Upper Elk River Valley • apt Protecting the Ernd an witiao ......and Santa Fe, N. M., population...

•• Upper Elk River Valley• apt witiao MO

a Protecting the Ernd an• ustaining C

Upper Elk River Valley

Protecting The Land and SustainingCommunity

A plan for the protection of the working, rural landscape of the Upper Elk River Valley,Colorado and report on the status of land protection efforts.

Prepared by:Conservation Partners, Inc.

Prepared for:American Farmland Trust

Illustrations by:Jeffrey Joyce

August, 1994

Protecting the Land and Sustaining Community

1 Regional Perspective:

1 Protecting Landscape and SustainingCommunities in the West

From the Flathead and Gallatin valleys ofMontana south along the Rockies to Taosand Santa Fe, N. M., population growth andlandscape change are accelerating. Theseareas offer what people on the East andWest coasts are losing beautiful scenery,small to medium sized communities with-out urban problems and a strong sense ofcommunity. These larger national andregional forces are contributing to thechanging character of the Upper Elk RiverValley and other special places throughoutthe West.

While change is a constant that has affectedmost communities in the West over its rela-tively short history of settlement, the scaleand pace of change has accelerated. Theimpacts of rapid population growth inwestern rural communities are all too famil-iar: escalating real estate values and costs ofhousing, unsightly strip and sprawl devel-opment, increases in the cost of services asquality declines, loss of productive agricul-tural land, declines in traditional indus-tries such as forestry and ranching and aloss of small town character and neigh-borliness.

Most western communities are poorlyequipped to deal with these changes. Astrong spirit of independence and ruggedindividualism bred of frontier days, alongwith a staunch property rights attitude,have often impeded the development ofcooperative solutions to these issues.Change comes gradually, until almostwithout our knowing it, that special char-acter and landscape is gone. Specialplaces attract the very forces of changethat overwhelm their unique qualities.While the western landscape is awesome,powerful and vast, it is also fragile. It isopen, semi-arid and visually sensitive.Change and scars are long-lasting, as evi-denced by the fact that the routes of the

overland stage coach in many places are asvisible today as the day that the stagesstopped running.

Land protection is only one piece of a largerpuzzle. Ultimately, these issues relate to thekinds of communities and neighborhoodswe build and maintain. Can we create acommunity that ensures not only the pro-ductivity and openness of the landscape butrecreates the values of neighborliness, car-ing and responsibility? Unlike the old dayswhen it was possible to move on to the nextfrontier, we are running out of alternatives.

This plan is a step toward protecting a spe-cial place and creating the community thatcan provide for stewardship of these specialresources. The late Wallace Stegner chal-lenged us, as stewards of the hopeful West,to create "a society to match the scenery."This experiment is as old as America and,in the context of the changes facing us, justas important as the writing of the Bill ofRights or the signing of the Declaration ofIndependence.


2 Purpose of the Plan

In the spring of 1992, a number oflandowners in Colorado's Upper ElkRiver Valley began to discuss theircommon concerns regarding futuregrowth and development in the val-ley. They desired to protect the openand productive working landscapethat gives the valley its special char-acter. Many of the landowners haveworked hard to create land-basedenterprises — sheep and cattleranches, outfitters or guest ranches— that would be jeopardized if anyone of the large properties were to besold for subdivision.

They recognized that the fact that the valleyhad not been subdivided like other valleysin Routt County and throughout Coloradowas probably more a matter of luck thanthe result of any forethought or effectiveplanning. The situation was fragile; achange in ownership of any one large prop-erty could have negative impacts on their

parceling of productive lands into suburbanhomesites and "ranchettes." They desiredto understand more creative options that

might beavailable toinfluence thedestiny ofthis speciallandscape soit did not fallvictim to apattern ofrural or sub-urbansprawl.Rather thanthink about

picking up and moving on when pressuresbecame intolerable, they preferred to workto protect the special place they call home.They sought protection strategies thatwould be flexibly tailored to meet financial,family and conservation objectives whileminimizing the potential for haphazarddevelopment or the splitting up of largeproperties.

operations or enjoyment of the valley. Onehas only to look to the north of the valley, atthe hundreds of small lots that were createdas part of the defunct Steamboat LakeFiling, to realize what could happen.

Collectively, the landowners knew they hadthe ability to influence events and limit the

As a result of these discussions, sever-al of the landowners began lookingfor a partner to assist them in devel-oping and implementing a plan toprotect the valley. After carefulreview of the alternatives, they identi-fied American Farmland Trust as theentity most appropriate to assist theiractivities. AFT, a national nonprofitland conservation organization, spe-cializes in working with landownersto protect farm and ranch landthroughout the country. AFT hashelped to protect numerous ranches inColorado and was excited about theprospect of assisting the landowners

with this valleywide effort. This plan hasbeen produced by AFT and is the result of acollaboration with many of the landowners.

It has been two years since initial conversa-tions led to commencing the planning andprotection effort. This project is a work inprogress; it is not finished and will take a

Page 2

UPP6ELK RIV&

VALLEY


number, if not many, years to complete.However, significant progress has beenmade, and two of the valley's nine largeproperties have been permanently protectedwith conservation easements granted to

AFT. At this time, with the initial concepthaving been demonstrated, AFTwould like to share what has beenlearned and accomplished with thebroader Clark community and peoplethroughout Routt County. AFT seeksto refine these preliminary conceptsand actions through greater commu-nity interaction. The intent of thisdocument is to help begin to developa shared community vision and agen-da for the Upper Elk River Valleythrough the involvement of other res-idents of the community and county.For its part, AFT will continue towork with those ranchers andlandowners who desire to take volun-tary actions to protect the futures fortheir families and their agriculturaloperations.

3 Upper Elk River Valley — ASpecial Place

The Upper Elk River Valley, runningfrom south to north, is locatedapproximately 18 miles northwest ofSteamboat Springs along RouttCounty Route 129. The valley is thegateway to the Mount Zirkel

Wilderness Area, which is well known forits natural beauty, wildlife and passiverecreational opportunities. Steamboat Lakeand Hahn's Peak are approximately ninemiles further north along Route 129. TheU.S. Forest Service estimates that SteamboatLake and nearby Pearl Lake together attract300,000 visitors annually, most of whomtravel through the valley.

The Upper Elk River Valley is entered fromthe south after rounding Moon Hill, wherethe landscape opens up again to reveal abroad agricultural valley bisected by the ElkRiver. The Elk River drains the MountZirkel Wilderness Area and SteamboatLake. While the land on the valley floorand sideslopes is owned privately, theupper valley is bordered on the east andwest by the Routt National Forest. Thispeninsula of private land bordered by the

Page .3


National Forest consists primarily of ninelarge landholdings. In addition, there areoccasional BLM arid State Land Boardschool sections in the valley, most of whichare incorporated into adjacent ranch opera-tions. Unlike many other Routt County val-leys, most of the private land has remainedin large ownership and is actively ranched.

The rich, irrigated meadow soils in the val-ley are as productive as any hay lands inRoutt County. If it were not for theshort growing season and cool cli-mate, these lands would be capableof producing a greater diversity ofcrops.

The valley hosts three commercialcattle operations, a part time cattleoperation, a large sheep ranch anda guest ranch that raises both hors-es and cattle. Most of these opera-tions use valley lands and addi-tional leased lands from the ForestService , BLM and/or the StateLand Board for grazing.

The topography of the valleyexhibits three distinct characteris-tics, which are illustrated on theaccompanying map. The valleybottom lands are characterized bythe richest and most productiveagricultural soils. These areas areopen hay lands except for the moreheavily vegetated river anddrainage corridors containing cot-tonwoods and willows and occa-sional hedgerows separating fields.Above these lands there are a seriesof benches on both sides of the val-ley that are primarily open grazinglands with mixed stands of scruboak and aspen. Above the benchesare steeper lands that containdenser stands of aspen, fir andpine.

Round Mountain, which rises on the eastside of the road at mid-valley, is a distinc-tive landmark. Mountains frame many ofthe views from the valley. Views down val-ley are toward the Flat Tops Wilderness, ElkMountain and the Sleeping Giant; to theeast they include the high peaks in theZirkel Wilderness Area; to the West theyinclude Sand Mountain; and to the north isthe distinctive conical shape of Hahn'sPeak.

Population of the Clark Zip Code

19801990

Number of Households

1990

Average Household Size1990

Percapita Income

1990

Median Age

1990

Number of Housing Units

1990

393 people455 people

184 households

2.47 persons

$25,244

33.8 years

411 units

Percent of Housing Units Owner Occupied

1990 71.3 %

Percent of Housing Units Built by Time-Period1980 - 1990 30.1 %1970 - 1979 28.1 %before 1970 41.8 %


Unlike many areas within a 20-mile radiusof mountain communities such asSteamboat, Telluride, Crested Butte, Aspenand Vail, the Upper Elk River Valley hasexperienced little subdivision and secondhome development. There has been little ofthe 35-acre subdivisions that have charac-terized development in the rest of ruralRoutt County. The primary residentialbuildings are located along county roads,near the Clark store in the unincorporatedvillage of Clark and at the Glen Eden resortand cabin condominium development.

The Clark store has existed in five differentlocations under many different owners. As

it did in the1920's, ithouses thepost officeand providesgoods to bothnearby resi-dents and thetraveling pub-lic. One ofthe originalstore sites still

stands on the west side of County Road 129just south of the bridge over the Elk River.Although Clark is unincorporated, the storeserves as the community meeting and gath-ering place, just as it has for 70 years.

Much of the architecture of the older build-ings is characteristic of the historic ranchingor mining vernacular. One of the most his-toric buildings is the Brown Ranch farm-house on the west side of Route 129, southof Clark, which is a log structure with dis-tinctive roof gables.

4 Population and Trends

While it is hard to obtain exact numbers onhow many people inhabit the Upper ElkRiver Valley, informed estimates can bemade. The above chart identifies censusdata for the Clark zip code from the 1990Census. The Clark zip code includes the

area north of Steamboat Springs up toSteamboat Lake. Thus it includes both theLower and Upper Elk River Valleys, an areamore than twice as large as the valley itself.

These figures indicate the overall popula-tion is small. During the 1980's it grew at amodest annual rate of 1.6 percent. The 1993Sourcebook of Zip Code Demographics esti-mates that the annual rate of growth willincrease to 4.3%, over twice the annual ratein the 1980's. These figures are for perma-nent population, and it is estimated that theseasonal population jumps by about threetimes in the summer. As the figures show,almost a third of all housing units were con-structed during the 1980's.

Page 5


5 Historical Timeline for Clark, Colorado*1861 1934 Taylor Grazing Act

marks end of free, openrangeREA electricity reaches1941Clark

1943 New Clark store builtand post office relocates

1960 Clark store burns, PostOffice moves acrossstreet

1961 New road across RabbitEars Pass completed

1961 Clark School closed1963 Mt. Werner Ski Area

opens in Steamboat1965 Re-exploration for zinc,

copper and silverbegins. Lasts 5 - 10

1968 Syteearams.boat Lake filled1969 Elk River Grazing

Association formedElk River CitizensAssociation formedClark Store and PostOffice moves to presentlocationClark Volunteer firedepartment createdRailroad stops haulingcattle from SteamboatHome Ranch guestranch opensClark celebrates itsCentennial

1992 Stranahan family placeseasement on 700-acreWhitener ranchFetcher family placesconservation easementon 1,250 acre-ranch

Creation of ColoradoTerritory from portionsof Kansas, Nebraska,and Utah Territories.Discovery of gold atHahn's PeakHomestead Act enactedby CongressColorado statehooddeclaredRoutt County appearson map for first timeHahn's Peak chosen ascounty seatClark's first "roadranch" (Glen Eden)builtKeller family becomesClark's first permanentsettlers.First Clark schoolhousebuiltFirst burial in ClarkCemeteryFirst big cattle drivesbegin from Clark toWolcottHannah Clark appoint-ed first postmasterMoffat Railroad com-pleted from Denver toSteamboatCounty seat movesfrom Hahn's Peak toSteamboatClark Post Office moves

• to eastside of CountyRoad 129New Clark schoolhousebuiltClark store and post "office burns, moves toGlen EdenRocky MountainTimber Co. floats logsin Elk River to mill atSteamboat railheadU.S. Highway 40 com-pletedMarch 2, heaviest snow-fall on record - 36 inch-es in 24 hrs.

* This historical timelineFreiberger's 1989 articleMagazine entitled "100incorporates information

1862

1862

1876

1877

1878

is taken from Harrieton Clark in SteamboatYears of Solitude" andprovided by Bill . May.

Page 6


6 Valley Vision StatementThe Compact

As representatives of AFT met over the pasttwo years with various landowners, a num-ber of recurring themes were expressed.AFT developed a statement of guiding prin-ciples that embraces these core concepts.The following is the current version of thisvision statement, which has become knownas the Upper Elk River Valley Compact.The sentiments expressed in the Compactare endorsed by a number of the landown-ers who participated in the discussion.

This statement is a picture of what a num-ber of landowners and residents told AFTare the important ingredients for the futureof the valley. It is an initial statement thathas the potential to bring people together toidentify common ground for the futuredirection of the valley. Its aim is to ensurethat the valley will continue to be a specialplace for future generations. It is acknowl-edged that changes will take place and thatthe community can help to shape thatprocess positively.

Large Private Land Ownership in Valley

Poje .7


Upper Elk River Valley Compact

The following is a statement of principles shared by a group of landowners within the Upper ElkRiver Valley near Clark, Colorado. This agricultural valley is located approximately 18 miles north-west of Steamboat Springs at the gateway to the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area. This valley is tra-versed from south to north by Routt County Route 129 and is located to the north of Moon Hiltbetween Routt National Forest ownership on the east and west, and south of the point where thevalley narrows and the road begins to climb up to Hahn's Peak beyond Seedhouse Road.

We believe that the valley is a special place in terms of people, landscape and culture. Aslandowners, we share a commitment to protect the special scenic, rural and working character ofthis valley as well as to enhance its agricultural viability. We wish to pass on to future generations avalley that possesses the special qualities we enjoy today.

In order to do this, we believe cooperative action between landowners is essential. Asresponsible members of this community, we prefer to create a future that responds to our sharedobjectives rather than be bystanders in a process that will inevitably lead to an erosion of the specialcharacter of the valley. Though our conservation motivations and economic circumstances are asvaned as the family and personal reasons that brought us to the valley, we share a common set ofprinciples that should shape future actions and decisions within the valley.

Planning PrinciplesWe believe that maintaining the special rural character of the valley revolves around two

key variables: protecting the open and productive landscape from development and encouraging aresponsible and diverse community that can provide for the stewardship of the valley's natural andagricultural resources.

We support the continuation of productive rural land uses within the valley. These consistprincipally of ranching, agriculture and "low impact" recreational uses. These uses should be com-patible with preserving agricultural viability and should be coordinated through cooperative planningand communication to minimize their potential for conflict,

Rather than traditional patterns of suburban or large-lot development, we support the con-cept of "protective development" within the valley that guides new development away from the bestof the valley's agricultural and forest lands, allows for limited residential development that has mini-mal visual impact and offers landowners the ability to sell some land for residences without negative-ly affecting agricultural and "low impact" recreational operations.

We believe that the valley is a rural community that has service and affordable housingneeds that should be addressed at an appropriate level within the valley to reduce commuting andencourage a greater sense of community among residents. These needs, particularly the need foraffordable housing for those who work in the valley, should be addressed through the phased cre-ation of a small and compact affordable housing settlement in the vicinity of Clark. Such locally ori-ented housing can provide for efficient and cost-effective servicing, minimize the impact on countyservices that scattered development would create and provide a quality residential alternative for val-ley residents.

The enhancement of the agricultural viability of the valley is an overall objective of thelandowners. With this in mind, the landowners will explore ways of cooperating with regard to landusage and management, farm equipment use, diversifying agricultural products and utilization ofhuman resources. Over time, these activities should create a special image and competitive advan-tage for the valley.

Implementation PrinciplesWe believe methods that permanently protect the open and agricultural nature of the valley

should be explored by each of the landowners to see if they can be flexibly tailored to meet the eco-nomic and conservation needs and requirements of each of the landowning families. We encouragetechniques such as voluntarily donated conservation easements granted to a qualified land conser-vation or land trust organization.

We believe in the power of voluntary and cooperative action in carrying out a collectivevision for Me val)ey, as well as cooperative governmental policy and approaches.

In the event that we find it necessary to dispose of our properties, we will endeavor to workwith our neighbors to locate buyers that share our conservation and agricultural objectives. Wedeplore the indiscriminate parceling of lands into 35-acre parcels that is occurring on ranch landsthroughout Routt County. This practice is destroying productive agricultural lands, ruining our spe-cial Western landscape and scenic qualities, and creating an inefficient and costly pattern of ruralsprawl.

We believe that in addition to our individual actions, we need effective interaction with the?local community, the county and state and federal land management agencies to ensure that the(land protection and agricultural objectives of the valley are taken into account when decisions are!made that affect the future of the valley.

We will consult with our neighbors and seek the cooperation of our elected officials in carry-ing out our plans, We encourage local officials to enforce and support the principles articulated inthis document.


this project has the potential to result in avalley-wide protection system.

The concept of protective developmentencompasses three principal components:

1) Protection of productive agriculturaland scenic lands through the use of conser-vation easements.

2) The identification of a number ofreserved homesites to address family eco-nomic and estate planning objectives.

3) The creation of a compact housing set-tlement at Clark to provide affordable hous-ing opportunities to residents who work inand maintain the valley.

7 Valley Protection Strategy

The primary strategy developed to meet thevalley vision is a conservation-based devel-opment strategy or a "protective develop-ment" strategy. While "protective" and"development" may appear to be a contra-diction in terms, this concept is at the heartof the valley protection strategy.

Limited or protective development of theUpper Elk River Valley is a means to protectpermanently the open and productive char-acter of the valley that serves as the basisfor its economic viability. Unlike manyother scenic valleys in Colorado, this valleycontains a combination of healthy ranchingand guest ranching enterprises set in a rela-

tively unspoiled valley that serves as thegateway to a pristine wilderness area.Because the landholdings are relativelylarge and the valley is bounded on the eastand west by federally owned land, there isthe potential to protect its special workingagricultural character through mutual coop-eration among the principal landowners.Unlike other conservation efforts, whichoften result in the protection of an island ofprotected land in a sea of unprotected land,

The following sections discuss the conserva-tion and development components of theprotective development concept.

Page 9


Conservation

The primary conservation objective of thisplan is the protection of the agriculturalland in the valley. The most productivelands in the valley are the irrigated landsalong the broad valley floor. The lands ofsecondary importance are the grazing landson the benches and slopes adjacent to thevalley floor. These lands are depicted onthe landscape character map. New devel-opment should minimize disruption of

these lands and the agricultural activitiesnecessary to use them productively.

The other conservation objectives includeprotection of the scenic and wildlife quali-ties of the valley. The scenic values includethe undeveloped character of the valley aswell as the pattern of open and productiveagricultural fields adjacent to forest land,with more distant mountain views. Theprincipal public viewing areas are the coun-ty roads, primarily County Road 129 andthe Cottonwood Creek Road, which is theback road to Steamboat Lake.

The wildlife habitat areas in the valley arefound primarily along the riparian corridorof the Elk River and forested lands adjacentto agricultural lands. The conservation pro-gram aims to protect these primary wildlifehabitat areas and migration corridors thatconnect habitat areas.

The level of conservation action that isrequired to meet the agricultural, visual andwildlife protection objectives is far greaterthan can be achieved through traditionalzoning techniques in a rural county. Forexample, large-lot zoning, which typicallypromotes a pattern of 10-, 20- or 35-acredevelopment, is exactly the kind of patternthat is destroying landscape values in RouttCounty. The 35-acre pattern of develop-ment is visually disruptive, consumes a

great deal of productive agriculturalland and is often fenced, impedingwildlife movement. Typically, alarge lot is too large for the home-owner to maintain properly and toosmall to graze animals efficiently.Often a 35-acre lot ends up as oneacre of homesite and 34 acres ofweeds that may severely affect themanagement of an adjacent agricul-tural operation. In addition, zoningis an impermanent protection tech-nique because it is subject to chang-ing political pressures and condi-tions.

Many of the landowners in the val-ley desire to protect the valley from the 35-acre pattern of subdivision and createincentives for private protection of the val-ley rather than a punitive or inappropriateset of regulations. After examining a vari-ety of potential options to encourage volun-tary conservation actions, several landown-ers identified the conservation easement asthe preferred protection technique. Thebenefits of conservation easements as a land

Page 10

1111.eit

j r:

'OWN

••n 1'44:11-At • '

41....1111

14..; :; 4 A- 41-":1 og

0001) ,rw•


protection technique are discussed inChapter 8.

Development

The development program that responds tothe conservation objectives consists of twoseparate but complementary approaches.These are the limited or reserved develop-ment sites and the concept of a small andcompact affordable housing settlement.

Limited Development

A property with high visual, natural oragricultural values may be developed inways that protect these conservation values.This "protective" or limited developmentallows for the sensitive development of aportion of the property in exchange for theprotection of the remainder. The reserveddevelopment sites are located so as not to

interfere with wildlife habitat, scenic oragricultural values.

The value of the limited development sitescan be enhanced by the permanent protec-t-ion of lands adjacent to them, much asland adjacent to a national park might beenhanced. The permanent protection canbe accomplished through the donation of aconservation easement which provides thelandowner with certain tax benefits whichwill be discussed in the implementation sec-tion. Limited development permits the

landowner to protect the conservation val-ues of a property while achieving economicobjectives through the creation and sale of afew strategically located homesites.

The process of creating the limited develop-ment plan requires an understanding of theresource values of the property. For exam-ple, areas that contain important agricultur-al soils, wildlife habitat or offer specialviews should be identified and mapped.The reserved lots should be located so thatthey do not intrude into these areas. Inaddition, it is important in agriculturalareas that roads and lots be designed so asto avoid negative impacts on agriculturaloperations such as the use of machinery,spraying or grazing.

The characteristics of desirable homesitesinclude: set back and off the most produc-tive agricultural lands, located on gentlysloping sites affording good views of thevalley and adjacent mountains, generallyfacing south for environmental aspect andexposure, set in the landscape and vegeta-tion so as to minimize visibility and offridges and exposed areas where develop-ment would stand out.

In order that development fit the landscapeto the maximum extent possible, the selec-tion of building envelopes where all builtimprovements should be located is recom-mended. A building envelope could be ahalf-acre to two-acre area within a 5-, 10- or35-acre lot and would be designed to locatethe improvements to minimize their visibili-ty and impact on the surrounding agricul-tural operation. Only the building envelopewould be allowed to be fenced, permittingthe remainder of the lot to remain in ranch-ing use.

In addition to careful selection of the loca-tion of the building envelope, added pre-cautions can be taken by using a set ofdesign guidelines for all improvements.Such guidelines might encourage the use ofdark natural colors that blend with sur-roundings, promote the use of natural

Page 1 1

Large Land Ownership -Conservation/Agricultural Bottom Land

Large Land Ownership -Conservation/Limited Development

Forest Service Boundary

State Land Board

Bureau of Land Management

Protecting flic Land and Sustaining Community

Concept PlanPage ! 2


materials, prohibit reflective surfaces, definean appropriate architectural vernacular (i.e.ranching, western, log, etc.), and limit thesize and scale of structures.

Ideally, the building envelopes should belocated in fairly close proximity to oneanother so the impact of the development isin one or two locations on a property. Thekey is to locate homesites in close enoughproximity to minimize infrastructure costssuch as roads and electric utility servicewhile keeping them sufficiently separatedto make them as invisible to each other aspossible. This will maximize the sense of

_._

Building Envelope privacyand relationship to nature. Roads to servicethe homesites should be narrow rural lanesat the minimum width necessary to accom-modate emergency vehicles and located tominimize adverse impacts on agriculturaloperations. Narrow, gravel surface roadscan minimize impact on the landscape byfitting the terrain and avoiding unsightlyroad cuts.

The value of the reserved lots can beenhanced through the creation of a trailssystem for homeowners that providespedestrian and horse access to the specialfeatures of the valley including the ElkRiver corridor, scenic vistas and the adja-cent National Forest. Eventually, a systemof interconnected trails could be developedthat allows access to the special features ofthe valley without creating negativeimpacts for agricultural operations. Thelegitimate needs of the ranchers to managetheir lands must be recognized. This sys-

tern should evolve only it ranchers volun-tarily agree to permit this access and usersdemonstrate responsibility for preventinglitter, managing gates and respecting theagricultural operation. Such a system couldhelp educate the community and homeowners about the every day issues of ranch-ing life and promote a greater community -wide sense of stewardship among all resi-dents.

Affordable Housing Settlement

A component of this plan is the creation ofa small number of affordable housing sitesin a compact location to provide housingopportunities for those who work in thevalley and have limited options to purchasehousing. The conservation actions to pre-serve the agricultural system in the valleywill limit the availability of affordable hous-ing sites within the valley. In order to cre-ate a mix of housing and encourage adiverse community with a range of oppor-tunities, a small number of housing sites forthose who work in the valley should bemade available. Several workers commuteto jobs in the valley because of the shortageand high cost of housing in the valley.

This approach will provide those who workin the valley with an opportunity that cur-rently does not exist, allow them to becomefull-time members of the community andcreate equity through home ownership. Incharacter, this new housing should appearnot as a development, but as the logicalextension of already built areas such as theClark store and the Glen Eden develop-ment. The possible connection to the Clarkstore is desirable because the store has tra-ditionally served as the community meetingplace and could continue to provide conve-nient shopping in an efficient fashion to res-idents.

Relating new housing to existing develop-ment is more cost-effective to service, pro-vides a sense of community and, if properlyplanned, provides an attractive alternativeto scattered rural sites. There are three

Page 13


principal options for the location of theaffordable housing settlement and they areall located between the Clark store andGlen Eden. These options include: 1) adja-cent to and behind the Clark store, 2) in thefield between the Clark store and GlenEden and 3) directly adjacent to Glen Eden.All of these options have advantages anddisadvantages that should be evaluated.

The new housing area should be compati-ble with the rural landscape and provide asense of community, neighborliness, prideand identity. This compact housing settle-ment should provide for cost-effective ser-vices, minimize the impact on county ser-vices that scattered development wouldcreate and offer a quality residential alter-native at affordable prices for valley resi-dents.

The character of the housing should besuch that it resembles a small rural, westernsettlement that grew over time. It should

be compact and non-suburban in characterand layout. A set of design guidelinesshould be developed to ensure the compati-bility of all structures and emphasize itsrural and agrarian roots. The first phase ofthe village would consist of two to five sin-gle-family houses based on demand fromworkers employed in the valley who wishto take advantage of this opportunity. It islikely that no more than five homes wouldbe required in the first five to ten years.However, to make the project feasible, per-mission for the construction of ten homeswould be sought. Actual constructionwould occur only as the need arose.

Lots would vary in size from one-fourth tothree-fourths of an acre. Houses wouldgenerally be in the 1,200- to 2,000- square-foot range and 1 1/2 to two stories inheight. A common access road would bedefined to prevent a proliferation of accesspoints off county roads to serve each lot.The lots would be located to maximize

Potential Affordable Housing Sites Behind Clark Store

Page 14


views and proximity to open land or natur-al features. Over a long period of time, asmall settlement of houses that relate toeach other and the landscape could evolve.

A community horse barn and pasture couldbe located in association with the settlementand maintain the open and productive useof the fields as well as enhance the connec-tion to rural lifestyle. Community gardensare an option for some of the open landssurrounding the new homes.

The housing cost would be kept lowthrough a combination of techniques. Firstof all, if the concept is approved by thecounty, the land may be made available atbelow market value through the participa-tion of some of the landowners. Second, abuilder with demonstrated affordable hous-ing experience could be selected to producethe structures. Third, the project couldemploy the concept of permanent afford-ability to ensure that when the homes areresold, they will remain affordable and notappreciate more than a set amount. Thisamount could be set at the rate of inflationor the consumer price index, as has beendone in similar projects. In addition, safe-guards should be identified to ensure thatthe housing is made available only for thosewho work and live in the valley.

8 Implementing the Vision — Optionsfor Cooperative Action

Translating the vision for the Upper ElkRiver Valley into reality will require morethan neighborly good will or action on thepart of a few landowners. The proposedland protection system requires cooperativeaction by many individuals and entitiesusing a variety of techniques to reachdesired objectives. The key to the success ofthis land protection system is the develop-ment of a partnership for the cooperativepursuit of the vision through the applica-tion of a flexible menu of options. The fol-lowing sections discuss actions identified byAFT that the landowners, the community,Routt County and state and federal govern-mental agencies can take in order to accom-plish the objectives of the valley vision tocreate a land protection system.

A. Landowner Actions

There are a variety of actions landownerscan initiate to protect their properties volun-tarily and cooperatively. The landownerswho have taken actions to voluntarilyrestrict their properties desire to demon-strate their good-faith efforts to create aneffective partnership with other owners andwith government. The discussion belowhighlights the two most important conser-vation techniques identified by AFT in dis-cussions with the landowners. Becausethese issues are personal and confidential toeach family, the objective here is to identifythese techniques generally and discuss theirapplicability to the valley.

Conservation Easements andLimited Development

There is only one conservation tech-nique that protects land in perpetu-ity — the conservation easement.Until recently, easements have notbeen extensively used to protectland in the West. Unlike other tech-niques, they are very flexible instru-ments that can be tailored to a

Page 15

In return for granting the easement,the landowner receives a number oftax benefits. First, when a conserva-tion easement is given to a qualifiedconservation entity, it is treated likea charitable contribution to a charity,such as the YMCA or Boy Scouts ofAmerica. In most cases, this valuecan amount to 30 to 80 percent ofthe value of the property. The valueof the conservation easement ordevelopment rights is the differencebetween the "before" and "after"values of the property, which aredetermined by an appraisal. Forexample, in the above example, ifthe value of the 1,750-acre ranch was$1,000 per acre ($1,750,000) and therestricted value was the agriculturalvalue of $400 per acre ($700,000)plus the value of the four additional


landowners financial, family andconservation objectives. When com-bined with very sensitive limiteddevelopment, conservation ease-ments can become a powerful tool toprotect land and generate economicreturn.

Conservation easements havebecome more popular in the agricul-tural community because they canhelp to limit estate tax liability forpeople who wish to keep land in thefamily. Estate taxes have risen inColorado up to a combined federaland state level of more than 55 percent of the value of the property.Many large landowners have seentheir property values appreciaterapidly, which means that unlessthey have done some very sophisti-cated planning, the estate tax maymake it problematic or impossibleto pass the farm or ranch to the nextgeneration. These estate tax bene-fits will be discussed shortly.

With a conservation easement,landowners voluntarily agree togive up certain development rightsto their properties which have con-servation values. The propertyrestrictions are recorded along withthe property deed and remain in thechain of title restricting futurelandowners. Landowners mayrestrict the future development asmuch or little as they wish. Forexample, the owner of a 1,750-acreranch may have the right to createfifty 35-acre parcels. As an alternative, the family may decide toreserve only four building lots onthe property in sensitive locationsthat may be sold to meet financialneeds or given to family members.As a result, the landowner voluntar-ily gives up the right to develop 45homesites on the property.

homesites of $100,000 per homesite($400,000), the difference betweenthe before and after values would be$650,000 ($1,750,000 minus$1,100,000).

With appreciated property, a landowner can take a deduction of up to30 percent of adjusted gross incomein the year of the gift and carry itforward for another five years inorder to use up the full value of the


foregone development rights. Manyfarmers and ranchers who are landrich but do not have significantannual income may not be able touse up the entire value of the ease-ment gift as a charitable donation.

One of the benefits of the reservedhomesites is that they may appreci-ate more rapidly than other types ofreal estate. This is because thereserved lots are adjacent to perma-nently protected land that tends toenhance those values because manypeople wishing to purchase ruralproperty wish to buy propertywhere there is certainty that viewsand adjacent uses are protected.

The tax benefit that may be moreimportant to ranchers is the estatetax benefit that flows from a reduc-tion in property value through thegrant of a conservation easement.As discussed earlier, with rapidlyincreasing land values and the highrates of estate taxation, the grant of aconservation easement can be one ofthe few ways to reduce the value ofthe property and lower estate taxliability. The IRS allows an individ-ual a $600,000 exemption from estatetaxation, but above that amount thevalue of a property is taxed on asliding scale starting at 40 percentand going above 55 percent for com-bined state and federal estate taxa-tion. With many large propertiesthat have appreciated rapidly, it isnot hard to exceed the exemptionlevel. The few reserved lots thatmay be created through the ease-ment can also assist in paying anyestate tax liability and may assist inminimizing capital gains tax as well.

A conservation easement is grantedto a qualified nonprofit entity or agovernmental entity This granteeorganization has two responsibili-ties. First, to monitor the property

regularly to ensure that there are noviolations of the terms of the ease-ment. Second, if there is a violation,to notify the owner, and if the ownerrefuses to remedy the situation, torequest a court injunction againstthe activity. The nonprofit entityusually requests an endowment con-tribution from the landowner at thetime the easement is granted tocover the costs of monitoring andenforcement, which are a perpetualliability to the land trust.

The landowners who have grantedconservation easements have select-ed AFT as the preferred land trust toaccept easements. This is primarilybecause of AFT's experience withand understanding of agriculture.While AFT is a national organization

based in Washington, D.C., it has arepresentative in Colorado who hasbeen working with landowners.Other land trusts such as TheNature Conservancy may becomepartners in some of these projectsdepending upon the desires of thelandowners. In addition, AFT isinterested in working with localorganizations that may eventuallyassume the monitoring responsibili-ty. A local organization knowledge-able about local conditions and dos-

Page 17


er to the land and people mightmake more sense in the future. As aresult, AFT is exploring a partner-ship with the recently formedYampa Valley Land Trust. This maylead eventually to the local groupproviding stewardship for the prop-erties on which AFT has taken ease-ments.

The land trust's responsibilities donot extend to the management of theproperty. The landowner retains fullcontrol over the management of theproperty and public. No publicaccess is granted through the ease-ment unless the landowner desiresto continue or create such access.The land stays on the local tax rollsand, because it is permanentlyrestricted, the easement generallystabilizes property taxes.

Since the beginning of the land pro-tection process, two easements havebeen placed on two of the largeproperties by the Fetcher family andby the Stranahan family, part ownersof the Home Ranch. These proper-ties are now permanently protectedexcept for several reserved lots.Both the 700-acre Whitmer Ranchowned by the Stranahans and the1,250-acre Fetcher Ranch have fourreserved homesites. Discussions areproceeding with other owners toexplore the applicability of this tech-nique to their family situations.

Each family has different tax, finan-cial, family and conservation objec-tives that must be carefully consid-ered in determining whether conser-vation easements are appropriate fortheir situation. In addition, there aremany options for tailoring the trans-action to family circumstances, suchas granting an easement in a will orworking with a land trust that mightacquire the development rights.This is a voluntary program, and

each family is free to determine themix of conservation and develop-ment it feels is appropriate for itscircumstances.

Conservation Buyers

The special rural, scenic and agricul-tural characteristics of the Upper ElkRiver Valley are increasingly attrac-tive to potential property owners aspopulation increases and our land-

scapes become more developed.Many of these people are attractedby the goal of assisting in the protec-tion of the valley and being part ofthis special community. In otherparts of the country, such asMontana and Jackson Hole,Wyoming, active conservation buyerprograms have been developed tomatch conservation-oriented buyersto special properties that are threat-ened with suburban or ranchette-type development. In most cases,the new buyers placed conservationeasements on these properties afterthey were purchased.

Several of the owners of the largeproperties in the Upper Elk RiverValley have agreed that if they findit necessary to dispose of a portionor all of their properties, they will

Page 18

r".

•%'1k

•

1• • - • a. •

4,*( 6fit

1g


work with their neighbors to locatebuyers who share their mutual con-servation and agricultural objectives.This in no way is meant to dictate towhom a property may be sold or onwhat terms. If lands are going tochange hands, the primary purposeof the conservation buyer programis to attract new owners who shareobjectives compatible with the val-ley vision. A key element of thiseffort is maintaining open communi-cation among landowners so no oneis surprised by a "for sale" sign. Bygiving the owners the opportunityto locate conservation-minded buy-ers, inappropriate development andsubdivision can be avoided. In theevent that a property does come onthe market, the other owners, AFTand other conservation organiza-tions will work to locate qualifiedconservation buyers.

B. COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

This plan has come a long way in a relative-ly short period of time. It has been theproduct of AFT's work with the largelandowners, who are only one segment ofthe valley's population. As a result, the restof the Clark and Upper Elk River Valleycommunity should be invited to participatein and add their thoughts to these initialconcepts and understand the significantactions that have been taken by severallandowners. It is only through the activeengagement of the community that a truevision and implementation program canemerge. As a result, AFT recommends thatseveral community meetings be held tosolicit the active engagement of the rest ofthe community to develop a more compre-hensive vision. This may lead to a processthat creates a sub-area plan, such as theSouth Steamboat Plan. We believe that theprogram suggested for the county to pursuecan lead to a true public-private partnershipto accomplish mutual goals without creat-ing a burdensome regulatory process.

C. COUNTY INITIATIVES

The county role in supporting this conceptplan involves the encouragement andapproval of the affordable housing settle-ment plan and a number of initiatives nec-essary to encourage agricultural operationsin the county. The affordable housing con-cept will require soliciting comment fromthe community as well as flexibility in theapplication of development standards thatmight reduce its affordability. The landconservation actions taken on the ranchlands have a direct link to the need to createaffordable housing to accommodate thehousing of the local population.

Many farmers and ranchers in Routt

County believe that it is only a matter oftime until ranching lands are converted todevelopment. This attitude is fueled byhigh land values relative to potential agri-cultural income that can be generated bythe land and the active real estate marketfor 35-acre tracts. The county can play arole with landowners in supporting agricul-ture and relieving pressures on agriculturalenterprise. AFT strongly supports thecounty's initiative in developing a CountyOpen Space Plan and offers the followingsuggestions for specific county actions to

Page 19


IIUU

•n

IU

•I•IS•Un•

IUSUIII••

U•

support agriculture.

Near-Term Options

The following actions are geared towardimproving the climate for farming andranching in the county through a flexiblemenu of voluntary options.

1. Pass a County-Wide Right-To-FarmLaw

A county-wide right-to-farm ordi-nance would strengthen currentstate law by providing specific coun-ty protection for agricultural enter-prises from nuisance suits and com-plaints relating to odors and farmactivities and practices. Such a lawshould give constructive notice topotential residential landowners thatagricultural activities and practiceswill continue and may cause incon-veniences or discomfort in the formof odors, hours of operation, spray-ing and transporting equipment onroads. The county could examine arecent ordinance that was passed inMonterey County, California and aproposed ordinance for FlatheadCounty, Montana.

2. Enable the Formation ofAgricultural Districts

Agricultural districts (not zoning)have been established in many farm-ing and ranching areas around thecountry as an effective way to pro-tect these lands and provide incen-tives to farmers to remain in agricul-ture. The county could provideincentives for the formation of agri-cultural districts, such as maintain-ing current-use assessments, addi-tional nuisance protection and pro-tections against county actions andpolicies (such as condemnations orroad improvements) that might pro-mote inappropriate development inagricultural districts. In return,

farmers in the designated districtwould agree to forego subdivisionor development of their property fora period of years.

3. Establish an Agricultural LandsProtection Committee

An Agricultural Lands ProtectionCommittee could be established topromote the agricultural and landprotection agenda in the county. Itsduties might include serving as theliaison between the agriculturalcommunity and the county, advisingthe county commissioners regardingcounty actions and policies thataffect agriculture and the implemen-tation of a right-to-farm ordinance,agricultural districting and otherland protection initiatives. The com-mittee could be comprised of repre-sentation from throughout the coun-ty and consist of five to seven mem-bers, with a majority coming fromthe commercial agricultural sector(i.e. deriving 50 percent or more ofincome from agriculture).

This effort could dovetail withrecent attempts by the agriculturaland environmental communitiesand the U.S. Department of Interiorto resolve agricultural and landmanagement issues by promotinglocal land management committees.This process appears to be workingin Gunnison County. One of thepurposes of this committee might beto explore how this process might beimplemented in Routt County sothere would be a productive mix ofranching, recreational and environ-mental representation.

4. Encourage Conservation Easementsand Limited Development

The county could encourage the vol-untary and permanent conservationof farm lands through conservation

Page 20


easements by offering the sameincentives as those provided tofarmers creating agricultural dis-tricts. The conservation easementscan be flexibly tailored to the needsof the farm family by permitting anumber of reserved lots to beretained by the farm. The review ofthe reserved lots should be an expe-dited minor subdivision procedure,which encourages this type of activi-ty and could entail a reduction incounty standards for services suchas road widths which should remainnarrow to reflect the minimal useand rural character of the limiteddevelopment. This option wouldrequire coordination between theland trusts operating in RouttCounty, ranchers and the county.

5. Rural Cluster Incentive

To encourage more compact devel-opment and reduce the amount ofagricultural land that farmers haveto sell when they dispose of a lot fordevelopment, a cluster incentiveshould be created for rural planningareas. To encourage clustering, asmall bonus might be applied as aninducement. For example, for everydevelopment right that is clusteredon a smaller one- or two- acre lot, anadditional lot might be allowed.This provision should be very bene-ficial to farmers who previously hadto sell larger acreage for homesitesby allowing them to concentrate theimpact of new residential construc-tion in relatively small areas withminimal impact on farm operations.

Residential uses should be encour-aged on more marginal resourcelands and those that are closer topublic services. In exchange for thecluster option, the county mightrequire the placement of a conserva-tion easement on the remainingopen land on the property to ensure

that it is not further subdivided at alater date.

6. Permit Density Transfers toAdjacent Properties

As a way of encouraging more com-pact and cost-effective developmentin rural areas, the county could per-mit the transfer of developmentrights from one property to another,which might accommodate develop-ment more appropriately. This vol-untary option could encouragecooperation among adjacent proper-ties to create compact developmenton one of the properties. The trans-fers might enjoy the same bonus ascluster development and requirethat a conservation easement beplaced on the remaining open landsto ensure non-development.

Longer Term Actions: Purchase ofDevelopment Rights

If the county is to achieve the long-termprotection of agricultural land base, it mustdo more than encourage voluntary actionson the part of landowners. The key to pro-tecting important agricultural resources isproviding compensation to landowners forthe loss of development value if land iskept open permanently. Purchase ofDevelopment Rights is a technique that hasbeen utilized in many states and countieson the East and West coasts, particularly inareas undergoing rapid farmland conver-sion. Under a PDR program, the countywould purchase the development rights onpriority farmlands in order to keep them inagriculture. The program would be volun-tary, providing ranchers with an option toobtain the equity from their properties byselling development rights and remainingin farming as opposed to outright sale fordevelopment. Experience has shown thatthe value of development rights varies from30 to 80 percent of the fair market value ofthe property, depending on the develop-

Page 21


•UI•a••p

UI

IIUU

Ip

IpIpUpUI

••

••

•Page 22

ment threat.

With a PDR system, the farmer is able toreceive the equity or development valuefrom the property, keep the farm in agricul-ture, pass it on to the next generation andmake capital improvements in the farmoperation or fund retirement with the pro-ceeds. When the development rights arepurchased, the land is permanently restrict-ed by an easement held by the county.

The key issue in the development of a PDRprogram is identifying a politically accept-able funding source. Other jurisdictionshave utilized property tax, sales tax andreal estate transfer taxes to fund PDR pro-grams. With the passage of AmendmentOne, the establishment of such a programwould require voter approval. The option

of using a real estate transfer tax, however,has been eliminated by Amendment One.Experience has shown that if people believepublic funds are being creatively and effec-tively leveraged to protect what is specialabout the rural landscape, they will be moreinclined to support a PDR program. Themore specific in terms of the benefits, costsand types of lands that would be protected,the more likely it is that such a programwould be accepted.

D. STATE

Colorado has a myriad of laws and pro-grams that affect the viability of agriculture.AFT hopes a constructive partnership can

be developed with those agencies and pro-grams in recognition of the significant effortseveral landowners have taken through thisplanning effort and conservation actionswith regard to ensuring an agriculturalfuture for the valley. In addition, there arethree programs we feel should be particu-larly linked to this effort:

1. Great Outdoors Colorado TrustFund (GOCO)

GOCO has just begun to fund grantsfor parks, recreation and open spacepurchases and projects. Agricultureis a major component of the state'sopen space system. We encouragethe GOCO Board of Directors toassist those community effortsaimed at protecting agriculturalresources that are threatened, suchas those in this valley. This assis-tance could best be providedthrough the purchase of develop-ment rights on threatened farmlandwhere ranchers for financial reasonsare unable to donate conservationeasements. Areas and communitiessuch as the Upper Elk River Valley,which have taken significant privateaction, could greatly benefit from astrategic investment of GOCO fundsto assist in protecting key properties.

2. State Land Board Lands

The Colorado State Land Boardadministers the state school sectionsaround the state for the benefit ofthe public school system. There arestate school sections in this valley asthere are in many agricultural areasin Colorado. AFT encourages theland board to take a cooperativeposture in areas like the Upper ElkRiver Valley so their leasing policiessupport the viability of ranchingoperations and the landowner's con-servation efforts. Some state landsmay be enhanced for developmentby the protection of adjacent private


lands. If the land board were to sellor exchange these lands for develop-ment or promote activities which arein conflict with agriculture, privatelandowners will be reluctant to vol-untarily protect their lands in thefuture.

3. Repeal Senate Bill 35

Many of the landowners in this val-ley strongly support the repeal ofSenate Bill 35, which is in partresponsible for the indiscriminateparceling of agricultural lands into35-acre parcels. Counties such asRoutt should have the option toestablish their own minimum acresizes based on their objectives andthe nature of their landscape. AFTbelieves that support for legislativeefforts to change this law shouldcontinue.

E. U.S. FOREST SERVICE/BLM

The attitude and policies of the U.S. ForestService and Bureau of Land Managementwill be extremely important to the successof this agricultural land protection effortMany of the ranches in the valley leaseadjacent federal lands owned by theseagencies. The policies of these agencieshave a major impact on the viability ofranching, and the following two areas areparticularly important in this valley:

1. Land Trades

The efforts being undertaken by anumber of the landowners in thisvalley to protect their lands could beundermined if the forest service orthe BLM were to promote landexchanges of their lands to privateparties. The purpose of theseexchanges would be to maximizethe values on these lands so theymost likely would be sold to subdi-viders. As stated earlier, the actionsof several of the landowners in

granting conservation easements bylimiting future development mayenhance the development value ofthese federal lands. The landownershope that these federal agencies willunderstand the significant resourcemanagement benefits that the pri-vate land protection is providingtheir properties through non-devel-opment. AFT would like the federalagencies to specifically acknowledgethe conservation efforts in area man-agement plans and support theseefforts.

2. Management Policies

The management policies of the fed-eral lands have a dramatic impacton the viability of the agriculturaloperations that lease them. AFT rec-ognizes that there have been abusesby private lessees of federal lands,but believes that ranchers in this val-ley have been responsible stewardsof these lands. With the permanentcommitment of land in the valley toagriculture, there is a heightenedneed for the understanding of theimportance of these lands to the con-tinuing viability of the agricultural

Page 23

•Ia•••

a

••••

•nU•••I

I•

•

IppI

UIn

n

•

•


operations that depend on them.Everything from lease rates to publicaccess to water rights and predator

management should be addressedwith a new understanding of thecommitment of a number of the val-ley landowners to conserving theirlands. There is a particular need tobalance agricultural and recreationalobjectives and recognize the impactsthat poorly planned recreationalaccess may have on grazing opera-tions. AFT hopes that the federalagencies will endorse this plan andstrive to work cooperatively withthe ranching community.

Page 24


American Farmland Trust1920 N Street, NW, Suite 400Washington, D.C. 20036202 659-5170

Conservation Partners, Inc.1138 Humboldt StreetDenver, CO 80218303 831-9378

UIaaI•IUII

aIaISUU

UIUV

I

Sa

Upper Elk River Valley • apt Protecting the Ernd an witiao ......and Santa Fe, N. M., population...

Documents

Transcript of Upper Elk River Valley • apt Protecting the Ernd an witiao ......and Santa Fe, N. M., population...