduate coursework in silviculture, 1975 Oregon State University Graduate coursework in logging systems, 1973 - 1974 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Forestiy Consultant, 1991 - Present Michigan -California Lumber Company Forester, 1986-1991 United States Forest Service Assistant Timber Management Officer, Eldorado National Forest, 1975-1986 Timber Management Officer, Weaverville Ranger District, Shasta -Trinity National Forest. 1967-1975 Sale Preparation Officer, Six Rivers National Forest, 1963-1967 Small Sales Officer, Stani.slaus National Forest, 1961-1963 Shasta Forest Products Company Forester, 1960- 961 08-07-1997 10:08AM P.01 TO: Ring Insurance iitigiacv ,. • 6'4,-/L Cou-1-7 FROM; JACK SOURS RIFLE INSURANCE AGENCY �- 7-9 7 DATE: PAGES : COMMENTS: ar,‘ If any pages are not received, please call me at 970-625-1689. Thanks! P.O. BOX 1700 • 201 W. 3RD ST., SUITS 101 • RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 (970) 625-1689 • FAX (970) 625-1115krbEini 08-07-1997 1008AM Rifle Insurance Agency P.O. Box 1700 Rifle CO 81650 303-625-1689 Garfield County Eric McCafferty 109 8th Glenwood Springs CO 81601 P.@2 COTIM-2 JS 08/07/97 .............. Per your request, we have approval on the Road Bond For Colorado Timber and Land Company. Please see the attached message 1 have from Trinity Universal Insurance Company . I am sending the requested application in today so the bond can be issued. Once I have the form, I will forward it on to your department. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thanks. Jack Sours OB -07-1997 10:09AM 97-29-97 22:28 TRINITY TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY 10000 North Centel Expressway Dallas. TX 75231 FAX COVE*Fi SHEAT DATE: TO:, MOM: July 30, 1997 Jack Sours Rifle Insurance Agency Jeff Smalling Bond Supervisor TIME: PHONE FAX: PHONE; FAX: 10:26 AM 970.625-1689 970625-1115 214-3604515 214-360-8330 Colorado Timber and Land Company w Number of pages including cover sheet 1 Message Jack, P.03 ENTERED JUL 3 0 it397 Per your submission, Trinity will approve issuance of the requested $100,000 Garfield County Permit Bond on the basis that liability coverage (as discussed) is in place, and that an application/indemnity agreement (form S-4018) is completed and signed to include the personal indemnity of Kenneth Roberts, Nathalie Roberts, Robert Chavez, and Shirley Chavez. The annual premium for this bond will be $1000.00. Please advise effective date desired. We appreciate your business. • 444-- 77 9'sr- 08-07-1997 10:09AM Colorado Western Insurance Company WHEATRIDGE, COLORADO NON -ASSESSABLE MISCELLANEOUS' LIABILITY. NEW NAME INSURED: COLORADO TIMBER AND LAND COMPANY P.O.BOX 431 RIFLE, CO. 81650 P.04 FOR SERVICE OR ADDITIONAL INSURANCE - CONTACT YOUR AGENT 05-02-012 GLENWOOD INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. (303)945-9161 POLICY NUMBER: 05-004137-60--001-7-01 POLICY PERIOD: 12:01 A.M. STANDARD TIME, AT THE INSURED PREMISES. FROM 07)15/97 TO 07/15/98 AMENDED EFFECTIVE: 07/15/97 PREMIUM CHANGE TO EXPIRATION DATE $ 1,241 FEE 0 1,241 INSURANCE IS PROVIDED ONLY FOR THOSE COVERAGES FOR WHICH A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF INSURANCE IS INDICATED. WE WILL PROVIDE THE INSURANCE DESCRIBED IN THIS POLICY IN RETURN FOR THE PREMIUM. AND COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE POLICY PROVISIONS. POLICY DESCRIPTION: 44444 - PREMISES/OPERATIONS AND PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS - NOC - TIMBER BROKERS COVERAGE DESCRIPTION GENERAL AGGREGATE EACH OCCURRENCE PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPNS PERSONAL & ADV. INJURY MEDICAL PAYMENTS FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY LIMIT 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 5,000 50,000 SUBJECT TO FOLLOWING FORMS AND ENDORSEMENTS: CGOO/0]. 01/95 CG2I/16 11/85 CG21/36 11/85 CG21/49 10/93 CG21/50 09/89 CG24/02 11/94 CW -141 04/96 CW -143 04/96 CW -145 04/96 CW -148 04/96 IL00/17 11/85 IL00/21 11/94 CW -144 04/96 • PREMIUM DEDUCTIBLE 1,241 CG21/39 10/93 CW -105 04/96 CW -146 04/96 IL02/28 10/89 SERVICE COMPANY: COLORADO WESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY DATE OF ISSUE: 07/18/97 COUNTERSIGNED: 07/18/97 15:50:44 250 CG21/47 10/93 CW -113 04/96 CW -147 04/96 CG03/00 10/93 PREMIUM: 1,241 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TOTAL P.04 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that ALBERTSON RANCH COMPANY has applied to the Planning Commission, Garfield County, State of Colorado, to grant a Special Use Permit to allow a logging operation, in connection with the following described property situated in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to -wit: Legal Description: See Exhibit A Practical Description: Located on Kimball Mountain and adjacent lands, western Garfield County. Said Special Use Permit is to allow the petitioner to operate a logging/timbering operation on the above-described tract. All persons affected by the proposed Special Use Permit are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state your views by letter, particularly if you have objections to such request, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for the Special Use Permit. This Special Use Permit application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department, located at 109 8th Street, Suite 303, Garfield County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colorado, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The public hearing on the application for the above Special Use Permit request has been set for the 13th day of August, 1997, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., at the office of the Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County Courthouse, Suite 301, 109 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Planning Department Garfield County * a • :1• 4 • Recorded at o'clock ss5O Reception No. ' FEB 1 1977 Q)/(, l23ily (1)f'(YZ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT ALBERTSON RANCHES CO. First Party c/o Dale Albertson P.O. Bax or Street Address De@eque, Colorado 81630 City State Zip tuu493 PAI E 150 Rerordcr. • taCORDER FEB 1 1977• * Q husband and wife ❑ singte person ❑ a Colorado Corporation 0 a Partnership 2 a Limited Partnership for and in consideration of ten dollars and other valuable consideration, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to ALBERTSON RANCH CO. *Q individually Second Party 0 Joint tenancy fin Da 1 e A 1 he r i - son Cl tenancy in common P.O. Box or Street Address ❑ a Colorado Corporation DeBeque, Colorado • 81630 ❑ aPartnership City State Zip IR a Limited Partnership the following described property in the County of anrfir+1 cI 1 Macs and State of Colorado: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. No State Documentary Fee RequiredyConsideration Less than $100.00 with all its appurtenances and warrants title to the same, except and subject to general property taxes for the current year, U.S. patent reservations and exceptions, any and all easements and rights of way of a public or private nature and planning, zoning and other governmental rules and regulations and liens and encumbrances of record. SIGNED this ;C day of January A D 19 77 ALBERTSON RANCHES CO., a Limited Partnership J Or s G eelep on neral partner f�ii C{� Cry Fisk Dale B. Albertson - general partner STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF GARFIELD The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this t day of January 197-7—by Orris G. Albertson and Dale B. Albertson, general partners of ALBERTSON RANCHES CO., a Limited Partnership. I 1 f I ! ;mess my hand and official seal. •' • Ply.cammission expires: •O.:.ra4_.-.. - !IL!, 15„1750 �4t -`c, • NOTE: ` ” Mark epplicehle squaro with x. Smp..14 shell include plural as context requires. • • PETRE, ZIMMERMAN & SHELTON P.C. -• Form 1 • t ,•• 6au'493 Pia 1 55 Tt WNSii £? 7 SOCT:f, , _... ;:. Ino 'ME s [::TH P.N. G.M. No. 17 Placer Mining CL?im, embr:_.nj ;i S=:, Section C.M. No. 18 Placer Mining Claim, embracing Nt5S3i, Section 12; All of said lands tnd premises contain a total of .5003.29 acres, according to the United State Patent issued thereZor. EXCEPTI2yG all prior mineral reservations and the rights to t'.':fl surface whir may be connected therewith, it being the i^_ention of the first party to convey all the rights to the surface reserved by Barney L. Whatley in that certain Warranty Deed between himself as grantor, and Texas National Petroleum Co. as grantee, dated iioverber 1, 1958, recorded in Hook 312 at Page 290 of the records in the office of' the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado, and FURTHER EXCSPxING reservations made by Barney L. Whatley in a Quitclaim Deed dated :larch 15, 1966 to William J. Whatley covering G.M. No. 17 and G.U. No. 18. PARCEL V - CUDDY TRACT TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, PXIGE 100 WEST OF THE SIXTH P.m. Lots 7 2.nr ,.8s. Section 31: Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, EhNWk, EISA, NW SEh containing 425.21 acres, more or less. TOGETHER with a grazing permit on the Big Salt Allotment as granted by the Bureau of Land Management, consisting of 413 active AUMS together ' with a proportionate interest in the suspended, non-use AU_ -IS, subject to the Bureau of Land Management regulations and the provisions of the Allotment Management Plan. PARCEL VI - COLORADO CARBON COMPANY TRACT Tract 51 in Townships 6 and 7 South, Range 100 tlest of the uth P.M., according to the Independent Resurvey of said Townships . approved and accepted on January 23, 1923; also described as the NWk, SW4 Section 32, Township 6 South, Range 100 West of the 6th P.M., and NW;, SWy, SE: Section 5; `Ek, SE„ Section 6, all of Section 7; NWss Section 8, Township 7 South, Range 100 tlest of the 6th P.M., containing 1899 acres, more or less. December 26, 1996 Planning Department Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Protest and Objections to Request for Special Use Permit Dear Commissioners: We are in receipt of your certified letter advising us regarding a request by the Colorado Timber and Land Company for a special use permit to allow a logging operation on Kimball Mountain and adjacent lands in western Garfield County. As owners of land adjacent to the proposed logging operation, we must protest the granting of said permit and request the permit be denied. Our 818 acre property, Elkhorn Ranch, 19190 - 204 Road, Debeque, CO 81630, stretches along the Roan Creek drainage and County Road 204 for approximately 3.5 miles. Along this distance are living areas, barns, and haying and grazing operations in close proximity to or immediately adjacent to County Road 204 and Roan Creek. The ranch vistas include the areas of potential logging. We wish to lodge with the Planning Commission the following objections and concerns: In March, 1996, we were contacted by Joe Pace, an agent representing Mr. Dale Albertson, who inquired on Mr. Albertson's behalf, as to our interest in either 1) granting an easement across our ranch, 2) selling approximately sixty (60) acres, or 3) decline to provide access of any kind. Mr. Pace explained that the request was expressly for the purpose of conducting a logging operation in the timbered area above the ranch and parallel to BLM ground. We explained that we were not interested in either option, declined any access, and expressed concerns regarding any logging operations in the area. The environmental impact of the proposed logging operation raises extensive, and as yet unsatisfactorily answered, questions: What will be the heavy soil erosion impact of this potential "clear-cut" operation? (Reference letter from Kelly Rogers, Assistant District Forester, Colorado State Forest Service dated 12-10-96). What specific provisions are planned to protect the Roan Creek watershed and protect against heavy soil erosion? What will be the specific potential impact on water resources and drainage in the Roan Creek area? What will be the impact on the loss of wildlife and fishery habitat and what will be done to protect said habitat? What clear plans exist for protecting residual stands of timber and for reforestation, reseeding, and replanting and how extensive and satisfactory are these plans (sustainability of the resource)? What specific plans exist for mitigating any catastrophe and/or disaster which might occur during the logging operation OR could occur following the conclusion of said operation? What will be the impact of livestock grazing on BLM ground immediately adjacent to the proposed logging operation? What will be the impact on hunting seasons? What will be the impact of road construction on the environment? What will be the impact on the existing road system and how would such impact affect those along the existing roads? Additionally, the proposed logging operation will negatively impact ranching operations at Elkhorn Ranch. The ranch has an exclusive BLM grazing permit for BLM ground contiguous to the western ranch boundary. The proposed logging operation is on land immediately adjacent to the BLM boundary. We are concerned about the incompatibility of these two activities. Finally, the rim rock and timbered North slope areas above Elkhorn Ranch are particularly beautiful. Given what has been described as the "uneconomical" aspect of logging these slopes the aesthetics of the area would be damaged or destroyed not only for property owners but the general public as well. We respectfully request that you reject the applicant's request for a special use permit. Please advise us relative to any next steps in the process should there be any. cerely yours, auH. Mills Property Owner Elkhorn Ranch Julia L. Mills Property Owner Elkhorn Ranch ti 2 toQ't1n�.o E Epic"tfdICN RAra.c.k -- -a i N} O U N T A I N UNI- DEPARTMEN" GEOLO. 114 r dc ��ihtih4111Y �'X�e�i;tu. THE COLORADO TIMBER AND LAND C ❑MPANY, RLLP Remington Square Business Center 129 West 4th Street Rifle, CO 81650 December 19, 1996 Mr. Eric McCafferty Building & Planning Dept. 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Dear Eric: Phone: (970) 625-4440 • (970) 945-5804 Fax: (970) 625-1809 • (970) 945-0960 Ken Roberts • Shirley Chavez This letter is in reply to the BLM letter forwarded to us December 11, 1996 (see copy enclosed). I will address their comments as set forth in the letter: 1. On the northerly side of Kimball Mountain, we will use a high line method of logging and bring the timber to the top of Kimball Mountain. It will then be loaded on trucks and taken down the new road we are building in Sections 1, 2, and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 100 West. The rehabilitation plan is addressed in the contract between CTLC and Albertson. 2. The haul roads and spur roads will be entirely on Dale Albertson and/or Kimball Mountain Outfitters property with the exception of a road across BLM land in Section 8 of Township 7 South, Range 100 West as shown on the attached plat. I am applying today for access across BLM lands in Section 8. We will also be using access across the Dougherty lands and County Road 202. 3. There was actually a mistake made in the typed Agreement. The correct description should be Sections 1, 2, and 12 of Township 7 South, Range 100 West. The road is entirely on property belonging to Dale Albertson. According to County Records, the E/2 of Section 3 and the N£/4NW/4 and N/2NE/4 of Section 10 in Township 7 South, Range 100 West are fee lands belonging at this time to Kimball Mountain Outfitters. See copy of Patent recorded at Book 279, Page 417 which patents these lands as well as other lands. Mr. Eric McCafferty December 19, 1996 Page 2 4. In using the old aerial photos which were provided initially, all the timbered lands were not included. Please see the topo map attached which more clearly sets out the amount of timber available at this time. Available timber is indicated by the blue colored area. By our calculations, the available timber is on approximately 3,250 acres, and we would harvest approximately 3,500 board feet per acre. 5. Units 12 and 13 are on BLM lands and should not have been included on our plats. This was an error when I prepared the plats. 6. We are not clearcutting any lands. All lands in the requested permit are private lands. 7. Buyer will pile all landing slash. Slashpiles will be burned when conditions are suitable, approximately one year after piling. Buyer will get the appropriate permits before the burning. Sincerely, 0 Shirley Chavez 441 SC/bmm Enclosures CARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning MEMORANDUM TO: All Review Agencies FROM: Eric McCafferty, Garfield County Planner SUBJECT: Special Use Permit for a Logging/Timbering Operation Applicant: Colorado Timber and Land Company DATE: 25 November, 1996 The Planning Department has received the above -referenced land use request and we are forwarding it to you for your review and comment. Please review the enclosed information and if you care to offer relevant comment, please forward those comments to this office, no later than December 20, 1996. This land use proposal has been scheduled for a public hearing before the Garfield County Planning Commission, at its January 8, 1997 session. I sincerely thank you for your assistance in the review of this proposal. If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this office. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 December 10, 1996 Eric McCafferty Garfield County Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3303 Eric, ' ELLS vVUNTYState Services Building 222 S. 6th Street. Room 416 Grand Junction. Colorado 81501 Telephone: (970) 248-7325 have reviewed the Special Use Application for a Logging Operation submitted to Garfield County by Colorado Timber and Land Company and Meridian Trading International, Inc., and have the following comments. The plan as written does not cover many of the items the Colorado State Forest Service usually addresses in a logging plan.( See the attached list of "typical items to include in a logging plan", as suggested to Garfield County Planning by CSFS several years ago). However, from the permit application and the attached Sale Agreement, can figure out pretty much what is proposed. I suggest requiring the following additional information as a minimum: 1. The proposal lacks any real description of the property's terrain or the timber involved. I am assuming from the maps and my general knowledge of the area that this proposal involves very steep, north -facing slopes with Douglas fir timber. Although there have been a few recent proposals to cable log areas like this in western Colorado, I have yet to see it actually done on a large scale. Most loggers consider the steep slopes and marginal quality of this timber to be un -economical. I would require a more detailed description of the logging method proposed. 2. I am somewhat concerned about the amount of timber to be removed under this proposal. The amount mentioned is 4 million board feet by cat logging and 6-8 million board feet by cable. I estimate about 1,200 acres within the proposed cut areas, which would mean they propose to cut between 8,000 and 10,000 board feet per acre. My experience in cruising this type of timber is that it averages about 8,000 board feet per acre total volume. So, the only way they could get the kind of volume they anticipate would be to clearcut. I certainly do not recommend clearcutting on these slopes, at least not in areas as large as proposed. It is my feeling that large (more than 20 acre) clearcuts on these types of slopes and soils would probably lead to heavy erosion. There should be some minimum stocking level stated for the residual stand, and more detail on regeneration requirements. I would require a more detailed description of the silvicultural method proposed here. 3. This brings me to my third concern, which is road construction. Improper road construction is probably the leading cause of erosion from timber sale activity. New road construction is proposed on several sections of steep ground. There is no soils description for the area involved, and no mention of erosion potential. It's hard to know if the mitigation measures listed are adequate, without more detail on soils. I would also want more detail on all proposed road locations and standards of construction. 4. We require a buffer strip of at least 75 feet from any live streams, instead of the 50 feet suggested in this proposal. 5. Since I am not a wildlife biologist, I generally consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to get their input on potential impacts to wildlife on a proposed timber sale. There is no mention of possible T&E species, restrictions for elk calving seasons, or possible limitations on logging activity during hunting seasons. 6. The only impact on adjacent lands mentioned is dust from log trucks. Log trucks making twelve round trips per day will undoubtedly raise safety concerns, along with unusual wear on the roads. How will these road impacts be mitigated? 7. In addition, sorne of the performance standards listed are Tess than our standard specifications. We require a maximum stump height of 8", instead of 12". There is also no listed slash requirement other than to pile landing slash. We typically require slash within cutting units to be lopped and scattered to less than 18" in height. hope these comments are of some help in reviewing this application. Please feel free to call me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Kelly Rogers Assistant District Forester TYPICAL ITEMS TO INCLUDE IN A "LOGGING PLAN" 1. Description of area to be logged: - Terrai n - Slope - Aspect - Soils, Geologic hazards (i.e. slippage) - Streams, ponds - Wildlife (T&E species) - Property boundaries, monuments - Current access, roads - Timber types -per acre volumes - species composition -average dbh, ht, and stocking level -Other vegetation (T&E species) 2. Proposed silvicultural prescriptions by timber type: - Long term silvicultural objectives - Silvicultural system proposed (clearcuts, lTM's, etc) - Location of proposed harvest areas, how marked - Size of proposed cutting units - Protection of residual stands - Regeneration requirements (natural or planted) - Slash treatment (lop & scatter, piled, max height) - Utilization standards (1/8 sound, 8' long) - Stump height standards (8" uphill side) -Streamside buffers (min. width [200' each side], locations on map) - Wildlife impacts - Post harvest conditions defined - Map of above 3. Proposed Logging Systems: - Systems used (conventional, cable, helicopter, etc.) - Cutting system (saw, shear, etc.) - Limbing and bucking in the woods or whole tree skidding - Proposed haul system - road locations, both existing and planned - road specifications (grade, width, surface, etc,) - (USFS spec.: 14' wide, 6-8%< grade, base= 6-8" gravel) - expected number of loads per day - maintenance requirements (dust abatement, shut down criteria) - stream crossings (#, type, locations on map) - public access and safety considerations 4. Proposed Rehabilitation Guidelines: - Closure of skid trails and haul roads? - Revegetation of roads, skid trails, landings, etc. - Reseeding (for erosion and noxious weed invasion) - Replanting requirements 5. Schedule of Operations: - Approximate annual cut - Start and stop dates - Seasons of operation (wildlife impacts?) 6. Potential Impacts and Planned Mitigation: - Soil and water resources - Fish and Wildlife Habitat - endangered plant/animal species? - hunting season impacts -Fire protection (fire district?, stop logging criteria?) - reimbursement to county for cost of fire suppression due to logging activity? -Neighboring landowners and communities - Recreation and aesthetics - County/State infrastructure impacts (roads, bridges) - Ton/mile fees? 7. Enforcement of Logging Plan: - Who will enforce approved plan? -Bonding requirement? -Violation notification and remediation requirements -Appeal procedure (arbitration requirements) IN REPLY REFER TO: 5400 (C0-076) United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Grand Junction Resource Area 2815 H Road Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 BEG 4 1996 Eric McCafferty Building & Planning Dept. 109 8th St., Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. McCafferty: * • TAKEAN RIDE PINS AMERICAmmimm s •• Our office has reviewed the proposal of the Colorado Timber and Land Co. for a logging operation on Dale Albertson's Ranch Enclosed are comments: 1. A more detailed Forest Management Plan/Logging Operation Plan should be required. This is to detail exact road locations and specifications (transportation plan), the type of harvesting prescriptions used, and a good rehabilitation plan. 2. Through the transportation plan a detailed layout of the spur roads and haul roads will probably show that some crossing of public lands will be necessary and a right-of-way will be needed from the Bureau of Land Management. 3. On page 7 of 8 in the "Agreement" there is mention of building a road through Sections 1, 2, and 3, T. 7 S., R. 99 W., but on the map it is highlighted in Sections 3 and 10, T. 7 S., R. 100 W., which is entirely on public land. Any new road on public land will require an environmental assessment (public involvement), cultural clearance, and be engineered to Bureau standards. The best course of action would be to build it on private land. 4. By quick calculations, 14 million board feet in 17 units covering 1,190 acres translates into an average harvest of 11,765 board feet per acre. At these figures, it seems likely that these units will be clearcut. We bring this up as this area is prone to soil slumping and landslides. These units are very steep and some measure of erosion control should be stipulated here. That is why the harvest prescription is important and a good rehab plan is needed. 5. This brings up another point, units 12 & 13 are located on Public Land. There is no plan at this time to harvest timber on Public Lands due to the steepness of the area and to provide wildlife habitat. 6. Clearcuttng these areas will have an impact on deer and elk cover. The Flammulated Owl and the Goshawk will also lose habitat. 7. Slash disposal should be better defined and any burning will need a smoke dispersal/burning permit. The proponents should be coordinating with the BLM on any activities that may cross/involve public lands and have not done so to date. Should they require permits/approvals from us, they will most likely be delayed pending our analysis of their proposal. CC: Colorado Timber and Land Co. % Shirley Chavez Remington Square Rifle, CO 81650 Sincerely, iek,Ot///n,__„_ Catherine Robertson Area Manager LETTER OF QUALIFICATION I , JAMES D. CRISWELL- PROFESSIONAL FORESTER COMPLETED MY B.S. IN FORESTRY DEGREE FROM PURDUE UNIVERSITY IN 1964. I HAVE BEEN A PROFESSIONAL FORES I'ER AND PARTICIPATED IN ALL PHASES OF CRUISING, LOGGING, APPRAISAL , AND SILVICULTURAL MANAGEMENT IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES SINCE MY GRADUATION. THIS INCLUDES WORK IN ALASKA, WASHINGTON, OREGON, IDAHO, MONTANA, WYOMING, UTAH AND COLORADO AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. JAMES D. CRISWELL FORESTER GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning 19 December, 1996 Catherine Robertson, Area Manager Bureau of Land Management 2815 H Road Grand Junction, CO 81506 RE: 5400 (CO -076) Colorado Timber and Land Logging Proposal Dear Ms. Robertson, The Planning Department has recently received additional information concerning the above -noted timber proposal located in western Garfield County. 1 am enclosing this information and request that if you care to offer comment on this information, please do so at your earliest convenience. The land use proposal is scheduled for a public hearing with the Garfield County Planning Commission on January 8, 1997. So that we may include additional comment, if any, I request that you provide these comments no later than December 30, I996. Thank you for your assistance in reviewing this application. Sincerely, < L Eric D. McCafferty Garfield County Planner enclosures 109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-8212/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 UNITED STATES NATURAL RESOURCES 2754 Compass Drive, Suite 170 EPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Grand Junction, CO. 81506 AGRICULTURE SERVICE (970) 242-4511 December 20,1996 Eric McCafferty Garfield Co. Planning Dept. 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Special Use Permit for a Logging/Timbering Operation Colorado Timber and Land Company This invitation to review and comment on the above proposal was forwarded to our field office from the Glenwood Springs field office. We have reviewed this proposal and offer the following comments: -- Please refer to the attached soil description. This subject area consists of extremely steep and highly erosive soil units. Therefore, any disturbance will cause erosion and sedimentation off-site. This can be minimized to a certain extent by traditional erosion control practices such as water bars on roads and trails, reseeding, etc. However, on this terrain, it is very difficult. - Access roads and cat trails will be subject to erosion and sedimentation, and will require properly spaced water bars, and continual maintenance to minimize erosion hazards. - Areas in the site that will be disturbed during construction and logging operations will encourage weed growth. Of particular concern in this area are possible infestations of noxious weeds such as Leafy Spurge, Russian Knapweed, Canada Thistle and other thistle species, Whitetop, and Houndstongue (Beggar's Tick). Therefore, disturbed areas should be kept to a minimum. All disturbed areas should be constantly policed. Weeds should be sprayed as they appear. Roads and other disturbed areas should be reseeded. We have provided seeding recommendations for your information. Areas should be protected from any activity for two seasons after establishment. - We would recommend that logging activities take place as per Colorado State Forest Sevice guidelines. They will consult with landowners and operators on a fee basis to develop a logging plan which will, address the forest resource in a comprehensive manner. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project. If you desire any additional information, please call, Sincerely, t, E. James Currier Resource Conservationist 7 is f�5 7Ll H,J I `1r I,Ii i Ca . fad 'i 7rT NONTECHNICAL SOILS cESCRIATION REPORT Kimball Mountain Map Symbol 71 Soil name and description Utso-Rock Outcrop complex, 40 to 00 percent slopes This map unit is on side slopes. This unit is 60 percent utso channery loam. and 25 percent Rock outcrop. The Utso soft is deep and well -drained. It formed in colluvium derived dominantly from Green River shale. The upper part of the surface layer is channery loam about 4 inches thick. The lower part is very channery Loam about 7 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 60 inches is very channery loam. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water capacity is tow. Effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is very high. Rock outcrop occurs on very steep slopes, canyon slopes, cliffs, and steep mesa edges. 200'29f:)8 IJf QNadE aasn WONd '2:17i 96, 02 03G U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ALiiiICULTURE NATURAL R£SO[IRCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WOODLAND MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY Kimball Mountain (Only the softs suitable for production of commercial trees are listed) PAGE t OF 3 12/20/96 Map symbol and soil name Ordi- nation symbol Management concerns Erosion hazard 71; Utso Rock Outcrop_ 4R E0121 ' 39Hd SEVERE Equip- ment Seedling wind- Limita- mortal- throw tion ity hazard SEVERE SLIGHT SLIGHT Plant competi- tion MODERATE Potential productivity Common trees Rocky Mountain Douglas -fir Site index 65 Volume of wood fiber m3fha 4 Suggested trees to plant lOf QNB 9 Hasn l OJ3 172:171 96, OE 03Q U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURA1, RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE wO0DLAND MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY Endnote -- WOODLAND MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY PAGE 2 OF 3 12/20/96 This report can be used by woodland owners or forest managers in planning the use of soils for wood crops. only those soils suitable for wood crops are listed. The report lists the ordination symbol for each soil. Soils assigned the same ordination symbol require the same general management and have about the same potential productivity. The first part of the ORDINATION SYMBOL, a number, indicates the potential productivity of the soils for an indicator tree species. The first species Listed under common trees for a sail istha indicator species for that soil. It is the dominant species on the soil and the one that determines the ordination ctasss, The number indicates the volume, in cubic meters per hectare per year, which the indicator species can produce. The second part of the symbol, a letter, indicates the major kind of soil Limitation. The Letter "Rn" indicates steep slopes; "X". stoniness or rockiness; "U", excess water in or on the soil; "T", toxic substances in the soil; "D", restricted rooting depth; "Co, clay in the upper part of the soil; "S", sandy texture; "F", a high content of rock fragments in the soil; and "N", anowpack. The letter "An" indicates that limitations or restrictions are insignificant. If a soil has mere than one limitation, the priority is as follows: R, X, W, T1 0, C, S, F, and N. In this report, "Slight", "Moderate", and "Severe" indicate the degree of the major soil limitations to be considered in management. EROSION HAZARD is the probability that damage will occur as a result of site preparation and cutting where the soil is exposed along roads, skid trails, fire lanes, and log -handling areas. Woodlands that have been burned or overgrazed are also subject to erosion. Ratings of the erosion hazard are based on the percent of the slope. A rating of "slight" indicates that no particular prevention measures ere needed under ordinary conditions. A rating of "Moderate" indicates that erosion -control measures are needed in certain silvicuttural activities. A rating of "Severe" indicates that special precautions are needed to control erosion in most sitvicultural activities. EQUIPMENT LIMITATION reflects the characteristics and conditions of the soil that restrict use of the equipment generally needed in woodland management or harvesting. The chief characteristics and conditions considered in the ratings are slope, stones on the surface, rock outcrops, soil wetness, and texture of the surface layer. A rating of "slight" indicates that under normal conditions the kind of equipment or season of use is not significantly restricted by soil factors. Soil wetness can restrict equipment use, but the wet period does not exceed 1 month. A rating of "Moderate" indicates that equipment use is moderately restricted because of one or more soil factors. If the soil is wet, the wetness restricts equipment use for a period of 1 to 3 months. A rating of "Severe" indicates that equipment use iS severely restricted either as to the kind of equipment that can be used or the season of use. If the soil is wet, the wetness restricts equipment use for more than 3 months. SEEDLING MORTALITY refers to the death of naturally occurring or planted tree seedlings, as influenced by the kinds of soil, soil wetness, or topographic conditions. The factors used in rating the soils for seedling mortality are texture of the surface layer, depth to a seasonal high water table and the length of the period when the water table is high, rock fragments in the surface Layer, effective rooting depth, and slope aspect. A rating of "Slight" indicates that seedling mortality is not likely to be a problem under normal conditions. Expected mortality is less than 25 percent. A rating of "Moderate" indicates that some problems from seedling mortality can be expected. Extra precautions are advisable. Expected mortality is 25 to 50 percent. A rating of "Severe" indicates that seedling mortality is a serious problem. Extra precautions are important. Replanting may be necessary. Expected mortality is more than 50 percent. WINDTHROW HAZARD is the likelihood that trees will be uprooted by the wind because the sail is not deep enough for adequate root anchorage. The main restrictions that affect rooting are a seasonal high water table and the depth to bedrock, a fragipen, or other limiting layers. A rating of "Slight" indicates that under normal conditions no trees are i n- aNIJ O easn woeld sa : t I 96, ea Jsa U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE WOODLAND MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY Endnote -- WOODLAND MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY --Continued PAGE 3 OF 3 12/20/96 blown down by the wind. Strong winds may damage trees, but they do not uproot them. A rating of "Moderate" indicates that some trees can be blown down during periods when the soil is wet and winds are moderate or strong. A rating of "Severe" indicates that many trees can be blown down during these periods. PLANT COMPETITION ratings indicate the degree to which undesirable species are expected to invade and grow when openings are made in the tree canopy. The main factors that affect plant competition are the depth to the water table and the available water capacity. A rating of "Slight" indicates that competition from undesirable plants is not likely to prevent natural regeneration or suppress the more desirable species. Planted seedlings can become established without undue competition. A rating of "Moderate" indicates that competition may delay the establishment of desirable species. Competition may hamper stand development, but it wilt not prevent the eventual development of fully stocked stands. A rating of "Severe" indicates that competition can be expected to prevent regeneration unless precautionary measures are applied. The potential productivity of merchantable or COMMON TREES on a soil is expressed as a site index and as a volume number. The SITE INDEX is the average height, in feet, that dominant and codominant trees of a given species attain in a specified number of years. The site index applies to fully stocked, even -aged, unmanaged stands. CoMmonly grown trees are those that woodland managers generally favor in intermediate or improvement cuttings. They are selected on the basis of growth rate, quality, value, and marketability. The VOLUME OF WOOD FIBER, a number, is the yield likely to be produced by the most important trees. This number i4 expressed as cubic meters per hectare per year, indicates the amount of wood fiber produced in a fully stocked, even - aged stand. Cubic meters per hectare converts to cubic feet per acre per year as follows: (1 03/ha = 14.3 ft3/ac). The 14.3 number is rounded up from 14.2999. The TREES COMMONLY MANAGED FOR to plant are those that are suitable for commercial wood production. S66']6dd lcf CENdel9 EQSn WOdd S2:iT 96, 07 02a ** 900 ' 3Jbd 1x101 ** U. S- DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTtRE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICB COLORADO Producer: Colo. Timber & Land Co. contract Practice PART J. - GRASS SEEDING PE.ANNED Planner; DDG/EJC or Agreement # contract Name gc No. Critical Area Item No. Irrigated Dryland X Land Resource Seedbed Preparation: Method Dead Litter Cover: clean till, Firm Seedbed, Intergeed, Other Area 48A Kind, hPounds Seeding Operation: Drill Drill Spacing Fertilizer: CO -ECS -5 (180-12-11) Rev. 4/92 Date: 12-20-96 Field No. Kimball Mtn. Ac. Range Site DF Woodland Approximate dates July or Sept. residue needed Disturbed Areas Interseecl_ _ 2roadcasi. X Date Aug. or Oct. Type TrackPack-up� & down slopE2la t incl depth where possible. Pounds actual avail bin nutrient per acre recommended. Nitrogen (N2) Phosphorus (P205) Potassium (X) weed -Control: chemical, Hind & Amount spray Flash Grazing --- Datr2n as required erosion Mau .u3.cr ; ):ind Grass flay or iiow anchored Seed Recommendations Scecies Mtn. Bromegrass Western Whtgrass Idaho Fescue Rocky Mtn. Penstemon Broadcast x PLS per mechanical mount 4000 lbs/Ac. Anchored .depth Variety Bromar Arriba Sod Bch 5 B Benders (3) seeding rate species/Ac. (1)x(2) 11.4 9.6 4.8 1.2 (4) Planned Acres (1) Required PLS rates per acre (100%) 19 16 8 6 Hand (2) % of species in mixture 30 (5) Total PLS lbS/ Species planned (3)x(4) 30 30 10 SCS cost shared programs such as Great Plains, Watershed activities, RC&D measures andany other program requires the use of certified Seed (Blue Tag) is available. Remarks 90G'30bd 101UNbdJ basn Nod 99:tI 26, 02 0311 11-15-1996 1 O : 48AM FROM ALPHAGRAPH I CS, MESA 602 844 2337 484449 B-956 P-282 10/20/95 04:16P PG 1 OF 4 PEC DOC NFEE MILDR7n ALSDOPF GARFIELD COUNTY Gi E:RECORDER 29.25 32.50 Filed for record the at olcl.ock M - Reception No_ day of A.D. 19 Recorder By: _ Deputy FILING STAMP GRANT, BARGAIN AND SALE DEED THIS DEED, made this 17th day of OctObCr 1995 between Union Oil Company of California, a California corporation, a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California, grantor, and, Kimball Mountain Outfitters LLC, a limited liability company, whose legal address is 5466 County Road 202, Debeque, CO 81630 of the County of . Gzrfieid and State of Colorado, grantee: WITNESSETH, That the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Three Hundred Twenty -rive Thousand Dollars ($325,000.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the grantees, their heirs, successors and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying and being in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado described as: LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT ''Art AND MADE A PART HEREOF. EXCEPTING THEREFROM AND RESERVING UNTO GRANTOR all, oil, gas, minerals and petroleum products below a depth of five hundred feet (500') measured vertically downward from the surface contour of the said real property and reserving right of surface entry far the purpose of utilizing said reservation. SUBJECT TO GENERAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 1995 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RIGHTS, RIGB:TS Or WAY OF RECORD, AND OTHER MATTERS OF RECORD, EXISTING AND IN PLACE. TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments arx appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, Issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. Coldd/r/py ? P. 2 [j � f7 IGb. 11-1S-1996 10_12AM FROM ALPHAGRAPHICS, MESA 592 Gad 2397 484449 B -95E5 P-283 10/20/95 04:16P PG 2 OF 4 To HAVE AND To HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances, unto the grantees, their heirs, successors and assigns, forever. The grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns does covenant and agree that it shall and will WARRANT ;AND VoREVER DEPEND the above -bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantees, their heirs, Successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons claiming the whole or any part thereof, by; through or under the grantor. Provided, however, that the foregoing obligation of Grantor to warrant and defend the title shall be limited to those matters insured under the title insurance policy obtained by Grantor for Grantee in connection with this conveyance, and the amount recoverable for any claim arising with regard to said warranty and defense of title shall be limited to the insured amount as stated in such title insurance policy. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor has causediis corporate name to be hereunto subscribed by its '�1ana7er Sal es and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, attested by its Assistant secretary, the day and year first above written. Attest: Union ail Company of California, a California corporation 0 �- /t�S 4v\' R. L. W 1tor Assistant Secret . 4010."' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) On QC ro3 IZ. / 7 , 1995, before me, f7�,.,o/ /44_ 4%� .✓€� , Notary Public, personall appeared ,7. i vfzP,-/ Sell -sand i� 1.4/r+r-opi/Ass : Ar° rsanally known to me OR 'pi ved to me on the basis of sa1!isfactory evidence to be the persons whose name(s) sure subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that -a/ -e/they executed the same in .3a /their capacity(ies), and that by h-i-allaemytheir signature(s) en the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS ray hand and official seal. Notary Public Coldd/r/p-y 2 £!A7„.„,71.=77-177;;71-3TAA:;:;17zilii77( Ccs' COMM. #1069858 1NOTARY PUBLIC n gI A 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY -1 My Comm Expifts Aug 20, /333 P. 3 11-15-1996 10,49AM FROM ALPHAGRAPHICS. MESA 602 344 2397 P.4 484449 B-956 P-284 10/20/95 04:16P PG 3 OF 4 FILE NO. 9506046 -REVISED PAGE 1 EXHIBIT "A" Yn mawrsh?p Severi {7; South, Ram One_Hun red (100) West of the 6th P.M. G.M. No. 1 Placer Claim, embracing Lots Five (5), Six (6) and Seven (7), and the Southeast Quarter (SE/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section Three.(3); G.M. No. 2 Placer Claim, embracing Lots Eight (8) and Eleven (11) and the East.Half (E/2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE14) of Section Three •(31,; G.M. No. 3 Placer Claim, embracing the North Half (N/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of section Ten'(i0); G.M. No. 4 Placer Claim, embracing the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section Ten 0_0); G.M, No. 5 Placer Claim, embracing Lots Seven (7) and Eight (8) and the South Half (5/2) of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section G.M. No. 6 Placer Claim, embracing Lots Five (5) and Six (6) and the South Half (S/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section Two G.M. No. 7 Placer Claim, embracing Lots Seven (7) and Eight (8) and the south Balk' (5/2) o the Northwe t Quarter (NW/4) of Section Q n e -(3,4/" G.M. No. 8 Placer Claim, embracing Lots Five (5) and Six (6) and the South Half (5/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section one (1); G.M. No. 9 Placer Claim, embracing the North Half (N/2) of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section E1evel ..( .1) ; G.M. No. 10 Placer Claim, embracing the North Half (N/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section Eleven -°•(11); G M. No. 11 Placer Claims, embracing the North Half (N/2) of the Northwest Quarter (NW/ 4) of Section. a2-; G M. No. 12 Placer Claim, embracing the North Half (N/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section..12j' G.M. No. 13 Placer Claim, embracing the Southeast Quarter (SE/4) of Section One .(11; G.M. No. 14 Placer Claim, embracing the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) of Section One :(1)'; G.M. No. 15 Place; Claim, embracing the Southeast Quarter (SE/4) of Section Two (2); G.M. No. 16 Placer Claim, embracing the Southwest Quarter (5W/4) of Section Two 0); continued on page 2 11-15-1996 1 Com] = 5C AM FROM ALPHAGRAPH I CS. MESA 602 844 2397 P. 5 484449 B-956 P-285 10/20/95 04:19P PG 4 OF 4 FILE NO. 9506046 -REVISED PAGE 2 EXHIBIT "A" CONTINUED In Township Six (6) South, Range One Hundred (100)_ West of the 6th P.M. G.M. No. 19 Placer Clain, embracing Lot one (1), the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of the Northwest Quarter. (NW/4) and the East Half (E/2) of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section Thirty-four (34 11 'i G.M_ No_ 20 Placer Claim, embracing the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section Thirty-four„(.34); G.M. No_ 21 Placer Claim, embracing the Northwest Quarter (Nw/4) of Section Thirty-five (:35) G.M. No. 22 Placer Clain, embracing the Northeast Quarter (NF/4) of section Thirty-five :0.51T, G.M. No. 23 Placer Claim, embracing the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section Thirty-six (36); G.M. NQ. 24 Placer Claim, em)rracing Lots One (1) and Two (2), and the West Half (W/2', of the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section Thirty-six (35;.,- G.M. No. 25 Placer -Claim, embracing Lots Two (2) , Three (3) and Four (4), and the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) of Section Thirty-foLi (34) G.M. No. 26 Placer Claire, embracing Lot Five (5), the East Half (E/2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE/4) and the Northwest Quarter (Nw/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE/4) of section Thirty-four (34)-,4 G.M. No. 27 Placer Claim, embracing the southwest Quarter (SW/4) of Section Thiry-five(35) '; G.M. No. 28 Placer Claim, embracing the Southeast Quarter (5E/4) of Section Thirty-five (35)4 G.M. No. 29 Placer Claim, embracing the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) of Section Thirty-six (36):; G.M. No. 30 Placer Claim, embracing Lots Tbre (3) and Four (4) and the West S-Ialf. (W/2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE/4) of Section Thirty-six (36); C.M. No. 31 Placer Claim, embracing Lot Niue (9) , the East Half (E/2) of the Southeast Quarter (sE/4) and the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE/4) of Section Twenty-nine.(29); G.M. No. 32 Placer Claim, embracing Lots Eight (2) and Nine (9) and the West Half (W/2) or the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) of Section Twenty-eight (2q7)' G.M_ No. 33 Placer Clair, embracing Lots One (1) , Four (4) and Five (5) and the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section Thirty-two (321; G.M. No. 34 Placer Claim embracing Lots One (l) and Two (2) and the North Half (N/2) of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section Thirty-three (23); G.M. No. 35 Placer Claim, embracing Lots Three (3) and Four (4) and the North Half (N/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section Thirty-three -(33) . RETURN •ro PETRE & P1:TRS, PC P 0 BOX A00 GLENIJOO1) SPRINGS, CO 81602 Exhibit "A” Page 2 of 2 • 11.15-1996 10:50AM FROM ALPHAGRAPHICS. MESA 802 84.4. 2397 u Recorded at 7 • L7'5. n'r.Snr:k 27-6G5b RtcCptirm Nn FE8 1 1977 P. 8 ruu,493 'rei 150 cr y67•tr p f (:.6/11" KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT ALTHERTSO7.`:; ij,\NCrrES CO_ First Tarty c/o Dale Apaartson PAD_ tIox or Streeat, A.;irlress C'.ol.nreicin C i iy St:/to R1 62.1) Zip Ref rlydl'i . rEE 1 1977 • 0 husband and v.+fe !7 Singic per;on ❑ a Carorado Corporation ❑ a Partnership 2 a Limi,CO P,rtner;hip faf and in considi;rarion of ten dollars anri other valuable Consideration, in hand paid, hereby Sells and C.L.711VeyS tU M,R3ERTs0N rtAKCtl CO. Second Party n /n Yk�I 2 Ii]PYi on_ P.O. BOx or SIra:t Address Dolle4'ue , Cc?brade 8.1534 City State Zip nr:iuitlitairy Ll joint t,:nancy ❑ tenancy in COrrimpn C a C6rrsrndo Corporation C a Partnorship a Limited Partnership the following d3s.,r4ed property in the County of "7; r 1 1 ; u;�r� end Stato of Coforado: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto ixrd by reference made a part hereof. No State Dociamenta.ry Fee Regtaired Consideration Less than $100.00 with all its appurtenances and warrants title to the same, except and Sut juf:t to gCner3l property tar's for the current year, U.S, patent reservations and exceptions, any and all easements and rights of vary of a public or private nature and planning, zoning and other coovernrnantal rules and regulations ane. 1.ien,s and etnownbrances of record. tr 44- SIGNED this ' �~ day of _ Til a Y STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GAFiFf ELD A -O. 19 77 ALEF.RTSON RANCHES CO. , a Limited Partnership • Ors' ' .x n r :9.oe-neral ?car tner Dale B. Alberteon — general partner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this- t _ d.,y Of _ail i ry ig i7 bY O.rris G_ Albertson and Dale F. Albe taor,, general partners oL ALSL'RTSON f2 I CI1BS CO., a Limited Partnership. 2 l fi;,NI es; my hand and official seal. y' • IYSy,cctmmission expires; 1; • .NOTE: • .• Mork ,g4il.ral1.3w $cny„t;� al..fl inCI�Ia ylu.ar as cc,nwxr rI UU i. r r / C7?iffy Puttic ■ PEIRS, LiMMCr{MA E.5I ELTON P.C. - fn,„ Y ir lu:b1AM • FROM ALPHAGRAPHICS. MESA 602 844 2397 • " • Ex1.173r1 7A' ALulf.W7oN RA!,k;IJES Ce), To ALI.W.RTS0LM RArqn C0_, A LI:-I.TO 1.1ARTNEP.SU1P 2ARCEL 1 - 7.;P.a?Y • 7:0NSTE2:2 7 .150;:7. S tic.A 9: SW.7;5' Cf.JUK493 ?.[;E f 5 f S ! 10; ch.5.t paft 1-1rat3:0rocv1 to VLF,- 1,c7:1:z=m • Ot'ad recoraed Lt. tha ofEjae of ti7-2 C1,erk ana Rebocdc G rfieId County, C.13LorL:Jo t:o_ 146313 la L'ca;,; aOs at Ba5e 117 thercoC. Section 15: zat4z,V.na, ziANS14, BXCEPTINC th cast SS2 f.cet of saLd 1;i1:INE:1:: z e)cceptea by ;7).et3 recorda‹? in the of.fice o -f the- Clerk and Recder of Caf5i€,La County, Co.1orao as 7.01,-=-1t vo, 154012 ia Book 213 at Page 402 thQrcoe_ Section 17: NE, iSt,NE4N:g, 51/2W,W1/4 Stiction IS: .7.451.1,-17SW3LT. -201-7NSTiIP 7 SOUT!-!. 99 !EST 07 THE SIX Pt Section 7! Lot 2 5W¼S'ANElz, Section vS: Section 9) 5,2ction 10! S!-5.NW:e, SW1r,NV, section 11-; NWES;;iz:, sWIISE1/4 Baction 13; aekl section 14; M1/2:4E*„ SEE% ToqN5i1751 7 SCUM RRNGE 130 [TES? OF s-cxrl'H p.n. ection 9: ,/ SEN -W. N:Sk SW SectiC,n10: ;;.--.• Section 11: 11--15-1998 10_51AM FROM ALPHAGRAPHICS, MESA 802 844 2397 r P.8 DOU?i493 GE 152 ALL 4.E.L'a:5 C:0r•:!{;o.intl c_{lLlLHmin..T ,154.:L,i acr.2Li, C,l{J_4t or Goi:C._:� :d l Cil any and al.L '.G:1 and w.voC ',y•.^v3 1 }�<<i-- + to, LIpc C1 (3 r L [L cOL: 1- G. _ C: :1 1.1? = :}iJ L"� i?Qy .y{'• r• +, L)-. J. '7: o' _ - including, but non 3xolusi.vcl'_ t`LL - - Priority FI-iurit:y Priority '479 Priority !;L40 Priority i75 Priority 1.Q.3. Priority n`.)9 Priority ,-i96 Priority f1$588 Priority u.i13,7AA Freshier Ill tch Kimhal1 Di.tch A.V. and D. Ditdh A_V. and 0- Ditch C t--'r_,:t Di t2iL CzItz act Ditch Cat,z4hm [1 Ditch Gerrick Ditch 1{oay14nd- 'cashier Ditch h.V_C_ s S. Ditch 2.9 c__ -s_ I.. c.f_. 1.0 c.;..s L.0 c_f-s -'� C_f_s. j2.3 c.f.v. 1. 4 C. f. s. 1-6 c.€.c. 0,7 c_f_s_ 9-7 o -f.... TOr2r:1TER a.ieh anv and al' grczinc rights or privilege, connecter with the above described _,roperty including .:;uch gracing Tights as are presently owned by first party as established by the Sareau of Land Management an the public domain. EXCEPTING all prior mineral reservations, existing oil and Sas leases, and easements and righty. -of -war of a public or private na.turc . Pe.RCEL II - $UM!IE .NO 'HINTER R':63G Q'PISHIP 6 SO,JTHl/RANCE 97 t'?7ST OF THE SIXTH P.M. Sectic t 9 E-1, ESS Section An undivi N'h and the Section An un.div' dad ne-calf interest in the NkNk, and all of .he S hNw1/4 a d the ' w4 ne--a1r ir_terest in the S-,Sk, and a11- o: the 51/2 Sectt•. 77. Eh, NLOs Sac ion 27: Al of Section 27 TOtk, SIITP $ SOUTH., WEST OT TUE 55T.. -TK ScCtion 21: The East 70 acnes [if the 1015512 'z"-3Ur75r-'LP 9 SOUTH, Pn?1G.E 95 [-T 5^_ GF __iE iii::'T iI ' _:•i Section 29: SGJ�SGJ� •SLction 30: Elk. Section 32: V;NW1/42 5Z4n, NL•74N'J TO;•NSx;Tri 10 SOJTIq, nAE,IC;L' n4 [,?ST OF -cur SIH, -.7 n .� '. r . -> 1 : 11-15-1996 16:S2AM FROM ALPHAGRAPHICS. MESA 602 844 2397 P_ 9 =Ll:' l FAL': 1 53 pC:7p7,!d C' -.;n -,.(.L by t,_,_vL. %i.2 i;lt_:?..:u of ,. ,-, .. •s _:�., on El.(CE' INO G11 prior rineraL _t'. 3- J„tzO.ti cr conveyan4tiU, iltciid nc; all 02,_1ts, r_'.,.5tL;-cU1-,i y, o; C�--..,1 :� 1�_=M�� r.L''.inn.: Qwne.c: _'1 C:7.'_--2c.".:C:l PAC ! - •:i. ^.•.'_"!S TQ TNSNTP 2 .eoq1'. , r>r0:1573 -sC7 •_.ction 27. TOGETHER with all wale; and water rights connected therewith including but not exclu;i i,vely, all stock owned _y tha first party in the Cranc1 Tdat,1ey Water Users A5soci'ation, EXCEPT prior mineral reservatitns, and easements or rights -o --war of a public or private nature. Section 33: Beginning at the nartheaot come:: of sia. section 33, !_I-:enca S_ 0°14' :•7_ 1314:47 feet; thence S. 0°15'rl. 1313.73 teet to the East Quarter Corm=: o= Section 33; thence S. 0°19' W. 1315.24 Beet; thence S. 59°5'6' W. 955.5 feet to a point Ian iron pipe set in fence); thence 5, 394'46' W. 1214.4 feet to a point Qn an arroyo which bears in a Northeasterlydirection; thence as nearly as possible following the cru=se of said arroyo, N. 55°1S' E. 531 feet; thence N. 716 E. 383 feet, thence N. 53°20' E_ 338 feet; thence N. 13°42' E. 350 feet; thence N. 36°20''E. 132 feet:; the:' *I_ 240.."-7' L. 269.92 feat to a pont on the Eat -Wast Qw)arter line of S=Ct_c:l 33; thence along tate sand East -Teat Quarter line N. 99°46' E. 195 teat; thence N. 019 E. 1312.86 fa_ - thence S. 89°11S' T,Y. 658.73 tea" thence Id_ 0°20' E. 1310.57 ,tear_ to _ po_nL- on the North section line cf section 33; thane along the ?north section lin N. 89635' _- 1312.43 *eat tc the point of beginning. TOCETFIER with all water and water rig'r_ts concicctec; therewith including, but.not exclusively. all stock owned het the. first pail -iv in the Grand valley water Users-..5.sociation. EXCEPTING eas meats and rigt-:ts-of-way of a public or private nature. -.Asea ::'I - G.M. T.'L L.CEp i1'Z=v C sr.=?45 TOWNsi~I? 7 SOUTH, P2\NC1100 .:57 Or ^r:E SI.XTri P.M. ?`4 G_M. No, 1 Placer Claim, em,b. acing Lot- 3 5, 6 and 7, and the SE;rIF -, section 3; • No. 2 Placer_".r Cla--, ere- ;�..:.� Lo_5 8 and IL, and t E SE). -i, Section 3; G.M. No. 3 Placer Cl.Ai.`,,, embracing the .y KNE>;. Sectj0rt 10; C.I. No. 4 Placer Claim, embracing t'-_^ ti;E'•;Nr•T., Section 10; G.M. No. 5 Placer Claim, embracing Lo7.s S N:l';, :rection 2; 7 and 8, and the C.;i, rzo- 6 Placer C14;17,, ;:.,...ci::g Lo`s 5 . r,1 6, and t:-:_ • IJc.1/4, Srcr on 2; • i i n , i1.: c n C .. :, ”" , » ::' Q .: - L •� "ii and 2 .and 11-15-1996 1 B - 53AM FROM ALPHAGRAPH I CS. MESA 662 844 2397 P.10 w:,1:; 4,;,3 f 54 r c . t4. iIO Fi P'_.]i: it - - -. -.. 'y i- v , a ;,t 6, f: the G.M.Sectiarl No- 9 ?)..a .. .faction 11; C.M. Na. 10 ul.:car C. -_m, a... -,r_.: _• :,act..on L1; G.M. No. 11 - ! :C r ei;.r .._;ca t_^_2 1' :vSi ', section L3, G.m. Mo. 12 Placer Claim, c::'c_aci.^.y the rr:;21NZrst, Section 127 G.M. Lao. 13 ?lacer Claim, c::•_br_c_z,, t:^,. SE, Section One; G.M. No. 14 Placer Claim, c'm:.:drac_:g the SS'4, Se_otjon on G,M. No. 15 Placer Claim, embracing tnc SE;, 5action 2: G.M. No. 16 Placer Claim, ctaa'racinc; the ,SW, Section 2; TOWNSai=' 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7.00 EST OF THE SIXTH F.`I. G.M. No. 19 Placer Claim, cmIz'racinq Lot 1, the NANW-,; and the E. NWS, Sectic:l 34; G.M. No. 20 Placer Claim, embracing the NE;, Section 34: G.M- No. 21 Placer Clain, embracing tha L t•i4, Section. 35; G.M. N. 22 Placer Chin, error -c ng tha cif;, Section 3S; • C.M. No_ 23 Placer Cl•,im, em'crLcing the NN;,, Section 36; G.M. No. 24 Placer Clam, C^>::.7r ci_,q Lots 1 and 2, and the W1NE,.Section 36; G.M. No. 25 Placer Cla:.. , embracing Lots 2, 3 and 4 and the WEhs , Sectors 34; G.M. LUSO. 26 _•_a n Clair, e._�r ,ing 7,cz 5, the ESE1/4 and the E;W SES, Sect_on 34; G_M_ 31o. 27 Placer Clain, embracing the SI;Oz, Section 33; G.M. No. 28 :lacer Claim. embracing the SE Section 35; G.M. No. 29 Placer Claim, e.... _ac--_ nS the 5W , Section 35; G.M. No. 30 Placer Claim, em:oracin5 'rote 3 and 4, and {t:i Sectirn 36; C.m. me. 21 'Placer /yy claim, I_ot 5, the EkSEL and the NSV KJC'„ Section 23; C_!4_ No. 32 ?:',Acer Clam, er.,braoi7tg Lot�� 5 and 9, and the WSC'I:, Section 28; G.M. No- 33 Placer Claim, e-brac-^g sots 1, 4 and S :na the 1!L' tiLy, Section 32; G.M. No. 34 Placer Claim, embrecins Lots 1 and 2, and the NW!, Section 33; C.M. No. 35 . 1-.cer 0135.:1, e braa_7!g I.qC 3 and 4, and the 'iNE1/4, Sect i.ol 33; 11-1S-1996 10:56AM • '1—....--v ti FROM ALPHAGRAPHICS, MESA 602 844 2397 bow{493 fur FF �l 'riNyS;;t. 7SCLC"_:[, ._,. , Ino • _ - TNE: V_L"�- No / Pia(_I�i 5e,"tien )1: C.=-1. Mo. 1a' Placa flim. , Claim, C::: i 7:` .vLy ar S•:c;ion All of s'aLd Lands end ] Pi>.1'.,}r',ti cor.v::in a 1=t1. of .]003.20 aCC'C , accocdi.ft_-i to the Unitad St. extent thz.4 4-. E XCCPTINv all prior mineral, file rights to st,tri. ie tnI?[.0 may be connected tharowi.th., it b in1:, the L.^._e.ntion of the first no.r.=l' to convey all the rz.c3i?ts to the surface r,.•sLcvd by s.rn_y L. Vha,tley in that cercaLf I'iar4manty Deed eLtv,._n hlm.-e ::y as ant) ' exn.s Petroleum Co. as grantee, dated : ovmbe' l19c .gin tr. 500k 312 at Rage 290 of the .records in the office cLerk and Recorder of Garfield County, CoLprado, c[ Fl.w 2[ER EXC:-"=.Z G reservat...ons ti jr by Barney L. vinat'ley in a Quitclz;in Deed date :larch 15, 1366 to William ,7. Whatley covering G.M. No. 17 and c,:z-3_ No. 13. •i JF ?,CEL V CUDDY TlNF,IP 5 SOU R, 1NGE 100 W7-", YnVt} Sr*L4)y-4.30: =f •W �$ 1r1. �'�_ rats i en i,_ Section 31: Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, EWA!, 'fStivGr NS•iySM% aontair1og 425.21 acres, more or ?ass. TOGETHER with a grazing permit on the 'Sig Salt Allotment as granted by the Bureau of .Land Nanagamant, consisting pe 413 acti re AU4S together t w t'xr a proportionate interest in the susper;Gad, .non-use AU_4S, sub_iact to the Bureau at Land Management r-egul {.tions and the provisions ot: t1i A11ptmeat Management PY a i.. PARCEL Vi -- COL(>? DD CARBON ',7, PaNY TRaC't' Tract 51 in Townships 6 anis 7 south, :',an -e 100 C'rest a� the 6th P.M., according to the Ynd=c 71andant _nase=v2y of said iocunshios approved and accepted an ;Fartuz ry 23, 1923; Also desc+-i` ec'. as the NW4, SW,1 Section 3c, To-.rns-irr 5 South, :ante 100 Nest ot the 6th P.M., and 3.1W=,, SS31/4, S.VtiSactL n 5; `:EF, YES lection 6, all of Suction .7; NW% Section 8, Township 7 SolAth, Range 103 tet o the 6th P.M., containing 1099 acres, mere CZ: lt15,.. 1 _. 'YSha't�1ig _, -�-- — -` 35 • Spri legs • -5 - • Spring O ,3 • 2 c,. F* 1� - E 7,!-•-- — - UNIT DEPARTMENT GEOLOC - .,° 30' 81:2 5-7% 117k, Spri lig F,asf 11'iley Sprit Blurt Spring V 4.7 St i -r ,1 !/ tui Spr - EaE r-= - R'6• 6,72 Nl O U N- -T Ai N E338 -;63✓9 •.^�f rS �/ r, Bull Sprz�i� '-7 .".1r11i4 i 11ur„f .- TrE533 — • 8370,. 5 • • • _p . y --- - - - fib<5,F . ' / -i e-- — Sprireg8 ' • J I 1 79,E • • // ' Xtiaraban �` 11 i / /- z_ -\ ,• 8270” • .•'6E36 Jar ,7 — i f r \ / rel