Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 BOCC Staff Report 04.21.2003BOCC 4/21/03 MLB PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Special Use Permit for natural resource extraction for a commercial logging operation APPLICANT: Norman A. Carpenter OPERATOR: Intermountain Resources, LLC LOCATION: A tract of land located in portions of Sections 30 & 31, T7S, R93W; Portions of Sections 15, 22-27, 35,36, T7S, R94W; and Sections 5- 8 T8 S, R93W of the 6th PM; more practically described as a tract of land located approximately eight (8) miles south of Rifle, off of Beaver Creek road (CR 317). SITE DATA: 4464 acres WATER: Drinking -hauled on site Fire - pumper truck during fire season SEWER: Portable toilets ACCESS: County Road 317, USFS Road 824 EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD & O/S I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The parcel is located in "Outlying Residential Density" area of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Proposed Land Use Districts, Study Areas 2 &3. 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Site Description: The site has four drainages within the project, the Beaver Creek drainage runs through the middle of the property and the headwaters for Porcupine Creek, Spruce Creek and West Mamm Creek are located on the property. (See Application) The site contains topography that slopes generally to the north, that varies from gentle slopes to vertical cliffs and elevations ranges from 8,700 to approximately 10,270 feet. The property contains a number of Engelmann Spruce- SubAlpine Fir, Aspen and Gamble Oak stands mixed in with riparian and high mountain meadows. There is a small cabin located in Teepee Park and another one on the ridge north of Houston Mountain. B. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a special use permit to harvest timber in Teepee Park area of Beaver Creek. In 1997, the previous owners of the property requested a Special Use Permit to allow the logging of 1454 acres of non- contiguous Aspen, Engelmann Spruce and Alpine Fir stands on the 4464 acre tract of land. The present application notes that approximately 25% of the anticipated harvest has been completed under the existing Special Use Permit and that the harvest will continue for an estimated 3 additional years. The applicants have stated that the proposed harvest is a necessary part of the management of the Teepee Park timber resources. Stands of trees are over -mature and beginning to deteriorate, which is one of the reasons that the applicant has determined that it now time to harvest the trees, before the economic value of the wood is lost to catastrophe or natural degradation of the timber. The application asserts that there will be the following additional benefits: Wildlife: The removal of the overstory will result in more sunlight and healthier grasses, forbs and shrubs and sprouts of Aspen in the understory. This provides more forage for elk, deer and domestic grazing animals. The retention of "islands" and "lanes" of the Spruce -Fir forest will provide overall better habitat for large ungulates. Water: The reduction of the overstory will also increase the snow pack due to less tree cover to catch and hold the snow. The increase in snow pack results in an increase in the amount of runoff available and the subsequent increase in water for irrigation. 2 Fire: The increased access created by the new roads cut for harvesting purposes will also allow fire fighters better access to any fire that may occur. Reducing the overstory and removing dead and dying trees creates more defensible space. Forest Health: The harvesting of some of the timber will result in a forest less susceptible to disease and provide better habitat for the wildlife in the area. David Hoefer, Consulting Forester comment: Mr. Hoefer notes that there have been blowdowns and bark beetle increases to the epidemic stage in other areas of the state. Natural stand replacement via fire may occur at any time or it may not occur for 200 years. He concurs with the applicant's assertion that the timber stands are in a condition for the prescribed management. (See comments Exhibit ) The applicants propose to harvest the timber using a variety of different silvicultures: Group Selection: Small groups of trees (less than 2 acres) are selected for harvesting, leaving groups of wind firm and healthy trees. The system results in the removal of diseased trees and others that are at risk to disease. Generally, not more than 40% of the basal area of the original stand is removed. Shelterwood Removal: In multistoried stands, selective cutting of either the overstory or understory or combination of both results in a healthier stand of trees. It is a method that has to be done with a great deal of care, due to the need to protect the residual trees that will be the new growth after the harvest. David Hoefer, Consulting Forester comment: Mr. Hoefer noted that the amount of timber removed was "on the high side", but he did feel that there may have been reasons for the removal level that he was not aware. Single Tree Selection: In stands where wind fall risk is low, individual trees can be selected for removal This method allows for a forest with an array of size and age classes. This method generally limits the basal area removal to 40% of the original stand. Commercial Thinning: In stands that are relatively even -aged, the leave stands should have increased growth rates. The object is to increase the growth rates in the leave stand, not to improve regeneration. This method will not be used very little in the Teepee Park area, but the Porcupine Creek drainage and northwestern slope of Teepee Creek have areas that qualify. As noted previously, the application notes that the forest is advanced in age and, generally the stands have deteriorated to different degrees and are not uniform. This will require the applicants to use the variety of silvicultural systems noted in the harvest. Due to the deterioration of the forest on the property, the applicants will not be able to use a particular silvicultural system in a particular area. Thus, they do not propose to say a particular area is going to have a specific system used. David Hoefer, Consulting Forester comment: Mr. Hoefer states that the methods proposed to harvest the timber "are the appropriate silvacultural systems to use." The applicants propose to use three different yarding methods to retrieve the cut timber: Tractor yarding: This method includes conventional equipment such as skidders and dozers, as well as the newer self -leveling hydro-bunchers popular for cut -to - length mechanized harvesting. The tractor yarding technique will be used in areas with slopes 60% or less. The hydro-buncher is designed specifically for "selective harvesting" within senser stands of timber and for safe, ecologically sound yarding on slopes up to 60%. David Hoefer, Consulting Forester comment: In his experience, Mr. Hoefer, tractor yarding is allowed on slopes of up to 35%, with the exception of going up to 45% on slopes where soil conditions and the silvacutural system being employed are compatible. He acknowledges that the newer rubber tracked equipment is quite efficient on steeper slopes. He states that a property owner needs to make sure that the skidding equipment will not damage or destroy the residual stand. His observation of the property did not indicate the applicant's loggers were going into areas with slopes over 35%. Cable yarding: This method is used on slopes greater than 60%, and may be employed in areas overlapping tractor yarding. The yarding distances will generally be limited to 600 to 900 feet. Timber is harvested in a "herringbone" pattern towards corridors that are perpendicular to the roads within the property. Helicopter yarding: Helicopter yarding will be used on the steepest areas in which roads cannot be built. This is a very expensive technique and the use of this technique will be limited by the applicant. As with the silviculture techniques, the applicant says that any of the yarding methods may be used throughout the project area. As a result no geographic one area is going to have a particular yarding method employed and therefore there is no map showing yarding techniques. Originally the property had approximately 3.8 miles of roads on the property. In July, 2001, the Porcupine Fire Road had to be built to fight a forest fire in the Porcupine Creek drainage. Subsequently, the applicant in consultation with the City of Rifle consulting engineer and Bill Gherardi, the consulting forester agreed to improve the Porcupine road as a major interior road. After that road was improved the applicant determined that roads needed to be built to access Houston Mountain, Teepee Park and the West Mamm Creek areas. The applicant does not propose to identify future roads, but all roads will be single lane, unsurfaced roads 12 —14 feet wide. They will be constructed in accordance with the Best Management Practices set forth in the CSFS Timbering Guidelines. The applicant has proposed to meet additional criteria for the construction of roads, that are "sound and practical rules" not identified in the County regulations or the CSFS Timbering Guidelines. (Pages 8- 10 of the application) It is estimated that there will be 8 loads per day during the working season, which will generally be April to December. Winter months are usually excluded due to snow depths, but due to the dry winters recently, the crews have been able to work during the winter months. Log trucks will be 5 axle, with a maximum weight limit of 70,000 lbs. The same haul route is proposed to be from the property through a portion of National Forest to County Road 317, to County Road 320 to the Rifle I-70 Interchange. The number of worker access and related trips is not identified in the application. The application does note that timber crews work from 6 AM to 6 PM, with the earliest workers arriving at 5 AM. Log hauling will be restricted to 6 AM to 6 PM, Mondays through Saturday. The original application noted the potential for conflicts with other traffic and proposed to schedule truck hauling during hours that will not conflict with children loading and unloading from school buses. As a part of the original application the applicant was required to make improvements to CR 317, prior to hauling. The hard surfacing to C.R. 320 down to the City limits was also required as a part of the previous approval and it was secured by a bond and not to be improved until the timber harvest is done on the property. Fire safety will be the responsibility of the sub -contractors working on the property. During the time that fire danger is high, each contractor will be required by the applicant to have a water truck or pumper of minimum capacity of 150 gallons, along with a fire plan to be submitted to the Sheriff. The requirements of the fire plan are specified in the application. III. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. Zoning: A site for extraction of natural resources is a special use in the A/R/RD zone district. In 1997, by Resolution No. 97-70, the County approved a special use for the 5 timber harvest on the property. To approve a new application, certain requirements must be met: Section 5.03 (1) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Environmental Health officer shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; All domestic water will be brought onto the site and all sanitation will be dealt with by the placement of portable toilets on the property. (2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; (3) As noted previously, the applicant was required to make improvements to the CR 317 and bond CR 320 to accommodate the truck traffic created by the operation. USFS Road 824 was relocated subject to a Special Use permit approved by the USFS. Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. The proposed use is located at the end of public roads and is surrounded by public land owned by the USFS. Given the relatively remote area of the proposed operation, there is no need for screening or landscape materials on the periphery of the property. There will be no lighting or signs used for the project. The only potential impacts to the neighborhood noted by the applicant, will be from the truck and automobile traffic generated by the proposed operation. The applicant has already made improvement to the CR 317 and has agreed to limit days and hours of operation Jake Mall Comments: County Road & Bridge has requested that the applicant continue to participate in the dust retardant program for CR 317. He also requests that the trucks not travel in a convoy, but that they be spaced at least 10 minutes apart, before leaving the property. (See comments Exhibit ) 6 Section 5.03.07 (1) An impact statement demonstrating that the application shall be designed and operated in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of the County, State and Federal governments, and will not have a significant adverse effect upon: (A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, stream flow or ground water; There is no domestic water or other water drawn from the streams or wells on the property for the proposed operation. The applicants received a Watershed Protection Permit from the City of Rifle as a part of the previous approval. That permit is still valid. City of Rifle comments: Bill Sappington, Rifle Public Works Director notes that the applicant has a valid Watershed Permit in place, that is subject to periodic reviews. He notes that the applicant has met all of the permit requirements or taken corrective action within the time limits specified in the permit. (See comments Exhibit ) (B) Use of adjacent land through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations; There may be smoke generated from the site, as a result of slash burning. The applicant states that this will be done with the permission of the appropriate fire jurisdiction, which is the Garfield County Sheriff. Slash burning will have to be curtailed during fire bans. The applicants recognize that there will be a need to suppress dust on CR 317 and have stated that they will continue to contribute to the dust suppression effort through the County Road and Bridge Department. (C) Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration or existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or other disruptions. Applicants have reviewed the wildlife impacts and incorporated wildlife protection standards. Included in the wildlife protection 7 standards are the protection of migration routes and minimizing the amount of man-made material brought onto the site that is appealing to animals to eat. The application has been referred to the Division of Wildlife, but no comments have been received to date. (D) Truck and automobile traffic to and from such uses shall not create hazards or nuisances to areas elsewhere in the County; The application notes that under the present operation, the number of log hauling trips per day has averaged eight (8) trips per day. There is no estimate of the number of other vehicle trips per day that would be attributable to other sub -contractors or employees. As a part of the previous approval, the applicants were required to make certain improvements to CR 317, that included the use of turn -outs. These improvements were made and approved by the Road & Bridge Supervisor, prior to the issuance of the existing Special Use Permit. As noted previously, Jake Mall, Road & Bridge District Foreman, has requested that the applicants continue to participate in the dust mitigation program and that all trucks be spaced in 10 minute increments to minimize the conflicts with local traffic. (E) Sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed uses; There are no commercial or residential structures adjacent to the property and according to the applicant, not within a radial mile of the property. The timber harvest will have beneficial impacts on the adjoining public lands in that wildfire potential will be reduced and transmigration of pests will also be reduced. (F) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution. The applicant has proposed revegetation methods, soil stabilization measures, winter operation requirements, watercourse protection measures, water quality protection measures, snag retention plan, fire safety and fuel reduction plans. (2.) Permits may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate mitigation for the following: (A) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approved by the County Commissioners before a permit for conditional or special use will be approved: The applicant has proposed site rehabilitation plans, which have been reviewed by the County's consulting forester and found to be acceptable. David Hoefer, Consulting Forester comment: Mr. Hoefer recommends that 50 pounds of available nitrogen be added to the seed mixture for grass seeding. (B) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank commitment for credit, bond, certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the County Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the execution of the site rehabilitation plan in workmanlike manner and in accordance with the specifications and construction schedule established or approved by the County Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds or check shall be payable to and held by the County Commissioners. The applicants have agreed to maintain a road bond for repaving 1.6 miles of CR 320 that was required by Resolution No. 97-70. No other security has been proposed for site rehabilitation, since the project is rehabilitation is in the applicant's best interest to maintain the economic value of the resource on the property. Section 5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards: All industrial operations in the County shall comply with applicable County, State and Federal regulations regulating water, air and noise pollution and shall not be conducted in a manner constituting a public nuisance or hazard. Operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize heat, dust, smoke, vibration, glare and odor and all other undesirable environmental effects beyond the boundaries of the property in which such uses are located, in accord with the following standards: (1) Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. The applicant has stated that the proposed operation will not exceed the noise abatement standards in CRS § 25-12-103 (1), for industrial standards, between 7 AM and 7 PM, at distance not to exceed 25 ft. from the boundary 9 of the property. All property surrounding the applicant's property is public land. (2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the property on which the use is located; There will not be any noticeable vibration from the operation. (3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to comply with all Federal, State and County air quality laws, regulations and standards; The only emission of smoke will be the result of slash burning and it will only be done when the environmental conditions are correct and the local fire control restrictions allow it. (4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases, aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from this provision; (5) The emissions coming from the timber operation will not interfere with the use of adjoining property, due primarily to the fact that it is uninhabited public property. Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas: (A) Storage of flammable or explosive solids or gases shall be in accordance with accepted standards and laws and shall comply with the national, state and local fire codes and written recommendations/comments from the appropriate local protection district regarding compliance with the appropriate codes; No explosives are used in the operation and any fuel is brought onto the property in private vehicles and in containers meeting national safety standards. (B) At the discretion of the County Commissioners, all outdoor storage facilities may be required to be enclosed by fence, landscaping or wall adequate to conceal such facilities from adjacent property; 10 There is no need for storage of facilities to be enclosed in a fence, given the adjacent properties are public lands, which isolate the property from other private property. (C) No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in such form or manner that they may be transferred off the property by any reasonably foreseeable natural causes or forces; The applicant has committed to applying dust control materials to roads to avoid the trans -migration to surrounding properties. (D) Storage of Heavy Equipment will only be allowed subject to (A) and (C) above and the following standards: 1. The minimum lot size is five (5) acres and is not a platted subdivision. The property is over five (5) acres in size. 2. The equipment storage area is not placed any closer than 300 ft. from any existing residential dwelling. No equipment will be stored within 300 ft. of any residential dwelling. 3. All equipment storage will be enclosed in an area with screening at least eight (8) feet in height and obscured from view at the same elevation or lower. Screening may include berming, landscaping, sight obscuring fencing or a combination of any of these methods. There is no purpose served in screening heavy equipment on the property from any adjoining property. 4. Any repair and maintenance activity requiring the use of equipment that will generate noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries will be conducted within a building or outdoors during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Mon. -Fri. There are no formal repair facilities proposed for the timber harvest, but it is assumed that any equipment needing repair will be done outdoors, but will not generate any noise, odors or glare beyond the property boundaries. 11 5. Loading and unloading of vehicles shall be conducted on private property and may not be conducted on any public right-of-way. All loading and unloading of vehicles will occur on the property. (E) Any storage area for uses not associated with natural resources, shall not exceed ten (10) acres in size. All equipment storage areas will be less than 10 acres in size. (F) Any lighting of storage area shall be pointed douwnward and inward to the property center and shaded to prevent direct reflection on adjacent property. No lighting for storage areas is needed for the project. (6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency before operations of the facilities may begin. The City of Rifle has issued a Watershed Protection Permit to the applicants that addresses potential water pollution of Beaver Creek and is monitored by the City's consulting engineer. See letter from the City Engineer. David Hoefer, Consulting Forester comment: Mr. Hoefer recommends that the culverts be 18" in diameter, except where there are springs or well armored ditches and where the drop is more severe. Section 5.03.12 Access Routes: All conditional uses and special uses must be provided with access routes of adequate design to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access for the use constructed in conjunction to the proposed use. The minimum design standards shall be the Garfield County Road Specifications. The applicants take the position that county roads are public highways and that such highways are open to travel by all types and sizes of vehicles at any time of day or night. Garfield County disagrees with this position and exercises control over the use County roads by controlling the weight and time of use of vehicles on the road system. The applicants made improvements to CR 317, consistent with standards and criteria accepted by the County as being adequate to meet the traffic impacts from the truck traffic generated by the proposed 12 timber harvest. Additionally, the applicants have agreed to maintain a road bond for repaving 1.6 miles of CR 320 that was required by Resolution No. 97- 70. B. Other Issues: It has been alleged that the second cabin noted in the application was built recently and without a building permit. Staff has checked the Building Department records and cannot find any record of a permit for the property. The County Assessor's records for the property do not show any improvements on the property. "Recreational Cabins" are not required to get a building permit provided it "is a structure with no more than 1200 sq. ft. of floor area on the main floor and being a maximum of 25 ft. to the peak of the roof from the ground floor and intended to be occupied as a dwelling for no more than six (6) months within any calendar year for recreational and/or leisure use; not to be used for commercial purposes; that has no access from a maintained public road to the recreational cabin, except by a private conventional sports utility vehicle with the four-wheel drive engaged for at least one-half mile, for six months out of the year." Since staff is not familiar with the access for the alleged new cabin, it cannot be determined whether the cabin would meet the previous criteria. If this is a violation, it cannot be used as a basis for denial of the proposed Special Use Permit. It would be necessary for the County to initiate separate legal action against the property owners for enforcement of any zoning or building code violations. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. That the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all parties were heard at the hearing. 2. That the proposed special use conforms to the application requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in all directions if appropriate conditions are attached to the permit. 4. That the proposed use will comply with all applicable standards contained in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, including, but not limited to all standards in Sections 5.03.07 and 5.03.08. 13 5. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use is consistent with the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the natural resource extraction operation on the property described, with the following conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, within the application, including the forestry plan, and stated at the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specifically changed by this resolution. 2. That all timber hauling on County Roads be on Monday through Saturday, between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Not included in the hauling hours are the trips in and out of the property by loggers and unloaded trucks accessing the property before 6 a.m.. Any helicopter hauling will only occur between the hours of 7 a. m. to 5 p. m., Monday through Friday. Haul trucks will not travel in a convoy, but that they be spaced at least 10 minutes apart, before leaving the property. 3. That the forest management practices and revegetation will be monitored for compliance with the conditions of approval contained in the resolution of approval, by a consultant agreed upon by the Board of County Commissioners and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant. 4. A road bond will remain in place with the County to overlay 1.6 miles of CR 320 with asphalt at the completion of the timber harvest. 5. The Special Use Permit, when issued, is subject to review for compliance or noncompliance with performance requirements associated with the issuance of the permit. The applicant shall submit a report one year from the date of issuance of the permit, 1 indicating the measures taken to comply with the performance requirements of the permit. The Board of County Commissioners will review the report in a public meeting within 30 days of receipt of the report and may determine that a public hearing is necessary to consider suspension or revocation of the permit or that conditions of approval must be met before additional activities can occur on the property. 6 All vehicles used in conjunction with logging operation must be properly licensed in the State of Colorado and the appropriate documentation provided to the Garfield County Clerk & Recorders Office verifying the licensing. 14 7. The hauling of logs will be discontinued during normal seasonal times for local ranchers to move cattle up or down County Road 317, when requested by a local rancher with grazing rights or property in the Beaver Creek drainage. 8 All revegetation of the site will be done with certified weed free seed mix. All seed mixtures will have 50 pounds of available nitrogen be added to the seed mixture for grass seeding. 9. The haul route will only be along CR 320 from the intersection of CR 320/317 to Taugenbaugh Ave. in Rifle. 4. Additionally, an overweight vehicle permit will be acquired for each vehicle needing such permit. 10. Upon transfer of ownership of the property subject to the Special Use Permit issued in accordance with this resolution, the new owner(s) shall meet with the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board and published as an agenda item of the Board. 11. That prior to the issuance of the Special Use permit, the applicant or operator shall enter into an agreement with the Rifle Emergency Services to provide emergency services to the site. 12. Prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit, the Fire Management Plan shall be filed with the Garfield County Sheriff's office. 13. Compliance with all terms and conditions of approval contained in any permit issued to the applicant, its successors or assigns, by any local government, state or federal agency, shall be deemed to be conditions of this Special U se Permit. A violation of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of such permit( s) shall be deemed to constitute of violation of the terms of approval of this Special U se Permit. The applicants, their successors and assigns, shall notify the Garfield County Board of Commissioners of notice of violation or violations regarding the subject mining and processing operations, equipment and associated permits issued by any local government or state or federal agency. The Garfield County Board of Commissioners shall be notified within ten (10) calendar days of any violation or notice of possible violation. 15 A REVIEW OF THE TEEPEE CREEK TIMBER SALE Norman A Carpenter, Landowner Intermountain Resources, Timber Owner GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 BY DAVID R. W. HOEFER Consulting Forester Teepee Creek Timber Sale Review At the request of the Garfield County Commissioners at their April 21, 2003 meeting, I conducted a review of the Teepee Creek Timber Sale special use permit. This review was made September 12, 2003 with applicant Chris Meyers (Intermountain Resources) and consulting forester Bill Gherardi accompanying me for most of the review. The review was made by driving and hiking major logging roads and walking through some of cutting areas. SUMMARY: It is obvious that Chris Meyers and Bill Gherardi understand the silvicultural practices needed to manage spruce stands and understand the Best Management Practices for Colorado. This is indicated in the timber management and logging operations on the ground. They are doing a good job. The timber sale has been conducted in a professional manner and should be an overall benefit to Garfield County. POSITIVE OBSERVATIONS: Cutting practices look good and the silvicultural objectives stated in the Plan should be obtained. Previously I had questioned the amount of trees cut resulting in a basal area (density of leave trees) lower than desired for the silvicultural system being implemented. [The stated desired level was at least 60%.] This does not appear to be an overall problem. There are pockets within the timber stands with high densities of subalpine fir. One of the Plan objectives was to reduce the amount of fir to improve the overall spruce stand. This is one reason for the more open stands that indicated in the plan. A second reason is mortality to the fir from bark beetles. A third is previous blowdown. One concern with having a light density of trees (low basal area) is that blowdown of the residual trees can occur. This was not a problem last year as there were very few blown over trees observed within the cutting areas. I saw very little damage to residual trees. Damage from improper cutting and skidding is indicated with trees having broken tops and barked skinned off the trunks. Utilization of the trees was good. There were very few high stumps and tops were cut to 6 inches or less. Trees that were left for future growth and, to serve as seed trees, were healthy with good form and vigor. The sale area was not high graded. Logging slash has been lopped and scattered. Some areas had very high existing natural concentrations of woody debris on the ground Skid trails are not very obvious; a good sign. -2- I did not observe any skiiding on slopes over 45%. All culvert locations are marked with a fence post on the uphill side so they can be located if they get plugged. The main roads have a ditch for drainage. Many sections were graveled. All live drainages had culverts and culverts were placed intermittently along the road. Streamside zones have been protected. NEGATIVE OBSERVATIONS: Roads are quite steep with some grades at 25%. It would be better if grades were less that 15%. However, there are tradeoffs involved since the terrain may not permit lower grades without excessive switchbacks and more ground disturbances. Soils within the sale area are quite forgiving with regard to erosion; however, channeling on the road surface can occur. These steep roads should not be a problem as long as they are water barred and seeded when the logging has been completed. One large road fill by Porcupine Creek has slid out. The road is on a very steep side slope and makes a switchback. Though the road itself is a bench cut, i.e., the roadbed is on natural ground and not fill, a large fill was needed for logging trucks to turn. Much of this fill has slid and will need to replace if logging trucks are to use the road. I am not sure this could have been avoided other than a different road location. A different road location would have possibly involved crossing the White River National Forests. Some of the roads did have rutting down the middle of the road surface. I recommended more dips be installed during construction and outsloping of areas on roads already constructed. Outsloping of the roads will also discharge and disperse road surface runoff. In one area, where there is a switchback on a steep slope, some road fill has entered the streamside zone and will erode into the live creek. In this case, it would be difficult to prevent the fill from encroaching on the stream. Heavy seeding is recommended though the area to be seeded is in shade. Woody debris might be placed on the fill to reduce the amount of soil movement. WORK REMAINING: Before winter, the road ditches need to be pulled (cleaned) and the road graded. The entrances to a few culverts were clogged so need to be cleaned. Also, the entrances of some culverts need to be cleared of rocks and other debris so they do not plug. Additional grass seeding is needed along some of the road cut and fill slopes. This is not a serious problem but will help stabilize soils. Roadside and landing slash piles need to be burned. Some slash is bunched against live trees so many need to be pulled back prior to burning. -3- HOEFER ASSOCIATES David R. W. Hoefer 440 Meadows Way Grand Junction Colorado 81503-2525 September 24, 2003 Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 198 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mark: Enclosed in my report as requested by the Garfield County Commissioners at their April 21, 2003 meeting. Their request was to look at the timber sale operations in relation to the Teepee Park Timber Harvest Project Special Use Permit. The logging operations observed were those conducted in 2002, prior to the permit review. There was no logging during the past summer. When I visited the area September 12, 2003, there was some road construction taking place and the removal of right-of-way trees. As indicated in my report, I, as a professional forester, feel the logging operation is in conformance with their Special Use Permit Application. With few minor exceptions, the Colorado Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Colorado have been followed. The roads within the sale area are adequate for the logging operation. I have noted in the report that some of the roads seem excessively steep and cross slopes greater than 50%. If the roads could have been constructed on National Forest lands some of these situations could have been avoided. It would have been desirable to manage the total forest ecosystem including National Forest lands in a cooperative effort. Having been in the Forest Service, I also know this would have been difficult with budgets, priorities, NEPA requirements, and overall coordination. This timber sale should have a positive effect on forest health. The stands of spruce are generally very healthy. Very little rot was observed. The subalpine fir within the spruce stands is showing signs of bark beetle attack. By removing the fir, which is more susceptible to insect and disease attack, and reducing the density (basal area) of the spruce, tree vigor will be retained or increase. This will reduce the treat of insect attacks on the spruce. In the longer term, fire susceptibility will also be reduced. Sincerely, S/ David R. W. Hoefer Consulting Forester Enclosure EXHIBIT 1 _____4__ A REVIEW OF THE TEEPEE CREEK TIMBER HARVEST PLAN And TIMBER SALE SITE GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO APRIL 14, 2003 BY DAVID R. W. HOEFER Consulting Forester TEEPEE CREEK TIMBER HARVEST PLAN AND SALE AREA REVIEW On March 20, 2003, Mark L Bean, Director, Buildings and Development, for Garfield County Colorado contacted me to review and comment on the Teepee Park Timber Harvest Plan and the timber sale area. This Plan was submitted to the County February 21, 2003 on behalf of Mr. Norman Carpenter and Intermountain Resources, LLC/Timber Owner. The Plan was reviewed in March and on April 11, 2003 a visit to the sale area was made by snowmobile. The sale area was viewed from the timber access road to where it dropped into the main Porcupine Creek drainage. Unfortunately, due to mechanical problems with the snowmobile, I was unable to get into the cutover stands to make any measurements. FINDINGS I have found the Application for Special Use Permit, Timber Harvesting, Teepee Park to be very complete and specific. For a private land timber operation, this plan has much more detail than most, especially with regard to fire and water quality degradation. LOGGING ON STEEP SLOPES. In my opinion, the only major area of question with the Plan are the slopes where tractor yarding (skidding) is permitted. Normally, tractor yarding or skidding is allowed on slopes up to 35%. It can be used on slopes up to 45% where soil conditions and the silvicultural system being employed are compatible. The Plan, on page 5, under Tractor Yarding, states tractor yarding will be on slopes 60% or less and that operations will generally be on slopes less than 45%. Tractor yarding will be used on steeper slopes (up to 60%) when it is more ecologically favorable overall than moving the yarder to a new set-up. Cable yarding will be used on slopes greater than 60%. I do not dispute the Plan but this does raise a concern. I also realize that newer rubber tracked equipment such as the Timbco T -400D Hydro-Buncher is quite efficient on steeper slopes than the tracked "cats" and rubber tired skidders. When using the silvicultural systems described on pages 4 and 5 of the Plan, a forest owner would not want to use skidding equipment that would damage or destroy the residual stand. Since the landowner is proposing the action, not the logger, it is most likely acceptable in meeting their objectives and not destroying seedlings or trees to remain. What I saw on the ground was that yarding was being conducted on slopes generally under 35%. None of the area with continuous slopes over 45% was logged. I was told rubber tired skidders were being used. Slopes over 45% could be logged with cable systems; however, these systems are more expensive to operate and would only be employed when economic conditions were more favorable. If these practices are followed, then the logging on steep slopes is not a concern. -1- SILVICULTURL SYSTEMS. The vegetation type proposed for the timber harvest is Engelmann spruce -subalpine fir. Also know as the spruce -fir forest. Historically, these forests are replaced by major disturbances with the onset of blowdown and bark beetles attacks that result in heavy fuel accumulations, then followed by high intensity fires. As noted in the application, as spruce -fir forests become over - mature they are subject to wind throw or blowdown due to the trees shallow root systems and the usual thin and often wet soil. Lately, in the Rocky Mountains, there have been blowdowns and bark beetle increases to the epidemic stage. A stand replacement fire might occur at any time or may not occur for another 200 years depending on bark beetle activity and weather conditions. From the information presented and observed, I concur that the timber stands are in a condition for the prescribed management. The Management Objectives are primarily to harvest over -mature timber and to improve overall forest health. The silvicultural systems for the harvest and regeneration of the stands are Group Selection, Shelterwood, and Single Tree Selection. Commercial thinning is proposed for even - aged stands where regeneration is not the objective. These are the appropriate silvicultural systems to use. The other silvicultural tool available is clearcutting. Clearcutting in high elevation spruce has been proven to be ineffective in short-term regeneration and is not recommended. Key criteria in applying these systems are stand age, stand condition, and susceptibility to wind throw. The Plan states emphasis will be given to subalpine fir removal where possible. This is consistent with most forest management objectives in the spruce -fir forest. My limited on the ground observation showed most of the timber was mature with larger trees being 24-36 inches in diameter. I did not observe stands of timber that were really overmature or where the stands were falling apart. It is an appropriate time to conduct an initial timber stand entry. The observed silvicultural system of harvest was primarily Shelterwood Removal. Residual trees of various sizes were left throughout the cutting area. I did not observe any Single Tree Selection or Commercial Thinning. Some patch cutting was observed on the portion of the sale first entered as the road climbs to the west from Beaver Creek. In my opinion, the amount of timber removed was on the high side for a sheleterwood system. There may be reasons for the heavier cutting such as high amounts of fir, blowdown, dead, or other stand conditions. I did not have an opportunity to measure the basal area or the trees per acre of the remaining stand to quantify this observation. A variety of tree diameter sizes, from sapling to mature, were left scattered throughout the cutting areas indicating the cutting was not a "high grading." I did not observe any damage to the residual stand. Skid trails were not obvious (a good sign); however, the areas observed were under snow. Likewise, slash disposal appeared to meet the standards in the Plan. -2- BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. The access road was constructed very well. Slopes were laid back and ditches and culverts appeared properly installed. I did not measure the grade but it did not seem out of standard. It appears the Plan is consistent with and conforms to the recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Colorado. These BMPs have been developed to prevent impairment to forest land resources, especially water quality. In Colorado, the BMPs are guidelines only and are voluntary in application. OTHER. The following are relatively minor comments and would not affect the overall Plan: P.3 I would question the statement that the dense overgrown stands make wildlife migration difficult. This is not always the case. The cut areas can increase forage production but domestic grazing can be a detriment to regeneration in these areas due to trampling and eating newer seedlings. Water yields do generally increase through timber harvest or removal but the results vary widely. Probably what will be noted are more flows in springs. P.7 Interior road standards. Culvert sizes will range from 12" to 18". My recommendations would be for 18" culverts. Less than 18" culverts can tend to clog and are more difficult to clean. Smaller culverts can be used in areas such as where there are springs or well armored ditches and probably where the drop is more severe. P7. Since these roads are on private land and not open to public use, there is no need for turnouts other than for the convenience of the timber operator and the landowner. Radios can be used to warn others when logging trucks are on the road. P.11 Retention of snags for wildlife is desirable. I did not observe many retained snags in the cutover areas. It may be there were no snags to begin with. P.16 (C) It would appear that flagging could be kept on the site if left in a box or some type of sealed can. P.17 The broadcast rate for grass seeding is good. The percent does not mean much. One pound of timothy seed probably has more than seed than 10 pounds of mountain brome. Some closed roads and landings should be seeded if prone to erosion. It must be noted that bare soil in the sale area is desirable and necessary for spruce seed regeneration. I recommend 50 pounds of available nitrogen be added to the mixture to aid in regeneration. P. 21 Item 7 of Fire Safety. Conducting aerial or ground inspection within 2 hours of felling and yarding operations seems overly restrictive. This probably should be during period of very high or extreme fire danger. P. 27 and Appendix 12 have conditions set forth in resolution No. 97-70. With regard to # 11, win .. � �; .� t; v Y iCs rid i1`. Lo timber Sale operation. -3- REFERENCES. Colorado Forestry Stewardship Guidelines. Best Management Practices for Colorado. Foresters Field Handbook. 1994. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service. Forestry Handbook. 1984. Society of American Foresters. Silviculture of the Spruce-fir Forests, Sheppard and Alexander. An Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Health in the Southwest, 1997. USDA Forester Service GTR 295 1 111111 11111 111111 1111 1111111 11111 11111 111 1111 111 1111 628471 06/02/2003 04 00P B1475 P675 M ALSDORF 1 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday, the 21st day of April, 2003, there were present: John Martin Larry McCown Tresi Houpt Don Deford Mildred Alsdorf Ed Green , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , Clerk of the Board , County Manager when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-39 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION FOR NORMAN A. CARPENTER. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from Norman A. Carpenter for a Special Use Permit to allow for the extraction of natural resources from the site identified in the application; and WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on April 21, 3002, upon the question of whether the above described Special Use Permit should be granted or denied, at which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Special Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned hearing, has made the following determination of fact: 1. That the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all parties were heard at the hearing. i tlltii Hifi 111111111111 11111 11111 111 11111 11111111 628471 06/02/2003 04:00P B1475 P676 M ALSDORF 2 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 2. That the proposed special use conforms to the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. That the proposed land use will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses in all directions if appropriate conditions are attached to the peg suit. 4. That the proposed use will comply with all applicable standards contained in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, including, but not limited to all standards in Sections 5.03.07 and 5.03.08. 5. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use is consistent with the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Special Use Permit be and hereby is approved to allow for the extraction of natural resources, upon the following specific conditions: 1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, including the forestry plan, shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. That all timber hauling on County Roads be on Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Not included in the hauling hours are the trips in and out of the property by loggers and unloaded trucks accessing the property before 6 a.m.. Any helicopter hauling will only occur between the hours of 7 a. m. to 5 p. m., Monday through Friday. Haul trucks will not travel in a convoy, they will be spaced at least 10 minutes apart, before leaving the property. 3. That the forest management practices and revegetation will be monitored for compliance with the conditions of approval contained in the resolution of approval, by a consultant for the Board, agreed upon by the Board of County Commissioners and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant. 4. A road bond will remain in place with the County to overlay 1.6 miles of CR 320 with asphalt at the completion of the timber harvest. 5. The Special Use Permit, when issued, is subject to review for compliance or noncompliance with performance requirements associated with the issuance of the permit. The applicant shall submit a report one year from the date of issuance of the permit, indicating the measures taken to comply with the performance requirements of the permit. The Board of County Commissioners will review the report in a public meeting within 30 days of receipt of the report and may determine that a public hearing is necessary to consider suspension or revocation of the permit or that 1 111111 11111 111111 1111 11 1111 1111111iiin 11111 1111 1111 628471 06/02/2003 04 00P B1475 P677 M ALSDORF 3 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO conditions of approval must be met before additional activities can occur on the property. 6 All vehicles used in conjunction with logging operation must be properly licensed in the State of Colorado and the appropriate documentation provided to the Garfield County Clerk & Recorders Office verifying the licensing. 7. The hauling of logs will be discontinued during normal seasonal times for local ranchers to move cattle up or down County Road 317, when requested by a local rancher with grazing rights or property in the Beaver Creek drainage. 8 All revegetation of the site will be done with certified weed free seed mix. 9. The haul route will only be along CR 320 from the intersection of CR 320/317 to Taugenbaugh Ave. in Rifle. Additionally, an overweight vehicle permit will be acquired for each vehicle needing such permit. 10. Upon transfer of ownership of the property subject to the Special Use Permit issued in accordance with this resolution, the new owner(s) shall meet with the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board and published as an agenda item of the Board. 11. Prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit, the Fire Management Plan shall be filed with the Garfield County Sheriff's office and the Rifle Fire Protection District. 12. Compliance with all terms and conditions of approval contained in any permit issued to the applicant, its successors or assigns, by any local government, state or federal agency, shall be deemed to be conditions of this Special Use Permit. A violation of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of such permit( s) shall be deemed to constitute a violation of the terms of approval of this Special U se Permit. The applicants, their successors and assigns, shall notify the Garfield County Board of Commissioners of notice of violation or violations of such permits as issued by any local government or state or federal agency. The Garfield County Board of Commissioners shall be notified within ten (10) calendar days of any violation or notice of possible violation. 13. On or before October 1, 2003, the County's consulting forester, hired in accordance with paragraph 3. above, will do an on site inspection of the site to review the applicant's compliance with the conditions of approval in this resolution. A report will be prepared for the Board of County Commissioners after the site review, presenting the findings. Dated this 2nd day of June , A.D. 2003. 1111111111111111 ilii iiiiiii iim iinuu IIII ilii mi 628471 06/02/2003 04 00P B1475 P678 M ALSDORF 4 of 4 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO 0 l P ATTEST: 913�8'�17:j, A l r ti rk`of the Bbard GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing vote: e ;ue► •-► COM COMMISSIONER TRESI HOU COMMISSIONER LARRY L. MCCOWN u.; , Aye , Aye , Aye STATE OF COLORADO )ss County of Garfield I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D.2003. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners Exhibits for Norman Carpenter/Teepee Park Public Hearing held on April 21, 2003. Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Return -Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended. D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Project Information and Staff Comments F Teepee Park Timber Harvest Project SUP Application G Report from David Hoefer dated April 14, 2003 H Fax from Bill Sappington, Public Works Director, City of Rifle, dated 4/15/03 I Email from Jake Mall, Garfield County Road & Bridge, dated April 14, 2003 J fDa7's-,'fios>)' K ek#9 D7'//nu4 if t:We- - 7_12 pet 4, A- .-5iiiy- L Ai/ Ams 7,0,--''m AP- 17 "1 � i / S, A w /4117 i3oC- M N 0 P Q R S T U V X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II JJ KK LL MM NN (-No PP APR -15-2003 16:08 FROM:CIT'Y OF RIFLE 1-970-625-B26B TD:97a3B43470 CITY OF RIFLE D D EXHIBIT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FAX FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET — PUBLIC WORKS FAX 970-625-6268 TO: MARK BEAN FROM BILL SAPPINGTON © 625-6223 FAX NUMBER: (970) 384470 DATE: APRIL 15, 2003 COMPANY: GARCO PLANNING TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: PHONE NUMBER: (970) 945-8212 SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: RE: TEPEE PARK TIMBER SUP YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: 0 URGENT 0 FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY 0 PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: Mark. The City of Rifle issues Watershed Permits for activities within either the Colorado River or Beaver Creek drainages subject to conditions as specified in the City Watershed Ordinance. A valid Watershed Permit does exist for the proposed activities covered under this SUP application. Here are additional comments regarding this Tepee Park Timber Special Use Permit: o Applicant has successfully operated under the Watershed Permit process. The SUP application appears to meet the requirements of the existing Watershed Permit. o Applicant has also been subject to periodic reviews and field inspections. All Watershed Permit requirements have been met or corrective action taken within appropriate time. • Timber harvest as proposed may limit the chance of catastrophic fires in the City's watershed area. Fire and the resulting ash and erosion potential would be detrimental to the City's use of this watershed as a water supply. If you have any questions. please call me at 625-6223. Sincerely, Bill Sappington, P. E. Public Works Director Cc: Jim Neu, Leavenworth & Karp: Paul Bussone, P. E., Resource Engineering. Inc. . • CITY OF RIFLE • P. 0. 60X 1908 RIFLE CO 81650 PHONE: 970-625-6223 • FAX 970-625-6268 Mark Bean Page 1 of 1 D 3 EXHIBIT From: Jake Mall Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 9:54 AM To: Mark Bean Subject: Cr. 317 Concerns Mark: 1 would require that Intermountain Logging continue their share of Dust Control on Cr. 317. I would also request that the trucks hauling logs space the trucks at least 10 minuets apart, both loaded and unloaded as this was one of the main complaints I have received from people using Cr. 317. For your information we have raised the weight limit on Cr. 320 from the Rifle City limits to the intersection of Cr. 320 and Cr. 317 to 80,000 pounds for 5 axel and 54,000 pounds for 3 axel vehicles. Thanks, Jake 4/16/03 A REVIEW OF THE TEEPEE CREEK TIMBER HARVEST PLAN And TIMBER SALE SITE GARFIELD COUNTY COLORADO APRIL 14, 2003 BY DAVID R. W. HOEFER Consulting Forester TEEPEE CREEK TIMBER HARVEST PLAN AND SALE AREA REVIEW On March 20, 2003, Mark L Bean, Director, Buildings and Development, for Garfield County Colorado contacted me to review and comment on the Teepee Park Timber Harvest Plan and the timber sale area. This Plan was submitted to the County February 21, 2003 on behalf of Mr. Norman Carpenter and Intermountain Resources, LLC/Timber Owner. The Plan was reviewed in March and on April 11, 2003 a visit to the sale area was made by snowmobile. The sale area was viewed from the timber access road to where it dropped into the main Porcupine Creek drainage. Unfortunately, due to mechanical problems with the snowmobile, I was unable to get into the cutover stands to make any measurements. FINDINGS I have found the Application for Special Use Permit, Timber Harvesting, Teepee Park to be very complete and specific. For a private land timber operation, this plan has much more detail than most, especially with regard to fire and water quality degradation. LOGGING ON STEEP SLOPES. In my opinion, the only major area of question with the Plan are the slopes where tractor yarding (skidding) is permitted. Normally, tractor yarding or skidding is allowed on slopes up to 35%. It can be used on slopes up to 45% where soil conditions and the silvicultural system being employed are compatible. The Plan, on page 5, under Tractor Yarding, states tractor yarding will be on slopes 60% or less and that operations will generally be on slopes less than 45%. Tractor yarding will be used on steeper slopes (up to 60%) when it is more ecologically favorable overall than moving the yarder to a new set-up. Cable yarding will be used on slopes greater than 60%. I do not dispute the Plan but this does raise a concern. I also realize that newer rubber tracked equipment such as the Timbco T -400D Hydro-Buncher is quite efficient on steeper slopes than the tracked "cats" and rubber tired skidders. When using the silvicultural systems described on pages 4 and 5 of the Plan, a forest owner would not want to use skidding equipment that would damage or destroy the residual stand. Since the landowner is proposing the action, not the logger, it is most likely acceptable in meeting their objectives and not destroying seedlings or trees to remain. What I saw on the ground was that yarding was being conducted on slopes generally under 35%. None of the area with continuous slopes over 45% was logged. I was told rubber tired skidders were being used. Slopes over 45% could be logged with cable systems; however, these systems are more expensive to operate and would only be employed when economic conditions were more favorable. If these practices are followed, then the logging on steep slopes is not a concern. -1- SILVICULTURL SYSTEMS. The vegetation type proposed for the timber harvest is Engelmann spruce -subalpine fir. Also know as the spruce -fir forest. Historically, these forests are replaced by major disturbances with the onset of blowdown and bark beetles attacks that result in heavy fuel accumulations, then followed by high intensity fires. As noted in the application, as spruce -fir forests become over - mature they are subject to wind throw or blowdown due to the trees shallow root systems and the usual thin and often wet soil. Lately, in the Rocky Mountains, there have been blowdowns and bark beetle increases to the epidemic stage. A stand replacement fire might occur at any time or may not occur for another 200 years depending on bark beetle activity and weather conditions. From the information presented and observed, I concur that the timber stands are in a condition for the prescribed management. The Management Objectives are primarily to harvest over -mature timber and to improve overall forest health. The silvicultural systems for the harvest and regeneration of the stands are Group Selection, Shelterwood, and Single Tree Selection. Commercial thinning is proposed for even - aged stands where regeneration is not the objective. These are the appropriate silvicultural systems to use. The other silvicultural tool available is clearcutting. Clearcutting in high elevation spruce has been proven to be ineffective in short-term regeneration and is not recommended. Key criteria in applying these systems are stand age, stand condition, and susceptibility to wind throw. The Plan states emphasis will be given to subalpine fir removal where possible. This is consistent with most forest management objectives in the spruce -fir forest. My limited on the ground observation showed most of the timber was mature with larger trees being 24-36 inches in diameter. I did not observe stands of timber that were really overmature or where the stands were falling apart. It is an appropriate time to conduct an initial timber stand entry. The observed silvicultural system of harvest was primarily Shelterwood Removal. Residual trees of various sizes were left throughout the cutting area. I did not observe any Single Tree Selection or Commercial Thinning. Some patch cutting was observed on the portion of the sale first entered as the road climbs to the west from Beaver Creek. In my opinion, the amount of timber removed was on the high side for a sheleterwood system. There may be reasons for the heavier cutting such as high amounts of fir, blowdown, dead, or other stand conditions. I did not have an opportunity to measure the basal area or the trees per acre of the remaining stand to quantify this observation. A variety of tree diameter sizes, from sapling to mature, were left scattered throughout the cutting areas indicating the cutting was not a "high grading." I did not observe any damage to the residual stand. Skid trails were not obvious (a good sign); however, the areas observed were under snow. Likewise, slash disposal appeared to meet the standards in the Plan. -2 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. The access road was constructed very well. Slopes were laid back and ditches and culverts appeared properly installed. I did not measure the grade but it did not seem out of standard. It appears the Plan is consistent with and conforms to the recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Colorado. These BMPs have been developed to prevent impairment to forest land resources, especially water quality. In Colorado, the BMPs are guidelines only and are voluntary in application. OTHER. The following are relatively minor comments and would not affect the overall Plan: P.3 I would question the statement that the dense overgrown stands make wildlife migration difficult. This is not always the case. The cut areas can increase forage production but domestic grazing can be a detriment to regeneration in these areas due to trampling and eating newer seedlings. Water yields do generally increase through timber harvest or removal but the results vary widely. Probably what will be noted are more flows in springs. P.7 Interior road standards. Culvert sizes will range from 12" to 18". My recommendations would be for 18" culverts. Less than 18" culverts can tend to clog and are more difficult to clean. Smaller culverts can be used in areas such as where there are springs or well armored ditches and probably where the drop is more severe. P7. Since these roads are on private land and not open to public use, there is no need for turnouts other than for the convenience of the timber operator and the landowner. Radios can be used to warn others when logging trucks are on the road. P.11 Retention of snags for wildlife is desirable. I did not observe many retained snags in the cutover areas. It may be there were no snags to begin with. P.16 (C) It would appear that flagging could be kept on the site if left in a box or some type of sealed can. P.17 The broadcast rate for grass seeding is good. The percent does not mean much. One pound of timothy seed probably has more than seed than 10 pounds of mountain brome. Some closed roads and landings should be seeded if prone to erosion. It must be noted that bare soil in the sale area is desirable and necessary for spruce seed regeneration. I recommend 50 pounds of available nitrogen be added to the mixture to aid in regeneration. P. 21 Item 7 of Fire Safety. Conducting aerial or ground inspection within 2 hours of felling and yarding operations seems overly restrictive. This probably should be during period of very high or extreme fire danger. P. 27 and Appendix 12 have conditions set forth in resolution No. 97-70. With regard to # 11, 12, 13, I would have to ask the question "why?" These seem overly restrictive to a timber sale operation. -3- REFERENCES. Colorado Forestry Stewardship Guidelines. Best Management Practices for Colorado. Foresters Field Handbook. 1994. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service. Forestry Handbook. 1984. Society of American Foresters. Silviculture of the Spruce-fir Forests, Sheppard and Alexander. An Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Health in the Southwest, 1997. USDA Forester Service GTR 295 March 20, 2003 David R.W. Hoefer Hoefer Associates 440 Meadows Way Grand Junction, CO 81503-2525 RE: Teepee Park Timber Harvest Project Dear Mr. Hoefer: Garfield County BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT Enclosed with this letter is the proposed Teepee Park Timber Harvest plan. The Board is scheduled to consider this proposal at a public hearing on April 21, 2003. As you noted, there is a certain amount of urgency to your review. We would appreciate getting any written comments about the plan and site visit no later than April 15th, so they can be included in the staff comments. James Beckwith, the attorney representing Mr. Carpenter and Intermountain Resources on this issue, is aware of the County hiring a consultant to review the application. I will contact him to check on the protocol for setting up a site visit and let you know. There should be no problem with the deletion of those sections of the Purchase of Service Agreement. I talked to the Board and legal counsel earlier this week and they agreed to the deletion since it was more your risk than it was the County's. The agreement will be signed next Monday and I will get you a signed copy shortly thereafter. If you have any other questions about this project, feel free to call, write or email me at mbean@garfield-county.com. Sincerely, Mark L. Bean, Director Building & Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970) 945-8212 (970) 285-7972 Fax: (970) 384-3470 February 17, 2003 INTERMOUNTAIN RESOURCES, LLC 11925 6530 Road P.O. Box 670 Montrose, Colorado 81402 (970) 249-0812 Fax (970) 249-0727 Mr. Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Planning Department 108 E. Eighth St., Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Tepee Park / Application for Special Use Permit Dear Mr. Bean: RECEIVED FER 2003 GARFIEL1i COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING This letter will attest that Mr. James A. Beckwith, Esq., of Arvada, Colorado, represents Intermountain Resources, LLC in all matters relating to the above referenced application. Your cooperation and assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Yours tru Christopher C. Me -rs Member HOEFER ASSOCIATES 440 Meadows Way Grand Junction, CO 81503-2525 March 18, 2003 Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: RE CEIVED 1v14f.? 1 2003 GARFIE1 COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Enclosed is a signed Purchase of Service Agreement and the Exhibit A attachment. As we discussed on the phone Monday, my work as a forestry consultant has not require any special insurance. Section 11 in the agreement has been lined out and is not considered part of the agreement. I realize that time is of the essence. I am mailing these documents to you though we have not clarified Sec.11. With the recent rains and snow, I suspect it will be a few days before the Beaver Creek road is passable. I would like a copy of the signed agreement. Sincerel David R. . Hoefer Consulting Forester