HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Meeting Minutes 03.10.2003March 10, 2003
REVIEW A DETERMINATION OF TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE FOR THE TEEPEE PARK
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND ESTABLISH AS PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
AND TO CONSIDER OUTSIDE CONSULTING SERVICES
Mark Bean summarized that this was referred as a non-compliance issue. He submitted a memorandum
stating staff has reviewed the permit application to the County on February 21, 2003. Staff has reviewed the
application and determined that the application is technically complete and can be set for public hearing.
Per Section 9.03.04, the Board may decide to refer a SUP application to the Planning Commission for
review and a recommendation or the Board may wish to set this far a public hearing without referral to the
Planning Commission. Mark noted that there are two gentlemen who submitted their application as
consulting foresters on the Colorado State Forest Service web site. He has spoken to both and each is
willing to review the proposed TeePee Park SUP application. He submitted their Resume's for the Board's
review. The Colorado State Forest Service has declined a request to review the application and suggested
the County hire one of these gentlemen. The two are Hoefer Associates, forest management planning, in
Grand Junction and N.V. "Ski" Milanowski, forester.
Mark's recommendation was to seta public hearing date in May 2003. A letter received from Mr. James
Beckwith was referenced to the hiring of another consultant that it would be at the County's expense since
Mr. Gherardi was intended to be the County's consultant and he is paying him.
Mark answered the Board's questions: this is a new application, the new consultant would be allowed
access onto the property with Mr. Gherardi and Chris Meyers, who is also Intermountain' forester_
Commissioner McCown noted that as a condition of approval we could include the cost of this individual
along with re -appointing him the consult The expertise we go out and obtain can be charged back to it. Don
added this would be the same for any expert in any special use application. Carolyn said she and Mark have
both informed Mr. Beckwith of these costs that would be charged back to his clients. Jim encouraged Mark
to save some money by using our local Colorado State Forest Service, Mr. Carpenter, but they declined.
Mark said he felt Mr. Gherardi did not fully understand his role and it was explained to him differently.
Mark received a complaint from Mr. George Bauer because we're not holding the hearing today, therefore
his justification to by-pass the Planning Commission. TeePee Park will continue to go on based on the facts
that they believe to be their right to log under their existing plan. They came in with this amended plan and
it needs to be heard before the Board in order to consider determining if what TeePee Park believes is the
correct way of dealing with this. The information we need to review is well documented in the application.
Commissioner McCown said the information provided by Mr. Gherardi, the consultant, even thought they
are currently skidding in areas that were proposed to be helicopter logging, as long as they are doing this
skidding on slopes that don't exceed the percent of slope that requires helicoptering, they are perfectly
within their rights to do that. Mark said this is their argument, They are at the top of the hill even though it
is part of the helicopter area; they are in a slope that is not aver 40%. if you drop down further it would be
and it would need to be helicoptering. Because it was enclosed in that circle with the slash marks for
helicopter logging, if you read the forest service management plan they are perfectly within their rights
harvesting in that area because the slopes are 40% but George Bauer does not see it because he sees it
happening in an area that was within that grid.
Mark added there is a conflict with graphics and written information. The graphics included an area that
very clearly showed this area as in the helicopter logging area. The written information included language
that was legally forester and logging that one area without helicopter. That's the argument and will be part
of the discussion. Commissioner McCown — the roads in question are clearly visible roads in areas where
they were not supposed to be roads, but these were put in during the fire and now that they're in, they are
using them. And it's on private property and not public lands and so therefore they don't have to remove
these roads once they've been established for that purpose and that's the argument as well. If it had not
been part of a special use permit, they could have put roads anywhere they wanted to. All we're really
hoping to do by hearing this as a Board is to expedite the new Special Use Permit in effect. The Planning
Commission will be relying on the same consultants that the Board will rely on. If this were a totally new
application, a totally new opening up of an area, it would have to go to the Planning Commission.
The Revocation Hearing was cancelled because we received this new information and new application.
This is what we asked TeePee Park to do and need to live up to what the Board said we would do.
Mark said he would proceed to talk to David Hofer to see if he's available otherwise to Mr. Milanowski,
both are qualified.
13
APRIL 16, 2001
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL: LOUISIANA PACIFIC/DIAMANTI SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR
TIMBER HARVEST. LOCATED: ALONG COUNTY ROAD 312, SOUTHEAST OF NEW
CASTLE, CO. APPLICANT: JAMES G. DIAMANTI
Kit Lyon, Don DeFord, Attorney James Beckwith, Gary Hiner - Forester; and James Diamanti were
present.
Don DeFord determined that the required notices were timely and the Commissioners were entitled to
proceed.
Chairman Martin swore in the speakers.
Kit submitted the following Exhibits: Exhibit A - Returned Receipts; Exhibit B - Proof of Publication;
Exhibit C - Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 as amended; Exhibit D - Project Information and
Staff Comments; Exhibit E - Application; Exhibit F - Letter from Burning Mountain Fire Protection
District; and Exhibit G - Memo from Town Council, Town of New Castle regarding concerns about traffic
on CR 335, CR 312, and Interstate 70 at New Castle and requested any damage to these roadways as a
result of this increased traffic to be included in the Special Use Permit.
Kit Lyon reviewed the project report and staff comments. This is a request for review of a Conditional (7
of 12 uses with mitigation] Use Permit to allow timber harvest along the escarpment and talus slopes, and a
Special Use Permit to allow timber harvest along gentle slopes and on the lower valley floor. Timber
covers approximately 1350 acres of the 1,480 acre property. The plan is to harvest roughly 600 acres.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the application for a conditional and special use permit with the
following conditions on each permit.
1. 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, water barred, and seeded. Final closure of roads shall consist
of grading, installing water bars, 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) AD logging operations shall be completed by 10/01/03.
2. 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.
3. 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. That any
helicopter hauling will only occur between the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
4. That the applicant shall obtain and comply with any necessary access permits.
5. 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.
6. That a 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 for controlling noxious weeds. The bond shall be valid for the period of
time that the applicant is actively fogging an their property. The $100,000.00 bond shall be issued
solely for the Diamanti project, and not cover any other operations;
1
7. That newly constructed private roads will be constructed to minimum haul stands and be at least
14' wide, with a maximum grade of 8 - 15%, and be composed of dirt with gravel or shale in places as
necessary.
8. That a weed control program shall be created and submitted to the Garfield 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.
9. Landing slash will be burned during favorable conditions, with the proper permits. But 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.
10. Chain saws shall be equipped with spark arrestors and all motorized equipment shall carry at !east
one shovel and one fire extinguisher.
11. 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.
12. That this conditional approval shall be valid until 4116/02. 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.
13. That the forest management practices will be monitored for compliance with the application, the
Best Management Practices, and the conditional and special use permits by a consultant agreed upon
the by the Board of County Commissioners and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant.
14. Slopes of 50+% slopes shall be harvested only with helicopters. All unstable area and/or highly
erosive soils shall not be logged.
15. Drainage shall be crossed at right angles, with 18" steel or ADS culverts placed on a 2-4% grade,
covered with at least l' of dirt, and provided with a rock apron for spillage.
16. All operation will cease during spring run-off (typically March - May) and during elk calving
times (May 1 - July 1).
Applicant
Attorney for the applicant - James Beckwith - indicated at the gracious cooperation by the DeFord and Kit,
a meeting was held last Thursday in Glenwood Springs relative to this application and relative to new
issues that have come up. As a result of that meeting and having obtained and received the staffs
recommendations and reports, the first two matters to bring before the Board have been only because of the
road's issue and only within the last week. 1) they would ask the Board to do, it to table this application
based upon what they were confronted with last Thursday, the cost of this project has dramatically
increased. If we could only have 5100,000.00 combined bond for everything, that would be nice. But that is
not the way your bonding system works. Our bond now purely for the roads without the Town of New
Castle, will be $170,000.00, there is attached to that an bond for Weed Control, there is no identifiable
determinants that we can turn to relative of violation of any weed control program; but more importantly it
is public knowledge and public record that Louisiana-Pacific runs a mill in Olathe, Colorado at which we
make way for board and that is what limber pine and Aspen are used for. They are very good for it. We
employ 80 people full time and 200 plus subcontractors who are directly dependent upon us. Public record
is that we are going to be closing that mill as of April 23. Timber and wood is the cheapest it has been in 23
years and in Denver for the same commodities and what you would have paid last year is advertised for
50% less this year. Asa consequence, what Louisiana Pacific has to look at is the model of a time trucker
by the name of Lyon Maxion in Craig, Colorado who commented one time "at current cost, I lose less
money parking my rig that I do operating my rig and if I do operate my rig, 1 lost more money." Louisiana
Pacific had desired to reopen this mil] in June. In order to do that, we had to obtain a minimum bare bones
volume of trees. The Diamanti track represents 20 - 25% of the trees of that bare bones minimum volume.
But is has become obvious we can not do it in an economically feasible fashion at least at first blush
Commissioners. We don't want to make that decision offhand, we don't want to be rash about it because we
have a lot of families depending upon our reopening the mill. But based upon the increased cost, the
2
decreased gross vehicle limit on the roads, when we started examining this project, it was our
understanding that you GVW limit on Garfield County road was 80,000 Ib. We discovered that in January
of 1999 this Board reduced that to 70,000 lb. because of a defective bridge which we believe was the Baldy
Creek Bridge and damage to the road. The Baldy Creek Bridge has since been replaced with a culvert and
rerouted eliminating that problem. According to our information which 1 will say is disputed by County
Road and Bridge. There's question as of who damaged the road before we ever go there as we haven't been
there yet. Was it the County project doing it on Baldy Creek or was it some private operator. The point is
that road is 8 miles long; roughly 2'/a is chip and seal and the rest of it's dirt. The bed based upon visual
inspection of the bed, not the surface, appears to be adequate, appears to have been constructed in a fashion
by which comparable state highways of the same class and caliber under 43.2.214 could withstand 84,000
to 85,000 Ib.. We were told last Thursday - "no, even the road bed is deteriorating. The overweight permits
for use, first there's a legal question, and has been discussed with Kit and Don, Tom and Jake out at Road
and Bridge. We've been informed that we could obtain an overweight permit for 80,000 lb.. however, our
Loads are divisible - like gravel - we can load a container light or load it heavy. Divisible loads and entitled
to an overweight permit by State Rule and State Regulation. County law however, allows that up to 85,000
lb.. and within the last week on Garfield County Road 215 Mr. Thereon Clark, operator for Brady Trucking
out of Vernon, Utah was told specifically, if you have a County overweight permit we will not honor it as
Colorado State Patrol because it's a divisible load and there's a reason for that. He is not placing blame of
the State Patrol or the operator, nor these Commissioners because there's a number of different Statutes that
have never been interfaced. But why would we go to the expense, according to Tom and Jake, the way you
do your overweight permits is $15 for overweight - we are not otherwise oversized - plus $5 per axle fora 5
axle rate so that's $40.00. We are told that is valid for one truck per day. Operating 5 trucks, that $200.00 a
day. For 1500 loads at 80,000 ]b.. for us that $24,000 in overweight permits. Last Thursday, 1 was given a
copy of a Resolution that you apparently enacted - he has not been able to confirm it. A Resolution dated
July 6, 1997 dealing with an amendment of your overweight permit rules that say every overweight permit
is valid for 30 days. Gentlemen, that would reduce our overweight permit cost to $1200. A difference of
almost $22,000. That is why we have to have time to examine. We have to have time to take a look. We do
not want to damage the environment at all. However, when you say that we have to have a bond for weed
control, okay, out in that same area you have a number of ranchers, hunters, hikers, tourists Iike me, and
you've got Colorado Division of Wildlife growing hay. Weeds don't care who brings them around - it could
be the wind, a hiker, a local resident, a tourist or a dumb lawyer. - they don't care. But the mere fact that
you find a weed, you're going to hold us to a bond that has never been required of other people - that's not
fair. One of the biggest issues that Kit has raised in some of her comments is how we do the harvest. This is
an approximate 1800 acre parcel that has been private land and Jim Diamanti uses it for a private Elk
Hunting area and he invites and allows certain people to come in and hunt Elk. It's primary for it. He will
not let it become public and Louisiana Pacific is not authorized to let it become public. Why then does this
county want to require 14 foot wide roads where we would have to provide fill and also have to provide
shale or gravel for surfacing when Jim Diamanti wants the roads removed and returned back to native state
when we're done which is reasonable. Why would you control the type of road, he the private landowner?
The only suggestion that we can find is the Colorado Division of Wildlife in the 3rd paragraph of the
second page of their comments "wants to negotiate with the Diamanti's a public hunting easement" - I'm
sorry gentlemen, that won't occur - private landowner doesn't want that.
Because of these costs, Mr. Chairman, I've prepared an original for the record of our request to table the
decision on these applications for two weeks. The reason why 1 say two weeks is because we had the
meeting Thursday, we had Easter Holiday weekend, I'm trying to reach everybody that l needed in the basic
headquarters in Idaho, so has Mr. Hiner. I have also prepared an original and 10 copies of our response to
the continents submitted by staff relative to the conditions that they wish to have you attach to this permit,
if we determine that we need to go forward with it. These were presented as Exhibits - H &I.
Exhibits H & I were submitted for the record.
Mr. Beckwith explained his agricultural background and how he looks at an issue of this nature, first from
the standpoint of the private landowner and the private businessman, secondly from the need for regulatory
control by the local government, by industry standards and others and what we need to now do, is see if we
can strike a balance. One thing 1 haven't added to this, we were informed that the Town of New Castle has
now annexed approximately 1 mile of CR 335. 1/2 way through this project, my client right now without
any control by the Commissioners could be faced with weight restrictions on 335 going through the
3
industrial area of New Castle and more bonds and if that were an asphalt area, then it's $110,000 bond
minimum.
The costs justify us to be responsible and to say, let's stand down and analysis the costs and determine
whether we proceed.
The Commissioners rescheduled this hearing until May 7 at 2:00 P.M.
Kit had one clarification on the Minimum Haul Standards one of the conditions calls out this 14' wide road
and a certain grade. That information was not from the DOW request for consideration ofa public hunting
easement, it's completely unrelated. Staff included that because the application did not contain any specific
detail to what standard the road would be built or the length of the new roads, so it was staffs stab at
getting some level of detail in there. If the applicant proposes otherwise, certainly they would consider.
Chairman Martin - page 8 of 12 pages, subsection 1 is what Kit was referenced.
Jim Beckwith - we had not proposed specification relative to the construction of the road because it has
been our position that once we get onto Mr. Diamanti's land, he controls how grades will be built and where
they will be built, and in what fashion because they will removed two years later.
Forester Gary Hiner - Mr. Diamanti basically wants very light duty roads left on his property and he's
concerned - he has a light truck, ATV's and doesn't want anything left there that is going to encourage
public to visit.
A motion was made by Commissioner Stowe and seconded by Commissioner McCown to continue this
public hearing until May 7, 2001 at 2:00 P.M.; carried.
No public comments.
MAY 7, 2001
PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL: SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR
TIMBER. LOCATED: ALONG CR 312, SOUTHEAST OF NEW CASTLE, CO. APPLICANT:
JAMES G. DIAMANTI REPRESENTED BY LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
Don DeFord, Kit Lyon, James G. Diamanti Attorney James Beckwith, representative for Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation, and Gary Hier, Forester were present.
Chairman Martin swore in the new speakers.
Kit submitted Exhibit J - Memo from Steve Anthony, Exhibit K - Staff Memo dated May 2, 2001, and
corrected errors on the original project information and staff report - only a Special Use Permit and
eliminate the Building Use Permit, and zoning should be changed from RIL to AJRJRD.
Recommendation from April 16, 2001 Project Information and Staff Report.
Staff recommends Approval of the application for a special use permit with the following conditions:
1. 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 (BMP's) 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, laving 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, water barred, and seeded. Final closure 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 10/01/03.
2. 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 special use permit.
4
3. That all timber hauling on County Roads shall occur Monday through Friday, between the hours
of 5 a.m. to 6 p.m., shall not exceed 10 loads per day, and shall be within legal weight limits. That any
helicopter hauling will only occur between the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
4. That the application shall obtain and comply with any necessary access permits.
5. 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 trucks, shall be reduced as necessary.
6. That a 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 for controlling noxious weeds. The bond shall be valid for the period of
time that the applicant is actively logging on their property. The $100,000.00 bond shall be issued
solely for the Diamanti project, and not cover any other operations.
7. That newly constructed private roads will be constructed to minimum haul standards and be at
least 14' wide, with a maximum grade of 8 - 15%, and be composed of dirt with gravel or shale in
places as necessary.
8. That a weed control program shall be created and submitted to the Garfield 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.
9. 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.
10. Chain saws shall be equipped with spark arrestors and all motorized equipment shall carry at least
one shovel and one fire extinguisher.
11. That the Special Use Permit is 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 use permit indicating the measures taken to
comply with the performance review 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.
12. That this conditional approval shall be valid until 4/16/02. If the applicant fails to meet the
conditions by 4/26/02, 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
13. That the forest management practices will be monitored for compliance with the application, the
Best Management Practices, and the special use permit by a consultant agreed upon by the Board of
County Commissioners and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant.
14. Slopes of 50+% slopes shall be harvested only with helicopters. All unstable areas and/or highly
erosive soils shall not be logged.
15. Drainage's shall be crossed at right angles, with 18" steel or ADS culverts placed on a 2-4% grade,
covered with at least l' of dirt, and provided with a rock apron for spillage.
All operations will cease during spring run-off (typically March - May) and during elk calving times (May
1 - July 1).
Kit explained that the was continued from April 16, 2001 in order for a decision to be made by the
applicant related to the costs of permits with respect to weight limits on CR 311 and CR 335.
James Beckwith commented that they needed time to conduct a cost evaluation.
Kit submitted a Memo dated May 2, 2001 to update the Board of County Commissioners on the Diamanti
special use permit application. She reviewed her memorandum and highlighted the following:
Satisfaction of Ordinance Standards for Permit: 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 Commissioners is
5
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 (i.e. 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
Condition #2: Road Maintenance Agreement
Condition #3: Hours and Volume
Condition 44: Access Permits and Surveys
Condition #5: Dust Abatement
Condition # 6: Bonds
Condition # 7: Roads of Private Property
Condition #8: Noxious Weed Control
Condition #9: Slash Burning
Condition #10: Fire Protection
Condition #I 1: Compliance Review
Condition 412: Validity of Permits
Condition #I3: County Monitoring for Compliance
Attorney James Beckwith prepared their written responses to Kit's comments and a separate response with
respect to the County Roads that he submitted as Exhibit L and Exhibit K.
Chairman Martin admitted the applicant's Exhibit K & L.
Mr. Beckwith referenced Exhibit L saying, to make the Diamanti Project economically feasible, Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation (LPC) has the following transportation requirements:
I) GVW weights for 5 axle trucks at 80,000 lbs. over Garfield County Road (CCR) 312 to GCR 335 to the
1-70 Interchange in New Castle.
2) A roadbed and surface which can sustain 80,000 lbs. weight without the necessity of County overweight
permits - since Colorado State Patrol (CSP) and Colorado Department of Transportation (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.
Mr. Beckwith referenced 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 Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) weight limits as legal
loads. In Photos A and B, it shows "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' apart.
Mr. Beckwith proceeded to give detailed information as to load limits on roadways with respect to a
function of tire width, axle width and spacing between tire units.
Hr further stated that obtaining Garfield County overweight permits will create more problems that it will
solve. State officials will not honor an overweight permit for a divisible Toad. Thus LPC holding a Garfield
County Overweight Pennit for 80,000 lbs. on CR 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. He referenced 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.
Mr. Beckwith said, the LPC estimated 1,500n 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 Mag Chloride 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.
6
Mr. Beckwith responded to staff comments with respect to the wafer board mill in Olathe saying that the
injury from the closure of LPC's Olathe mill is not to LPC. 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. (referenced
Sec. 24-4-103.5 - requiring economic analysis or regulatory impact on small businesses by state agencies).
He said 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 a faulty bridge and damaged road surface. Both of these conditions have been remedied. LPC
has 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.
Additionally, Mr. Beckwith reviewed his Exhibit K for the record. This was a response to Kit Lyon's
comments Conditions 1 - 13 and added comments to Conditions 14 - 16. His general comments included
the representations of the application shall be considered conditions of approval saying with that in mind,
LPC reiterates or perhaps clarifies it position:
1. LPC intends to operate approximately 500 acres of land out of a total 15,000 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 remove 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 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 contracts that have
been trained in BMP's, silviculture, water quality, motor carrier safety and in conformance 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 and Zoning.
9. LPC intends to re -seed 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 consideration 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.
Commissioners
The Commissioners responded to Mr. Beckwith's presentation with questions needing an explanation in
order to clarify concerns.
Mr. Beckwith provided the Board a drawing depicting the truck loads, tire width, distribution of weight and
referenced Section 42-4-509 - the State of Colorado in harmony with the federal government, allows two
different limits: on the Interstate system as defined in the Statute, a tandem duels may have a maximum of
36,000 lbs. On the State system, they may have a maximum of 40,000. The State has set up two means of
uniformity for these weights: 1) the weight allowed per axle, per wheel, 2) is the gross load limits. Under
those gross load limits, essentially all Counties, Cities, everyone else must comply with those gross load
limits unless there are certain criteria. There are three different statutes: one says that this is what we set,
nobody can descent and everybody shall follow it; another Statutes says counties, because of deterioration
7
of roads may reduce the limits on certain roads but not for longer than 90 days out of every calendar year;
but that same statute then says counties on roads within their jurisdiction can lower limits and set them as
they want. So when he references 40,000 and 36,000, it depends upon whether you are Interstate or non -
Interstate System. Garfield County Road 312 is unquestionable non -Interstate. 1-70, the over -crossing on 1-
70, even some of the frontage roads sometimes will fall within the Interstate system. US 85 or some of the
federal highways will tie in will fall in with them. Garfield County Road 312 is not part of the Interstate
system, so if would fall under the State system if at all. Under State system you maximum allowable gross
weight, regardless of how it is configured, without an overweight permit is 85,000 lbs. The question that
has arisen in his mind, as pointed out in original comments, the State of Colorado said every county for a
road within it's jurisdiction for a road that would have the same classification or same class as a State road,
must built it to the same standards. Garfield County Road 312 is a county primary road. The way they say
primary and secondary is "counties shall create a road map, and any road appearing is a primary road - and
any road not on the map is a secondary road." CR 312 is regularly maintained, regularly repaired, therefore
he felt save in saying it's a county primary road although it's more arterial than main in terms of what it's
used for. But it has to have been built to the same standards as the State. Therefore, the State of Colorado
is, by Statute, interested in uniformity of axle weights, wheel weights as maximum limits, total gross
weights within the State of Colorado so that any trucker driving down the road, unless he sees a sign, can
say he's entitled to have 85,000, 80,000 or whatever the case may be. Now all of the sudden, you hit CR
312, and 70,000 lbs. appears and the question is why.
Commissioner McCown inquired as to the maximum weight on a steering axle and other weight
distribution.
Mr. Beckwith said the steering axle maximum allowed is 18,000 lbs. It is measured because the steering
axle has two wheels - one at each end - and each wheel is entitled to a maximum of 9,000 lbs. This is based
upon a nomadic tire and it is usually a tread width of between 6" - 8". Once you get over 8" States will
accommodate a heavier load because of the dispersal of weight over the road.
Mr. Beckwith explained what he learned in the 1980 during the transporting of oil and gas, there is no ratio
for the transfer of weight by using a sliding 5th wheel to move loads forward on the drive axle and if you
do, how much to you actually throw on the steering axle, or if you move it back, how much are you
removing. What it comes to, even the American Trucking Associations - no actually study has ever been
done.
Commissioner McCown referenced the financial impact and asked if those were today's prices or were they
were from the last time he was before the Board? According to the lumber yards in this valley, they have
gone up 30% in the last 30 days.
Mr. Beckwith said he indicated last time and again today, lumber is a 23 year low, the 50% discount based
upon advertisements in Denver Metropolitan Lumber Yards for the same product from the previous year.
Mr. Gary Hiner, LPC Forester - it's true that prices have come up a little bit but it still won't put that plant
at a break even cost even at today's prices. The problem is they don't expect them to stay there more than
about 2 - 3 weeks at most. We're looking at a possible 3 year market condition.
Commissioner Stowe said there were a couple of reasons the County might have the lower weight limit on
these back roads is the narrow bridge, curves, dips, and you have 70,000 moving through that and attempt
to break it on a curve, your stopping distance is a lot further than on a 70,000 load. Another reason on back
roads - country road, rural road you will have dips and when you take an 80,000 load and go through that
dip it's like a 10 lb. sledge hammer as opposed to 8 ib. sledge hammer and regardless of the fact that you
are going through it, you are basically bouncing and creating a bigger dip that you would even if you come
through twice with a lighter load. He also went back to his original figures and projected it would take 214
additional load at $500 a load = $107,000 and is a substantial amount of money but it's not $350,000. This
is just some justification as to why they use 70,000 lbs. on the county roads. He said there were other
reasons than just having the road in bad condition or a bridge that couldn't support it - there's some dynamic
things happening out there.
Agency Comments
Kit said DOW made recommendations that the start of operations be delayed one month from June to July.
BLM also commented on a concern regarding trespassing.
Public Comments
Michael Blair - Town of New Castle - Town Council submitted a written memo dated March 27, 2001. The
council is concerned with the amount and the effects of heavy truck traffic on the existing CR 335 within
8
the industrial area on the south area leading to 1-70 via Intersection No. 105. The road has been in poor
condition for several years and is rapidly deteriorating and additional heavy truck traffic will intensive
damage to the road and truck traffic will add to the congestion at the 1-70 access intersections and observe
that the county weight limits - 5 axle at 80,000 lbs. and 3 axle for 48,000. They ask that provisions are
made for any repairs needed as a result of damage to any part of the roadway caused by the traffic produced
by the proposed project.
John Fergan - 3125 CR 312 - his concern is with at least one curve on the road that scares him if you were
to meet a logging truck, it's a sheer drop of 50' - no guard rail - and no room fora logging truck if he was
over the center. No incident last year when logging took place. The other concern is the mag chloride that's
paid for by the landowners - what's going to be done on that?
Alice Billmeyer - CR 312 - commented on the noise and the trucks did not obey the speed limits. The road
suffered a lot of damage from the last batch of logging.
Beth Cook - lives at the end of the road at mile marker 8 - condition of the road is a concern. People are
blaming the logging when simply the road is not being taken care of. DOW didn't own all the land 30
years ago and they do not have to participate in taking care of it, but as landowners they are enduring the
damage. The road is in horrible condition. There hasn't been logging in two years. Her understanding is
with the logging trucks, that they are supposed to leave the road in the same condition it was when they
started. That's not saying much; she stressed that the road is in very bad shape and the landowners need
something done.
Tom Russell - CR 312 was not built to CDOT standards.
Eric Sorerson - Delta Timber Company - small company that cuts Aspen. His concern is how this will
affect them in other activity within the county. They purchased sales summer before last called natural gas
that would be coming down CR 311. Before bidding the timber sale, he wanted to know their cost so they
would know an appropriate amount to bid. He was told by the foreman at that time, in 1999, there were no
bonds required and no weight limit problem other than the 80,000. Know they have the timber sale with the
obligation to remove it and they may be subject to this same limitation. That change in philosophy just cost
his little company $15,000 just on a 100 load sale. He is here on results of this and how it might affect his
company when they go to log that sale. The other thing to take note as far as the effects of such regulation
is the economics of being able to bid and log timer and manager the forest. The amount of difference from
80,000 to 70,000 will cost $100 a load. That's actually more than a lot of the actual stump is to the forest
service by buying the timber. That's the magnitude of that costs. In a number of cases the Board will have
timber sales that are going to be put out of the realm of feasibility for logging and managing.
Lee Morgan - he lives in Glenwood but he owns about 3/4 mile above CR 312, which is a private road and
wanted to ask Mr. Beckwith what he plans on doing with that road.
Gary Hiner - the obligation for maintenance on that upper portion of CR 312 has been abandoned. They
checked with the County Road and Bridge as far as what kind of an obligation they would have from the
end of county maintenance on. Also, this county road goes through road goes through goo-boo property.
Basically, that road has not been maintained for many years and it's going to require a road grader,
installation of some culverts, some drainage's and the last time he was up there with Mr. Diamanti the road
was sideways and in a couple of instances backward. We hope to be able to rectify that where the residents
that do have some property up there - Schrnueser, Morgan's and a couple of other smaller holdings. When
they are done, they do the same as they will on Jim Damaniti's road - put final grade on the road, clean out
any culverts that have been added, grass seed the banks, and generally put the road back so that it least it
will last the local residents another 4 - 5 years before it gets to the rutted shape it is in today. Hopefully,
there is going to be no damage whatsoever to the county road - they normally leave them in better shape
that they found them. He suggested they could check with Larry Schmueser and we put a mile of road into
Larry's property and put in $35,000.
Lee Morgan asked if they could make all the corners.
Gary Hiner said he thinks they can, they may have to put a small extension on some of the pipes - he
knows one or two places where the pipes are tight. So they will probably have to put a 5' section on the end
of it and fill it in. A log truck with the articulated centers work better than a regular straight truck. A log
truck will track front to back whereas a 40' semi trailer will take up a lot more room. if you can make it
with a normal 20' truck, the trailer will track right behind it unless there is something weird with the road.
Normally, they will probably grade that road once in Spring before they operate it, once in midsummer and
once just prior to shutting down, then the same next year. He didn't think they would want to put too much
gravel up in there, you can either have grass on the road, or you can have gravel once you are done; and
9
normalcy if you can get a good stand of grass on the road, it will hold a lot better than a little bit of dirt and
gravel.
Lee Morgan - thinks it needs gravel and wondering if their first load isn't going to cave in the bridge across
Garfield Creek.
Gary Hiner - said he didn't think so and in the event there should be problem they would probably put in an
oversized culvert or something. They are leaving that to what conditions they find on the road. The
availability of culvert extension. They would probably have to put some gravel on that corner.
Lee Morgan - what about the gates, are they going to open and close every gate they come to?
Gary Hiner - we can - one spot they're going to bring up a portable cattle guard and simply open the gates,
set the cattle guard in place and be able to go across it without the cattle getting through. Then when we're
we will remove it and reinstall the gate crossings as necessary. They have always put in new gates if
necessary, sometimes both gates and posts_
Lee Morgan - thought Gary was referencing the upper gate, but he's run cattle on there for 18 years and
doesn't want his cattle getting out. He said he would second Beth Cook's statement about the current
condition of the road - the road is terrible. It will be trucked to death if you're driving up very long, which
Lee does almost daily. And he would like to get that road graveled.
Commissioner McCown - asked Lee if that was a private road going through your property?
Lee Morgan - yes sir.
Commissioner McCown - have you signed an access agreement with these people?
Lee Morgan - no, he hadn't even been talked to.
Ashley Smith - leaves a 7650 CR 312 and has been here less than one year, moved here from Boulder and
one reason she moved to this location was thinking that this was a county maintained road. She is a
concerned homeowner and car owners. Her car has been destroyed, her CD's are destroyed, they actually
skip now due to all the ruts in road. She reemphasized what Beth Cook and Lee Morgan has said, it's a
miserable road and would appreciate anything they can do - come out there are drive it twice a day for a
week. However, it was just graded today so suggested to wait a week as it will be in horrible shape again.
Commissioner McCown asked if this road had deteriorated drastically since the year she's lived there?
Ashley Smith - said it has always been bad.
Commissioner McCown clarified that the road was bad when she purchased her property.
Ashley Smith - said it was bad but was told they would grade it. In less than one year, the road has been
graded twice or three times and it lasts possibly a week.
Mr. Beckwith - one question while Mr. Morgan was present. On an easel he drew the property that they
would need to access to get to Mr. Diamanti's property. He drew the road as it splits off of Baldy Creek
determining the middle road was the subject of discussion. One road goes to a house, the middle road has a
gate and the other road has a gate. And so far as he could tell just driving the road as a member of the
public, you can't get past it here - you have to go through a gate and the first one doesn't go anywhere
except a driveway. Mr. Morgan, as he understands it, lives apparently some distance on the middle road
that is gated. The road comes back through in some fashion and then it accesses the Diamanti property.
Lee Morgan - said the road goes through Schmueser's property, then through Prestowich's property and
then Diamanti's.
Mr. Beckwith - clarified that it goes through Property Owner No. 1 and then Property Owner No. 2 and the
Diamanti's. Lee was asked a question as to whether the road is a private road or a public right-of-way. What
we understand is that County Road 312, as a right-of-way, does in fact continue past these two gates and
this house. Has the County at any time, vacated the public right-of-way that's on there? By act of vacation?
As opposed to not doing maintenance?
Don DeFord could not tell whether they have or not - he would have to check the county record and find
out.
Mr. Beckwith said he would appreciate it. if it had been, at one time, a county road back through here, the
only way of vacating it, making it anything else, is a formal act of vacating by the Commissioners. Even
though the County does not maintain it, it would still be a public right-of-way because one of the questions
that the Commissioners asked LP was did we get an access agreement with Mr. Morgan. And, the question
is first of all, where was Mr. Morgan in relationship to the road, and secondly, whether that road at one
time was in fact a county road and has not been vacated. If it has not been vacated, we don't need an access
agreement with him.
Chairman Martin said as a rule of thumb, the County doesn't usually have a gate across a county road, there
generally are cattle guards.
10
Mr. Beckwith understands and part of his practice gets into whether roads or public or private. But this is
one of the questions about this area - whether it has ever been vacated.
James Diamanti - Mr. Morgan, that was county road on up a little further up to No. 1 or 2. He said he
thinks at the time when Mr. Morgan bought that ]and, he wanted to put a gate in. So in putting the gate in.
The county wouldn't maintain it any more.
Lee Morgan - the county would discontinue maintaining the road? They don't maintain my road. And he
believes there is an abandonment of the road down through that from Mike Rapassardi and Sheldon
Prestowich and perhaps James Diamanti was not involved at that time. So the County Commissioners
abandoned the road and told the previous owner of his property to contact the other two.
James Diamanti family has owned the property for 67 years and he remembers horse drawn wagon for
transportation. The road has always been bad and not very much maintenance. He wants to reclaim his
property as there are a lot of fallen trees and basically overgrown. He wants to use the land for pasture.
Steve Anthony - suggested that photos be taken and an inventory of noxious weeds. If they could develop a
plan of attack and a plan for revegetation before they begin the project, that would satisfy the Weed Board.
He stated there is poison hemlock, yellow toad flax and oxide daisy not.
Additional discussion was held regarding the matter of whether or not CR 312 was a public road.
Torn Russel( said he can not tell if it is a public or private road.
Gary Hiner said it was a public road and served all the properties; there is a right-of-way and approved
access for 70 years - just because a landowner puts a gate on the road does not automatically deny access.
Mr. Beckwith said if the Board of County Commissioners did vacate the road and in doing so ]eft a parcel
without access then it would be an invalid vacation. Therefore, it appeared to be a proper county road as it
would leave Diamanti without access.
Beth Cook - has lived on her land for 15 years and the county has maintained it up to that point; her
understanding is that you have to advise landowners if it vacated. She was not notified and believes it is a
county road.
Tom Russell - commented on Mr. Beckwith's drawing showing the axles and weight distribution; however
he added that CR 312 was not built to CDOT standards and not appropriate to withstand the weight. He
questioned if LP be willing to repair any damage?
Mr. Beckwith explained to Tom that LP would have no obligation to repair damage nor post a bond if they
were at the 70,000 limit; if the County raises the weight limits to 80,000 they still would be under no
obligation to repair the road if damage occurred - only if they pulled 85,000 lbs.
Kit Lyon interjected that the County has required a $100,000 bond to cover damages.
Mr. Beckwith further stated there is no legal basis to putting in a load limit; speed limit function is the way
to handle this and not based on load. He added that repetitive trips, even in a passenger car, will do more
deterioration on the road, due to these repetitive trips even thought a car is comparatively light. It is a
function of repetition and volume of trips as well as weight. That is why they pointed out the conflict LP
found, relative to 70,000 lbs. and 80,000 lbs. and the conflict for the County regarding road damages. They
see it as the Board allowing them to go to 80,000 lbs. as a legal load. What LP and the County has seen
relative to that road, is that it would handle 80,000 lb. legal loads up until 2 years ago, and this was the first
time that you reduced the load limit. Commissioner Stowe had previously mentioned that the load limit had
possibly been reduced due to the safety and operation of a vehicle. This is not a legal basis for putting in a
load limit on a road. The load limit relates to what the road, the structures on the road will sustain. The
operating safety of the vehicles who travel it whether it be serpentine or straight, that is a function of the
speed limit not the load limits itself. Depending upon what type of load you may have, some truckers may
have a real argument with the County about a difference in stopping capabilities as 70,000 and 80,000 lbs.
While on a serpentine road with your standard length, maximum of 70' on a semi -tractor trailer, that's a
tough length anyway. Again this is the function of the speed limit and not the weight.
More discussion was held on the structure of the road, curves, and the lack of maintenance.
Gary Hiner explained the logging truck tipping over was due to the side of the road give way. But he
couldn't explain why the damage has not been repaired due to this accident - this was 2 years ago and
agreed that perhaps the maintenance is slightly lacking.
Beth Cook - asked about that damage and the possibility of more damages, could they remain unfixed?
Mr. Beckwith stated that the safety of the construction and maintenance of a public road is the duty and
responsibility of the governmental entity having control of that road; if an operator a passenger vehicle or a
commercial vehicle within legal load limits, if the operator's act is not a negligent act causing the damage
then he is not responsible, the County, State, or City - depending upon the jurisdiction - has the duty of
11
repair and maintenance. The case in point where the shoulder gave away and caused the logging truck to
fall into the ditch was due to the fact that this was a dirt rural road and no shoulder as on State Roads. Road
base on the road will sustain the weight - that road is poorly maintained - it is the responsibility of the
County. And with respect to access over Mr. Morgan's property, if it is an abandoned public right-of-way,
then LP will begin negotiations.
Alice Billmeyer - inquired as to how many trips would they be making per day.
Mr. Beckwith answered that it depends upon the weather - it could vary from 2 - 10.
James Diamanti - the family has owned the property for 67 years and he remembers horse drawn wagon for
transportation. The road has always been bad and not very much maintenance. He wants to reclaim his
property as there are a lot of fallen trees and basically overgrown. He wants to use the land for pasture.
Steve Anthony - suggested that photos be taken and an inventory of noxious weeds. 1 they could develop a
plan of attack and a plan for revegetation of the bare ground before they begin the project, that would
satisfy the Weed Board. He stated there is poison hemlock, yellow toad flax and oxide daisy not.
Kit Lyon referenced 5.03.09 par. 3 - dust in excess as stated in Condition No. 5 "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."
Don DeFord 5.03.07(c) and (2) the applicants are required to demonstrate what their impacts will be
county roads and they are also required to demonstrate the type of mitigation with regard to those impacts
and also Section 503.12 they are required to demonstrate that the proposed access routes to their special
use are adequate and safe and will accommodate their traffic. Under both of those provisions in the past
this Board has required not only bonds but in fact on a variety of special uses, have actually required the
applicant to reconstruct and rebuild county roads to meet those uses. That's not just applicable to the
timbering industry. Resurfacing of roads, reconstruction of road base to carry the loads that are being
suggested.
Commissioner McCown inquired if LPC did any core sampling on CR 312 to indicate what the base was;
what were they basing their assumption that it would support an 80,000 load?
Mr. Beckwith - visual observation and the County's prior records. And the'County's prior ordinances setting
the weight limits on that road.
Don DeFord commented that there were two issues for deliberation - 1) question of the special use permit
which is unique to this applicant; 2) the weight or load limits on a county road - this is one that the
applicant has raised but it is applicable to all users in a general sense and should be considered separately
from the special use permit.
Jim Beckwith added another issue - the Garfield County Road 312 whether it was vacated or not.
Mr. Diamanti clarified that any roads built on his land will be created but reclaimed.
Motion
Commissioner McCown moved to close the Public Hearing; Commissioner Stowe seconded. Motion
carried.
Kit verified the date the application was received as January 17, 2001; deemed complete on March 2, 2001
and the Board has 120 days from that date to make a decision unless the applicant waives the 120 day rule.
Jim Beckwith and Don DeFord will speak regarding the CR 312 as to whether or not it was vacated and be
prepared with an answer for the next meeting.
Mot ion
A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Stowe to close the Public
Hearing; carried.
Motion carried.
Motion
A date of May 21, 2001 at 3:00 P.M. was set in a motion made by Commissioner McCown and seconded
by Commissioner Stowe.
Don DeFord clarified that the Public Hearing was closed except for evidence pertaining to CR 312 and
cautioned the Board that no discussion, other than the County Road 312 access, could be held with anyone.
Motion carried.
12
Consent Agenda Item
iv. Sign the Special Use Permit for Logging activity in the Teepee Park arca for Norm
Carpenterllntermountain Ranch (a.k.a. Tucker/Frase).
Please note — this was before we started recording Special Use Permits - I do not have a related SUP
number.
JULY 12, 1999
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOAR❑ OF COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APPROVE WOODLAND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS AS THE CONSULTANT FOR THE COUNTY
FOR THE TEEPEE PARK FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING
Mark Bean submitted a Memorandum explaining that Resolution No. 97-70
required the owners of the Teepee Park property to pay for a consultant
to monitor the owner's compliance with the Teepee Park Forest
Management Plan. The resume of Bill Gheradi, Woodland Management
Consultants has been provided by the present owners of the individual
to perform the monitoring.
Woodland Management Consultants is a forestry consulting firm which
provides the forest land owner the management services for profitable
activities. The approach taken considers the economics of any
management entry for short and long term gain. The conclusions and
recommendations are directed at providing a profit to the landowner.
Mark added that this was to protect the County
JULY 1, 2002
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PUBLIC MEETINGS
CONCERNS REGARDING TEE PEE PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR LOGGING —
GEORGE BAUER
James Beckwith and George Bauer were present.
George Bauer - Silt, Colorado - presented information regarding the
Special Use Permit for TeePee Park for logging operations. His concern
was if the plan is being monitoring and implemented. If so who as they;
there are discrepancies as to the constructed haul road and the plan
itself was approved on that property. Those roads were approved to
mitigate impacts on the Beaver Creek. The road currently used was
worked out between the County Road & Bridge. The road leading to the
property has degraded. Several safety issues regarding the lack of
adequate turnouts. He said there are several turnouts around the corner
where you cannot see anything. Who has the right-of-way? The uphill
traffic should according to the Colorado code. He asked several
questions on right of way on Beaver Creek Road, the width, how can it
be constructed, modified, or not modified. With adequate width,
turnouts can be made or with guide cars_ One of the things they noticed
as they flew over the property was vast majority of slash piles, 20
feet high. The Forest Plan says 30 feet. With the extreme fire danger,
a slash pile is fuel for forest fires and inconsistent with the Forest
Plan. Opinion - relocation of haul road by Garfield County - the big
issue is implementation, monitoring, etc. Mark Bean and Tom Carpenter
received the complaints. Brad Moss - Rifle, here for the access on the
property. Forest Plan allows horseback riding and hiking, now a sign
against horseback riding. Last couple of years he hasn't been able to
go through on horseback. James Beckwith introduced Norman Carpenter,
and intermountain Resources- Mr. Gherardi is the current consulting
forester. The thrust to Mr. Bauer's concerns lie with the original plan
that was made by Tucker and Frase; then sold to Teepee Park. The Forest
Service has limited jurisdictions due to being on private land. The
roads were improved. CR 317 has a graded rock based, and turnouts were
put in at a cost of $225,000 as designed by County. Von Ded Road is
used by others more than Intermountain Resources. Once in Teepee Park,
it's on private roads. Fire management plan has set out plans for
roads. In July 2001, during the Porcupine Fire, we needed immediate
access. Mr. Bauer refused to allow the County to go in. The fire was
suppressed. Then they decided to use those fire roads and leave them as
is. They received approval by Mr. Bassone, the watershed inspector and
Mr. Gherardi. They have both said these roads are adequate. Mr. Bauer
admitted color photos showing the size of trucks. Dust is a problem
everywhere. Mr. Beckwith stated they have signed posted on Taughenbaugh
Mesa and other places that there are logging trucks in the area. Pilot
cars are not applicable. We do not operate 24 hours, 7 days a week, we
haul M - F and according to permitting. Residences are 2 miles away.
Mr. Bauer doesn't live on his property; he has a vacation trailer.
Logging material is monitored, the trucks are subject to CDOT but they
come into our mills twice a day. As Intermountain Boxes, they supply
the fireboxes. This is and continues to be a professional operated
business. Final Comments - Teepee Park Road - a trail came up with DOW,
never been a historical trail across Teepee Park for public use. The
landowner has continued asserting that this is a private road; however,
they met with US Forest Service and DOW and negotiated an easement,
east of this area, keep any public away - obviously, someone could come
in and get hurt. The route will be surveyed this year, the building of
the trail will be done but it will only be for hiking. When Mr. Moss
says he has been given access to horseback ride in the past, in 1997
the property was sold and there was no public access; Mr. Carpenter has
kept is so. Mr. Myers and Mr. Gherardi have said they have reviewed the
complaint. Mr. Myers - the slash piles in excess, the original plan
discussed to 30' or less. If processed now, it may create a whole tree
skid. They will dispose of the slash pile in the wintertime. Multiple
piles - instead of 10 tons of slash there is less than 1 ton of slash
where it can be burned. It's a much more concentrated process. Mr.
Gerarti - agrees with the comments.
Commissioner McCown - you are telling us you did make changes and that
you have to come back to the Board_ We issued the permit with
conditions. The Forestry does not change the conditions. It takes
another public hearing.
Mr. Bassone - on private property the Board has no authority over
roads, if it complies with the layback and road layout even on steep
roads. No more road on steep slopes than was already in the plan. Road
is not out of specifications.
Commissioner McCown - the difference between what you can do on your
own permit. When there is a special use permit issued it has conditions
that will apply as long as no interference for Rifle Watershed. Larry
said he remembers the conversation and the difference between what you
and go on your property in one large parcel and affecting the watershed
and what you can do when you apply for a Special Use Permit are apples
and oranges. You can build a road on your property as long as you don't
affect the watershed of Rifle_ When you come in and ask for a SUP to do
something beyond that, that requires the SUP and there are conditions
applied, then yes, I can affect that. That's the difference. I'm sure I
did tell you that when that was one chunk of property you could built a
road on it wherever you wanted to as long as you didn't interfere with
Rifle's watershed. And that's still true. He also reiterated that
TeePee Park was approval and it was based on the Forest Management
Plan.
George Bauer - after listened to Mr. Myers, his attorney and their
comments on his letter and their excuse of why the road was constructed
where it is now. His inspection on the ground out there or from the air
looking on the ground, you can see bulldozer tracks going up the old
TeePee Park Creek Trail headed up to the top. Those bulldozer tracks
when clear up to the top right up to the fire and were at the fire
before any roadway was constructed down below. Why do they need a
switchback roadway to get bulldozers to the fire when the bulldozers
are already up there? Why did they have the airplanes putting the fire
out if the bulldozers put the fire out? The bulldozers didn't put the
fire out, the Forest Service told the bulldozers to stop. That's when
the Forest Service came in there and they put the fire out. I was there
and I was watching it from and talked with Gary Osier at all times. The
new road as constructed as opposed to where it was planned is totally
completely different topography.
Mr. Moss - can 1 hike through that property to get to Mamm Peak up at
the top of Beaver Creek?
Chairman Martin - Not at this time.
Commissioners McCown - no - that's private land. It was in the Forest
Management Plan, it was not in the special use permit per se. There was
not a specific condition. Now, we did in the SUP accept the Forest
Management Plan as submitted. This would have to be referred to the
County Attorney.
Mr. Beckwith - no, you will not go on that roadway into the Damm Peaks
area. And pointed out that at the Beaver Creek parking lot, maintained
by the Forest Service, they a very clear sign indicating there is not
public right of way east of there going across TeePee Park into the
Man= Peak's area.
Chairman Martin said they will review it and make that determination.
At the present time, no you can't. It's posted.
Mr. Bassone responded to Mr. Bauer's. The road and the road grade was
requested by the County Sheriff of Garfield, Colorado State Forest
Service and the Forest Service to be able to get support, water
tankers, up that road and it had to be to that grade to be able to
bring in that kind of water tanks. Number two, it the Forest Service
didn't put the fire out, you could probably check with a report by John
Dennison, Colorado State Forest Service, he reviewed the situation once
he landed and said we had the fire under control and that he didn't
need the 20--man hot shot crew there and that he would allow mop up of
the situation, but they didn't put the fire out, we did.
Commissioner McCown - Porcupine Fire - were you ever asked to leave the
area, did the Sheriff ask them to leave, you and your crews for
endangering yourselves and the Sheriff asked in a strong fashion to
leave the area?
We were notified after we had made the major fire trail round. We're
foresters, and there were three of us there. And yes, and we then met
the Sheriff and staff, and then they went to the top of the hill, they
agreed it wasn't necessary. It was our fire and •as landowners, the road
access was not in. Their arterial surveillance was incorrect and the
information they received was incorrect - we were not in harms way.
Calls were made to several agencies and they refused to put anybody on
the fire; so as landowners, it was our fire. And the fire trail, the
access road was not built.
Commissioner McCown reminded him it was his property but the Sheriff is
the ultimate authority when it comes to fighting a fire in Garfield
County on whether you're going to go in on your own property or not.
Bob Hooker - lives on 320 and 317 runs through his property and in the
past, we've had a lot of dust problems and continue to have that. The
oil and gas companies have worked to help keep the dust down. The
logging company has done nothing on dust of CR 317. No effort
whatsoever to control dust. Additionally, a lot of problems with water
in the past, and if it ever rains, mud will come down Beaver Creek. The
persons downstream will suffer. Many people upset over the Beaver Creek
watershed being disturbed. Nobody is monitoring. Right now, it's great.
Commissioner McCown - This special use permit was only issued after the
litigation over the access. There was no special use permit two years
ago; it occurred in 2001 and the activity that took place was directly
related to the fire. However, I still don't have a high level of
comfort with some of the answers he has heard today and would like to
ask for this matter to be set forward to the August 5th meeting to give
staff an opportunity, both Road and Bridge and our Planning Department
working in conjunction with our Forestry Inspector, reviewing the
Forest Management Plan and the Special Use Permit and the approval of
that permit which included the Forest Management Plan to see in fact if
this permit will stay valid or not.
Commissioner Stowe - seconded. The time on August 5, 2002 was set at
1:15 P.M. Motion carried.
UPDATE ON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND OTHER ISSUES -- RANDY RUSSELL
Randy Russell, Rob Hykys, Tom Russell and Mr. Ken Etter were present.
Randy submitted the traffic count analysis and reviewed a memo that
provided a short narrative summary of the progress to date on the Plan
and the work efforts involved. He added that it also summarizes the
remaining work efforts to result in a solid Transportation Plan for the
County and important deliverable products. Randy listed in his memo
what the updating of that original study after five years accomplishes:
1) It performs the major part of a necessary public involvement and
outreach strategy and cover all significant employers in the County as
well as a significant sample of the general population; and 2) the
Origin and Destination information is a necessary element of a
Transportation Plan. He stated that he suspects other jurisdictions
would contribute to this update_ GPS - Rob Hykys explained on the map
showing the road alignments used on the last nine years. They have
completed 395 miles on the County Roads out of about 900 miles. we are
on target at this point. Only one storm sewer marked south of Silt. Tom
-- there is a storm drain on the college road. Tom added that he thought
this is going to be a valuable tool, will assist in ordering pipe, etc.
Rob estimated it would take 6-weeks without an equipment failure. Randy
- other piece is to get current traffic counts and said Building and
Planning had hired a seasonable employee - Ken Etter. Meet weekly and
identifying cost of sectors. It becomes a basis for road impacts for a
new subdivision. The Central Section has been done, Airport and Rifle
are complete. Hamm Creek still some things, one cluster, CMC, Parachute
- then Glenwood and Carbondale - 60% done. All this is public record.
This will feed into our current road impact survey for impact fees.
Revisit and recalibrate the impact fees. He requested approval from the
Board to proceed with the next major element in this process, which is
an update of trip generation Origin, and Destination patterns in the
region. This request would be permission to allocate up to $35,000 for
that planning element out of the $120,000 anticipated to be spent over
a two-year period and the $70,000 allocated in this year's budget. This
request is based on a `worst case scenario's and added that the Origin
and Destination Survey would include all jurisdictions from Aspen to
Parachute, replicating the study done almost five years ago. That study
cost of $50,000 and had very significant match from other jurisdictions
that benefited from the results. Healthy Mountain Communities, who
overlay that first study, proposed that we could now replicate it for
about half that costs. Randy summarized that he would like to get HMC
under contract, go up and down the valleys, and hustle match within the
next month or two. The next piece of this puzzle is probably to put
together the RFP and start consultant shopping. He wants them an board
before we actually finalize the survey because they may have some ideas
and some needs to tweak in terms of their needs for taking all this
information then and crafting their model. So, to have a consultant
team on board by October/November would be ideal. Most of their work
again, would be the following year. We did allocate in the budget this
year, $70,000 for this effort. The inventory and the average daily
traffic counts are going to consume about $22,000 of that probably,
that leaves us about $48,000. Both contracts, Healthy Mountain
Communities and the Consultant Contract would bridge between the two
years. We had anticipated this effort costing $120,000, $70,000 this
year and $50,000 next. It may be that we will spent slightly less than
the $70,000 and add it onto our budget request for next year.
Chairman Martin felt the director was proper; this is very valuable and
what we need to do especially with our transportation plan with the
Cities coming on board as well.
Commissioner McCown inquired about the rider ship count on RFTA saying
this will include it as well.
AUGUST 5, 2002
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COmmISSIONERS
GARFIELD] COUNTY, COLORADO
The regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners began at 8:00
A.M. on Monday, August 5, 2002 with Chairman John Martin and
Commissioners Walt Stowe and Larry McCown present. Also present were
County Manager Ed Green, Assistant County Manager Jesse Smith,
Assistant County Attorney Carolyn Dahlgren, and Mildred Alsdorf Clerk &
Recorder.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE TUCKER-FRASER [AKA TEEPEE PARK) SPECIAL USE
PERMIT COMPLIANCE ISSUES
Jim Beckwith, George Bauer, Bill Gherardi, Mark Bean, Don DeFord and
Kelley Rogers of the Forest Service were present.
Jim submitted a summary report for Tepee Park, Garfield County
Resolution 97-70 and a response to complain by George Bauer. This was
before the Board on July 1, 2002. Based on information then provided,
the matter was recessed and scheduled for further information gathering
on August 5, 2002. On July 24, 2002, a conference was held with
Garfield County Planning and the Garfield County Attorney at which time
additional information was supplied.
Jim stated they believe they have not changed the permit regarding the
Resolution. He addressed specific issues were: Conversions on Citations
to Forest Management Plan; Amended Response to Bauer Company regarding
the haul roads within Tepee Park; Width of Roads and Turn-outs; Felling
Aspen Trees; Winter Operating Period; Watercourse Protective Zones and
Equipment Exclusion Zones; Fire Safety; Logging Slash;
Administration/Inspection - Chris Meyers from the City of Rifle is the
individual in charge of the inspections; Recreation and Visual
Resources - Jim mentioned they crated a public hiking trail. After
talking with Brad Ackerman, it is better for them to dedicate a public
hiking trail, and this should satisfy Mr. Bauer's concern; Logging
Trucks; Log Truck Operations; Operating Season/All Activities;
Porcupine Fire of July, 2001 - not an Tepee Park lands; Amendment to
Permit or Resolution; and Conclusion. In the Conclusion, Mr. Beckwith
stated that in the amended response, Intermountain Resources and Mr_
Norman Carpenter do not believe adequate grounds exist to suspend or
revoke the Special Use Permit granted for the Tepee Park Harvest
Project - nor do they require conduct of public hearings on the Permit.
Amendments: Roads and Reports were due in November however, they were
to be submitted by Intermountain Resources. Jim reviewed the land use
codes and referenced the Resolution of 97-70 where it states reports to
the inspector - there is no inspector to report to. He owned up to the
tanker off-site was a violation, this is the only one, and the others
were not violations.
Kelley Rogers said had no first-hand knowledge of the application and
was here to answer general questions on Forest Service management and
hauling. He stated he was comfortable with the final revision of the
Forest Service plan and with the Best Management Practices cited.
Commissioner McCown mentioned the position of the County where we
support the harvesting of timber, yet he was concerned about the
implementation of the Forest Service Plan and Best Management
Practices. He stated that Bill Gherardi will know today who to report
to and how often.
Kelley said the Forest Service Plan for this property, the initial
draft, is that this is an out-of-area development company, he was
concern with the salvia culture, and he concentrated on this. In
reviewing the plan, he needed a consensus that they were not going to
high grade. He knew what was involved regarding roads from looking at
the plan. The second draft of that plan was feasible and the proposal
indicated it was good.
Issues with reporting - Kelly hasn't been involved with a County
Commissioner reporting factor. They are typically a middleman with the
developer and the Forest Service. It is unusual to have reports to the
County Commissioners_ He recommended Bill Gherardi to be the inspector
reporting to the County. Kelley's report is directly to a landowner.
Any problems are usually dealt with on a daily basis. He would address
the concerns of the Commissioners saying some clarification needed to
be stated to Bill Gherardi regarding the level of detailed reporting
necessary to satisfy the Board.
Timber sale contract - Kelley usually is the party that negotiates
these contracts. The Board pointed out the unique and part of the land
use permit is that this originally permit was issued to a different
company. The permit stays with the land and the new owners were not
here when the negotiations were stated. Any kind of change was to come
back before the Board and the owners who were given the permit were
aware. Kelley commented that the key is to keep the lines of
communications open as the applicant is willing to comply if they know
what the Commissioners require. Commissioner McCown remarked that when
the landowner and the timber buyer is one and the same, then the
reports must come to the Commissioners. Kelly suggesting putting
together a list of the Commissioners concerns they would want in a
report_ Jake and Marvin from Road and Bridge were present but did not
have any concerns. Commissioner McCown outlined the level of detailed
reporting the Board requires of Hill Gherardi.
George Bauer posed a question for Mr. Rogers, how do you manage this
when you haven't been on the property? Modifications were done by the
inspections. Mr. Bassone is the watershed inspector. Kelley clarified
that he was not here as to speak on site specifics - he said he will
not be working with anyone specifically. Carolyn Dahlgren pointed out
that the original application was made in March of 1995 and the plan
today is very different from the original application made by Tucker -
Fra se
The original pian, the City of Rifle's plan from Paul Bassone, and the
revised plan for Resolution 1-97 was reviewed. The Commissioners
clarified the need for the changes from helicoptering and skid hauling
was a significant issue that the Board must be aware of in a report.
Jim Beckwith stated he was not here except for the complaint. They
didn't start this until November 2001 and the annual report was not due
until December.
George Bauer commented on page 4 of Mr. Beckwith amended response. He
is a believer of private property rights but stated when there is a
plan and then a change in that plan, then everyone needs to be
informed. There are national forest land between Mr. Bauer's and Teepee
Park. When fighting the Porcupine fire, they built a road to go through
his property. He has 6 -points of non-compliance with the Forest Service
Plan and 4 on Special Use Permit with the current owners. There was a
long discussion regarding the road, the fire, and Mr. Bauer's
complaints.
George Bauer recommended the Board recall
these folks comply with the conditions.
Jim Beckwith said Jim Carnahan is the one
and that it was an emergency road, a fire
significantly improvement. He added he is not shoving things under the
rug, and that's why they are here today calling to the attention of the
Board regarding the corrections.
Chairman Martin mentioned the big sell was the use of the helicopter
for timbering on steep slopes. Jim Beckwith wasn't in the hearings.
Carolyn mentioned getting a transcript of those hearings.
Chris Meyers, Intermountain Resources They are not into that area;
the road has been flagged and surveyed but nothing else. This land can
be harvested with technology. Timbering on steeper ground means they
use low ground equipment, and work with revisions with Mr. Gherardi and
Mr. Bassone.
George Bauer referenced the original SUP saying they have four (4)
different non-compliance issues - Item No. 5 - on the recorded
Resolution, page two- each tree will be marked prior to harvesting. 2nd
non-compliance item No. 7 - turnouts on the County Road - plans and
acquisition for the turnouts with the county use of imminent domain.
The SUP resolved to acquire the turnouts - more than two turnouts. The
County had the power to construct this road_ This didn't happen. Item
No. 10 - vehicles licensed - Two Oregon vehicles not properly tagged
for Garfield County; logging trucks also. They were required to be
licensed in Garfield County - everyone has to be re -registered. They
have Oregon plates on them. The applicant will not allow employees to
drive on site however, there was a father looking for his son and he
the special use permit until
who constructed the fire road
access road, it hasn't been
was driving on site. George is very concerned with the SUP requirements
being ignored.
Jim Beckwith mentioned the road was approved and signed off by Road &
Bridge and regarding the width, he was told it was not necessary to
purchase additional right of road. As to vehicles registered elsewhere
- he will check it out. As far as they know, all pay their proportioned
fees for plates to Garfield County.
Commissioner McCown noted that Mr. Gherardi and the US Forest Service
mark the trees. Chris Myers added that the forest service is more
familiar with the trees; Kelley was up there last fall marking the
trees. Brad Ackerman stated he was aware of Department of Wildlife's
part in this and he had reviewed the plan; this is the first he's heard
these concerns by George Bauer. It is more appropriate for the forest
service to mark trees and if DOW is included in the SUP, they should be
removed. This was discussed and they were involved in the process. Brad
said that if this is where the Board wants him to be involved, he could
appreciate being involved. He will get up there and become involved. -
The access issue - Mr. Beckwith mentioned, they had discussions - and
from DOW, it is important to have access; they focused on getting
people into the forest service to hunt and control the population.
Decision
Commissioner McCown stated he did not have a high level of confidence
with this at all. He apologized to Mr. Gherardi regarding lack of
direction for the reports and directed him to work directly with staff,
the attorney and the Board. He requested they work with the County
Attorney and the Commissioners; and that guidelines be given. From Mr.
Gherardi, he is to check on the conditions of approval and forest
service plan, and upon deviations, the Planning Dept must be notified
and reports are to be supplied twice a year, any violations by the
landowner are to he corrected and to have the list by the end of next
week. He proposed to move forward, and to recognize that they are in a
position where the Board could repeal the Special Use Permit however,
it couldn't be taken today, and it would require notification. However,
if the Board of County Commissioners is not notified of changes, there
is a serious change this could happen.
All three Commissioners agreed on the helicopter logging. Chairman
Martin referred thein to research this factor and understand that during
the SUP hearing, the big selling point was with this.
Commissioner McCown noted to Mr. Gherardi on the amount of direction
orally given today and stated that a list of conditions will be given
to him for the reports.
A concurrence by the majority of the Board on this action today was
favorable and they anticipate these reports coming directly to them.
JANUARY 20, 2003
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PUBLIC MEETING:
DISCUSSION OF THE TEE PEE PARK LOGGING PLAN
Mark Bean, Jim Beckwith, Bill Gherardi, George Bauer, and Norm Carpenter, owner of Tee Pee Park
Ranch were present.
Chairman Martin — Mark, you had some items that you needed to discuss in reference to the Management
Plan.
Mark Bean _ The Board had requested me to send a letter to Mr. Gherardi, who is with the Woodland
Management Consultants, Inc. and Mr. Gherardi was hired as a consultant to the County as well as the
applicant and the City of Rifle specifically as part of a condition of approval attached to Resolution 97-70,
which basically says that the Forest Service Management Practices will be monitored for compliance with
the proposed TeePee Park Management Plan by a consultant agreed upon by the Board of County
Commissioners, City of Rifle and the applicant and paid for by the applicant. Mr. Gherardi has submitted
various reports to us; the Board had requested we have an opportunity to meet with him. Originally my
letter was sent to Mr. Gherardi suggesting February 3; our letters essentially crossed in the mail, he send
me a letter basically stating that a report would be presented to the Board and he would be available today
to present the report regarding the activities in the, what is referred to as the TeePee Park property that
Intermountain Resources presently has the Special Use Permit to allow for the logging activity to occur.
Mark provided the Board a copy of the report that Mr. Gherardi submitted to us, received on January 1rt,
the report is available to the Board and states some activities there. Mark didn't know what other questions
the Board might have, but stated this is our opportunity to discuss with Mr. Gherardi the logging activities
that are occurring there. We had at one point last year, received a request to amend or revise the Special
Use Application; that request was sent back to the applicants and subsequently no additional revisions or
request for revisions have been received by our office.
Woodland Management Consultants, LLC. Located out of Fort Collins, Bill Gherardi, Forester, submitted a
written report at the request of Mark Bean's letter dated December 10, 2002. He stated the current activity
within Tee Pee Park received January 17, 2003 by Mark. The letter states:
a. The area of the east side of Beaver Creek that is designated for tractor logging was complete on
November 1, 2002;
b. From November 1 through January 7, 2003, a fire and recreational access road to Houston
Mountain were constructed.
c. As of January 9, 2003, timber harvest has started around Houston Mountain.
Bill Gherardi — you should also have a report from last fall, which was the first report the Board asked for,
it was supposed to be in November 1 ¢t and he said he mailed it the 25th of October.
Mark noted that he had submitted copies of the reports to the Commissioners from Mr. Gherardi that were
submitted in compliance to the request that were due November 1, 2002, as well as the recent report dated
January 13, 2003.
Chairman Martin — so the three items labeled a, b, and c in the current report are new information.
Bill Gherardi — right.
Chairman Martin stated information had been brought to us in reference to inspection of the property, if it
was deemed improperly, if it was within the Forest Guidelines, etc. and Bill is here to fill us in if we have
those questions.
Commissioner McCown -- to your knowledge is there any, and I'll say this as a term, is there any
conventional logging taking place in the area that was designed in the original plan as the area required for
helicopter togging, is there any of that going on right now to your knowledge that's been conventional
timber method being skidding and cutting.
Bill Gherardi — As I said in the most recent letter, the area around Houston Mountain has just started to
become logged conventionally.
Commissioner McCown — And was that part of the helicopter area?
Bill Gherardi — Yes.
Commissioner McCown — And this is being done conventionally.
Bill Gherardi — Yes sir.
Commissioner McCown — Yes sir. Do you see that as any discrepancy or violation of the Special Use
Permit that we approved? I mean if an area is designed as helicopter logging and a conventional method is
currently taking place, do you have any problem with that?
Bill Gherardi — That's, this is the essence of the argument. Is the Forest Management Plan the Bible or is it
a working document with changing technology, even contained within the Forest Management Plan, it says
tractor togging will occur on slopes of less than 50%, but generally up to 35% within the Beaver Creek and
Porcupine Drainages. Commissioner McCown — in the Special Use Permit, not being a forestry specialist
and not getting into technical arguments, as a layman a special use permit, if we approved it under the
conditions that certain areas were helicopter togging, I don't think there was any situations where, well if
the ground's froze, we'll let them skid it out of an area that was helicopter or if there's snow on the ground,
conventionally logging would be okay if it's helicopter. I think the area we approved was helicopter
logging and it's being conventionally timbered. I realize the Forest Management Plan is a moving target but
it makes it real hard to approve things if we don't know what we're approving and I think we did, in 1997
in fact approve this special use permit with the knowledge that there were varying techniques of timbering
being implemented, there were area that were off limits around the creeks and certain set back from all of
those drainages that was important to the watershed for the City of Rifle. And, I think it was clearly evident
that there were certain areas that were to be logging solely by helicopter logging; or I believe there was
another method that was included in that, and that was the cable method. And, those areas now have been,
because of technology or whatever, are being conventionally logged and I don't know what's changed. A
skidder is a skidder is a skidder.
Bill Glierardi — well, two things: within that Forest Management Plan you also give definitions for the
kinds of areas that those kinds of logging will take place and as I said, you said tractor logging up to 50%,
helicopter Iogging on steep slopes with highly erosive soils, cable logging somewhere in-between those
two. Okay. And if you look at all the areas that were designated, particular the helicopter logging, it has
some area that is less than 20% slope, so is it helicopter logging or is it tractor logging? I don't know. 1
mean, those methods are defined within the plan and where they should occur.
Chairman Martin — other questions?
Commissioner Haupt — so, I need to know, where, when we're talking about the SUP and you're talking
about the Forest Service Management Plan, and we're talking about work within a certain area that falls
under the SUP and need to get a better understanding of that relationship, either from the County or from
you.
Chairman Martin —I think the argument is, and we've brought it up before, and that was the availability of
the helicoptering the extensive public hearing and approval that was based upon the helicopter logging,
staging areas, etc. and I don't think we've seen that and I think that maybe we need to address staff on
exactly why that hasn't happened yet.
Mark Bean -- well, we have, in the past with numerous discussions with Intermountain, typically relied on
the plans that are submitted as a part of an application as being the methods and means by which somebody
will comply with and meet conditions of approval on any special use permit. So in that sense to sort of go
to the issue that Mr. Gherardi brought up here earlier, to a certain yes, the plan becomes some sort of a
Bible and any change to that, not saying that it cannot be changed or revised, has to come back to the Board
of County Commissioners in a public hearing to allow you the opportunity to review the new change to see
if there are any issues that are based upon our standards of approval but maybe of concern or maybe a
reason not to approve that particular change in the operation as it was approved. Intermountain, at one
point, had discussed some issues that they felt were not consistent with the original approval in the logging
plan itself, as a matter of fact, Mr. Gherardi's October report referenced an application being submitted to
revise some of the conditions of approval, as I said earlier, that was reviewed and sent back noting that
there were certain area or information that needed to be included in the application before it was presented
to the Board of County Commissioners and set for a public meeting. We've not seen any of that additional
information or at least that report coming, so as a result the changes that were noted back in October have
never occurred.
Commissioner McCown -- what is the time frame for notice and everything if we today decide to schedule
this back for a noticed public hearing on the possible revocation of this special use permit — what's the
notice period.
Mark Bean - 30 -days. It would be the same notice period required for any special use permit.
Don DeFord — practically Mark, how long does it take?
Mark — realistically, you mean as far as setting up a time and a date?
Don — Yes.
Mark — probably we're looking at 45 days plus or minus.
Commissioner McCown — so the last week in March, the 24`h of March.
Mark — the 24"' — that would be a special meeting for you. Oh, we're moving those dates.
Commissioner McCown — and you would be here for that meeting Tresi? Would the 17`h meet the criteria?
Mark — there would be no reason why we couldn't.
Commissioner McCown — timing wise.
Mark — no, we would be able to get a hearing scheduled for that date, or arguably the Ie.
Commissioner McCown said, I would make the motion that this matter be scheduled for public hearing, the
County will take care of the notice, all adjacent landowners and that be scheduled on March 17, 2003,
which would be our afternoon time at 1:15 PM and at that time, we will public testimony and any evidence
that the applicant may have regarding this matter as well.
Don — concerning your motion, would that be for consideration of suspension, revocation, alterations of the
permit?
Commissioner McCown — yes, it would.
Mark — this would be pursuant to Condition Number 9 in the Resolution 97-70?
Commissioner McCown — that's the reason for my motion.
Mark Bean — okay.
Commissioner Houpt — second,
Chairman Martin — I have a motion and a second to go ahead and have a public hearing, notice of
revocation, change, etc.
Don -- one comment on that, today we were provided with certain written materials, title on that, all written
materials concerning the status should be submitted at that hearing by the defense attorney.
Chairman Martin — all right, there was items that were placed on our desk, etc. I haven't had a change to
read any of those, but that will be part of the public process and has to be introduced as either an exhibit or
something for consideration. And, at that time, we'll have a chance to review everything. Motion carried.
Bill, will you be available at all.
Bill Gherardi -- yes.
James Beckwith — is there any alternate date other than March 17t?
Chairman Martin — is there a conflict in your time.
James Beckwith — well, it will be a conflict for me and that's why I was asking, had my hand up relative to
this schedule.
Chairman Martin — I can't take testimony in that matter, but I understand.
James Beckwith — I'm not trying to testify,
Commissioner McCown — the 10t would work for me.
James Beckwith — the 10th would be pushing it, I was looking at later, but if you can't adjust the 17`h, I'll
adjust my calendar so I can be here.
Commissioner McCown — to make it later, it would go to April.
James Beckwith — It would have to go to April.
Chairman Martin -- we have another conflict on this side.
George Bauer — we've got a motion here to review this information and potentially revoke this permit and I
think the sooner we get this done the better, because there's logging taking place right not, as Mr. Gherardi
stated and they're not supposed to be doing it, so the sooner the better.
Chairman Martin — the motion has been passed and it is on the 1711', we're looking
Commissioner McCown — can you adjust your schedule, Mr. Beckwith?
James Beckwith — I will. And just for clarification, written materials from us you want how many days in
advance of the 17th?
Mark — I'd like to have those 10 days in advance if I could so I could get them to the Board.
Chairman Martin — that's anyone that has written documents. That will give us a chance to go ahead,
review those, and introduce them, as exhibits through Mark's office and then you'll have an opportunity to
have copies of everything in return.
James Beckwith — I was going to ask, will Mark be sending me a notice of the specific issues?
Mark Bean — yes.
James Beckwith — Okay.
Mark Bean — I'll send you a copy of everything that goes to the Board of County Commissioners.
REFERRAL OF THE SPRING VALLEY PUD TEXT AND PLAN AMENDMENT
Mark Bean stated this is a formality and requested a motion to refer this to the Planning Commission.
A motion was made by Commissioner McCown and seconded by Commissioner Houpt to refer the Spring
Valley PUD Text and Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission.
Mark stated this would be on the Planning Commission on February 12, 2003.
Motion carried.
APRIL 21, 2003
PROCEEDINGS OF THE GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR NATURAL RESOURCE
EXTRACTION FOR NORMAN CARPENTER/TEEPEE PARK PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON
APRIL 21, 2003.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Don DeFord reviewed the regulations for noticing and the submittals from the applicant. He determined
they were in order and timely and advised the Commissioners they were entitled to proceed.
Chairman Martin swore in the speakers.
Mark Bean submitted the following Exhibits: Exhibit A — Mail Return Receipts; Exhibit B — Proof of
Publication; Exhibit C — Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended; Exhibit D — Garfield
County Comprehensive Plan of 2000; Exhibit E — Project Information and Staff Comments; Exhibit F —
Teepee Park Timber Harvest Project SUP Application; Exhibit G — Report from David Hoefer dated April
14, 2003; Exhibit H — Fax from Bill Sappington, Public Works Director, City of Rifle, dated 4115103 and
Exhibit 1— E -Mail from Jake Mall, Garfield County Road and Bridge, dated April 14, 2003; and Exhibit J —
Proof of Posting.
Chairman Martin entered Exhibits A — J into the record.
This is a Special Use Permit for Natural Resource Extraction for a Commercial Logging Operation on a
4,464 -acre tract of land located approximately eight (8) miles south of Rifle, off Beaver Creek Road (CR
317).
The site has four drainages within the project, the Beaver Creek drainage runs through the middle of the
property and the headwaters for Porcupine Creek, Spruce Creek and West Mamm Creek are located on the
property. The site contains topography that slopes generally to the north that varies from gentle slopes to
vertical cliffs and elevation ranges from 8,700 to approximately 10,270 feet. The property contains a
number of Engelemann Spruce Sub -Alpine Fir, Aspen and Gamble Oak stands mixed in with riparian and
high mountain meadows.
The applicant is requesting a SUP to harvest timber in TeePee Park area of Beaver Creek. In 1997, the
previous owners of the property requested a SUP to allow the logging on 1,454 acres.
The present application notes approximately 25% of the anticipated harvest has been completed under the
existing SUP and that the harvest will continue for an estimated three (3) additional years.
David Hoefer, Consulting Forester for Garfield County, submitted his report and summarized that there
have been blow downs and bark beetle increases to the epidermis stage in other areas of the state. Natural.
stand replacement via fir may occur at any time or it may not occur for 200 years. He concurs with the
applicant's assertion that the timber stands are in a condition for the prescribed management. He also noted
that the amount of time removed was "on the high side", but he did not feel that there may have been
reasons for the removal level that he was not aware. The methods proposed to harvest the timber "are the
appropriate Silva cultural systems to use." He acknowledged that the newer rubber tracked equipment is
quite efficient on steeper slopes and Norman Carpenter, property owner is conunitted to make sure that the
skidding equipment will not damage or destroy the residua] stand. His observations of the property did not
indicate the applicant's loggers were going into areas with slopes over 35%.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the approval of the natural resource extraction operation on the property described, with
the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant, within the application, including the forestry plan, and
stated at the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of
approval, unless specifically changed by this resolution.
2. That all timber hauling on County Roads be on Monday through Saturday, between the hours of 6
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Not included in the hauling hours are the trips in and out of the property by
loggers and unloaded trucks accessing the property before 6 a.m. Any helicopter hauling will only
occur between the hours of 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Haul trucks will not travel in
a convoy, but that they be spaced at least 10 minutes apart, before leaving the property.
3. That the forest management practices and revegetation will be monitored for compliance with the
conditions of approval contained in the resolution of approval, by a consultant agreed upon by the
Board of County Commissioners and the applicant, and paid for by the applicant.
4. A road bond will remain in place with the County to overlay 1.6 miles of CR 320 with asphalt at
the completion of the timber harvest.
5. The Special Use Permit, when issued, is subject to review for compliance or noncompliance with
performance requirements associated with the issuance of the permit. The applicant shall submit a
report one year from the date of issuance of the permit, indicating the measures taken to comply
with the performance requirements of the permit. The Board of County Commissioners will
review the report in a public meeting within 30-days of receipt of the report and may determine
that a public hearing is necessary to consider suspension or revocation of the permit or those
conditions of approval must be met before additional activities can occur on the property.
6. All vehicles used in conjunction with logging operation must be properly licensed in the State of
Colorado and the appropriate documentation provided to the Garfield County Clerk and Recorders
Office verifying the licensing.
7. The hauling of logs will be discontinued during normal seasonal times for focal ranchers to move
cattle up or down County Road 317, when requested by a local rancher with grazing rights of
property in the Beaver Creek drainage.
8. All revegetation of the site will be done with certified weed free seed mix. All seed mixtures will
have 50 pounds of available nitrogen added to the seed mixture for grass seeding.
9. The haul route will only be along CR 320 from the intersection of CR 320/317 to Taughenbaugh
Avenue in Rifle. Additionally, an overweight vehicle permit will be acquired for each vehicle
needing such permit.
10. Upon transfer of ownership of the property subject to the SUP issued in accordance with this
resolution, the new owner(s) shall meet with the Board at a regularly scheduled meeting of the
Board and published as an agenda item of the Board.
11. That prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit, the applicant or operator shall enter into an
agreement with the Rifle Emergency Services to provide emergency services to the site.
12. Prior to the issuance of the SUP, the Fire Management Plan shall be filed with the Garfield County
Sheriffs Office.
13. Compliance with all terms and conditions of approval contained in any permit issued to the
applicant, its successors or assigns, by any local government, state or federal agency, shall be
deemed to be conditions of this Special Use Permit. A violation of any of the terms, conditions or
provisions of such permit(s) shall be deemed to constitute of violation of the terms of approval of
the SUP. The applicants, their successors and assigns, shall notify the Garfield County Board of
Commissioners of notice of violation or violations regarding the subject mining and processing
operations, equipment and associated permits issued by any local government or state or federal
agency. The Garfield County Board of Commissioners shall be notified within ten (10) calendar
days of any violation or notice of possible violation.
Jim Beckwith gave an in-depth presentation of the project, application, and commitment of Mr. Carpenter
to the preservation of the Creek and his property. He noted the three structures on the property: noting the
Squires Cabins in the TeePee Park area build by Ton Vondette, a one-story structure less than the 1200
square feet and was built in the 1950's. The second structure is in the northwest corner of the private
property. Consulting with local people, it was built in the 1950's to 1960's by Dale Trahern. It is smaller
than 1200 square feet and pre-dates any land use regulation the County may have had. There is a third
structure, and a 16 x 20, a temporary weathering hut and is used by crews in the TeePee Park near Squires
Cabin and meets the definition of a recreational cabin. These did not require building permits when they
were built.
A correction was made to Mr. Hoefer's report noting that it indicates that they have been conducting tractor
yarding on slopes generally 35% or less. That is not correct. They have been doing tractor yarding on
slopes generally 50% or less. Some of the problem that Mr. Hoefer had was in doing a field inspection, as it
was the worst time of the year with 3-4 feet of snow. Mr. Gherardi has used a small hand-held instrument
to determine the percentage of slope when there is no snow. The seed mixture was not with the nitrogen
because they seed in the fall and early winter, allow the winter snow and rain help the germination process.
In the snowmelt, the first thing to leach out is all of the nitrogen.
He submitted two Exhibits: Exhibit K — A copy requested from Mildred Alsdorf, of the Minutes of the
County Commissioners Meetings for each of those hearings or meetings involving the TeePee Park
application, February 10, 1997, June 9, 1997, July 28, 1997, July 1, 2002, and August 5, 2002. Exhibit L —
January 31, 2003 Jim contacted Mark Bean and requested to review all prior application for timber harvest
permits in Garfield County. Two notebooks containing 842 pages of research on timbering special use
permits. Since 1987 there have been 14 permits excluding this application itself but including the original
application. These are selected excerpts from the County permits that have been granted for timber
harvesting. The reason he asked for these were because he wondered why this application was so unique,
has it been treated the same as every other timber harvest permit. He discovered it has not been and in fact
the first page of Volume 1 gives a comparison of all 14 application with the current application as to when
the Commissioners have required consultants or not; required a Forest Service Plan or not; required a
consultant in the application process or not; and what he found is this application is very unique. The
Commissioners have treated this unlike any other application and he wondered why. All 14 permits used
the same science and methodology. It was not the actual harvest; to their credit, the Board has had them
reviewed three times. The City of Rifle has also had them reviewed three times and in every inspection,
they have come off with a very good bill of health from everybody — no permittee problems even with the
50% where they are doing the tractor yarding. They have improved County Roads, have given bonds for
the other amounts; and what he assumes is because this is virgin area of harvest in all records it has never
been harvested in nearly 300 years. There has not been a catastrophic fire in 300 years and this could be a
model for many counties as to how this application was postured, presented, researched, and how it has
been performed. The interesting thing he noted and complimented Mark Bean, there have been times when
he thought Mark was overbearing relative to his clients and the review process and that was the other
reason he went through the file. The application was originally filed in 1995 and then later amended in
1996 before it came to Mark and then presented to the Board in 1997. It was very simple, direct, very well
researched and it was reviewed and given recommendations that were straight forward, generic enough that
they were flexible, specific enough that they protected the County regulations and public generally. Then
they were changed. In the review received from Mark Bean, the recommendations that he made and
imposed on this permit are flexible, specific and handle changes no matter what you're doing on the land.
The reason the compliment was made to Mark is that their position is that the Board grant this permit with
the conditions that have been recommended by Mr. Bean — make no changes because they did get changed
in 1997 and that is where Jim Beckwith came in and there should never have been a need for him to be
involved in this process. Mr. Carpenter, individually wrote Mr. Martin so that the Board would know him
and his attitude toward this land and what he is trying to do. Chairman Martin asked how many were issued
prior to 1996. Mr. Beckwith — six, not including Tucker and Frase that didn't come before the Board in
1997. Mr. Beckwith stated in 1993 — Louisiana Pacific No. 1; in 1994 Virgil Lee Wellman; in 1994 you
had Joan Savage and in 1998 that was amended very similar to this one due to a change in access to the
property. Prior to 1993, no information was given to Mr. Beckwith.
The minutes that Mr. Beckwith requested noted that one prior hearing there was a comment that helicopter
yarding was an important factor for approval for the TeePee Park project. The minutes do not reflect that at
all and felt confusion was with the Colorado Timber and Land Company application for Kimball Mountain
No. 1 which was exclusively helicopter yarding and was heard in September of 1997 whereas TeePee Park
went to hearing in July of 1997.
Mr. Norm Carpenter testified that he had overseen and observed the timber harvesting project on his private
land in TeePee Park saying before he allowed the first tree to be cut he was sure that he hired the best
professionals to give him advice. Consultants were hired, contractors that were conscientious and oversees
all activities making the final decisions. He has approved of all activities done in the harvest project
particularly to the tractor yarding on slopes 50% or less.
Mr. Bill Gherardi with Woodland Management Consultants testified that he a consultant and continually
monitors, observes, supervises, directs and controls activities that occur on site. When there is no snow on
the ground, he has measured, with a calumniator, the percentage slopes where the tractor yarding has been
performed and stated it was 50% or less slope. He also supervises the revegetation process and does not use
nitrogen, nor recommend it added to the seed mixture. If there is any kind of fertilizer mixed with the grass
seed when applied before the snow falls, the snow melts and the first thing to leach out is the fertilizer. He
also testified to the traffic on CR 320 stating the percentage of use by commercial vehicles he's observed
are logging traffic 50%. Chris Meyers of Intermountain Resources LLC. based in Montrose, Colorado
testified that he was the operator and timber purchaser from Mr. Norman Carpenter under a timber/stump
sale agreement and in his time with this project has observed the logging traffic on Garfield County Road
320 has been consistent with Wildhorse Energy feasibility study based on 8 — 10 loads per day and have
occupied about 20% at maximum and 80% oil and gas rigs specifically between the intersection of 317 and
Taughenbaugh in Rifle.
Commissioner Haupt inquired as to the necessity of trucks coming in before 6:00 a.m. in the mornings.
Clarification was made that the trucks come from Montrose and by the trucks coming in before 6:00 a.m.
they can do three loads per day and still avoid the school bus times and with commuter traffic occurring
from Rifle and Taughenbaugh Mesa. Coming back in around 10:30 to 11:00 a.m. they are still ahead of the
school bus. it was discussed in having a nighttime load in order to be ahead of school buses and commuter
traffic and concluded it wasn't feasible. If there's a third haul, they would be coming back in sometime
unloaded around 3:00 — 3:30 p.m. then pulling out before 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Weather factors slow these
times.
Public Input
Rancher Terry Broughton, 8789 CR 320 and resident Marlis Sturmer, CR 321 spoke against the application
addressing concerns over the water quantity and quality in Beaver Creek and the leaking of transmission
fluid that could potentially flow into the Creek.
Jim Beckwith answered concerns saying the City of Rifle and the Savage family has the two primary water
rights on Beaver Creek but there are a number of other private landowners who have water rights. They do
not acquire those. Regarding the Ute Trail, it is the wrong term. Historically, there was a trail and discussed
in the Haney Litigation by Mr. Vondette and it was known as the Caton Ranger Trail that carne up Beaver
Creek crossed Mr. Vendetta's property and led down into the West Mamm Creek area. The Ute Trail itself
historically is a trail up along the crest of the Colorado Rockies, which is not down in this area. There is not
a historical trail and this has been discussed between himself and the Commissioners and there is not a
prescriptive right to any trail across Beaver Creek coming across TeePee Park and have rejected as well as
Tucker and Erase all public use and public access. We have given a corridor for hiking trail to the U. S.
Forest Service conveyed in conjunction with the road easement that is one of the appendixes to the
application. Earlier this year, Mr. Beckwith was informed that there was a question and problem relative to
the corridor route that had been given and the Forest Service would identify where it was and they would
re-do the easement to portray the trail. There was a problem and another was suggested along the eastern
side of the property and that is still pending with the Forest Service. This is not an issue before these
Commissioners. Mr. Beckwith added that Mr. Broughton was cited for trespass and ultimately dismissed by
the District Attorney. These were criminal flings and not civil charges filed by the landowner.
Mr. Carpenter addressed the ecology issues addressed by Mr. Stormer saying he owns the land, cares about
the land, and has given strict instructions to consultants and contractors with respect to machinery, leaking
equipment, damage to the riparian area or damage to areas of ecology interest and concerned about habitat
for wildlife and for the pure strain of Colorado River Cut Throat Trout which is a tremendous resource that
he's been entrusted with. There were meetings with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U. S. Forest
Service on ways to improve the habitat for these pure strain fish and convinced he was not going to degrade
the water for any of the neighbors, nor reduce the volume of water rather increase it through very careful
Silva cultural techniques on this property.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner McCown— the remaining 1 467 acres, 20% of the remaining acres are 60% slope and that it
would be timbered if there was an available market for it; the 60% is very site specific and the applicant
estimated that 5 acres would be helicopter and 25 acres by cable. Until there are established values on the
ground and it would be incorrect to guess at this time.
Commissioner McCown - It is not cost effective with the timber market as it is currently. We'll take
everything basically under 60% with the hydro-bunchier and leave the tough stuff till the price goes up and
then if we see it financially viable we'll come back and figure out something to do with it. However, it will
not be skidded on the ground. Jim Beckwith — it would be skidded on the ground, that skidding is just
pulling it out where you felled it. Commissioner McCown — With rubber-tired skidders, I'm talking cable
or helicopter. Jim Beckwith — With cable. Mr. Gherardi — some other method besides ground skidding.
Commissioner McCown -- all right. In the application and perhaps justifiable so, you were quite specific in
not determining how many roads or where they would be placed, how are these roads going to be surfaced
— dirt roads, 14-foot wide the way they are described. What are the plans to reclamation on those roads and
when will they be reclaimed. Jim Beckwith — answered generally, it is the same as stated in the original
Forest Management Plan, if after the conclusion of the harvest project, we determine that a particular road
will no longer be used, we will reclaim through the use of water bars, other debris that is across it, much
like we did with realigning Forest Service Road 824 on National Forest Property and we would close off
the road through the reclamation process. Certain roads will remain because there haven't been roads and
we don't know when a fire will occur and it's obvious to everyone's best interest to have a road. Those will
be un -surfaced as well. They will have rock of them, but not paved. Commissioner McCown was under the
impression the ones that you alluded to in your application would not even have rock on then, they would
be dirt surface. Jim Beckwith — it will all depend upon the particular road like Porcupine — we do put rock
on that road. This decision is made in conjunction between the operator, the consultant, and the landowner.
Don asked what the concern was. Commissioner McCown stated the applicant could go in there and put in
unlimited roads and they talk about a reclamation plan but not address any roads because the number of
roads is not given that they will put in, it's an arbitrary decision on getting to areas to put out fires or
getting to areas to get timber out, yet there's no discussion as to are you going to reclaim these roads after
this 3 -year harvest is over or will they leave them in case they need them when you come back for this 15 -
year harvest that going to happen in the future. Will we see a network of roads on the hillside? Or, will they
be reclaimed and revegetated in areas that are built specifically for access to yarding and getting timber out
and then no longer used? Chris Meyers — this is ultimately Mr. Carpenter's decision but from a logging
standpoint, what road is withdrawn from use after the yarding is done is seeded and mulched with soil
stabilizing agents like slash and everything put on the cut banks, and hill slopes so they're stable. The
profile is still there but it's Mr. Carpenter's decision as to what he wants to close out at the end. Mr.
Carpenter - The roads are built according to specified standards and Bill Gherardi oversees that, we use
culverts where needed and ditch them where necessary, they are well-built roads. If I put a lot of money
into a road, he wasn't going to be in a big hurry to rip it up. It gives him access to areas that he couldn't
access otherwise. Commissioner Houpt had a concern and made a statement about the time of hauling logs
out because of the school bus traffic and if the applicant is truly committed to that schedule of getting the
first truck out before the school bus arrives that she would expect them to hold themselves to that so there
aren't kids put into jeopardy. Mr. Beckwith commented he understands this and they are committed. If they
could have a starting time of 5:00 a.m. in the morning, they would do that so they can keep the timing away
from when the school buses will be there. Commissioner Houpt suggested that the applicant discuss route
times with the school district and to make the last trip out as late as possible. Mr. Beckwith stated he would
be happy to do that since the best way is to take the first load out as early as possible in order to be out of
that area making the last load out as late as possible so that the school buses have dropped off the kids and
not on the street, Jim Beckwith - The 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. is reasonable, if the school district stated they
would rather have the trucks out by 5:00 a.m. unfortunately they would have to come back here for another
application, but they are willing to accommodate it. A third trip is not feasible; the trucks only make two
trips.
Condition No. 11 — Jim Beckwith stated the project is outside of the Rifle Fire District but he sent them the
plan anyway. It was made clear that the Garfield County is the responsible party and through his agreement
with the various fire districts, Rifle would be the one to respond. The Sheriff will need this plan and they
would response as well.
Commissioner McCown made a motion to close the public hearing; Commissioner Houpt seconded;
motion carried.
Commissioner McCown made a motion to approve the natural resource extraction special use permit with
Conditions 1-7 striking the first sentence in number 8, striking number 11, modifying number 12 to read
"shall be filed with the Garfield County Sheriff's Office and the Rifle Fire Protection District", number 2
correcting the statement Monday through Saturday to Monday through Friday and the same hours will
apply; the ten minutes spacing as written will stay in there; given the changing in numbering of the
conditions, ending with 12 conditions, adding Condition 13 that this operation will be evaluated one year
from today's date, actually changing that to be able to get our contractor up there when there is not 4 -foot
of snow, I would ask Mr. Hoefer to go back and look at this property no later than October 151 and the
operation that is taking place and report back to the Board. Commissioner Houpt seconded. Commissioner
Houpt — a lot of discussions with neighbor with traffic concerns and hope the applicant will work well with
everyone that's impacted by this. Mark requested clarification on the new condition number 13.
Commissioner McCown stated that by October 15` the consultant would be requested to have a report back
to this Board on the operations of this special use permit meeting on the conditions that have been set forth
today, and wants to see something back on how things are going. One year was previously mentioned but it
would make the report due in March when there is 4 -foot of snow and therefore would like the consultant
to be able to see the ground. The report to be submitted within 15 days however, allowing the flexibility
Mr. Hoefer needs. Motion carried.