ROAD AND BRIDGE ISSUES

One of the better examples of cooperative relationships with neighboring jurisdictions is in road maintenance.  In several cases it is necessary for county equipment to cross into another county to reach road segments back in their own.  This is especially true in Study Area Five along the northern boarder with Rio Blanco County where the two counties have historically traded road segments for maintenance responsibility.  This relationship is being updated and revised at this writing.  Both counties benefit from this relationship as it makes logistical sense in terms of equipment use, time and access to resources.  Periodic agreements are reached when reconstruction or other improvements are required that require funding beyond regular maintenance trade-offs. (23)

As an example, Grand County, in Utah, maintains a segment of Prairie Canyon Road in the extreme southwestern corner of Garfield County that isn’t on the County road system, but it provides important access back into Utah for oil and gas operations (24)  The counties and various agencies like the BLM and Colorado Division of Wildlife have cooperated in maintaining access on public rights of way, whether designated county roads or not, including joint legal action to deal with locked gate issues in special circumstances. (25) (26)

Locked gates, and access to public lands, have been a concern in the area for some time. Legal action is expensive and typically taken only as a last resort as was the case recently on the Prairie Canyon Road.  Public access as a general issue must be balanced against public incursion, game management and private property rights – especially in more remote areas.  Increasing hunting pressure and casual tourism will likely see new concerns raised about public access and status of public rights of way that will require increased attention in the future.  The County recognizes that these issues are complex and that there can be some very site specific circumstances and concerns which interrelate in crafting wise alternatives to access and use issues. Garfield County will continue to work with land management agencies, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, private parties, user groups, and other interests to craft site specific resolutions. 

The Garfield County road system in Study Area Five is extensive, comprising hundreds of miles of roads with many bridges and culverts.  Only a fraction of those miles are paved (County Road 204 north of DeBeque for several miles).  This road system was developed as a series of “Farm to Market” linkages to serve the farms and ranches of the area.  These roads were constructed at standards and a level of service to accommodate school buses, mail delivery and the transfer of typical goods and services to assist in integrating the ranching and farming economy of the area.

While constantly being improved, the road system has functioned well in this regard over decades of service.  Current areas of concern include the remaining one-lane bridge on CR 204 north of DeBeque, primarily for safety reasons, and culvert treatments on a variety of road segments that are narrow (where the road narrows suddenly to accommodate a culvert) also for safety reasons. Loose gravel and deteriorating cattle guards are also identified as ongoing maintenance issues. (27)  Increasing pressures on the Baxter Pass road (CR201) primarily from oil and gas operations, are straining that route which is in need of improved road base to handle moisture problems.  Valley, draw and wash areas continue to need attention and upgrading as funds allow, and problem areas for sight distance and curves need attention also as resources allow.  The county maintains a constant maintenance presence in the area.

The use of ATV’s on county roads is an ongoing area of discussion and concern. County Road 222 just north and west of DeBeque is part of the “Wild Horse Trail” where the Town of DeBeque, Mesa County, Friends of the Mustang and the BLM have developed a cooperative arrangement to promote mountain bike and ATV touring and wildlife/wild horse viewing in that area.   Mesa County allows ATV’s on their road segments while Garfield County does not, except for ‘incidental use.’(27)   Casual use of ATV’s to drive stock, tend to ditches and irrigation, and otherwise manage farm and ranch operations is common in the area and with very low traffic volumes has not historically been a problem.  During hunting season the number of ATV’s and usage increases dramatically, and informal roadside staging areas and pullouts are used to capacity to handle the demand.

A major area of concern in Study Area Five and the entirety of Garfield County is Rights of Way.  Public roads often evolved as public rights of way very informally and came to be established as “public” through that historic use where not specified by deeds or other documents.  In many cases that right is “prescriptive” which is a legal term that establishes a right of access but not a specific legal definition of Right of Way boundaries.  As a result, in some cases, a county road may exist only between existing historic fence lines or other monuments or structures. 

This presents a number of problems.  Very tight and restrictive boundaries make maintenance and upgrading very difficult when there is no room left to develop borrow ditches to handle runoff and raise the roadbed.  Constrained rights of way also mean that stock need to be driven on the road itself, rather than beside the road, which can cause significant delays to traffic.  There may or may not be room for utilities  (and the County can not grant a permit for utility siting or use of county rights of way if it does not own the property).  Safety concerns like sight distance and cutting vegetation on road shoulders to avoid wildlife encounters become much more difficult.  The cutting of vegetation and in some instances the removal of trees or impacting tree root systems from road improvements can become contentious in maintenance or reconstruction.  Borrow ditches are sometimes used to move irrigation water or to handle runoff from fields and ditches, and use of county right of way for that purpose requires a county permit and an ongoing clarification of understandings with water users.  Where runoff from the road and water quality issues is a concern in silting and loading of adjacent streams and wetlands, the lack of public space to work with often precludes best management and treatment practices.  In addition, there is a question of legal liability for tailwater issues and who may be liable for water damage, erosion and water quality concerns. (28)

Another set of concerns involves standards for construction practices, roadway development and specialized use issues.  Garfield County does not currently have a set of standards for designated types of county roads, or a classification system that would trigger such standards.  The County does require templates and a standards discussion for new roads to be constructed as part of specific subdivision and PUD review process, but not for the reconstruction of existing county roads outside of those specific permitting activities. (29)   Garfield County does not have a capital improvements plan for roads and a replacement or upgrading schedule that identifies roads in a segment by segment detail for replacement or upgrading, or for bridges less than 20 feet in length. (28)   It currently does not have the predictive capability to undertake future traffic analysis and impacts on a segment by segment basis, although this is less an issue for Study Area Five unless and until a proposed development may trigger the need for such analysis.  There is also some concern that the county does not have a set of standards for construction practices that deal with impacts to county roads from erosion, runoff, rutting, debris, and the tracking of mud and chunks on to county roads from adjacent activity. (28)

A discrete set of concerns surrounds county roads that must be used to gain access to such activities as oil and gas development, logging or heavy construction activity where equipment and traffic bring extraordinary loading to and demands on roads and bridges.  The county has found it necessary to institute “Frost Laws” which prevents repetitive traffic by heavily weighted vehicles from using county roads when moisture levels are such that road bases may not be able to handle the loads without heavy damage to the road itself.  The county also requires, through its permitting process, such constraints on vehicle weight, and trip frequency that it deems prudent and proper to protect the environment, infrastructure and public safety.  It also places weight limits on roads and bridges for general use to reflect the carrying capacity of the structures.  These regulations and permitting processes appear to have met the needs, although industry representatives from both the oil and gas and logging communities suggest that higher levels of predictability in restrictions would be desirable and the county administrative processes to refine those restrictions could be fine tuned. (30)

County Road and Bridge personnel have a concern that blind spots in the communications infrastructure in Study Area Five have potential safety and efficiency impact on their operations.  They maintain their own radio traffic network as their high levels of radio traffic precludes sharing  with other communications systems as it would interfere with other public safety entities. (28)

COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES

Study Area Five contains 1000 square miles, much of which is canyons and draws making line of sight communications difficult or impossible.  There are frequent blind spots requiring vehicles to drive to a high point or out of the area to reestablish links.  Garfield County has entered into a cooperative multi-agency agreement for joint dispatch services that is assisting with coordinated communications capacity.  The location of additional repeaters in parts of the area is difficult as power transmission lines are infrequent and access to high points is often difficult.

Garfield County and the many agencies serving the area actively pursue funding, when available, from a variety of sources to constantly upgrade their communications capabilities and expect to make incremental progress in blind spot removal over time. Advances in technology may also provide some cost-effective solutions in areas where improvements have simply been cost prohibitive to this point. (31)

LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

The Garfield County Sheriff’s Department has the local law enforcement jurisdiction for all of Study Area Five.  Other agencies police the area as well, notably the BLM and the Colorado Division of Wildlife.  Patrolling is not conducted on a regular basis, however  law enforcement agencies are augmented by other entities and organizations that have radio contact, including Road and Bridge, oil and gas company employees, utility employees, and even delivery services which act as ‘eyes and ears’ in remote areas and report accidents, fires, and other problems at the scene or when able to make contact.

When an immediate response is required, as was the case recently with a plane crash on Baxter Pass, the closest units respond.  In that case a BLM vehicle was first on the scene and identified the crash site.  A Mesa County Sheriff’s deputy was then able to arrive and secure the site while waiting for Garfield County Sheriff’s personnel and Search and Rescue to arrive.  In the case of an arrest, other agencies will detain a suspected violator and release him/her to the custody of the Garfield County Sheriff.  All indications are that this cooperative arrangement is working well.  (31)  The remoteness of the area and number of incidents precludes regular patrolling, and it is not anticipated that county resources will be available to increase a law enforcement presence in the area anytime in the near future.

Study Area Five has historically not been a large generator of complaints or incidents requiring law enforcement attention.  There have been infrequent complaints of vandalism to equipment, that is often left untended overnight, and some trespass issues.  With no larger developments on the horizon nor any plans for recreational or tourism destinations, it is expected that law enforcement needs will remain relatively static and stable unless and until such developments occur.(31)

SEARCH AND RESCUE ISSUES

In Colorado the County Sheriff is statutorily responsible for search and rescue operations.  As in most rural areas and smaller communities, this function is heavily augmented by volunteer citizens who contribute their skill and expertise to assist in search and rescue activities in Garfield County.  The Sheriff provides some funding and equipment, pools of funding at the state level can be tapped for training and equipment as well as capital improvements, and operational costs are reimbursed by the State Search and Rescue Fund where the party being assisted has purchased a state license that includes an earmarked fee for that fund (hunting and fishing).  Some costs may also be covered by a party’s own insurance.  Typically not all costs are covered by these means, and search and rescue operations depend heavily on donations and local fundraising to support their activities.

Calls requiring search and rescue response include lost hikers or skiers, hunting accidents, people stranded in remote areas by storms, boating and swimming accidents, plane crashes, and other similar incidents that require specialized skill and equipment to gain access to more remote places to assist.  Calls requiring search and rescue operations have increased at a steady pace in Garfield County as a whole, especially as back country recreation, river sports and trails usage, both in summer and winter, have increased.  Calls in Study Area Five have remained fairly constant, as usage of the area has remained fairly steady and it is not experiencing as yet an increase in summer or winter recreational use, and given that it has been fairly saturated for some time in hunting uses.  Anomalies like plane crashes are unpredictable, but as the area is remote and vast a certain level of occurrences can be foreseen, if not predicted, in any given year.

A set of concerns for the area does exist in coordination and the establishment of first response procedures.  While more of a problem in other parts of the county, the ability to trigger quick reaction from a variety of locations is seen by some as needing refinement.(32)  In the case of a plane crash, and often in winter sports activities where there is an indication of lost skiers or snowmobiles, it is not often clear what their exact location is or who’s jurisdiction they are in and who can provide the quickest and most effective response.  In some cases it may be prudent and make the most sense to deploy teams from several jurisdictions and entry points simultaneously.  Protocols to initiate action by search and rescue squads and cost sharing may need further work. (32) (33)

WATER AND SEWER

The entirety of Study Area Five is served by individual wells and septic systems on site.  Existing and proposed densities in the Study Area are not anticipated to trigger any need for a centralized water or sewer system.  Current permitting processes for wells, well testing and ISDS design are projected to be adequate well into the future, barring any proposal for concentrated growth or industrial development.

The only proximate water and sewer systems that might conceivably serve a portion of Study Area Five are those of the Town of DeBeque.  The Garfield County line, by highway, is just over three miles from the center of DeBeque and would be just on the border of an ‘Urban Service Area’ or ‘Planning Interest Area’ if designated with a three mile radius.  Such a radius is presently designated in DeBeque’s town planning documents.  No capacity currently exists to serve growth north of the county line.

In conversations with Mesa County planning officials, the Town of DeBeque and their planning consultant, it appears unlikely that foreseeable growth and services provision would extend north into Garfield County. (27) (34) (35)  Part of the reason for this is geography and elevation.  DeBeque draws its raw water supply from the Colorado River and has current treated water storage in tanks which are located at an elevation that cannot service locations to the north of the county line.  An additional impediment to likely growth in the vicinity of the county line is an ‘on again- off again’ proposed reservoir project by the ChevronTexaco Corporation at that location.  DeBeque does expect to grow, but all current indications are that interest in that growth is to the south and west of town.

ChevronTexaco owns water rights in the drainage and would like to establish those through a beneficial use.  A current proposal at this writing is that the corporation would make the reservoir site available, provide engineering services and land, and allow a dam to be constructed and funded by another source.  Water from the reservoir could be utilized to periodically ‘flush’ the main stem of the Colorado River to improve endangered species habitat.  Construction of the dam and ownership and management of the resulting reservoir are unclear at this writing.(40)

Should the proposed reservoir project be undertaken with any proposed housing or recreational density adjacent to it, that concentration should be carefully examined to include feasibility of tying both into DeBeque water and sewer systems, and impacts on county roads and services provision.

EDUCATION AND SCHOOL FACILITIES

The entirety of Study Area Five is presently contained in the DeBeque 49JT School  District (See Map # 14) and students in the Roan Creek area are served by bus service to facilities in DeBeque.  The school district’s facilities in DeBeque are new and have ample student capacity.  No operational or siting needs are foreseen by the school Superintendent regarding Garfield County students, sites or growth with the exception of safety issues on CR 204.  Any growth in the Baxter Pass, Salt Creek drainages might logically lead to splitting off the extreme western portion of the county into the Mesa County school district. (27)

FIRE PROTECTION

Study Area Five is not currently part of any Fire Protection District (See Map # 13).   Study Area Five does contain much of Garfield County’s more extreme wildfire potential due to slopes and vegetative cover.  As fully half of the land area in the study area is managed by the BLM, the joint BLM and Forest Service fire protection capacity will be called in to fight range and forest fires in accordance with their fire management and priority policies on their lands. (10)  Informal relationships exist with fire protection agencies in Debeque and Fruita to respond to private property fires out of humanitarian concerns.  At this writing the Garfield County Commissioners have expressed interest in exploring whether all sections of Garfield County should be included in a fire protection district.  This is also of interest to the Garfield County Building and Planning Department as Fire District recommendations are considered as part of any development proposal.  Currently, generic best practice principles are applied in proposal review absent jurisdictional coverage.  Development in forested or high fuel areas will be examined and reviewed using current urban/wildfire interface standards.

WEED CONTROL

In May, 2000, Garfield County adopted the County Noxious Weed Management Plan.  The intent of the plan is to provide guidelines for managing designated noxious weeds that represent a threat to the continued economic, environmental, and agricultural value of lands in Garfield County.  This plan provides for the implementation of the Colorado Noxious Weed Act by detailing management options for designated noxious weeds.  Options include education, preventive measures, good stewardship, and control techniques.  The intent is to incorporate those options that are the most environmentally feasible and are practical, timely, and economically viable.   It is the responsibility of all landowners to use integrated methods to manage noxious weeds, and the responsibility of local governing bodies to assure that these plants are in fact managed on public and private lands.

In May, 2001, Garfield County also adopted an amendment to the Weed Management Plan entitled the Garfield County Revegetation Guidelines.    The Guidelines state that at the discretion of the Board of  County Commissioners, as part of the Planning and Zoning approval process, for land disturbances outside the building envelope, the County may require, at preliminary plan and prior to Final Plat, the following items:

A Soil Plan
A Revegetation Plan
A Revegetation Bond

Noxious weed management is now a major part of Garfield County’s broad range of concerns, and applies to reclamation practices, well site management, road construction, timbering activity and all land stewardship activities in Study Area Five.

Many public review comments focused on weed control, and efforts to improve weed management.  The Weed Management Plan and the coordinated efforts by a wide variety of jurisdictions and private land owners represents a distinct set of activities and goals that are outside the scope of a comprehensive plan revision, and which has its own set of procedures and policies and means to revise and update those efforts.  In fact, those revisions may occur much more frequently than comprehensive plan updates and as a result this revision references “current” weed control activity and concerns.  In any case, this revision of Study Area Five strongly endorses and recognizes the need for increasing cooperative efforts in all aspects of weed management.

A copy of the current Weed Management Plan, and listing of species declared noxious in Garfield County, may be obtained from Garfield County Vegetation Management, Suite 300, 2128 Railroad Avenue, Rifle, Colorado (970-625-3969).

SOCIAL SERVICES, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING ISSUES

The remote nature of Study Area Five results in no foreseeable demand for assisted or affordable housing strategies or for provisions for public transportation.  Demands for the provision of specialized social services are handled on a case-by-case basis and in conjunction with services providers located nearby.  This services demand and the trends for services provision are not expected to change within the planning horizon for this Plan Revision, barring large scale extractive or other development.  Such extractive development would likely trigger demands on social services, mental health, and housing agencies both within Garfield County and in neighboring jurisdictions.  Construction and operating workforce accommodation will be reviewed carefully and development proponents will be asked to factor in both construction and operational demands, commutes, impacts on road infrastructure and safety concerns, on-site versus off-site housing options and workforce transportation alternatives.

RECREATION AND TOURISM USES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Study Area Five provides a variety of recreational activities for residents and tourists.  These activities are primarily primitive in nature and casual in terms of utilization of the resource base, except for the highly developed guided and organized hunting activities covered above, where the region provides some of the highest quality hunting experiences available nationally.

Hiking and mountain biking opportunities abound in the area, although hikers and bikers are cautioned that back country areas are remote and casual use should be undertaken with caution and maps consulted for land ownership and private property rights and ranching and farming operations respected.  The Wild Horse viewing area and trails are developed for both mountain biking and ATV use, as well as casual hiking in the area managed by the B.L.M. to the north and west of Debeque.  Baxter and Douglas Passes are being promoted for mountain biking by the Town of Rangley (53) and an eventual connection south to Loma may link with the Kokopelli Bike Trail.

Study Area Five is not currently a destination area of wide use for winter sports activity,  (cross country skiing or snowmobiling), although opportunities exist to develop such areas in conjunction with the B.L.M. over time in higher terrain areas. 

Fishing, boating and rafting opportunities in this area of Garfield County are very limited.  Some stretches of stream are being improved for fish habitat, and some very limited private fishing opportunities as commercial operations are in place. 

This Plan anticipates and predicts that in some logical places private entrepreneurs may wish to develop recreational opportunities that utilize the surrounding environment for both summer and winter sports and recreational activities over time.  Ample opportunities exist for such developments, within the constraints identified herein and the county’s  development regulations, for the provision for potential fishing, hunting, hiking, back country skiing, various forms of shooting sports, and other forms of recreation on both public and private lands.

This Plan also anticipates that public investment in such facilities will be very limited in the 20 year planning horizon and framework of this Plan.  The region encompassed by Study Area Five is not at this time seen to be a logical venue to develop such facilities by any land management jurisdiction. The exceptions to this overview being a potential reservoir just to the north of DeBeque as a recreational site, support of promotional activities for the wild horse viewing area and trails near DeBeque, completion of the regional trail system along the Colorado River corridor, and some continued coordination with the Dinosaur Diamond Scenic By-way for interpretational opportunities along State Highway 139 (Douglas Pass).

SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

TRENDS AND INDICATORS

This update of Study Area Five is an inventory both of existing conditions and potential future trends. Changing social and economic forces at work may influence land use, development pressures, and infrastructure requirements. Such changes or shifts may necessitate regulatory adjustments that would be areas of county concern as  they develop over time.

The purpose of this update and revision is to evaluate the existing Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 provisions as they apply to this Study Area and, by inference, the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, to review the applicability and appropriateness of the regulatory framework currently in place.  For internal review, this process has been framed in the form of a question:  “Does the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, and its Zoning Resolution, adequately reflect the vision and desires of the local community and stakeholders for the future of the area, and are the tools and guidelines in place to ensure that the county meets its responsibilities and obligations to promote that vision and provide for its implementation?”  A wider public review will either affirm that this process has been successful, or identify holes, gaps and concepts that need revisions in this Draft Plan.

The current Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 identifies five primary issue areas of concern, as a framework for analysis (I-3):

COMPATIBLE LAND USES

The current Comprehensive Plan states:  “The relationship between adjacent land uses is considered a cornerstone of responsible land use planning and policies.”   With the exception of oil and gas extractive activity, little has changed in Study Area Five in the past two decades that would present areas of friction or incompatibility in land use  (See Map # 35)or adjacent activities.  Four types of zoning (See Map # 36) currently overlay Study Area Five, all envisioning predominantly rural uses lending themselves to farming, ranching and resource extraction.  These zoning designations are to some degree redundant and have been incrementally applied over time.  The four zoning types: A/R/RD (Agricultural/Rural/Rural Density), A/I  (Agricultural/Industrial),  R/L (Resource/Lands) and O/S (Open Space – Public Lands) all provide an exclusionary framework which protects current and projected land uses, with a few exceptions.

This Draft Plan provides an opportunity to suggest consolidating these zoning designations into one rural zoning designation framework.  Such a consolidation would retain the geographic and geological sensitivity and resource extraction language currently in place under the Resource/Lands designation and could apply these concepts to all areas in the Study Area.  It should be stressed that such a work effort to look at a consolidated rural zoning framework would be primarily one of simple housekeeping, as allowable uses and density currently allowed under these three designations for buildable areas are essentially identical.  Such a consolidation would be county-wide, and not just limited to Study Area Five.  Any work effort of this nature would require extensive advertisement and public review, as it would be a significant text amendment change to the current zoning regulations.

As a result of  the continuing and growing importance of recreation, and the need to preserve the rural and remote qualities and characteristics of the area as a very real value to residents and users, language in the Comprehensive Plan concerning visual issues and ‘best practices’ for development siting and extractive activities should be examined and reinforced to ensure that recommendations for development are clear and provide workable guidelines for developers.

The Right to Farm protections for traditional rural activity are in place in current county policy and regulatory frameworks.  These remain appropriate tools for existing and envisioned development within the Study Area.  With the increasing use of ATV’s as part of farming and ranching activity, as well as recreation and hunting, a review of their use on county roads is appropriate at this time, ideally as part of a larger transportation analysis countywide.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The economy of Study Area Five is sustained by agricultural, extractive and recreational activities.  These activities can continue to prosper and be in harmony with each other if each respects the needs and demands of the others.  Key to developing this respect and providing guidelines for compatible uses that impact existing and anticipated economic development is the concept of ‘Intrusion.’  For the farmer and rancher intrusion is manifest when he or she has to deal with and manage trespass, loose dogs, gate maintenance, higher traffic levels, dust, and neighbors who object to traditional agricultural practices.  For the outfitters and guides, dude ranches, and recreationist, intrusion is development or activity which impinges on the quality of the remote outdoor experience in the form of visual pollution, noise pollution, light and glare pollution and elements of development that detract from a sense of wildness.  Recreational activity also needs access and staging area infrastructure that does not intrude on adjacent uses.  For extractive industry, intrusion comes primarily in the form of vandalism and trespass.

Minimizing the intrusive nature of any activity is therefore key to the health of all activities in the area.  The current Comprehensive Plan has guidelines that suggest intrusion avoidance:  buffering, clustering, sensitivity to riparian areas, accommodating access and trails, avoiding ridgetop development, etc.  Elements such as light and glare pollution, noise, dust, reclamation practices, hillside scarring, paint schemes, use of native materials, and designs to encourage minimal visual intrusion, need to be strengthened to give a developer solid and understandable aspects of expected ‘best practices’ as well as definable elements of ‘compatibility’ for any development or use.  In the interim, all of these impacts of development, in Study Area Five, should be carefully thought through by any project proponent as part of concept development in light of the contextual and historic values presented herein.

Since the previous update of the Comprehensive Plan, State Highway 139 has been designated the “Dinosaur Diamond Scenic By-way.”  This designation should result in  Garfield County adding this corridor to its own scenic corridor and viewshed policies.  In addition, the stretch of Baxter Pass (CR 201) from the Atchee Townsite to the Rio Blanco County line has extremely high quality scenic views and some historic significance for interpretive development.  This is not a recommendation for Scenic Byway status for Baxter Pass.  This stretch is also recommended as a scenic corridor.  Such designations assist public land management agencies (in this case the B.L.M.) to manage the surrounding public lands to promote and preserve aesthetic qualities, and  provide development proponents with a ‘heads up’ that their proposals will be carefully scrutinized in terms of visual impact.  Such impacts should be minimized where possible and feasible in their design considerations.

The physical county infrastructure currently in place to support existing and proposed economic development activity is adequate ‘most of the time for most places.’  There are site specific safety concerns and upgrading which should be addressed in a long range transportation and capital improvements planning process.  Oil and gas exploration and development, as well as logging activities, will continue to place exceptional demands on the road infrastructure.  These activities are by their nature unpredictable as to location because they are driven by competition, individual landowner decisions, the awarding of contracts and global pricing structures.  As a result, it is difficult for the county to incorporate upgrading over time in anticipation of these activities.  Partnerships and understandings will continue to need to be developed and negotiated on a case-by-case basis between all parties, including but not limited to costs for facility upgrading, dust control, road maintenance, traffic levels and timing, seasonal adjustments for road base condition, wildlife issues, and weight limits.

The Economic Development component of the Comprehensive Plan and regulatory aspects of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, also address concerns about “Boom and Bust” cycles that Garfield County has experienced over time.  In Study Area Five the concern primarily focuses on oil shale development.  Language is in place that requires a prospective developer to fully analyze social, economic and environmental impacts of a proposed project and monitor those impacts as the project proceeds.  Language is also in place which stresses the need for major project developers to assist local jurisdictions with revenue flow and jurisdictional taxing issues where impacts are felt beyond the ability of a local jurisdiction to capture revenue from a project through taxation or other means.  That language is hereby affirmed as current and appropriate.

ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY

The Comprehensive Plan states that “Garfield County includes a multitude of sensitive ecosystems, including riparian and wetlands resources, wildlife habitat and important visual corridors.”  As part of the updating and information gathering process since the last version of the Plan was adopted, the county has benefited from an inventory of resources that was undertaken by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program and includes mapping of those resource areas (See Map # 30).  This inventory provides a quantification and categorization of the specific sites and plant communities that now allows for a framework to weigh these values in place.  Some plant communities and associations in Study Area Five are ‘globally significant,’ others are ‘regionally significant,’ and specific sites have been identified as worthy of conservation and preservation.

Garfield County currently has in place zoning and regulatory frameworks to encourage conservation on a voluntary basis by property owners and developers.  These provide a voluntary incentive to preserve agricultural activity, wildlife habitat and range, and areas of high ecological value.  Garfield County does not have, at this writing, the means to purchase, outright, areas of exceptional sensitivity or significance.  Other public, quasi-public and private sources do exist to achieve such purchases or easements for preservation (Great Outdoors Colorado, The Nature Conservancy, etc.).  Now that highly significant areas have been identified, the county should serve as a willing partner and facilitator in voluntary efforts by private land owners to seek compensation for preservation and conservation initiatives, and continue to examine its regulatory framework to ensure that incentives are adequate to allow for such conservation and preservation.

JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION

A high level of coordination and cooperation is necessary among local governments and between local governments and state and federal agencies to maintain infrastructure, manage uses, monitor activities and provide for health, safety and welfare in remote regions such as Study Area Five.

For the most part, the visions contained in the long range planning documents of the two main jurisdictions of interest for Study Area Five (the BLM and Garfield County) have been consistent with, and reinforce each other.  Relationships with surrounding counties and agencies have historically worked well.  No key respondents identified specific problems.  At the same time, several respondents identified the need to update or re-affirm intergovernmental agreements and memoranda of understanding.  The specific agreements would cover roads, search and rescue, law enforcement, and emergency services.  Some of that updating and affirmation is underway as a result of this planning process.  To ensure that intergovernmental agreements are periodically reviewed and renewed when necessary, an internal institutional approach needs to be crafted that triggers those reviews on an annual basis.

A specific concern expressed by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners is the lack of fire district coverage in the area.  Efforts need to continue to explore the feasibility of incorporating Study Area Five in a working relationship with appropriate adjoining fire protection districts.  The lack of fire protection district coverage also results in the lack of specific fire protection standards and fire interface zone requirements for development that needs to be resolved.  The slight tax burden to property owners would likely be offset by insurance rate decreases, but the ability and willingness of fire districts to obligate themselves to servicing the area remains in question.

Garfield County currently has a good working relationship with the counties surrounding Study Area Five.  The one Urban Influence Area Zone that impacts the Study Area is that of DeBeque, where the county line is just at the three mile boundary.  The potential for a reservoir development on Roan Creek just north of DeBeque in Garfield County may trigger the need for interjurisdictional consultation and joint planning efforts with the town and Mesa County.

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

The current Comprehensive Plan states that “Garfield County recognizes that owners have an inherent right to develop property, as long as the development is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the County, does not adversely affect adjacent property rights, and is consistent with the general land use goals and policies of Garfield County.”

The findings and conclusions of this update of Study Area Five of the Comprehensive Plan affirm and support this statement.  To the extent that certain values are highlighted in this plan revision (conservation, minimizing intrusiveness, scenic qualities, impact mitigation) and specific objectives and programs suggested, all are presented in a context of incentive based, voluntary compliance and recommended guidelines wherever possible.  The issues of intrusion may lead to regulatory revisions, and where that occurs in the future the predominant aim and goal will be to preserve and enhance commonly held property values and to secure those rights for individual property owners and lease holders where development pressures exert themselves.  This Plan revision recognizes and affirms that property owners in Study Area Five are the chief and most important stewards of the area, and therefore affirms and recognizes traditional community values and area characteristics. It allows for newly developing opportunities, but suggests non-intrusive standards and contextual sensitivity for any such developments. 

SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

CURRENT AND SHORT-RANGE POLICY ISSUES

1.  Garfield County supports the development of the Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway and will participate in conservation and development activities for the Byway as an active partner.

2.  Garfield County supports the development of a Lower Valley Trail system along the main stem of the Colorado River and linkages with other trails and attractions that enhance recreation, education, historic preservation, tourism and economic development for businesses and communities along the corridor.

3.  Garfield County recognizes that Intergovernmental Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding are crucial to the public health, safety and welfare of its citizenry, especially those living in remote areas, and that intergovernmental cooperation needs to be reaffirmed and fostered on a regular basis.  To that end, The Board of County Commissioners directs the County Administrator to ensure from each appropriate office, department or agency in writing, on an annual basis as part of the budget process, a written status report on all Agreements and Memoranda in place to include expiration dates, fiscal impacts and any unresolved issues or concerns as appropriate.  Such reports will be required from, but not limited to, the Sheriffs Department, Search and Rescue,  Road and Bridge, Building and Planning Department, and Social Services.

4.  Garfield County recognizes the transportation concerns and safety issues identified in the Study Area Five Plan revision process, specifically the remaining one-lane bridge on CR 204, which has the most traffic and school bus operations in the area.  Additionally there is a need to upgrade various culvert, road surface and sight distance hazards on other county roads in the area, and integrate those concerns into a long range transportation inventory and capital improvements program.  The county will also re-examine its policy regarding use of All Terrain Vehicles on county roads for recreational purposes and incidental farm and ranch operations.  Long range transportation planning issues shall include regulatory issues, rights of way, and communication strategies with specialized user groups.

5.  Garfield County affirms that the public has the right to access public lands.  Historic public rights of way, specifically and especially designated county roads, will be maintained as open to the general public without locked gates.

6.  Garfield County recognizes that fire protection is of the highest priority and that relationships should be established to ensure fire protection coverage and standards for all rural areas of the county.  Active negotiations with Fire Protection Districts and encouragement of coverage shall be undertaken in the near future.  In the absence of any formal agreement, minimum standards for fire protection for individual projects and defensible space requirements, fire protection water storage and access, and other standards for development will be adopted into county policy and regulation for uncovered areas.

7.  Garfield County supports a uniform and broad, statewide provision of funding for search and rescue operations and realistic voluntary and attached fees to licenses and permits to provide that support, and cost sharing arrangements where search and rescue activities involve multi-county efforts.

8.  Garfield County supports integrated and strategic solutions to communications upgrading in western Garfield County, and will participate in partnership arrangements to enhance and upgrade existing communications and provide communications in areas where holes exist wherever feasible and practical.

9.  Garfield County supports responsible logging operations that benefit private property owners and land management for fire suppression and good forest management activities.  The County is aware that bonding requirements for smaller scale operations have become problematic, and will work with landowners to review permitting requirements as part of countywide regulations review.

10.  Garfield County recognizes that a tension will exist between the desire of economic development and tourism interests to promote natural and unspoiled, remote back country areas for things like hiking, mountain biking, ATV’s and 4-wheel driving and the land owners adjacent to public rights of way, land management agencies, law enforcement agencies and search and rescue entities to respond to the resulting impacts of increasing tourism.  The use of remote areas for recreational activities implies a responsibility on the part of the user and any entity promoting such use.  Review comments have indicated that these conflicts and tensions are increasing in the Baxter Pass area, and the county will work with Rio Blanco and Uintah counties, the BLM, the Town of Rangely and local land owners to facilitate a better understanding about promotion and use of these areas, as well as limitations on enforcement and response.

11.  Garfield County has a very limited and proscribed ability to regulate oil and gas siting, exploration, development and reclamation activity.  The county recognizes that extractive activities often come into conflict with other values, such as wildlife management and recreation.  The county will continue to encourage communication and coordination between the parties of interest in development of operational understandings and best practices plans.

PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NARRATIVE

Section 4.0 Commercial and Industrial Uses.  Programs 4.3, new language inserted:

“A revised Zoning Resolution Text Amendment for Study Area Five will be drafted and adopted to change existing private land zoning from A/A/RD, A/I and R/L to an inclusive zoning designation incorporating all three private lands zoning throughout the area, consisting of and containing the language and provisions, as appropriate, in the current R/L zoning pertaining to extractive industry and geomorphology (elevation and slope constraints).”

Section 4.0 Commercial and Industrial Uses.  Programs 4.4, new language inserted:

“Policies governing the permitting of extractive activity and materials processing and storage, including but not limited to landfills, tailings piles, gravel pits, pipelines, compressor stations, well sites, material transfer stations and other related activities will be developed with special attention to, but not limited to, the following:  Visual intrusion and required buffering, screening and camouflaging, weed control, runoff  and water quality issues, noise standards, lighting and glare standards, dust standards, emissions standards, traffic generation, storage on site, phasing of operations and reclamation.”

Section 5.2 Recreation and Open Space.  New Section 5.2.1. 

“As specific corridors in Study Area Five, the Dinosaur Diamond Scenic Byway and the areas of Baxter Pass from approximately the historic townsite of Atchee to the Rio Blanco County line, will have developed a set of visual standards to serve as voluntary guidelines for development proposals.”

Section 8.0 Natural Environment.  Programs.  New Section 2.0

“Garfield County will pursue and respond to active partnerships with funding sources and encourage the development of tax and development incentives, to preserve important riparian, wetland, wildlife and plant community areas in cooperation with private land owners, state and federal agencies and public and private funding sources where mutually achievable conservation goals can be attained.  Resource inventories that are in place which prioritize the importance of the area to be conserved shall serve as a basis for allocation of funding and incentives. ”

ADOPTION AND INCORPORATION

The adoption of this Study Area Five Plan by the Garfield County Planning Commission shall serve as an amendment to, and addition to, the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, and a “Neighborhood or Sub-Area” Plan governing issues of compatibility for any development proposal presented subsequent to its adoption.  Adoption of the Plan Amendment in terms of policy guidance is advisory in nature for issues of county policy to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners, but acts as a regulatory framework for permitting development proposals to the extent allowed by law.

GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

STUDY AREAS FOUR AND FIVE

COMBINED NOTES

1.  Morgan, Dale L,  The State of Deseret, Utah Historical Society, Utah University Press, 1987.

2   Survey of Critical Biological Resources, Garfield County, Colorado.  Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, April, 2001.

3.  Survey of Critical Wetlands and Riparian Areas in Garfield County, Colorado.  Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, May 2001.

4.  Savage, Harry K.  The Rock That Burns.  Pruett Press, Boulder, Colorado.  1967.

5.  Jeff Devere, Director, Rio Blanco County Development Department, 555 Main Street, Meeker, Colorado, 81641 970-878-5081.  Series of personal communications and meetings, 2001

6.  Heather Hoyt, Uinta County Planning Department, 152 E. 100 N., Vernal Utah, 84078  435-781-5482.  Telephone communications, 2001

7.  State of Colorado, State Historic Preservation Office, Listing of Sites, 2000

8.  Sisyphis Site Analysis Study, Reference Section, Glenwood Springs Library

9.  Mehls, Steven F., The Valley of Opportunity: A History of West-Central Colorado.  U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.  1982

10.  Catherine Robertson, Field Manager, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction  Field Office, Interview, 2001

11.  Jim Cagney, Associate Field Manager, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, White River Office, Meeker, Colorado.  Interview, 2001

12.  Athearn, Frederic J., An Isolated Empire:  A History of Northwestern Colorado.  U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado.  1982

13.  Sprague, Marshall.  Massacre:  The Tragedy at White River.  University of Nebraska Press, 1957

14.  Crook, Judy; and Cullen, Mark.  “Garfield County, Colorado:  A Short History and Description.”  WWW.rootweb.com/-cogarfie/history.htm

15.  Rifle Shots:  The Story of Rifle, Colorado.  Reading Club of Rifle Colorado, 1973

16.  Bender, Henry E. Jr.,   Uintah Railway:  The Gilsonite Route.  Howell-North Books, Berkeley,  California.  1970.

17.  Polley, Roger.  Uintah Railway Pictorial.  Sundance Publications, Denver, Colorado 1999.

18.  The Citizen Telegram, Rifle, Colorado, Vol. 98 # 45, September 6, 2001, Page 8.

19.  Jim Evans, Executive Director, Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, Personal Interview, 2001.

20.  Kim Bartel, Recreation Planner, U.S. Bureau of Land Mangement, Vernal, Utah

Telephone Interview,  April, 2001.

21.  Russ Von Koch, Resource Advisor/Recreation, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Moab, Utah.  Telephone Interview, April, 2001.

22. Anne E. Huebner, Field Manager, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Field Office.  Meeting including staff, 2001.

23.  Garfield and Rio Blanco County Road and Bridge Departments.  Meeting,  Meeker, Colorado, June 19, 2001.

24.  Dave Warner, Grand County (Utah) Road and Bridge Department, Moab, Utah.  Telephone Interview, June, 2001.

25.  Steve Yamashita, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, Colorado.  Telephone Interview, June, 2001.

26.  David Lehmann, Natural Resources Specialist, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction Field Office, Telephone Interview, June, 2001.

27.  Meeting in DeBeque, Colorado with Town Clerk, several Trustees, and Steve Strong, Superintendent, DeBeque 49JT School District.  May 2001.

28.  Tom Russell, Director, Garfield County Road and Bridge Department.  Ongoing Consultation. 2001.

29.  John Martin, Chairman, Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. Ongoing Consultations, 2001.

30.  Northwest Colorado Oil and Gas Forum, Meeting in Rifle, Colorado, May 10, 2001

31.  James H. Sears, Undersheriff, Garfield County, Colorado.  Interview, May, 2001.

32.  Lanny Grant, Garfield County Search and Rescue Advisory Board, Safety Director, and member of the Snowmobile Association.  Interviews.  June and August, 2001.

33. Tim Sarmo, Field Representative, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Grand Junction, Colorado.  Telephone Interview.  June, 2001.

34.   Dennis Stranger,  Economic Development and Planning Consultant, Town of DeBeque.  Telephone Interview, June, 2001.

35.  Keith Fife, Michael Warren and Jim Hinderaker, Mesa County Long Range Planning Division, Grand Junction, Colorado.  Meeting, April 24, 2001.

36.  Article in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Colorado West, by Alice Wright, May, 1973.

37.  Rio Blanco County Planning Commission and Jeff Devere, Meeting with the Planning Commission, 2001.

38.  Randy Russell, Senior Planner, Garfield County Building and Planning Department.  Personal Observations, childhood, late 1950’s and early 1960’s.

39.  The Denver Post.  “Piceance Bounty Enough to Fuel State for Century.” Article by Steve Raabe, September 30, 2001.

40.  D.D. Johnson.  Public and Government Affairs, ChevronTexaco.  Personal Interview, October 25, 2001.

41.  Martha J. Ketelle, Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.  Personal interviews and ongoing consultation.

42.  Martin, Erik J., “A Voice for the Wilderness”  Monograph

43.  David Silvieus, District Ranger, Rifle Ranger District, White River National Forest, Personal Interview

44.  Paul Draper, Director, Routt County Road, Bridge and Engineering Dept., Steamboat Springs, Colorado.  Personal Interview

45.  Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County, Colorado.  Ongoing Consultation

46.  Sweetwater Community Association, Annual Meeting, June 3, 2001

47.  Joseph Forinash, Planner, Department of Community Development, Eagle County.  Meetings and Communications

48.  Brian Hopkins, Community Planer, B.L.M., Glenwood Springs Resource Area, Personal Interview and ongoing consultation

49.  Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetative Management Program, written submittal

50.  J. Rebecca Leonard, Senior Planer, Department of Community Development, Eagle County.  Ongoing consultation

51.  Eagle Ranger District staff, White River National Forest

52.  Chad L. Phillips, Assistant Director, Routt County Regional Planning Department, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.  Meeting, April 2001

53.  Don Peach, Mayor, Town of Rangely, 209 E. Main, Rangely, Colorado.  Telephonic and written communications, 2002

54.  Colorado Division of Wildlife, Letter, Study Area Five Comments, April 19, 2002

55.  Jon D. Hill, President, Cripple Cowboy Cow Outfit, Inc., Comment letter, April 4, 2002