Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 CorrespondenceFebruary 23, 2001 • CNr1,111, 10.,1 .1)ki21 otw:::g7 fr GARFIELD COUNTY Building and Planning Department VA� 11 Louisiana Pacific Corporation Sv Box 1269, Montrose, CO 81425 ��Pil RE: Diamanti Special Use Permit- v4. / Dear Louisiana Pacific Corporation: ,, i' yNN g Thank you for your application for a special use permit for resource extraction made on behal of the Diamanti family. More detailed information is needed about the proposal before the \O', -i7 application may be deemed technically compliant. Please address the following issues: \)� 1) 2) 3) 4) What are the proposed hours of operation on a daily basis (ie, sunup to sundown or 9am to �, 5pm)? Will any logging or hauling occur on the weekends? Will all loads be within legal weight? (rr�V--lccutA `'° Please provide a plan to minimize fire hazard, and a plan to mitigate any fires that occur. o,' The signed consent from the landowners authorizes L.P. to make the application provided,/_`�',('Q "that the terms of said permit do not modify the terms of the contract between the parties." C� An acceptable letter of consent to file the application with Garfield County can not include caveats or conditions. Please provide an acceptable letter of consent. ull.)04 A Axz S 0kL , 5) The application references a copy of the BMP practices, which could not be located within the application materials. Please provide said document. Sc -k 0-1-4) • "IL-' (4-1-e--rA °` ,t -i-") `\- 9 6) Section 5.03.07 (1) (F) states that sufficient distances shall separate the pro osed use from the abutting properties. What are the proposed distances for separation? 1 t O C.t v\ -e re prepared byaqualified silviculturist has not been submitted. Such a plan 7 A logging plan p p Lk should include specific proposed mitigation measures, and a specific site rehabilitation plan. WW I look forward to receiving the items mentioned here. Please contact me in the event you have S any questions. so Sincerely, Kit Lyon Senior Planner Phone: 945-8212 / Fax: 384-3470 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Garfield County Planning Dept. Memo To: The Record From: Kit Lyon CC: Mark Bean, Don DeFord, Board of County Commissioners Date: 2/27/01 Re: Phone Conversation I received a phone call on Monday, February 26, 2001, from Mr. Gary Heines regarding my letter addressed to Louisiana Pacific, dated 2/23/01. Mr. Heines was very unhappy at having received a request for more information concerning his application for a timber operation (see attached). He explained that he found Garfield County's process to be increasingly difficult and cumbersome to go through, and that in years past the process was faster and simpler. I explained to Mr. Heines that the regulations had not changed significantly in the past 2 years, since the time he obtained his "Buffalo Creek" permit. However, the County is trying to be consistent as possible in dealing with applications. The things requested of him were no different than the things requested of other timber harvesters (I mentioned CTLC and Altenbern as examples). Also, just because things may have been overlooked or mistakes may have been made in the past, these were not reasons to continue in the same manner. I also explained that by providing the information at this point in time, possible future delays might be avoided in processing the application, and that the review of the application would simpler. We then began to discuss the items in the letter point by point as follows: 1) Hours of operation: I explained that this item was information requested on the Special Use Permit application. Mr. Heines stated the hours of operation would be daylight to dusk. I asked him to provide this statement in writing for the record. 2) Legal Toads: Mr. Heines stated that all loads would be within legal limits. I asked him to provide this statement in writing for the record. • Page 1 • • 3) Fire Plan: Mr. Heines took particular exception to this request. I explained that that the Board of County Commissioners had the responsibility and authority to protect the public from fire hazards (see 1.01) and that section 5.03.08(5)(A) stated that flammable solids shall be stored in accordance with accepted standards and with fire codes. I explained that the "fire mitigation plan" could be very simple in nature, and encouraged him to contact the fire district to work out a plan together. I also explained that the application would be referred to the fire district in the future, and by meeting with them and creating a plan ahead of time, delays might be avoided. 4) Signed consent: Mr. Heines stated that he had used the same consent letter format in previous applications before, and never had a problem. I told him didn't doubt that, but that from the conversations I have had with the County Attorney, 1 did not believe the letter was acceptable. Mr. Heines was very concerned that the special use permit may violate the terms of the contract. I explained that the letter of consent was not acceptable, and that it did not mean that the permit would necessarily violate the contract, that the Board of County Commissioners would make that decision. Mr. Hienes asked if he could alter the signed letter of consent that I had. I explained that alteration of a document already signed by the landowner would not be wise and that, no, he may not. 5) BMP practices: Mr. Heines said that this booklet had been submitted previously with other applications. I explained that I could not remove documentation from another file since it was of public record and to please provide me with the booklet, since his application references it being included. 6) Sufficient distances: Mr. Hienes stated that they intend to cut to the property line in places. I asked him to provide this statement in writing for the record. 7) Mr. Heines took particular exception to this request. I explained that sections 5.03.07(1)(F) and 5.03.07(2)(A) required mitigation and rehabilitation pians. He said that since the operation would not cause impacts, no mitigation would be necessary. I asked him to provide this statement in writing for the record. also explained that a logging plan professionally prepared by a silviculturalist was not necessary, but that there seemed to be a lack of detail in the application. I explained that while the application might be deemed technically compliant, and processed, more information may need to be provided in order to conduct a thorough review. Mr. Heines then stated that he felt obtaining a special use permit should not be necessary and felt that I was intentionally sandbagging his project. I politely explained to Mr. Heines that I had no authority to change the regulations and that it is my job to review applications for special use permits, and to assist him through the process. I told him he was welcome to petition the Board of County Commissioners to make timber operations a use by right, but that until the regulations were • Page 2 • • amended, a special use permit would be required. I also explained to Mr. Heines that I would be happy to explain the special use permit process to him, and that I am available to answer any questions he had. I told him that I was not trying to "sandbag" his project in any way, to the contrary I was trying my best to see him through the process. At this point the conversation deteriorated, and Mr. Heines became rude and belligerent. I told him I felt that the conversation was going in circles, to call Mark Bean or the County Commissioners, and that I needed to hang up the phone. Mr. Heines continued in an argumentative manner as I said, "Good day, Sir, I am ending this conversation now" and hung up the phone. • Page 3 RECRED FEB 2 8 2001 To: Kit Lyon Garfield County Planing and Zoning From: Gary V. Hiner Forester Louisiana-Pacific Corp. Subject: Diamanti Special Use Permit Date: 2/27/01 I received your letter regarding issues pertaining to this permit. With regard to the issues addressed in your letter. 1. The operating hours are normally about 7:OOAM to about 4:OOPM Five days per week. Hauling is normally ended on a daily basis at about 2:OOPM to 3:OOPM. This supposes that weather doesn't alter that schedule. Weekend work takes place when unforseen events make it necessary. 2. State law mandates a weight limit of 85,000 lb. gross weight. However, it will be necessary to haul over I-70, and that mandates a limit of 80,000 lb. It is company policy to discourage violations of law. An 80,000 lb. weight limit on all company operations is adhered to. 3. On of the objectives of this project is to achieve a reduction in the potential danger of wildfire by removing dead down and dying timber. This not only protects the Diamanti property, but the entire area surrounding the property. Company fire prevention and suppression measures meet and or exceed that mandated by U.S.F.S. regulations. All logging crews are aware of potential dangers, and have been instructed as to fire prevention measures, and suppression. All equipment, on logging jobs are required to meet federal guidelines for fire prevention. As to mitigation of any fire that occurs, I assume that you mean putting it out. All contract logging operations maintain a bulldozer for road construction and maintenance. This piece of equipment is adequate for fire suppression in most , instances. ,&:4) Mr. Diamanti is currently on vacation, and will not return for some time. We will NI 3 ' meet with him, and redraft the letter in question. I will reiterate what I told you over the phone, that should the permit require operations that are not in agreement with the contract, LP can not operate unless Mr. Diamanti agrees to the modifications. This is why the permit application was worded that way. 5. I am supplying your office with a number of copies of the Best Management Practices, for inclusion with the permit, and for future reference. 6. Section 5.03.07(1)(E) not (F) addresses distances from abutting landowners. More specifically which might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use. As stated in the impact statement submitted , the only damage to abutting properties occurs through trespass, and this will be prevented by employing a licensed surveyor to prevent this. In short, we intend to operate up to the property lines in certain portions of the tract. 0 • • 7. .This item covers a great deal of unplowed ground A logging plan prepared by a third party has never been required in the past. Our position is this. . We encourage other applicants who are not professional Foresters to seek guidance in preparing and conducting their operations. I am a ten year member of the "Colorado Tree Farm Committee", and it is one of our goals to encourage landowners to seek professional guidance in managing their land. As a professional Forester with 35 years of experience in all phases of land management I feel qualified to advise landowners. We encourage landowners to carefully consider what they propose to do. We provide them with copies of the BMP's and go over the reasons that these guidelines should be followed, and discuss the short and long term effects of what they propose to do. In addition, we encourage them to take some time to think. We specifically inform them that we will not undertake a project that does not meet the BMP guidelines. In addition, LP is a member of the AF&PA (American Forest and Paper Association), and subscribes to the principals of SFI (Sustainable Forest Initiative) as set fourth by its over 200 members. As such we are subject to inspection by independent auditing to insure that we are in compliance. This tract is on the list of tracts to be audited this year. Since we are to be judged by our actions, have to live with the economics of our operations, and have an overriding obligation to achieve the landowners objectives, we cannot agree to have disinterested parties contributing after the fact opinions. We are perfectly willing, however, to examine an operation designed by any professional, and appraise it accordingly. Regarding 5.03.07(1)(F) mitigation measures. The mitigation measures for 5.03.07(1)(A -E) are contained in the impact statement under each specific section. Mitigation factors pertaining to the applicable sections of 5.03.08(1-4). There is nothing to mitigate. Site specific rehabilitation measures are covered in the contract, and also in 5.03.07(1)(F). Specifically mentioned is reforestation through natural sprouting, implementation of the BMP's and reference to the contract provisions for road closure, grass seeding etc. Regardless, LP prepares a plan for each of its operations, and I am providing a copy of the plan that I developed for this tract. It contains: A. Summary of the landowners objectives, and measures designed to meet those objectives. B. Tract characteristics. Covered are the timber stands, stream courses and other water considerations, terrain, roads, and utilization. C. Stand cutting prescriptions, D. Schedule of operations. Hopefully this will answer any and all questions that will arise. Sincerely yours, Gary V. Hiner Forester LP • • OPERATIONS PLAN FOR DIAMANTI TRACT NEW CASTLE, COLORADO PREPARED BY G. V. HINER SALARY OF LANDOWNER OBJECTI• DIAMANTI TRACT 1. Restore the land and forest to conditions found thirty to forty years ago. A. More grass. B. More open areas. C. Regenerate to healthy younger Aspen stands. D. Eliminate diseased Subalpine Fir E. Less Subalpine fir. Methods used to achieve landowner goals. Use a combination of clearcuts, overstory removal, sanitary cuts, and thinning, to: A. Remove overmature Aspen stands, and stimulate grass. B. Provide open areas where there is now timber. C. Stimulate Aspen regeneration through natural sprouting that occurs following clearcutting. D. Selective cutting in Type C stands to eliminate diseased and dying Subalpine Fir trees. E. Removal of all Subalpine Fir in Aspen stands in early stages of conversion. 2. Reduction of fire danger. Methods used to achieve landowner goals. A. Selective cutting in Type C stands to eliminate diseased and dying Subalpine Fir trees. B. Remove overmature and falling Aspen stands. C. Removal of Subalpine fir ladder fuel where possible. D. Breakup of the stands into diverse structure to naturally reduce fire intensity. 3. Maintain and improve wildlife habitat. Methods used to achieve landowner goals. Clearcutting of Aspen stands will progaiiiimostagfAiWitiailind iticalutdmegoiThis will p a ,� _ Using the drainage pattern as cutting rt boundaries, and application of the111 be created that not only protect water quality, but gimmiiiiiniManibausielWe. Leaving modera - ee Exhibit A ara rah 3B of the contract) throughout the cutting area e su Leaving areas of young scattered in portions of the Type B Aspen stands (See cutting presciprtions) will cover for wildlife, and serve to rq,uce the Aspenfaftn. 4. Conduct operations to maintain aesthetics. Methods used to achieve landowner goals. A. Adherence to the BMP's, B. Leaving buffer strips along drainages. C. Designating non cut areas. 5. Preserve water quality. Methods used to achieve landowner goals. A. Adherence to BMP's. regarding water. B. Adherence to BMP's regarding road construction. 6. Financial return from logging operations. Methods used to achieve landowner goals. A. Written contract spelling out stumpage rates, methods of payment, timing of payments, and procedures for allocating payments to landowners. • • DIAMANTI TRACT CHARACTERISTICS 1. Timber Stands. There are three basic stand conditions on this tract A. Aspen type. These stands are located at the higher elevations, on the drier sites. They are mature and are being invaded by Subalpine Fir. The invasion stage is early, with young fir scattered throughout the stands. There is evidence of false tinder fungus (Phellinus tremulae), and black canker (Ceratocylis fimbriata) along with root rot affecting the Aspen throughout the tract. As yet there is little evidence of Dwarf Mistletoe in the fir. The stands are on sites that suggest that Aspen will easily regenerate following cutting. There are some areas that will not sprout heavily, and these areas will return to the semi open meadows that are desired B. Mixed Aspen and Subalpine Fir. These stands have a heavy component of fir in the upper canopy, and are rapidly replacing the Aspen. Evidence of disease in the Aspen is greater than in Type A, and Dwarf Mistletoe is present in the fir. The under story is primarily fir, with no Aspen regeneration. These stands are located throughout the tract, but are most common near ephemeral stream areas7The soils and moisture lend them to rapid regeneration of Aspen following harvest. C. Subalpine Fir. These stands are in the final stages of conversion. There are few Aspen stems left. The fir is heavily infected with Dwarf Mistletoe, and is rapidly falling apart. The fir reproduction is also infected, and is not likely to produce a good stand for the future. These stands are primarily in the lower elevations, and along the main watercourses. These stands are becoming a fire hazard, and pose a danger to the surrounding area. 2. Stream Zones. There is one minor perennial stream running through the property. It is a low flow stream, but has a wide braided course indicating that there is flow under ground. The soil is heavy to boulders, and is not likely to be rutted in normal conditions. The entire stream course will be treated as an extended SMZ, with cutting very carefully monitored. At the head of the stream zone is an old beaver pond fed by springs. This area has been set aside from cutting not only for water considerations, but also for aesthetics. Also there are springs located at the old cabin site. This area is to be protected from cutting for water considerations and family history as well. BMP requirements can be met. There are several ephemeral watercourses and wet areas. These areas present no problem adhering to BMP requirements. 3. Terrain. Slopes on the northern half of the tract are gentle, 10-15% with numer t*'h 5.' Watercourses in this area are ephemeral but some areas exist that are moist. These areas are for the most part in meadows and areas that can easily be avoided by logging equipment. Road layout and construction should pose no difficulty. The majority of the operable timber stands are in this area. The southern portion is much steeper, with slopes of 30% and greater. At present the extreme Southern portion of the tract is regarded as optional and is not scheduled for cutting unless agreed to later. The watercourses here have steep banks, and in some areas the SMZ will be greater than recommended. Should this area be operated, SFI, and BMP requirements can be met. Cutting units on this area (as well as the balance of the tract) will be laid out consistent with BMP's 4. Roads and Road construction. There are no existing developed roads on the tract. There is an access road leading to the tract that is usable by pickup truck. It is rutted, and will need to be repaired to allow log truck travel. Repairs will consist of grading and filling of ruts, installation of proper culverts, water bars to stabilize the roadbed. The interior of the tract is accessed by light jeep, and ATV trails. Few of these trails are suitable for reconstruction into logging roads, but the terrain lends itself to ease of road location meeting BMP's. 5. Utilization. The tract has a high degree of defect, especially in the Subalpine fir component. It appears that while some sawlog volume is present it will be light. This material could flow to LP at Saratoga, or Intermountain Resources at Montrose. • • Diamanti Tract Stand Cutting Prescriptions A. Aspen type. These stands are predominantly Aspen overstory, with Subalpine Fir in the understory. The Aspen is mature to over mature, and is beginning to fall. The fir component ranges from light to moderate. These stands will be clearcut and regenerated to Aspen. The landowner desires that if possible the Fir regeneration present be eliminated. This can be accomplished by felling during the logging operation, or by slashing following the operation. Limbing and topping of felled timber will be done in the woods, and the slash will be scattered and lopped to within three feet of the ground. Whole tree skidding will not be done unless slash accumulation in the woods would create a fire hazard, or will be a detriment to regeneration. Where whole tree skidding is done, the resulting landing slash will be piled for burning. The purpose of this is to reduce the number and size of landing piles that will have to be burned later. Aspen cutting units have been laid out to coincide with the drainage pattern, and cutting along the unit boundaries will be governed by BMP guidelines. B. Mixed Aspen and Subalpine Fir type. These stands range up to 50% fir in the over story, with heavy fir under story. Again, the landowner wishes to eliminate as much of the fir as possible. These stands will be clearcut, removing all merchantable wood, and slashing much of the regeneration. As these stands have not been heavily infested with mistletoe, it will be desirable to leave small clumps of healthy fir regeneration. These will reduce the amount of Aspen regeneration somewhat, but will help to create small openings for wildlife as was the past condition. Again, the unit lines have been laid out to coincide with the drainage pattern, and along these boundaries more healthy regeneration and larger trees will beleft to meet BMP guidelines. As in the Aspen types, liinbing and topping will be done in tom",pt where it is determined that slash accumulation in the woods will create a fire hazard, or be a detriment to regeneration. Whole tree skidding will be employed in these areas to reduce heavy slash concentrations. C. Subalpine Fir type. These stands lie along the drainage's, at the lower elevations. The upper story is predominantly Subalpine Fir with minor amounts of Aspen. The under story is entirely fir reproduction. There is a very small Spruce component, usually large mature trees located within the SMZ's. Most of the fir over story is heavily infected with mistletoe, as is the under story. These stands are in severe decline, and are falling. Due to the combination of condition, and location along the lower slope these stands are becoming a fire hazard. In these stands: 1. All diseased trees will be removed with the exception being within the formal SMZ. 2. The SMZ will be cut so as to remove all diseased trees possible within BMP guidelines, leaving sufficient cover to protect water quality. A considerable portion of the SMZ is semi open, flat and lends itself to ease of meeting BMP guidelines. 3. Where sufficient healthy fir reproduction exists, leave small clumps, and fall timber away from these clumps so as to minimize damage. 4. Where remnant Aspen clumps exist, clearcut a sufficient area to allow the aspen to regenerate, fall timber away from these openings to reduce the amount of slash left. 5. Where advanced Aspen regeneration exists, fell timber so as to protect it. 6. Whole tree skid and limb on landings, to reduce the slash depth and reduce fire danger. 7. Locate landings and resulting slash piles well removed from the SMZ. 8. All Spruce are to be left, unless specifically designated for cutting. Spruce designated for cutting will be marked. • • SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONS Diamanti Tract Evaluations will be completed in early October of 2000. An AFTP submitted to Corporate for approval in early September. A title exam will be requested when AFTP is approved. Negotiations will be completed by the first of December and a contract signed. An application to Garfield County Commissioners will be submitted to Planning and Zoning in early December. Upon securing the permit, road layout and construction will be started in early June of 2001 as conditions permit. Flagging of SMZ's and leave areas will proceed concurrently with road construction. Logging will commence as soon as road construction and weather permits. It is expected that this should be July l'.2001. Logging will start in the SE1/4 section 11, and in will move to other portions of the tract as conditions dictate. Logging will continue through the year until winter conditions prohibit, and logging will then cease until June. Normal winter shutdown is February 15`h through June 0, but this is weather and terrain dependent. It is expected that, logging could be completed in two logging seasons, but we have allowed for a third logging season in the year 2003. In late 2001, a decision will be made, regarding the extreme southern and northern portions of the tract. All or portions of these areas may be added to the contract. Interior road closure and slash treatment will be kept concurrent with logging completion during the operation. Final closure of the road accessing the tract will consist of final grading, drainage, and application of grass seed and shall be accomplished in a timely manner following completion of harvest operations. 1 • MEMORANDUM To: Kit Lyon From: Steve Anthony Re: Comments on the Diamanti Special Use Plan Date: April 2, 2001 Kit, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Diamanti Timber Special Use Permit. My comments are as follows: 1. Ask them to submit a written Vegetation Management Plan that provides for noxious weed management and revegetation. 2. The applicant should conduct a pre -activity weed inventory for the proposed disturbed area. The inventory should focus on the plants on the Garfield County Weed List. I would also request that the applicant look out for Poison hemlock and inventory it if found. Poison hemlock isn't on Garfield County's list, but it is on the State list and is becoming prevalent on the upper Baldy Creek watershed, which is within a mile of the proposed project area. It would be appreciated if the applicant could become aware of this plant and notify the County if they come across it. 3. The revegetation plan should include: Seed mix (plant material list with common and scientific name) Planting schedule Methods and techniques Please refer to the Revegetation Guidelines from the County Weed Management Plan. (attached) 4. Encourage the applicant to utilize best management practices for weed prevention. A. Avoid driving in noxious weed infested areas. Inspect vehicles for weed seeds stuck in tire treads or mud on the vehicle and prevent them from being carried to unaffected areas. Don't clean infested vehicles in weed free areas. B. Inspect equipment for weed seeds before it enters the property. Require that such equipment be cleaned first to remove weed seeds before being allowed entry. C. For reseeding always use hay, straw, or mulch that has been certified weed free. • • GARFIELD COUNTY NOXIOUS WEED LIST Common name Scientific name Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitalis Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale Common burdock Arctium minus Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diiffusa Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris Hoary cress Cardaria draba Saltcedar Tamarix parvora Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima Oxeye Daisy Chrysanthemum leucantheum Jointed Goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica Chicory Cichorium intybus Musk thistle Carduus nutans Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia • • Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines From the Garfield County Noxious Weed Management Plan 4.06 Revegetation and Rehabilitation: A crucial part of any weed management plan is the reintroduction of site appropriate vegetation. Establishing a desirable plant community after noxious weeds have been removed from a highly infested area requires timely cultivation and reseeding. Since the seeds from noxious weeds may lay dormant for many years, removing all visible signs of the noxious weeds does not ensure against their return. Revegetation can help prevent the germination of weed seeds. It is important to inspect the land regularly to identify and treat small, new infestations. For proper reclamation, managed irrigation of dry areas, fertilization, and reseeding are essential to establish desirable plant communities. Native plants are most appropriate when the goal is restoration (trying to restore native habitat). Weed -free seeds of native Colorado grasses, wildflowers or plant species appropriate to the site may be purchased, but the best source for seeds is from native species that grow in the immediate vicinity of the infestation. They will be best adapted to local conditions and will help maintain local integrity and genetic viability. Using native plants or seeds to reclaim disturbed land reduces degradation of native ecosystems, reduces the need for herbicides and conserves water resources. Native plants will provide a broad biological diversity and help keep Colorado looking like Colorado with a unique regional landscape that sets us apart from other areas of the country. When the goal is reclamation (reseeding for quick ground cover establishment or erosion control), it may be appropriate to use introduced, non-aggressive grasses and forbs. Contact the Natural Resources Conservation Service or Colorado State University Cooperative Extension for seeding recommendations. The Native Plant Revegetation Guide for Colorado, published by the Colorado State Parks Natural Areas Program, is an excellent guide for native plant reseeding. Contact the Garfield County Vegetation Management office for further information on this material. STRATEGIES: • Study all vegetation in the area and surrounding areas. • Preserve plant species native to Colorado. • Test the soil for pH balance. Try to retain and utilize as much on-site topsoil as possible. • Select a predominant species that is appropriate to the site. Then choose a few complimentary species to provide a balanced plant community. • Choose plants that are healthy, vigorous and pest free. • Use weed -free seeds. Use non -hybrid seeds. Avoid commercial seedpackets containing exotic plant species. 1 • • • Choose plants that are horticulturally appropriate, i.e. plant species that are adaptable to climate, soil and topographical conditions of the designated area. • Consider the use of water, its availability and the vegetative requirements. • To landscape for wildlife, choose native plants that provide cover, forage, browse, seeds for birds and rodents, and shade. • Be site-specific; revegetation strategies may vary for small lots, farms, ranches or construction sites. • Establish a vegetative cover that is diverse, effective and long lasting, capable of self - regeneration. • Stabilize the surface. 2 IN REPLY REFER TO: 1780 CO -14000 • IRCEIVE MAR 1 D 9 2001 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Resource Area 50629 Highway 6 and 24 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Ms. Kit Lyon, Staff Planner Garfield County Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Ms. Lyon: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Diamanti Special Use Permit. We offer the following information for your review. As an adjacent property manager, we have two principal concerns: 1. Trespass. Louisiana Pacific personnel and/or Mr. Diamanti should survey the public- private land boundaries to ensure no unauthorized encroachment occurs on public lands. Our research indicates that the boundary in Sections 12 and 13 have no record of public survey. 2. Right-of-ways. Any road construction, use of BLM road for hauling timber or other crossing Bureau of Land Management public lands would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this office. An environmental assessment of the impacts of those uses would be needed as a part of the ROW permitting process. If there are further questions, please contact Brian Hopkins at (970)947-2840, (FAX: 947-2829). incerely, Anne E. Huebner Field Manager 0410312001 15:55 6258627 ROAD AND BRIDGE • • REC 1'/J) APR 4 20111 Garfield County PAGE 02 This agreement is made the day of , 2001, between Garfield County Road and Bridge Department and Louisiana Pacific Corporation pursuant to special use permit for the purpose of creating a road maintenance agreement for County Road 312, The Conditions of this agreement as follows: Garfield County does not object to the proposed timber hauling use of County Road 312, Garfield Creek, provided the following restrictions are adhered to: 1, A 5100,000.00 road bond shall be posted with the Road and Bridge office for the purpose of repairing any damage attributable to Louisiana Pacific Corp. activities on any County Roads, and for the purpose of implementing a weed control program along County Roads, and for the purpose of providing dust control as needed with magnesium chloride. 2, Road conditions shall be maintained as is. If road damage occurs during hauling activities, it is the Louisiana Pacific Corporation's responsibility to repair said damage. Louisiana Pacific Corporation shall be responsible for dust control (magnesium chloride as specified by Garfield County for entire portion of CR 312) if it becomes a nuisance for the residents on the haul roads, and shall implement a weed control program along County Roads. 3. Due to climatic conditions that could cause damage to the roadway, roads maybe closed due to roadbed instability, as determined by Garfield County. If damage occurs to roadway, it shall be the responsibility of Louisiana Pacific Corporation to repair to Garfield County standards. 4. Louisiana Pacific Corporation shall comply with all posted weight and oversized load restrictions. Restrictions may vary with climatic conditions. Call Garfield County Road and Bridge Department for oversized/overweight permits current posted weight limit is 70,000. All hauling on County Roads shall occur between the hours of 5 a.m. and 6 p.m. No more than 10 loads per day, per side, shall be hauled. 6. This agreement shall not be in effect until it is accepted by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), as stated in resolution 7. Warning signs will be installed as per Garfield County Road & Bridge department to meet MUTCD standards. 04/03/2001 19:55 6258627 • ROAD AND BRIDGE • PAGE 03 8. Louisiana Pacific Corporation will be responsible to notify and coordinate with the appropriate School Districts for hauling activity interface. 9. Exhibit A identifies specific locations to meet these conditions. Louisiana Pacific Corporation Date Road it Bridge Supervisor Date BOCC Chairman Date 04/03/2001 19:55 6258627 ROAD AND BRIDGE • Dir "A" LOUISIANA PACIFIC LOG RAUL COUNTY ROAD 312 • 1. Cr. 312 from end of paved surface going south for 6.7 miles will need dust retardant (Magnesium Chloride) applied to the road surface. Depending on condition of road surface and at the discretion of Garfield County Road and Bridge Department or its representative this application may have to be applied two times during the log haul season. The dust retardant will be applied at the rate of .06 gal per square yard. The length of this portion of Cr. 312 is 35376 lineal feet and is 18 feet wide. The approximate gallons needed are 42452 gallons. The approximate cost for one application is 511037,31, 2_ Warning signs stating Heavy Truck Traffic will need to be installed in the following locations. • Cr. 335 and Cr. 312 intersection on Cr, 312 for traffic going south • Cr. 312 and Cr, 328 on Cr, 312 intersection one sign for traffic going south and one sign for traffic going north. • Cr. 312 one sign at Bilouti Creek for traffic going north. 3, Warning signs stating Narrow Road will need to be installed in the following places. • Cr. 312 and Cr. 328 intersection one sign on Cr. 312 for traffic going south. • Cr, 312 at Bilotti Creek for traffic going north. 4. All sign installations and spacing will be accordance with regulations stipulated in the Manuel on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 5. No log hauling will not be allowed during the times that the school bus is running on Cr, 312. 6. All road damage caused by the log hauling operation will be repaired to Garfield County Road And Bridge Dept. specifications at the expense of Louisiana Pacific in a timely fashion. If damage occurs in the paved portion of Cr. 312 as it will include a new chipseal surface over the damaged portion of the road. 7. Louisiana Pacific will furnish a list of contact personnel and phone numbers to Garfield County Road & Bridge department. 8. Garfield County Road & Bridge department will furnish to Louisiana Pacific a list of contact personnel and phone numbers. PAGE 04 • • GARY GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD & BR I DG E P . O . Box 2254- G1 c nwoocl Spr irigs , CO 81602 PH 9 7 0— 9 4 5— 6 1 1 1 EX 9 7 0— 9 4 5— 0 9 3 4 August 18, 1998 From: King Lloyd, Director RE: New Road Bond Fees TO ALL GARFIELD COUNTY ROAD BOND HOLDERS: Effective no later than September 1, 1998, the Garfield Board of County Commissioners have ratified Garfield County Resolution # 82-83, which sets the fees for oversize & overweight permits and bond amounts. The following bond amounts will go into effect as of September 1, 1998. Due to the time necessary to procure these documents, all bond holders will be given a grace period until September 14, 1998, to have their new bonds in place. The new bond amounts will be based upon the number of miles of road traveled upon by your employees and/or contractors, and the type of surface(s) these roads have. In no event will your new bond amount exceed $500,000.00, (Five Hundred Thousand Dollars). Here is a table of the cost per mile per road surface; Asphalt Roads $ 145,000 Per Mile Chip Seal Coat Roads: $ 44,000 Per Mile Gravel Roads $ 10,000 Per Mile If your employees and/or contractors travel these minimum number of miles for each surface, your bond will be 5500,000,00. Asphalt Roads: Chip Seal Coat Roads: Gravel Roads: 3.5 Miles or over 11 Miles or over 50 Miles or over Please send your new bonds to the above address. Should you have any questions, please give us a call. Thank you. Respectively, King Lloyd, Director osowbond • • 8. Louisiana Pacific Corporation will be responsible to notify and coordinate with the appropriate School Districts for hauling activity interface. 9. Exhibit A identifies specific locations to meet these conditions. Louisiana Pacific Corporation Date Road & Bridge Supervisor Date BOCC Chairman Date Ackerman STATE OF COLORADO. Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Russell George, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 March 26, 2001 Kit Lyon Garfield County Building and Planning 109 8th Street, Suite 301 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 W4/4/2001 ©12:20 AM ❑ 112 • VED .APR 0 4 2001 RE: Louisiana Pacific/Diamanti Special Use Permit -Timber Harvest Dear Mr. Lyon: I have had the opportunity to review the maps and materials associated with this project as provided in the referral packet. In addition, I have met with other Colorado Division of Wildlife personnel concerning this issue. The majority of the proposed harvest area is in standing timber on north -facing slopes. It currently provides habitat for a number of mammal species including elk, mule deer, bear, mountain lion, bobcat and fox. One would also expect to find a number of avian species, such as turkey, blue grouse, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk and a variety of passerine birds. Harvested aspen stands on north -facing slopes in this area generally display prolific regeneration, and species such as turkey and mule deer may continue to utilize the harvested area during the regeneration period. Conversely, aspen stands on slopes with south -facing exposure are slower to regenerate, and wildlife has been shown to minimize their use of these areas. The project impact statement responsibly addresses many wildlife issues, such as migration and forage concerns. The plan proposes leaving stands of healthy fir regeneration, which are instrumental in providing space as well as thermal and escape cover for various species, such as blue grouse and turkey. A portion of the proposed timber harvest area is adjacent to Garfield Creek State Wildlife Area, which has a principal objective of maintaining a healthy complete ecosystem for elk. Consequently, the Colorado Division of Wildlife is particularly interested in any project which may affect elk in the area. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Greg E. Qalcher, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Rick Enstrom, Chair • Robert Shoemaker, Vice -Chair • Marianna Raftopoulos, Secretary Ackerman W4/4/2001 ©12:21 AM 2/2 • • One major effect on wildlife that the project plan does not address is disturbance to elk calving. Calving in the project area generally occurs in close proximity to aspen stands and water sources, which are predominant in the proposed harvest area. Calving season begins in late May, peaks in early June and ends in late June. Elk cows often keep their calves hidden in the calving area for several weeks after they are born, before they continue their migration to summer range. Human activity in the area in June could alter the calving grounds of some cows, and could cause premature migration of cows and calves, possibly increasing calving -related mortality. A healthy harvest of timber can, however, be beneficial to habitat, provided that the timing is right. Postponing the initiation of the operations preparation period one month to July each year would minimize negative effects on the area's elk population. Such a measure would decrease disturbance during the critical calving period, and may even enhance the calving ground for subsequent years by creating nutritious browse while perpetuating younger, more healthy aspen stands. The Colorado Division of Wildlife would appreciate the opportunity to work with the landowners on a public hunting easement on the property when logging operations have concluded. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important land use issue in Garfield County. Please feel free to contact me regarding this or any other wildlife concern. Sincerely, Brett A. Ackerman District Wildlife Manager Rifle South cc: Yamashita, Will, Neil, Toolen • • JAMES A. BECKWITH Attorney and Counselor at Law 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-9966 // FAX 303-431-2803 / E -Mail Ithamer April 16, 2001 Board of County Commissioners County of Garfield Garfield County Courthouse, Room 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Application: Special Use Permit; Conditional Use Permit Applicant: James G. Diamanti, Jane Juliano and Gregory Diamanti Representative: Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LPC) REQUEST TO TABLE DECISION ON APPLICATIONS Dear County Commissioners: On April 12, 2001, LPC received Staff's Comments and Recommendations. On that same date, in conference with Garfield County officials, several new, and unexpected, factors relating to the Diamanti Tract Project arose. These related to bonds, bonding costs, overweight permits and transportation issues related to the harvest project. As a result, LPC requests that this Board table consideration of this application for two weeks. Our reasons are as follows: LPC owns and operates a waferboard mill in Olathe, Colorado. At Olathe, LPC has 80 full- time employees and 200+ subcontractors directly dependent upon the mill's operation. It is public knowledge that LPC will close the Olathe Mill on April 23'. LPC's current desire is to reopen the Olathe Mill in June, 2001. This reopening is dependent upon LPC obtaining a "bare bones" volume of timber suitable for manufacture into waferboard. If LPC cannot affordably obtain this minimum volume, then it may well close the Olathe Mill for several months: retaining only a skeleton maintenance crew of less than 10 persons. In the words of an old-time trucker: "At current costs, I lose less money parking my rig and lose more money running it". • Garfield BOCC April 16, 2001 Page Two. The Aspen trees on the Diamanti Tract represent 25% of the "bare bones" volume necessary to reopen the Olathe Mill. Cost factors are critically important. The price of lumber, and therefore timber, are at a 23 year low. In Denver alone, lumber retailers are advertising lumber products at 50% less than the prices for the same articles in 2000! LPC's original cost estimates have now been turned upside down. We face additional bonds and increased bonding costs, uncertain standards for bond claims, decreased GVW limits, uncertain recognition by State officials of County overweight permits for divisible loads and nearly prohibitive costs for County overweight permits. These cost increases may, indeed, render the Diamante Project wholly infeasible. We hope not. Many families depend upon the Olathe Mill. LPC must run its own cost analyses to determine whether it will continue with the Project. Unfortunately, with the Easter Holiday Weekend, there has been insufficient time in which to perform this analysis. LPC would appreciate your consideration in tabling this matter for two weeks. Respectfully submitte•, JG W— James A. Beckwith cc: Mr. Don K. DeFord, Garfield County Attorney Ms. Kit Lyon, Garfield Building & Planning Garfield County Road & Bridge Mr. James Diamanti Ms. Jane Juliano Mr. Gregory Diamanti JAMES A. BECKWITH Attorney and Counselor at Law 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-9966 // FAX 303-431-2803 / Ithamer@aol.com April 16, 2001 Board of County Commissioners County of Garfield Garfield County Courthouse, Room 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Application: Special Use Permit; Conditional Use Permit Applicant: James G. Diamanti, Jane Juliano and Gregory Diamanti Representative: Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Dear County Commissioners: My office represents Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (LPC) in the above -entitled matter. On Thursday, April 12, 2001, LPC received a copy of the Project Information and Staff Comments in the above -referenced application, scheduled for hearing on April 16, 2001. Staff recommendations have substantially altered the feasibility ofthis project. There is insufficient time, however, to conduct a cost analysis. Concurrent with this letter, LPC is submitting its request to table this issue for two weeks, while that cost study is conducted. Nonetheless, in the spirit of open discussions, LPC will offer here its comments to Staff Recommendations found at Pages 10-12 of their Comments. Satisfaction of Ordinance Standards For Permit Staff correctly concludes that LPC's application meets all the requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution, Secs. 5.03, 5.03.07 and 5.03.08. Due to its remote location, water, utilities, "emanations" (dust, smoke, vapors), and distance from neighboring properties will not be effected. LPC has submitted to Staff its Contract Specifications, Summary of Landowner Objectives, Cutting Prescriptions, Tract Characteristics (including discussion of surrounding forest types), proposed Schedule of Operations, and the Colorado Best Management Practices. Staff does not voice any specific criticisms with these plans and contracts. Most importantly, Staff does not conclude that these submissions are deficient vis a vis the Zoning Resolution, 1 • • What Staff has concluded, however, is that certain requirements be placed upon LPC which do not arise from the Zoning Resolution. First, Staff states its lack of objection "...As long as roads are improved to the minimum standards for hauling....". [Comments; III(B)(2); Pg. 5/12] LPC has never proposed, nor would it ever agree, to rebuild any portion of GCR 312 as a condition to issuance of the permit. Garfield Road & Bridge does not require rebuilding GCR 312. Road & Bridge's concern is the repair of any road damaged by LPC. Second, Staff urges adoption of certain operating standards because "...In the past, (with other applications), BOCC has (imposed a requirement) ". Specifically, this relates to hours of operation [Comments; III; (B)(3)], bonding for repairs, weed control and maintenance [Comments III(C)(2)(B)] fire protection equipment [Comments; (D)(2)] helicopter logging on slopes greater than 50% [Comments; (D)(5)] These proposals are not site-specific, are not reflected in LPC's application itself, and are not specific to the Diamanti Tract. Without such relation to the project, the proposals are arbitrary. Indeed, as discussed hereafter, several of these proposals (excluding fire protection) are impractical. Third, Staff submits a bond proposal which is not in accordance with Garfield County resolutions: to wit, $100,000 for road maintenance and repair, weed abatement, rehabilitation and any other impacts. [Comments;(C)(2)B) Oh, if the bond were only this amount! As has now been learned by LPC, the bonding requirements are considerably higher. COMMENTS Comments to LPC's application were received from County agenices (Road & Bridge; Weed Abatement), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and the Town of New Castle. Notably, objections have not been voiced by any resident along GCR 312 nor have there been objections from any environmental group. With the exception of the Town of New Castle, none of these agencies have fundamental or specific objection to the project as proposed. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adoption of Representations in Application, Plan and Meeting LPC does not object to incorporating the application and timber harvest plan within the body of the permit. However, Staff has inappropriately converted operating estimates into binding rules. LPC will not consider it bound by good -faith estimates when such estimates can change based upon weather, soil or other conditions beyond their control. 2. Road Maintenance Agreement / Garfield County Road & Bridge LPC has estimate 1,500 loads of felled trees over a two season period. In its application, LPC agreed to be bound to an 80,000 lb. GVW limit on the entire access route. 2 • • The problem here is five -fold. First, current GVW limts on GCR 312 are 70,000 lbs. for the chip -and -seal portion (2.4 miles) ofGCR 312 (8 miles overall) This was imposed on January 11, 1999 (BOCC Resolution 99-015) based upon road damage and defective bridge.' The Baldy Creek bridge has since been replaced (Baldy Creek) and, based upon information from residents, the damage was caused by Garfield County trucks. The road bed, itself, has historically supported 80,000 lbs and does not show deterioration. The 70,000 lb. limit, therefore, is based upon the chip -and -seal surface. This surface does not show sufficient deterioration to prevent 80,000 lbs. Second, LPC's loads are "divisible": i.e., they are composed of individual units which can be variably loaded "light" or "heavy". Garfield County overweight permits are issued for divisible "overweight" loads. However, State laws and regulations prohibit overweight permits for divisible loads. Based upon a recent occurrence on GCR 215, County overweight permits for divisible loads may well not be honored by State officers: resulting in the County overweight permit being practicably worthless. Third, the access route includes travel over GCR 335 (River Road) through New Castle, CO. This area has recently been annexed into the Town of New Castle. New Castle has expressed concern about the 80,000 ib. loads, although not presently restricting operating weights on GCR 335 within its boundaries. Nonetheless, it is apparent that New Castle may, in fact, require overweight permits for LPC's 80,000 lb. loads and demand additional bonding. Fourth, there is an apparent conflict between Garfield Road & Bridge's expressed procedures for overweight permits and the terms of Resolution 98-???? (July, 1998). Road & Bridge has advised LPC that its overweight permit is "per truck per day". Costs are $40 per truck.'- Based on this formula, the estimate permit fees for 5 operating trucks are $24,000. However, Resolution 98-??? (copy attached) provides that overweight permits are valid for 30 days - not the 24 hour period stated by Road & Bridge. If Resolution 98-???? is the correct rule, then the permit fees for the entire project would be $1,200. By comparison, a State Annual Overweight Permit costs $400. Fifth, the bond required by Road & Bridge (based on Res. 98-????) is calculated at $10,000/mile of gravel/dirt and $44,000/mile of chip -and -seal. GCR 312 has 2.5 miles chip -and -seal and 5.5 miles gravel/dirt, for a total bond of $170,000. If the Town of New Castle required a similar bond, it would be based on asphalt ($110,000/mile ) for 2.0 miles, resulting in an additional $220,000 bond! Ironically, State Overweight Permit Rules do not require bonding. In all candor, LPC does not believe the current 70,000 limit is in comportment with State law and the restrictions placed on Garfield County by Secs. 42-4-501, 42-4-106(1) and 43-2-114. It is 1 GVW weight limits have been the subject of four BOCC resolutions since 1982: Rcs. 82-83 [Overweight Permit Rules]; 90-082 [No restrictions imposed]; 98-??? (July, 1998) [Revision of Overweight Permit Rules]; and, 99-015 [Restriction to 70,000 lbs. 5 axle]. 2 $15 for overweight + [$5/axle x Saxles] = $40. LPC's vehicles are not otherwise "over -size". 3 • • not the roadbed of GCR 312 which requires 70,000 GVW limits, but the chip -and -seal placed by Garfield County. This surface coating now restricts LPC' s right to travel these public highways when in comportment with state-wide GVW standards for both gross load and axle weights. Indeed, LPC's gross weights are considerably lower than the state-wide limits set in Sec. 42-4-509(b), C.R.S. 3. Hours and Volume for Timber Hauling / Helicopter Harvesting / Season Period Any reference in the permit to helicopter harvesting should be eliminated. LPC never proposed any such operations, nor should LPC be bound to any such conditions. Few logging companies actually engage in helicopter logging due to its expense, its danger to employees, and the unpredictability of winds, down drafts and other factors. In filing this application, LPC correctly stated that logging crews generally work five days per week. However, if one day is a federal holiday (Fourth of July) then the crew will work on Saturday. Generally, crews can work from 6 AM to 6 PM. However, thunderstorms are known to occur in Garfield County, which muddy the dirt access roads as well as GCR 312. A loaded truck will often wait 2-3 hours for the road to dry so as to minimize rutting and traction problems. If such reasonable delay would put the truck on GCR 312 at 7:00 P.M., LPC would be in violation of its permit. Moreover, the "season" is during Daylight Savings Time when there is abundant daylight until 7-8 P.M. Yet, this arbitrary restriction would prohibit LPC from avoiding "burning daylight". Similarly, if emergency conditions exist, or it is prudent to remove felled trees in high volume due to potential wildfire conditions, a logging crew might transport as many as 15-20 loads per day: by simply adding additional trucks. Under Staff s recommendation, an application, a hearing and BOCC' s consent would be required to meet these needs. Simply put, Staff's proposal is unreasonably inflexible and impractical for a prudent operator. Elk calving is a reasonable concern, and LPC has already considered this issue. Within the general area, there are over 6,000 acres suitable for elk calving. LPC's operation, however, is limited to restricted areas: involving only 600 acres over a two year period. Logging during the month of June should not have a signficant impact upon calving. CDOW's comments do not state any specific impact: only that "it could occur". By contrast, CDOW also states that LPC's logging will promote elk calving. LPC questions the authority of BOCC, and CDOW, to impose conditons relating to elk calving on private ground lying outside CDOW's Garfield Creek State Wildlife Area and not falling within a Wildlife Management Area. The Diamanti Tract is, after all, private property. 4. Access Permits and Surveys Staff does not identify, nor is LPC aware of, any "access permits" required for this project. The comments submitted by the Bureau of Land Management are inapposite. BLM lands are not 4 • • being crossed in order to access the Diamanti Tract.3 BLM benchmarks and corner pins were installed, after survey, several years ago. BLM has not found its survey records. Nonetheless, Mr. Diamanti has found the benchmarks and corner pins. All harvests can be conducted within the identifiable boundaries of the Diamanti Tract. If necessary, LPC will call in a surveyor. But at this juncture, neither LPC nor the Diamantis see a need for a surveyor, nor should a survey be required as a condition of this permit. 5. Dust Abatement LPC's application has already agreed to provide dust control. In a prior project, LPC voluntarily spread magnesium chloride near a house which abutted a County Road. Now, however, Staff requires two annual applications of MagCl to the entirety of GCR 312 at a cost of $11,000 per application: or a total of $45,000. A bond is additionally required, but LPC is uncertain how a violation of to bond would, or would not, be determined. Would it simply be because dust occurs, even though LPC spreads the requisite two MagCl applications each year? Here again the lack of identifiable standards is neither reasonable nor prudent for the ordinary businessman. 6. Bonds As shown in LPC's prior comments, the bonds which LPC can expect BOCC to require would total $400,000 and not the $100,000 all-inclusive bond Staff has described. In addition, Staff is recommending a bond for "site rehabilitation". Site rehabilitation is governed by the private landowner: the Diamanti Group. Yet, Staff desires to have "compliance" determined by BOCC and Staff's recommendations. If Staff requires a standard differing from that rehabilitation desired by the Diamanti Group, then who controls? Will Staff claim against the bond, requiring the bondsman to either litigate whether Diamanti or Staff controls rehabilitation or "cram down" on Diamanti a rehabilitation standard Diamanti does not want (and which does not violate BMP or other governing standards?) 7. Roads on Private Property Garfield County does not have jurisdictional authority over the Diamanti tract, which is privately owned. The private landowners do not want roads 14 ft. in width and covered with gravel. They want all roads to be mediated to native condition after harvest completion. Staff's recommendation appears to be based upon the desire of the Colorado Division of Wildlife to obtain public hunting easements on and across the Diamanti Tract as a condition of allowing the timber harvest. [CDOW Comments; Pg. 2; Para. 3] The Diamanti property is, and will remain, private grounds for the exclusive use of the Diamanti fatnily and its specific invited guests. 3 A portion of GCR 312 crosses BLM ground southeast of the Baldy Creek Road (GCR 328) intersection. However, this is a public highway beyond BLM's control. 5 • • 8. Weed Control And Reseeding Program LPC has already agreed, with the Diamanti family, to return the harvest site to its native condition upon completion of the harvest. LPC, an experienced timber company, will reseed in accordance with industry standards. (SEE: Section 13) All of this activity occurs on private land. LPC uses a seed mixture called "Mountain Mix" that has been used for years in this area, and was devleoped and is recommended by the ASCS. It is reliable and readily available. Like Garfield County, LPC buys seed from reputable seed distributors seeling certified "weed free seed". Staffs proposal regarding Best Management Practices (BMP's) for weed prevention are impracticable. [4/2/01; Memo from S. Anthony; Sec. 4] Under this proposal, each vehicle, vehicle tire (and presumably each felled tree) leaving or entering the project site must be inspected (and presumably cleaned) before entry or exit. Each equipment item (trucks and logging equipment) must be inspected and cleaned before entering the site. Under the conditions of a timber harvest, this would require concrete pads, washing equipment and debris containment pits. Even more problematic is a County claim against LPC's required bond. Weeds grow and disperse naturally: through wind, wildlife, private hunters, hikers and private motor vehicles. Weed seeds may take root and sprout several years after dispersion. Several ranchers, including the Colorado Division of Wildlife, have hay operations along GCR 312. This hay is transported up and down GCR 312 through the season. If weed control is necessary, then how does one reliably, and accurately, determine who is at fault? Would Garfield County claim against LPC's bond simply because weeds grew 5 miles from the project site: even though the seeds may have gotten there through means other than LPC's project? How would LPC reasonably defend against such a claim when Staff cannot prove LPC caused the disperson and LPC cannot prove it did not? In such circumstance, the bonding requirement establishes strict liability, without regard to any fault by LPC. A prudent businessman would not consent to such a condition. 9. Slash Burning LPC has already identified its procedures for slash burning. All burning will be conducted in accordance with County permits for burning.. 10. Fire Protection or Extinguishment Equipment LPC does not object to the requirements of this recommendation. 11. Annual Public Review of Timber Harvesting Operation See LPC's comments to Recommendations 6 and 13. 6 • • 12. Permits Revoked If Never Issued A comment is not necessary to this recommendation. Obviously, if the permit is never issued then it does not have an "official life". BOCC cannot revoke that which has never been issued. 13. County Monitoring and Approval of Forest Management Practices LPC is a member of the American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA), through which LPC participates in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). SFI conducts periodic audits of AFPA member mills and harvest sites for the purpose of certifying their compliance with SFI and AFPA standards. The auditors are independent of AFPA members and are nationally accredited in their respective fields. SFI audit standards are higher than any State or County standards for both mill and logging operations. Staff's recommendation would subject LPC to four potentially differing standards: (1) SFI; (2) BOCC Consultant; (3) LPC's own internal harvesting standards; and (4) the standards set by the contract logger performing the harvest. More importantly, it would place BOCC, itself, in the position of judging, assessing and establishing standards which have a potential to significantly differ from SFI, AFPA and accepted industry standards. After all, the "public hearing" proposed by Staff is before a legislative, and not a judicial, body. It would also be judged by a body having a financial interest in the outcome of that decision: to wit, claims against LPC's bond. In any event, Garfield County should bear its own expenses of monitoring: particularly with regard to a forestry consultant. LPC will not agree to pay a consultant who will answer solely to BOCC on decisions affecting LPC's liability on the bond. 14. Helicopter Harvesting This condition should be eliminated entirely. It was never proposed in the application. A reasonable basis for its inclusion by Staff is non-existent. 15. Hydrologic Measures LPC has already covered this topic in its application. Its erosion and water drainage systems will be constructed in accordance with BMP and SFI standards. 16. Harvest Season According to the Diamanti Tract owners, calving does not occur within the project area. Accordingly, the harvest season should run from June 1 through October/November: with the latter deadline being based upon snow and other weather conditions in the upper elevations. 7 • Respectfully submitted, 'CAVY CA—,( j).., James A. Beckwith cc: Mr. Don K. DeFord, Garfield County Attorney Ms. Kit Lyon, Garfield Building & Planning Garfield County Road & Bridge Mr. James Diamanti Ms. Jane Juliano Mr. Gregory Diamanti 8 James Diamanti 683,Glen Caro Drive Grand Junction, Colorado • • RECEIVED JUL 0 2 2001 Dear Jim, As you know, the Garfield County Board of Commissioners voted to grant a Special Use Permit to allow harvesting your timber. However, they have made it subject to a number of requirements proposed by the Planing and Zoning Dept. Unfortunately these requirements, along with Road and Bridge Department requirements, and others have rendered the project not only uneconomical, but also impractical from an operational standpoint. To help you understand why this conclusion was reached, the following eight items weighed heavily in our decision. 1. The imposition of restrictions on hauling times that make it impossible to adjust for weather related delays, and would result in higher costs. 2. The imposition of Division of Wildlife operational policies on private land. The delay in startup caused by the permitting process this year and delays for unnecessary elk calving restrictions, combined with expected loss of time for winter weather would probably, force an additional year's operation. In addition the imposition of such policies on private ground could undermine the future of individual property rights in Garfield County. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. could not legally agree to this imposition on your property. 3. The requirements for weed control and site rehabilitation left both you and L -P open to significant liability because they purported to make us responsible for all weed problems on your property and adjacent road, no matter how they were caused. The bond amount was never defined. We feel that this will expose L -P and you as the landowner, to an undefined and excessive risk. 4. The requirement to survey the property where no survey is necessary, will add an estimated $10,000.00 to the cost of the project. The fact that you and I, and all the other private landowners know where the lines and government survey markers are doesn't count. What does count, is the fact that the BLM has professed ignorance of the existence of government surveys of their own property. For this we, not the BLM are required to bear the cost. 5. The mandated reduction of trucking weights from state allowed 80,000 Ib. to 70,000 Ib. per load would add a minimum of $130,000.00 to the cost of trucking. It would also make 350 additional trips necessary to complete the project. These additional trips will insure that a third year would be necessary. 6. The requirement of Road and Bridge to apply Mag Chloride twice a year to the entire length of CR 312 would add a minimum of $45,000.00 to the cost of operation if completed within the original timeframe of two years. With the addition of a third year this cost is now projected to be $67,000.00. • • Page 2 June 11, 2001 7. The requirement that we sign a road maintenance agreement with the Road and Bridge Dept. is open ended. There is no form agreement according to the Road and Bridge Dept. We have no idea of what compliance with this agreement will cost, or how long it would take to complete the agreement. 8. Further, there is every reason to believe that if we agreed to all the above as well as other requirements, Planing and Zoning would continue to require additional plans, specifications, studies etc. until we simply give up and leave. As you know, we had budgeted $30,000.00 in repair and improvement work on the several miles of unmaintained county road leading to your property and serving your neighbors property Along with this we projected revenue to you and your family of approximately $175,000 to $180,000.00 in stumpage from this project. The direct cost increases imposed (so far) by Garfield County totals $207,000.00. Louisiana-Pacific, therefore, has no choice but to withdraw from this project. rely, Gary V Hiner Forest • J MEMORANDUM To: Kit Lyon From: Steve Anthony Re: Diamanti Special Use Plan Date: April 27, 2001 The Commissioners may choose to require bonding for revegetation. If they choose to do so, the applicant needs to provide more information regarding specific amounts of surface area to be disturbed by the construction of new roads and staging areas. The land that is subject to the timber harvest should not be included in the disturbed area calculations. I recommend that the applicant provide information on the following: 1. An estimation of surface area to be disturbed due to road cuts. 2. An estimation of surface area to disturbed due to road shoulders. 3. An estimation of surface area to be disturbed due to staging activities. This information will help the Commissioners determine the appropriate amount of bonding, if they deem that bonding is necessary J • Garfield County Building and Planning Department To: Board of County Commissioners From: Kit Lyon, Senior Planner CC: Mr. Gary Hiner, Louisiana Pacific Corp. Date: 05/02/2001 Re: Diamanti Special Use Permit ITYNO-k6 a3 cO,X2e�� 4)CGLC 7 The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Board of County Commissioners, as well as the applicant, on the Diamanti special use permit application. A public hearing was opened on 4/16/01 at which time the applicant requested a continuance until 5/7/01 in order to conduct a cost analysis. The applicant submitted two items into the record during the hearing on 4/16/01: exhibits H and I which are letters from James Beckwith to the Commissioners dated April 16th, 2001. This memo shall serve as Staff comment on both exhibits as follows: Exhibit H: This letter formally requests a continuance of the public hearing. This request was granted. Exhibit I: This letter comments on the Staff recommendations found on pages 10-12 of the Staff report. Staff responds to each of these items as follows: Satisfaction of Ordinance Standards for Permit (page 1): Mr. Beckwith has stated that Staff concludes that their application meets the Garfield County Zoning requirements, and that the submissions were not found to be deficient. Staff has not found this to be the case at all. Careful review of the staff report, especially pages 8- 12, discuss the ways in which the application is deficient. The suggested conditions of approval were crafted in an attempt to mitigate impacts and deficiencies. If the conditions of approval are followed as discussed in this memo, staff believes the proposal may be found to be consistent with the Zoning Regulations. However, if the conditions of approval are not followed, staff believes the proposal does not meet the Zoning Regulations, and should therefore be denied. The Board of County • Page 1 • !r 3 Commissioners is certainly authorized to deny the application based on the fact that the impact statement contained in the application is inadequate. Furthermore, Mr. Beckwith claims that the conditions of approval are not site specific and are arbitrary. Staff finds that in actuality, much of the application is not site specific (ie the constant referral to "BMP"s instead of a detailed plan). All the suggested conditions of approval are specific to this project, are appropriate, and staff maintains they should be included in any approval, as discussed in this memo. Condition #1: Adoption of applicant's representations:"That all representations made by the applicant in the application, timber harvest plan, or at the public hearing shall be conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Board of County Commissioners. Said representations include, but are not limited to: a) Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be adhered to in all cases. b) No operations will occur during normal migration periods. c) Stream Management Zones (SMZ's) will be maintained and only selectively cut to remove all diseased trees within BMP guidelines, leaving sufficient cover to protect water quality. d) The timber harvest will result in restoration of healthy, young aspen, improved wildlife habitat, maintained aesthetics, and will preserve water quality. e) Roads remaining open will be graded, waterbarred, and seeded. Final closure of roads shall consist of grading, installing waterbars, spreading slash over portions of the surface, and seeding with grass. f) Warning signs to alert the public of truck traffic shall be posted as necessary. g) A bulldozer will be kept on site for fire suppression purposes. h) The property boundaries will be surveyed and flagged to prevent trespass. i) All logging operations shall be completed by 10/1/03." Mr. Beckwith has stated that Staff has "inappropriately converted operating estimates into binding rules". Staff respectfully requests to know which of the statements in the lion and at the public hearing the applicant wishes to retract. If the applicant ishes to '*amend the application, a written request of all amendments should be submitted and a new public hearing should be scheduled. Condition #2: Road Maintenance Agreement: That roads shall be maintained adequately. The applicant shall execute the Garfield County Road & Bridge Department's agreement. Staff recommends said agreement be approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to issuance of any conditional or special use permit; Mr. Beckwith has stated five problems. The Staff response is that the requirements exist as they do. If the applicant wishes to pursue changing the regulations that is his perogative. However, it is not the task at hand. Condition #3: Hours and Volume: That all timber hauling on County Roads shall occur Monday through Friday, between the hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., shall not exceed 10 loads per day, and shall be within legal weight limits. • Page 2 v p) • • Mr. Beckwith has stated that any reference to helicopter logging should be eliminated. The Staff report (see "Soils" page 9) notes that the application lacked soils information. Therefore, Staff investigated the Soil Survey and found that "special care and attention" is needed to prevent soil erosion (see also condition #14). This was the original impetus of this condition. Staff agrees that it is inappropriate as stated and suggests it be amended so that the last sentence be removed, as indicated above. Mr. Beckwith also states that LPC questions the Board of County Commissioners and the DOW's authority to impose conditions on private land. Staff notes that the applicant has applied for a special use permit, which is not an automatic property right, and that the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to impose conditions (see 5.03.07 (1) (C)). Condition #4: Access Permits and Surveys: That the applicant shall obtain and comply with any necessary access permits. Mr. Beckwith states that he is not aware of any "access permits" required. He also states that neither LPC nor the Diamantis see the need for a surveyor, nor should one be required as a condition of this permit. Staff maintains this is a valid and necessary condition. Identifying and obtaining the necessary permits is the applicant's responsibility. However, Staff does note that since a change in use is occurring on the property, an access permit may be necessary from the Garfield County Road and Bridge Department. Staff refers to a letter contained in the application from Mr. Gary Hiner to Kit Lyon dated 2/27/01 which states, "As stated in the impact statement submitted, the only damage to abutting properties occurs through trespass, and this will be prevented by employing a licensed surveyor to prevent this. In short, we intend to operate up to the property line in certain portions of the tract." Staff notes that the BLM is concerned about possible trespass and maintains this is a valid and necessary condition, as contained in condition #1(h). Condition #5: Dust Abatement: That dust will be controlled with water or dust control chemicals so that it does not become a nuisance. If these are not sufficient means of dust control, the number of truck trips per day, and the speed of the trucks, shall be reduced as necessary. Mr. Beckwith takes issue with requiring two annual applications of mag chloride (perhaps this is a Road and Bridge requirement?) in addition to having to post a bond. This condition, as stated, simply protects against dust becoming a nuisance. Staff believes it is sufficiently flexible while still ensuring compliance with 5.03.07 (B) and 5.03.08 (3). Condition #6: Bonds: That a%n adequate] bond of $100,000.00 will be placed with Garfield County to be used for the repair of CR 312 due to damage attributable to the applicant's activities, for mitigation of impacts, for implementing rehabilitation of the site, and • Page 3 • • for controlling noxious weeds. The bond shall be valid for the period of time that the applicant is actively logging on their property. The 8100,009.00 bond shall be issued solely for the Diamanti project, and not cover any other operations; [The amount of the bond shall bt determined by the Board of Commissioners prior to issuance of the special use permit.] Mr. Beckwith takes issue with having to post additional bonding above and beyond what is required by Road and Bridge for overweight permits. He also prefers to allow the property owners, the Diamantis, to govern site rehabilitation and fears that Staff will "cram down" a rehabilitation standard that the Diamantis do not want. Staff refers the applicant to section 5.03.07 (2) (B) which clearly states that the Board is authorized to require security before a permit is issued. Staff notes that this has been a standard condition on other projects, which have not had to obtain overweight permits. Staff believes that in this particular case, the amount of the bond should be determined by $X amount per acre of disturbance. However, the applicant has failed to state the total proposed acres of disturbance. Steve Anthony, of the Office of Vegetation Management, has stated that more information is needed to determine an appropriate bond amount (see attached letter, Exhibit J). The Board is certainly authorized to deny the permit since the application contains an insufficient description of the proposal, and an inadequate plan for site rehabilitation (section 5.03.07 (2) (A). Another option would be to amend the condition as noted above. Condition #7: Roads on Private Property: That newly constructed private roads will be constructed to minimum haul standards[in a manner that protects water quality on adjacent and downstream properties.] and be at least 1 1 ' wide, with a maximum grade of 8 15%, and be composed of dirt with gravel or shale in places as necessary. Mr. Beckwith objects to this condition and believes Garfield County does not have jurisdictional authority to require this. Sections 5.03.07 (A) and (B) authorize the Commissioners to ensure water quality is preserved and impacts to adjacent lands are mitigated. The application lacks a drainage plan and does not adequately address these issues. Again, this is basis of denial of the application. However, staff suggests that the condition be altered as shown above, and maintains that the condition is fair and appropriate. Condition #8: Noxious Weed Control: That a weed control program shall be created and submitted to the Gaeld County Vegetation Manager for approval prior to issuance of any permits. The approved program shall be implemented on both County (specifically CR 312) and private roads; Mr. Beckwith believes adhering to BMP's for weed prevention is not practical and is concerned that Garfield County would claim against the bond when it can not be reliably determined who is at fault. Staff believes this to be a miscommunication. Adhering to BMP's for weed prevention was encouraged by Steve Anthony (memo dated 4/2/01), not required. Staff maintains that a weed control program is an appropriate part of mitigation of • Page 4 • • impacts and rehabilitation of the site. If noxious weeds proliferate on the property, the County has the ability to claim against the bond and eradicate the noxious weeds on the subject property. Since the Vegetation Manager already implements a weed program along the County road, Staff suggests the condition be amended -as -shown — --above. {t, 6- e . A..c.4 -(--€- Cei M c oiwr►^ Condition #9: Slash Burning: Landing slash will be burned during favorable conditions, with the proper permits. Burn areas and skid trails will be disked and re -seeded. Culverts will be placed to prevent erosion along abandoned roads. Cut/fill slopes will be stabilized. Noxious weeds will be monitored and treated Mr. Beckwith has not stated any objection to this condition. Condition #10: Fire Protection: Chainsaws shall be equipped with spark arrestors and all motorized equipment shall carry at least one shovel and one fire extinguisher; Mr. Beckwith has not stated any objection to this condition. Condition #11: Compliance Review: That the Special and Conditional Use Permits are subject to review for compliance or noncompliance with the timber harvest plans and the conditions placed on the permits. The applicant will be required to submit a report one year from the date of issuance of the special and conditional use permits 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 of the permit or that conditions of approval must be met before additional activities can occur on the property; Mr. Beckwith prefers to allow the property owners, the Diamantis, to govern site rehabilitation. He objects to being subjected to four potentially differing standards: 1) SFI, 2) BOCC consultant, 3) LP's internal standards, and 4)the contractor's standards. He- fieves_ati t#tte- t ear—it' - of _ rrmni Staff refers Mr. Beckwith to section 9.03.05 which authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to make a periodic review of any special use permit. The cost of monitoring is discussed in condition #13. Condition #12: Validity of Permits: That this conditional approval shall be valid until 4/16/02. If the applicant fails to meet the conditions by 4/16/02, and subsequently the conditional and special use permits are never issued, the approval shall be automatically revoked, unless an extension is granted by the Board of County Commissioners; Mr. Beckwith has not stated any objection to this condition. Condition #13: County Monitoring for Compliance: That the forest management practices will be monitored for compliance with the application, the Best Management • Page 5 Practices, and the conditional and special use permits by a consultant [chosen by] agree( upon by the Board of County Commissioners Mr. Beckwith objects to being subjected to four potentially differing standards: 1) SFI, 2) BOCC consultant, 3) LP's internal standards, and 4)the contractor's standards. He also believes that the County should bear it's own expenses of monitoring. Staff refers Mr. Beckwith to section 9.03.05 which authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to make a periodic review of any special use permit. While it has been the Board of County Commissioners policy to require the applicant to bear the cost of monitoring, the code does not specifically state this. Therefore, Staff recommends the condition be= ve._. Since the Board of County Commissioners will bear the cdrof monitoring, it should be their sole decision to choose an expert as they see fit. ti Condition #14: Unstable Soils and Slopes: Slopes of 50+% slopes shall [not be] bc' harvested only with helicopters. All unstable areas and/or highly erosive soils shall not be logged Mr. Beckwith believes that this condition should be removed since there is no reasonable basis for it. Staff maintains that the application contained deficient soils information. In an effort to work with the applicant, Staff consulted the the USDA's SCS study and found that it suggested special precautions be taken to avoid erosion on the subject soils. Staff was attempting to build in a certain amount of flexibility in the condition and thus the reference to helicoptor logging. Staff agrees that this is an inappropriate condition, as stated, since the applicant has not proposed helicopter logging. Therefore, Staff recommends that the condition be amended-ps shown above. However, the Board of County Commissioners certainly can deny ie permit based on the fact that the impact statement is deficient and that the applicant has not adequately addressed sections 5.03.07 (A) and 9.03.01 (1).Are ( Condition #15: Drainage: Drainages shall be ?'sed at right angles, with 18" steel or ADS culverts placed on a 2-4% grade, covered with at least 1 ' of dirt, and provided with a rock apron for spillage. Mr. Beckwith has not stated any objection to this condition. Condition #16: Harvest Season: All operations will cease during spring run-off (typically March -May) and during elk calving times (Mayl-July1). Mr. Beckwith states that according to the Diamantis, calving does not occur on the property. Therefore, the harvest season should extend from June 1 to October/November. • Page 6 • 1 Staff maintains that this is an appropriate condition. Section 5.03.07 (1) (C) requires the impact statement to address impacts on wildlife. The County relies on the DOW to provide comments regarding wildlife, and recognizes the economic and other intrinsic values of wildlife to the County. This condition protects against unreasonable impacts to wildlife. General Comments and Staff Recommendation: While staff is sympathetic to the difficult situation LP finds itself in, with the closure of the waferboard mill in Olathe, the purpose of the staff recommendations is to ensure compliance the Garfield County's regulations. It is not the purpose of the regulations to evaluate the economic viability of the project. Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the special use permit, with the amended conditions listed- herein based on the discussions and findings in the staff reports. • Page 7 • • JAMES A. BECKWITH Attorney and Counselor at Law 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-9966 // FAX 303-431-2803 / E -Mail Ithamer@,aol.com May 7, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Garfield County Courthouse, Room 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Application: Special Use Permit; Conditional Use Permit Applicant: James G. Diamanti; Jane Juliano; Gregory Diamanti Representative: Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LPC) Dear Commissioners: DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER Staff's repeated reference to "Mr. Beckwith's Objections" is inappropriate. Mr. Beckwith is speaking on behalf of LPC and not on behalf of himself REPLY TO STAFF'S COMMENTS Condition 1: Applicant's Representations: LPC's objections to Staffs original Comments will stand as originally noted. LPC does not retract nor feels any need to retract any statements made in its original application. Staff has not found that any of those statements are untrue. Staff has, however, omitted portions of (b): dealing with blockage of wildlife migration. Neither LPC nor Staff have determined that the proposed Project will in fact block wildlife migration. Condition 2: Roads and Weight Restrictions: LPC's objections will stand as originally noted. Because this condition is the very core of economic feasibility, it is the subject of a separate submission to this Commission. Condition 3: Hours of Operation / Estimated Volumes: LPC has supplied Staff with 1 • • • estimates of operational conditions. It was specifically stated that there would and could be departures from these estimates, due to conditions beyond LPC's control. Condition 4: Access Permits and Surveys: LPC's objections will stand as originally noted. LPC does not know, nor does Staff cite, any specific access permits required for the Diamanti project. LPC reiterates its position that a surveyor will be retained if and when the need for such service is required. LPC does not consider it necessary at this point. Staff asserts that the Diamanti Project is a "change in use" of the Diamanti property. The basis for this assertion is unknown. The Diamanti Tract has been, and currently remains, open farm land. The Diamanti Project will merely remove overgrowth, understory and thin the existing Aspen stands in order to promote wildlife habitat. Upon conclusion of the Project, the Diamanti Tract will continue to have the same use it has always had.. Condition 5: Dust Abatement: LPC's objections will stand as originally stated. Condition 6: Bonds: With the exception of bonds for "overweight" loads on GCR 312, Staff's Additional Comments alleviate several concerns LPC initially voiced. However, Staff's proposal is for a bond calculated at "$X per acre x Y acres disturbed". Mr. Anthony's April 27, 2001, Memorandum suggests the number of disturbed acres be determined by the area comprised of road shoulders, staging areas and road cuts made on the Diamanti property. However, neither Staff nor Mr. Anthony suggest what "$X/acre" shall be. Staff further suggests the bond cover site rehabilitation and other activities. Yet, Garfield County has never adopted any such standards. Condition 7: Roads on Private Property: The Diamanti Family may construct a private road on their property to any specification they deem advisable, without any permit requirement by Garfield County. In doing so, Mr. Diamanti is not required to propose, and have approved, a water drainage or any other plan. How is this Project now any different? LPC's project, in fact, does not differ from a lawn or garden service, except in scale. Contrary to Staff's apparent complaint, the BMP's employed by LPC actually work! Condition 8: Noxious Weed Control: LPC's objections will stand. LPC does not see a need for a bond covering noxious weeds on private property, when the proliferation, if any, of such noxious weeds is beyond LPC's control. Condition 9: Slash Burning: No Additional Comment. Condition 10: Fire Equipment: No Additional Comment Condition 11: County Inspection: LPC does not have any objection to the Commissioners inspecting its operations to insure compliance with the specifics ofthe SUP/CUP and BMP's. In fact, LPC extends an invitation, and will be pleased, to host the trip. If found deficient, LPC should have the opportunity to respond and correct any violations prior to ahearing. However, since the project 2 • • • is located on private land, the dictates of the landowner must control over Staffs claim that only it can govern how the project is conducted. Condition 12: Validity of Permits: No Additional Comment. Condition 13: County Monitoring: Staff now agrees that, should this Commission retain a consultant, then LPC will not be charged with or responsible for the fees of that consultant. However, what standards will be employed by this consultant? Staff nowhere responds to LPC's original concerns. Condition 14: Soils and Slopes: While Staff says that soils information was lacking in LPC's application, that specific information was not requested in the original application nor in Staffs request for additional data dated February 23, 2001. It should be noted that Staffs soils map reveals a soil type (Type 19) which is confined to areas that are not timbered and will not support timber. Soil Types 12 and 18 occupy a minor component of the Diamanti Tract and occur in open land that is neither timbered nor a part of the proposed timber project. Condition 15: Drainage: LPC did voice concern with this requirement in its original comments. LPC's comments were made in the context of "Roads on Private Property". Condition 16: Harvest Season/Elk Calving: Subsequent to the April 16th appearance, LPC made additional inquiry regarding elk calving on the Diamanti Tract. LPC's comments are revised as follows: (1) LPC took elk calving into consideration when formulating the BMP and Harvest Proposal. (2) There has been elk calving in an area on the Diamanti Tract approximately 1.5 miles to the Northeast of the proposed operational area, and about 1.5 miles to the South of the proposed operational area. (3) LPC originally estimated the elk calving area to be 6,000 acres. A more accurate estimate is 15,000 acres. LPC's operational area, however, is only about 20 acres and located 1.5 miles away from the closest known calving activity area. GENERAL COMMENTS Staffs first recommendation for the Permit(s) is: "That all representations of the Applicant, either within the application or before the Planning Commission, shall be considered conditions of approval". With that in mind, LPC reiterates, or perhaps clarfiies, its position: 1. LPC intends to operate over approximately 600 acres of land out of a total., Sl1 ,000'J! 3 cik(A\ acres of land owned by the Diamanti Family. 2. The goals of this Project are: to restore the Diamanti Tract to a healthy condition by regenerating the decadent Aspen stands and removed diseased Fir and other coniferous trees; maintain and improve wildlife habitat; reduce fire danger; maintain aesthetics; preserve water quality; and, provide a financial return to the Diamanti Family. 3. LPC has clearly stated in its Application how it intends to achieve these goals. 4. LPC intends to protect water, air and soil quality by operating in conformity with the Best Management Practices developed by the Colorado State Forest Service, the Timber Industry and the academic world. LPC has done so in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. 5. LPC will operate in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative: which audits and monitors LPC's harvest and mill activities. 6. LPC intends to utilize the best available manpower and expertise in the form of contractors that have been trained in BMP's, silviculture, water quality, motor carrier safety and in comformance to the landowners' goals, national standards for timber harvest and conformity with BMP standards developed in the Western States. 7. LPC intends to operate in a prudent manner to protect not only the property of landowners but also the properties of adjacent landowners. 8. LPC intends to regenerate the Diamanti Tract by natural sprouting of Aspen, as outlined in the material provided to Planning & Zoning. 9. LPC intends to reseed and close roads according to its contract with the private landowner using the best methods applicable to the specific site. 10. LPC intends to operate within the framework of schedules and rates of operation that we have estimated, but to retain flexibility to accommodate weather, road conditions, public safety and economic considerations as such factors arise during the course of the Project. 11. LPC intends to abide by the terms of its contract with the Diamanti Family, and to do so in a economically prudent manner for both LPC and the Diamanti Family. Respectfully submitted, James A. Beckwith 4 • it • JAMES A. BECKWITH Attorney and Counselor at Law 7910 Ralston Rd., Suite 7 Arvada, CO 80002 303-431-9966 // FAX 303-431-2803 / E -Mail Ithamer@aol.com May 7, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Garfield County Courthouse, Room 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Application: Special Use Permit; Conditional Use Permit Applicant: James G. Diamanti; Jane Juliano; Gregory Diamanti Representative: Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LPC) Dear Commissioners: To make the Diamanti Project economically feasible, Louisiana-Pacific has the following transportation requirements: 1. GVW weights for 5 axle trucks at 80,000 lbs. over GCR 312 to GCR 335 to the I-70 Interchange in New Castle. 2. A roadbed and surface which can sustain 80,000 lbs. weight without the necessity of County overweight permits: since CSP and CDOT do not validate the County permits for divisible loads. This includes travel on GCR 335 through New Castle to 1-70. It is LPC's opinion that the current condition of GCR 312 and 335 will meet these requirements. Attached hereto are LPC Photos A -G, taken in April, 2001, depicting GCR 312 and a portion of GCR 335. Field inspection does not reveal deteriorated road bases nor substandard road construction nor substandard surfacing which would prohibit 80,000 GVW limits as legal loads. Indeed, you will note Photos A and B, showing "chip and seal" surfaces. However, on GCR 312 the GVW limit is 70,000 while the GVW limit on GCR 335 is 80,000. The depicted locations are less than 25 ft. apart! 1 • • Load limits on roadways are based upon the amount of weight concentrated within a given area. Weight dispersal over the road surface is, therefore, a function of tire width, axle width and spacing between tire units. Single axles are allowed less maximum weight than tandem axles or triple axles. However, "tandem axles" spaced more than 96" apart (O/C) are treated as separate single, dual wheeled axles: thereby allowing more weight because more weight dispersal occurs over the road surface. Current load limits, under Sec. 42-4-509(1) and (2), C.R.S. are: (1) steering axles, 18,000 lbs. [based on 9,000 lbs. per wheel]; and, (2) tandem axles, 36,000 interstate and 40,000 non -interstate. When the total gross load is less than the sum of allowable axle weight limits, it means that weight dispersal over the road surface is being promoted. The integrity of the road surface is thus being preserved. Here, an 80,0001b. load on GCR 312 would expect to have maximum weights as follows: (1) 10,000 lbs. steering axle; (2) 36,000 lbs. tandem drive axle; and, (3) 32,000 lbs. trailer axle.' Given the State standards for weight dispersal, none of these weights would damage the surface integrity of GCR 312: either in its dirt portions or its "chip -n -seal" portion. It is LPC's further opinion that obtaining Garfield County overweight permits will create more problems than it will solve. Simply stated, State officials will not honor an overweight permit for a divisible load. Thus, LPC holding a Garfield County Overweight Permit for 80,000 lbs. on GCR 312 (posted at 70,000 lbs. GVW) does not protect LPC trucks from being cited - and being required to off-load timber - by State officials. SEE: Sec. 42-4-509, C.R.S. To avoid this problem, therefore, LPC must load only to 70,000 GVW and not obtain an overweight permit - nor provide a bond to Garfield County. LPC estimated 1,500 loads for the entirety of the Diamanti Project. This was based upon 80,000 GVW per load. At 70,000 GVW, LPC estimates 2,000 - 2,200 loads, with the additional loads being lighter. Lighter loads, however, do not mean less operating expense. A diesel tractor - trailer burns just as much fuel to transport 45,000 lbs as it does 70,000 lbs. Travel time, and driver hours, do not vary according to the weight, but, instead, vary according to the number of trips. Obviously, the more trips, the more dust, the more dust the more MagChloride which must be spread: resulting in a repetitive, and vicious, cycle for all aspects of this Project. For these reasons, LPC must require that the GVW Limits on GCR 312 be reclassified from 70,000 lbs. for a 5 axle combination to 80,000 lbs. for a five axle combination. Without such reclassification, LPC does not consider the Diamanti Project economically feasible. LPC expects that Staffwill reiterate its statement contained in theirAdditional Comments and Conditions, to wit: While Staff is sympathetic to the difficult situation LPC finds itself in, with the closure Drive axles are always loaded heavier than trailer axles, since friction on the road surface - and therefore both propulsion and braking action - is a direct function of weight on the tire surface. 2 • • of the waferboard mill in Olathe, the purpose of the Staff recommendations is to ensure compliance (with) the Garfield County's regulations. It is not the purpose of the regulations to evaluate the economic viability of the project. [Staff Additional Comments; Pg. 7] This statement is not accurate. The injury from the closure of LPC's Olathe mill is not to LPC. Instead, the injury is to those families dependent upon employment and those Counties who must cover the unemployment conditions resulting from the closure. Moreover, it is inaccurate to claim that regulations need not bear a relation to economic impact. SEE: Sec. 24-4-103.5 [requiring economic analysis of regulatory impact on small businesses by state agencies] When regulations impose conditions which practicably disallow use or maintenance of private property they may be considered "takings" under the Fifth Amendment. When regulations impose conditions without a logical basis, or without a demonstrable factual basis for those conditions, then they may be deemed "arbitrary", "capricious" and "unreasonable". LPC has not found a demonstrable basis for the 70,000 GVW limit on GCR 312. That limit was imposed in 1998 due to . f. ulty bridge and damaged road surface. Both of these conditions have been remedied. LPC has 4:41 determined that its axle weights, at 80,000 lbs., are well within governing State requirements for surface weight dispersal. Yet, the 70,000 limit is being applied to the Diamanti Project. eptIAP/\ Respectfully submitted, James A. Beckwith Attachments 3 Ne '1 011) 192 dif,;(5v> pP) • • 5 AXLE : 80000= 3 AXLE 48000= OVER WEIGHT LOADS BY PERMIT ONLY LPC PI-IOTO A GCR 335 looking East from its intersection with GCR 312 • • LPC PHOTO 13 GCR 312 looking South from its intersection with GCR 335 • • LPC PHOTO C GCR 312 looking South across the southern bridge; Bridge length is 10-12 ft. • • LPC PHOTO D GCR 312 looking North from commencement of Chip -N -Seal Surface 2.5 miles South of intersection of GCR 335 and GCR 312. • • LPC PHOTO E GCR 312 looking South at Intersection with Baldy Creek Road GCR 312 veers to left in photo. • • LPC PHOTO F GCR 312 South at Intersection with Baldy Creek Road LPC PHOTO G GCR 312 South of Intersection with Baldy Creek Road