HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 06.12.1995• •
BOCC 6/12/95
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST: An exemption from the definition of subdivision.
APPLICANT: Rue Balcomb
Bruce Arbaney
LOCATION: CATION: A tract of land located in Section 25, T5S, R90W
of the 6th PM, located approximately 1/2 mile
north of I-70, off of C.R. 137(Canyon Creek), west
of the City of Glenwood Springs.
SITE DATA: 40 acres
WATER: Wells and domestic ditch water rights
SEMLER: ISDS
ACCESS: CR 137
EXISTING/ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I_ RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The site is located in District E - Rural Areas Severe -Moderate Environmental
Constraints as designated on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts' Map.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
A. Site Description: The property is located west of Glenwood Springs, on the
west side of County Road 137. The property includes sloping lands descending
towards the Canyon Creek, with a significant drainage way that bisects the
property. There is an existing house on the property, that the applicants live in
at the present time. Vicinity map is shown on page'
B. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to split the 40 acre parcel into
four (4) tracts of approximately 3.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 30.0 acres in size. A sketch
plan of the proposed exemption submitted with the application is shown on page
. `•
•
• •
I11. MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
A. Subdivision Regulations. Section 8.52 of the Garfield County Subdivision
Regulations state that "No more than a total of four (4) lots, parcels, interests
or dwelling units will be created from any parcel, as that parcel was described in
the records of the Garfield County clerk and Recorder's Office on January 1,
1973, and is not a part of a recorded subdivision; however, any parcel to be
divided by exemption that is split by a public right-of-way (State or Federal
highway, County road or railroad) or natural feature, preventing joint use of the
proposed tracts, and the division occurs along the public right-of-way ornatural
feature, such parcels thereby created may, in the discretion of the Board, not be
considered to have been created by exemption with regard to the four (4) lot,
parcel, interest or dwelling unit limitation otherwise applicable;
A deed recorded in the Clerk and Recorders Office describes the parent parcel
in 1968, Book 397, Page 141-142. Therefore, up to four (4) parcels may be
created through the exemption process.
B. Zoning. All of the parcels exceed the two (2) acre minimum lot size consistent
with the A/R/RD zone district. The Canyon Creek area includes densities
generally consistent with the proposed exemption (see assessor's map on page
).
C. Legal Access. The parent parcel is accessed directly from County Road 137.
County Road 137 provides access to a number of residential uses . Staff would
suggest that shared access be developed for the lots 1, 3 and 4, to minimize
driveway cuts. Driveway permits will be required from Road and Bridge prior
to the signing of a exemption plat. Additionally, it will be necessary to show an
access easement for lot 1, through lot 3 or 4.
D. Water and Sewer The applicants propose to use water out of the Virginia
Ditch, transferred from the Williams Canal and approved by decree in Case No.
94CW163, to provide domestic water to lot 2. Lots 1 and 4 will have a well or
wells providing domestic water, depending on whether or not the applicants can
surrender an existing well permit for individual well permits for each lot or
through the purchase of West Divide Water Conservency water in exchange for
individual well permits. Lot3 will be served by an existing well. (See all water
"l
documentation on pgs.h# ). It is also, unclear as to the length of the year
that the ditch water is available to the lot that it is proposed to serve. This issue
needs to be clarified, prior to any final approval.
Staff has referred the application to the State Engineer's Office. No response
has been received to date. Staff would suggest that a favorable response from
the State be a condition of approval. Once a determination is made as to how
many wells will be developed, all of the wells should be drilled and a pump test
that demonstrates at least a 5 gpm flow rate on a sustained basis. If a 5gpm flow
is not possible, a storage tank with a minimum of 2450 gallons of storage for
each dwelling unit. This is the equivalent of a seven (7) day supply of domestic
water for a dwelling, based on 350 gpd/ dwelling unit.
Sewer will be provided by ISDS. Soils on the sites proposed for homesites are
predominantly Chilton channery loam, with slopes ranging from 6% to 25%.
III •
The SCS soils information indicates a moderate hazard due to slopes for the
areas with slopes between 6% and 12%. The areas with slopes over 12%, have
a severe rating due to steep slopes.
E. State and Local Health Standards. No State or Local health standards are
applicable to the application, with the exception of Colorado Department of
Health ISDS setback standards, which should be verified by an engineer.
F. Fire Protection. The Fire District has not responded to the application. Staff
would suggest that a favorable response be received by the Fire District prior to
approval of the final plat. Given the steepness of the slopes, the Colorado State
Forest Service guidelines for construction in an area with the potential for
wildfire should be required.
G. School Impact Fees The applicant will be required to pay the $200.00 per lot
impact fee prior to the approval of the final plat.
H. Building Area. The lots appear to be in areas that may have slopes over 40%
in grade. The SCS Soils Survey indicates that building sites with slopes over
12%, have severe limitations due to slope for dwellings with or without
basements. The Zoning Resolution requires that each lot created have at least
one contiguous acre of land with slopes less than 40%, in each lot. Prior to
approval of an exemption plat, the applicant should have a surveyor certify on
a map, a building area for lots 2,3 and 4.
BLM Comments : The BLM has noted a number of issues related to the rights
of private property owners having land adjacent to public land, wil�dl' e habitat
and the potential for debris flow on the property. (See letter pgslip Staff
would suggest that a plat note stating that the area is subject to debris flow and
rolling rocks, particularly in near or below ravines.
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting
before the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed exemption is in the
best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL or the application, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all representations of the applicant, either within the application or stated
at the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered
conditions of' approval.
! •
A Final Exemption Plat shall be submitted, indicating the legal description of the
property, dimensio and area of the proposed lots, a common access point and
easement to lots 173MiktAI to a public right-of-way, and any proposed easements
for setbacks, drainage, irrigation, access or utilities and the following plat notes:
1. All new construction shall be consistent with Colorado State Forest Service
wildfire prevention guidelines specified in the pamphlet "Wildfire Protection in
Wildland Urban Interface"(C.S.F.S. #143-691)
2. An ISD system built on a slope in e .ess of 12%, may have to be engineered
6.' due to soils cons rots. �� ,� ot,ofe.dabs
)
�. ,PL br/s l.� /i a S a ‘ 6�7e w a--11-6t/Or a� lati-
3. That the applicant shallhave 120 days to pfesent a plat to the Commissioners 14, vret,//4
for signature from the date of approval of the exemption.
4. That the applicant shall submit $200.00 in School Impact Fees for the creation
of each new exemption parcel.
5. A favorable response from the State Engineer's Office must be received prior to
the signing of an exemption plat, that indicates that the proposed and existing
wells and ditch can be used legally and will provide an adequate amount of
water. Also, prior to signing a plat, any new wells approved shall be drilled and
have a pump test done on the wells showing a 5 gpm flow rate for a 24 hr.
period. If a 5 gpm flow rate cannot be achieved, a plat note will be required
noting that a 2450 gallon storage tank will be required to be in place prior to any
certificate of occupancy is issued for
j a new residential structure.
/�
6. A favorable response from the N Silt Fire Protection 1 i must
r ceived prior to he si nin Qf an exen tion plat." a
7. Control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner.
8. Driveway permits from Road and Bridge must be received prior to sng of an
exemption plat. Driveway access shall be shared between lots 1A3 ane .
9. That the applicant's surveyor certify that lots 1. 3 and 4 each have at least one
(1) contiguous acre of land with slopes less than 40%
/0. 74>
7-aL 7 /7-.
w/tW
Gl(�255 a-yu/�1
GC/ ' 2/ /v . v.)/ 0 4
Sod T-6
dAA-a/:
74,x,. i7/114-
,. r., ,,,er4r4i,„r- 1,,,,r,:„.,,,,,t
#..
ir
.. I / / / V
40.
61
OM
•
-4
rA
_ ..
(;...„
../ t, _,----...---------
1
- L- . : I !•, , -___ )
• ----> '=' ----
5620
___y,..-.1-.444, 3
. ...,,RC,-:•:, l'''..,.,.
---
.
'''
. • 1
• ''. ' - t -.Cr -:-",_.,,::"'.. .....-,.-- --;1-.'7'.7-:-.....
i ' -
.....
7-7-6200
P 4 Prr,774r) "F 7}/P e *Y7, e Pf 44';
•
fropss+o:
•
`1 1. o Ts ti:A.a-c
t tovt n S _ ,4-4v41 t A_cli
1 „ M Jot 0 it
31.11 £N of I. l t
26 25
95 98
co
N
0
O
b
6
2123-351-00-062
•
x123762 Oo-090
0
q
U
L.4 1. A
SAVOY.
11
C
2125-951-00-081
M
10-1 `
Ha' 41V Bo74.'I2` 1747147 MAX
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY I — 7 0
,GRA
6746'T 2.696.1'
WESTERN RAIL
r►= )s.mpt
• •
WATER SUPPLY
Lot 2: Water supply Lot 1 is currently provided by a
domestic right from the Virginia Ditch 1/Williams Canal. The
decree in Case No. 94CW163 is attached.
Lot 3: Water supply is provided by Well Permit No. 183449,
copy attached.
Lot 1 and Lot 4: Water supply is provided by an existing
well, the late registration for which is attached.
The Applicants contemplate either a West Divide Water
Conservancy District service contract on the surrender of well
permit and late registration well in exchange for three in-house
use permits only.
EXHIBIT F
i •
e 0
DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION 5, COLORADO
Case No. 94CW163
AMENDED RULING OF REFEREE
CONCERNING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF RUE BALCOMB AND
BRUCE ARBANEY IN GARFIELD COUNTY
Rue Balcomb and Bruce Arbaney filed the above -entitled
Application on July 28, 1994. The Water Judge referred the
Application to the undersigned as Water Referee for Water
Division No. 5, State of Colorado, in accordance with Article 92
of Chapter 37, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, known as the Water
Rights Determination and Administration Act of 1969.
The undersigned Referee has made such investigations as are
necessary to determine whether or not the statements in the
Application are true, has become fully advised with respect to
the subject matter of the Application, and has consulted with the
Division Engineer for Water Division No. 5. The Referee hereby
makes the following determinations and ruling as the Referee in
this matter.
FINDINGS
1. The statements in the application are true.
2. Rue Balcomb and Bruce Arbaney are the Applicants
herein.
3. The Virginia Ditch as transferred to the Williams Canal
is the subject water right of the Application herein.
4. The subject water right is not located within a
designated ground water basin.
5. Williams Canal Company and Greg and Jill McKennis filed
timely Statements of Opposition in this case. No other Statement
of Opposition has been filed, and the time for filing Statements
of Opposition has expired.
6. Claim For Change of Water Right. The Applicants claim
to change 0.1 c.f.s. of the Virginia Ditch from its decreed use
for irrigation to irrigation and domestic uses. The Virginia
Ditch is described more particularly as follows:
i •
Case No. 94CN163
Balcomb/Arbaney
Amended Ruling of Referee
Page 2
From previous decree:
A. Date Entered: 11/08/1909
Case No.: CA -1379
Court: District Court
B. Decreed Point of Diversion: Westerly side of
Canyon Creek at a point whence the Northwest Corner of Section
24, Township 5 S., R. 90 West of the 6th P.M. bears North 52°30'
West 1635.5 feet.
C. Source: Canyon Creek, tributary to Colorado
River.
D. Appropriation Date: 4/20/1909.
E. Use: Irrigation.
F. Proposed Change: The Applicants own 0.1 c.f.s of
the Virginia Ditch. They request a change in water right for
that 0.1 c.f.s. from the decreed irrigation use to irrigation and
domestic purposes. As grounds therefor, the Applicants state
that the 0.1 c.f.s. has historically been used for both domestic
and irrigation purposes around one single-family rseidential
structure since its appropriation.
RULING
The Referee has examined the information submitted by the
Applicants and has become advised with respect to the subject
matter of the Application. He rules:
The Applicants have fulfilled all legal requirements
necessary for the Court to grant the change of water right for
0.1 c.f.s. of the Virginia Ditch, as described in the Application
and herein.
The change of water rights herein approved shall not require
the Williams Canal Company to extend the season of ditch
operations beyond that historically operated. Moreover, the
Canal Company shall be under no obligation to furnish water of a
quality better than that historically furnished for agricultural
irrigation.
The change in use decreed herein will not increase the
burden on the Williams Canal Company nor injure Opponents.
Applicants divert their interest in the subject water right from
• •
ovit
0
Caae No. 94CN163
Balcomb/Arbaney
Amended Ruling of Referee
Page 3
the Williams Canal when available and the water is not available
thereafter to Opponents.
It is accordingly ORDERED that this Ruling shall be filed
with the Water Clerk subject to judicial review pursuant to Colo.
Rev. Stat. § 37-92-304.
It is furt.her ORDERED that a copy of the ruling shall be
filed with the State Engineer and the Division Engineer for Water
Division No. 5
Dated:
2� ( c )
Robert C. Cutter, Water Referee
Water Division No. 5
State of Colorado
No protest was filed in this matter. The foregoing Ruling
of the Referee is confirmed and approved, and is made the
Judgment and Decree of this Court.
Dated:
2.«.�
Judge Thomas W.`Ossola
• •
UI I II.L Ur 11 IL ..) I r' L L_I JLlt1 vLL11
I WS -25 COLORADO DMSIC - ' OF WATER RESOURCES
818 Contannlal Bldg., 1313 Sharman St, D•rrv.r, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
APPLICANT
WELL PERMIT NUMBER ___411344.9____ -
DIV. 5 CNTY. 23 WD 39 DES. BASIN MD
Lot: Block: Filing: SubdIv:
RUE BALCOMB & BRUCE ARBANEY
P 0 DRAWER 790
GLENWD SPRINGS CO 81602
( 303)928-8166
REGISTRATION OF EXISTING WELL
APPROVED WELL LOCATION
GARFIELD COUNTY
SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 25
Twp 5 S RANGE 90 W 6th P.M.
DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES
850 FL from South Section Line
750 Ft. from West Section Line
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT
CONDf11ONS OF APPROVAL
1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of the
permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another
owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action.
The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Rules
2 CCR 402-2, unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well
Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 17.
3) This well is recorded, and permit approved, in accordance with CRS 37-92-602(5) for historic use as indicated
herein and described in CRS 37-92-602(1)(b), being a well producing 5 GPM and used for ordinary household
purposes inside one (1) single family dwelling, fire protection, the watering of domestic animals and poultry, and
the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns.
4) The average annual amount of ground water to be appropriated shall not exceed 2 acre-feet.
1/-17-, y
O\NNEB'S Cu
APPROVED TT
J D 2,�,Q U ,
State Engoneer
Receipt No. 0376689 DATE ISSUED NOV 1 8 199.4
EXPIRATION DATE
ORM
NO.
GWS -7
06/94
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
821 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Shaman 31., Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
EXEMPT
INFORMATION FOR WELL PERMITS APPROVED PURSUANT TO CRS 37-92-602
(HOUSEHOLD, DOMESTIC, LIVESTOCK AND EXEMPT COMMERCIAL USES)
PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON THE ATTACH -HED COPY OF YOUR PERMIT.
THE CONDMONS MUST BE COMPUED WITH 1N ORDER FOR THE PERMIT TO BE VAUD.
THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A DECREED WATER RIGHT.
A STATEMENT OF: At,. FOR l� 1t `. `� asY
witt
04 US
THE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE IS TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE ISSUED. The well must be constructed and
evidence of it's construction must be submitted to this office in the form of a Well Construction and Test Report
from the well construction contractor confirming that well construction was completed prior to expiration of the well
permit. The permit number is located in the upper right hand corner of the permit. The expiration date is located
in the lower right hand corner. The expiration date may be extended at the discretion of the State Engineer for
good cause shown. tt you desire an extension, you must file a written request with this office prior to the expiration
date shown on the permit. The request must state why the well has not been constructed, must include an
estimate of time required to complete the well, and must specify the length of extension you desire, not to exceed
one (1) year.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING W q'4`n .. At l ial 4OT REGULATIONS
ARE FOUND ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS SHEET.
THE WELL MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND THE PUMP INSTALLED BY CONTRACTORS WITH CURRENT
LICENSE(S) ISSUED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO unless exempted as described on the reverse side. The well
construction and pump installation reports must be submitted to the office of the State Engineer within sixty (60)
days of completion of the work or within seven days after expiration of the permit, whichever is earlier. Your
contractor must provide you with a copy of the work report(s) filed with the State Engineer. The Well Construction
and Test Report, Form Number GWS -31 and the Pump Installation and Test Report, Form Number GWS -32 are
available from the Division of Water Resources offices.
At least two copies of the well permit have been provided. The owner's copy is for your records. The second copy
is for the pump installation contractor. Make additional copies for the well construction contractor if you select one
different from the one indicated in your application. tf you did not indicate a proposed driller on the application,
four copies of the permit are enclosed. DO NOT GIVE YOUR "OWNER'S COPY' TO THE CONTRACTOR
The original permit is on file in the Denver Office Records Section. Additional copies may be obtained for a fee
of 50 cents per page. Any change of mailing address or ownership should be reported to the State Engineer by
the new owner on a "Change in Ownership/Address", form number GWS -11.
If you have questions, contact the Denver Office, or the Division Office where your well is located.
DIVISION 1
800 8th Ave Am 821
Greeley CO 80631
(303) 352-8712
DMSION 5 Bac 396
50633 US I-twy 6 & 24
Glnwd Spgs CO 81601
(303) 945-5665
MOON 2 Box 5728
21911/ 5th Am 223
Pueblo CO81003
(719) 542-3368
DMSION 6 Box 773450
625 So. Lincoln Ave
Stmbt Spgs CO 80477
(303) 879-0272
13
DMVMSION 3 Box 269
422 4th St
Alamosa GO 81101
(719) 589-6683
DMSION 7 Box 1880
1474 Main St
Durango CO 81302
(303) 247-1845
4 Box 456
E Niagara
Morltroso CO 81402
(303) 249-6622
DENVER OFFICE
Rm 821
1313 Sherman St
Denver CO 80203
(303) 866-3581
Dal/ /9
0
r)�E OF 7HE STATE r '-);NEER
1111 C.ntsn nal 61a9 , 1313 tna..na. tit. Colaa6o 00203
(50.3) $66-33a1
FOR INSTRUCTIONS SEE REVERSE BIDE
REGISTRATION OF EXISTING WELL
WELL OWNE9
NAME(S) Rue Balcomb and Bruce Arbaney
Mailing Address
P.O. Drawer 790
City, St. Zip Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Phone ( 303) 928-8166
WELL LOCATION', COUNTY
Garfield
),'n' NUMBER
Raoaipl No.
OWNER'S WELL DESIGNATION Rue's We'll
Nddraaa) (CSM (State) (Lcl
SW 1/4 ar M.. SW 1/4, Sec. 2 5 Twp. 5 ❑ N. 0, D S., Range 9 0 n E. o, n W, 6th P.M
pint nce$ fror►l $ectbn Uneti
850 Ft. from 0 N. o. n S. Una, 750 Ft. from n E. Of l" 1 W. Line.
The well has historically been used for the following purpose(s): Domestic use; 1 single family
dwelling, irrigation of 1 acre of lawns, orchard, garden
Water from the well was first used beneficially by the original owner for the above described purpose(s)
on June 1 19 51
The tole, depth of this well is
68
feet.
The pumping rate is 5 gallons per minute.
The average annual amount of water diverted is 2 acre feet.
The land area of home lawn and garden irrigated from this well is: 1 EX_. Acre or n Square feet,
described as: See attached legal description; tributary of Colorado River
o: as
Its 56.64.vt)«y
Subdivision Lot(s)
Block Filing/Unit
I (we) have read the statements made herein, know the contents thereof, and state that they are true to my (our)~
knowledge. [Pursuant to Section 24-4-104 (13)(a) C.R.S., the making of false statements herein constitutes perjury
in the second degree and is punishable as a Class 1 misdem:t:no
Namefirtle (r'taa,a ,ypo o, pri„ Q ignature
Rue Balcomb
Bruce Arbaney
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
State Enpinaar
Court Case No.
Div.
SY
Co.
Basin
n.1.
MD Use
United States Department of the Inte ` Or jtiN 199S
4�ta f1 `"
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT , fY•
Glenwood Springs Resource Area
50629 Highway 6 and 24 w Ria•rvi I ER1o:
178 5g
P.O. liox 1009 ° (7-880)
Glenwood Springs, Colorado HI602
June 5, 1995
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street - Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Mr. Bean:
In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed
Balcomb/Arbaney Subdivision Exemption along the west side of County Road 137
(Canyon Creek Road), I offer the following statements for your scheduled
June 12, 1995,.public meeting. The entire western edge of the 40 acre tract
is adjacent to public lands administered by this office. Current uses on the
BLM include wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation such as hunting.
1. Ownership of land adjacent to BLM-administered public land does not grant
the adjacent landowner(s) any special rights or privileges for the use of the
public lands.
2. The adjacent public land is not currently permitted for livestock grazing.
The proponent should be aware of the location of property boundaries to ensure
no encroachment occurs on public land. Should any fence construction be
considered along the private/BLM boundary, the fence standards should allow
for easy passage by big game. This office can provide additional information
regarding fence standards upon request.
3. Adjacent public land is open to hunting and other dispersed recreation
activities. The proponents should be aware that hunting and other recreation
uses are allowed on BLM-administered land.
4. Any roads, trails, paths, or utilities (water, electric, phone or
otherwise) crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this
office. An environmental assessment report would be completed as a part of
the ROW permitting process.
5. The proposed subdivision lies within deer critical winter range.
Encroachment of homesites and people on big game winter ranges can have a
deleterious effect on game herd populations and health. Animals currently
wintering on the private lands will be displaced to adjoining public and
private lands. Habitat conditions on much of the big game winter range in
this area is considered unsatisfactory.
• •
Garfield County - Page 2
6. The area proposed for subdivision is susceptible to debris flows from
public land. The proponent should be warned of the high debris flow potential
and the hazards that rolling rocks pose to homes. These hazards are greatest
near or below ravines.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please
contact Jim Byers of this office at 945-2341.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
/4,
• •
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this date I mailed the attached Public Notice to the following persons who
comprise the property owners adjacent to or within 200 feet of the property described in the Public Notice
and owners of mineral rights and lessees of mineral owners of record of the land proposed for exemption:
David O. & Jo Ann Temple
0269 County Road 137
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Finley Homes Incorporated
980 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1400
Chicago, IL 60611
David J. Turtle
0726 County Road 137
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Joyce E. King
0570 County Road 137
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
John E. & Mila Rae Jensen
0568 County Road 137
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Roaring Fork School District RE -1
P.O. Box 820
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Dated this 15th day of May, 1995.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
Wildflower Trust
Constance M. Bowers, Trustee
1114 Canyon Creek Road (137 Rd.)
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Richard C. Haag
Priscella C. Ketz
P.O. Box 807
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0807
Jack R. & Patricia A. Fletcher
P.O. Box 317
Gideon, MO 63848-0317
Douglas and Cynthia Dobbins
P.O. Box 2452
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 1009
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
JUDY SbjNHOLTZER
The above and foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 15th day of May, 1995,
by Judy Shanhohzer.
Witness my hand and seal.
Address:
My commission expires:
Not
Public
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
My commission expires May 1, 1997
• •
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I hereby certify that on May 13, 1995 I posted the Notice
poster provided by the Garfield County Building and Planning
Department concerning a public meeting to be held on June 12, 1995
at 11:00 A.M. on the application of Rue Balcomb and Bruce Arbaney
for a subdivision exemption in connection with property situate in
the County of Garfield and State of Colorado, which property is
more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto. Said
Notice poster was posted on the exemption site and is visible from
a County road.
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF GARFIELD )
ss.
RUE ALCOMB
The above and foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this ,off ' day of May, 1995, by Rue Balcomb.
Witness my hand and seal.
Address:
My commission expires:
��.
C)aA
Notary Public
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
My Commission expires May n, 1998
•
. 4
July 24, 1995
Andy Bowers
1114 Canyon Cr. Rd.
Glenwood Springs CO
81601
Garfield County Department of Development
Planning Division
109 Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
To Whom it may concern:
REGARDING ARBANEY/BALCOMB CANYON CREEK SUBDIVISION;
As a land owner and resident in Canyon Creek I have the
following concerns regarding future development in Canyon
Creek Canyon Area;
Development will increase traffic on Canyon Creek Road,
decrease wildlife habitat, restrict wildlife migratory
patterns and may decrease real estate values.
I am not against all development, in fact I have recently
petitioned for an exemption to the sub division regulations
such that I may be allowed to split off a 4 acre residential
lot from my 50 acre parcel. 1 may choose to develop this lot
in the future. If I ever sold the 4 acre parcel I would deed
restrict it for the protection of the Canyon Creek
environment (ie; open space designations, fence limitations,
no dog restrictions, etc.).
I feel, it is paramount that the future of the entire Canyon
Creek eco system be considered before any subdivision is
considered. There are many large land owners in the Canyon
Creek area who have resisted the lure of quick sub division
profits and kept their large parcels in tact, there by
keeping Canyon Creek relatively pristine. These large land
owners have paid a price (in the form of lost opportunity)
to keep Canyon Creek the way it is. Now that the first steps
have been taken to profit from the development of Canyon
Creek it is certain that most of the large land owners are
weighing the decision of profits through development.
I do not believe it is right to reward someone because he
was the first to submit a sub division application.
I do not believe it is right to penalize someone because
they held onto their land in hopes of protecting the open
space.
If small developments are considered one at a time, surely
the time shall come when it is decided that Canyon Creek has
reached it's limit. Let us have the foresight to anticipate
that time now.
If the plan of this subdivision is approved will I receive
approval for the 6 - 10 developable sites on my 46 acres?
Will Bear Wallow, Rock -n -Pines or Okanela receive approval
for the hundreds of developable sites on those beautiful
ranches?
If Garfield County is going to consider a sub division in
one portion of the Canyon Creek eco system it must consider
how much development should be allowed in the entire Canyon
Creek eco system. Once a few developments start changing the
environment the large land owners will be motivated to give
up the effort to preserve Canyon Creek and cash in through
sub division.
The question of how much Canyon Creek development is enough
must be considered now.
Sincerely,
Andy Bowers
Board of County Commiio ers
Garfield County Courthou-e
Suite 301
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Dear Sirs:
81601
•
June 2, 1995
JUN 0 3 1995
tAma
Erosion: We are concerned about any building on this parcel of
ground, because of the danger of erosion. Several years ago, the
lower irrigation ditch broke. This ditch runs parallel to the
west side of road 137, just above our home which is located 1/2
mile further north up the canyon from the Rue Balcomb and Bruce
Arbaney property.
A deluge of water ran down the slope onto county road 137, across
it and on to our home. This did extreme damage to our home,
costing several thousands in damage. We pumped 900 gallons of mud
and silt out of the house, not including what ran out of the
house of it's own accord when we opened the door. If these lots
are sold, the trees and brush would have to be cleared to make
room for building sites. This and the excavation done by earth
moving machines concerns us. We are afraid our neighbors east of
this property might experience the same kind of damage we did in
case of large rains or flash flooding. Also, we must remember
what happened on Storm King when the fire destroyed the
vegetation. The possibility of more mud slides is a very real
concern. The danger will be the same to County Road 137. Also,
the danger to the present irrigation system along Road 137 would
be sure.
In consideration of the erosion factor, when all of these trees,
brush and roots are removed, be assured the ground will wash
away, the irrigation ditch will be constantly filling and
flooding, and County Road 137 will have mud and silt (a cost to
the county to keep it clear), the wildlife will be diminished -
the tranquillity this valley has offered over the years will be
gone. With constant and permanent damage, property values will go
down.
If you grant this exception, where are you going to stop? We feel
sure the owners of the property located north of this property,
on the same side of road 137 (west), will have grounds to ask for
and exception for his property if you grant this exception. You
may have difficulty not granting this second request. The
mountain is steeper, I believe, but the same thing could happen
to us because this property is immediately west of us. The owner
has already expressed a desire to do exactly this to us some
months ago. Without the trees, grass, and brush roots to hold the
soil, we could have a disastrous erosion and flooding problem,
just as we did several years ago when the irrigation ditch broke.
• •
County road 137 is presently too narrow and crooked to support
any more traffic. Traffic up and down this road has increased
greatly in the last 2 or 3 years because of already increased
building done further up the canyon. There are several blind
driveways. All of this together, could create a traffic
hazard.(or danger)
We are concerned because the petitions indicate they are going to
divide 40 acres into 4 tracks of 3,3,4, and 30 acres each. How
long will it be before they will want to divide the 30 acres into
smaller tracts, or even the 3 and 4 acre tracts into smaller
tracts? If this happens, there will be too many houses on that
mountain.
Environment: We have owned our property for 20+ years. We have
already seen a diminishing of wildlife. For several years, up
until 2 years ago, we saw a family of Golden eagles over our
house and elsewhere in the canyon many times. A bald eagle has or
had a nest on the east of the canyon in the rock formation east
of Mr. Haas or Mr. Jensen. I believe consideration should be
taken as to the effect this subdivision would have on the
wildlife.
As stated, we purchased our home 20+ years ago. We enjoy the
peace and quiet and the lifestyle this beautiful place provides.
We are planning on using this home in our retirement years. There
has already been construction in and near the canyon that has
changed the peaceful atmosphere to some degree. The quality of
life we provided for ourselves several years ago has been and is
being threatened. It is not our fault all these people are moving
in, but we are suffering because of it. Our taxes are going up,
even though there is no change in our property. Now that we are
67 and 65, reaching that retirement age, our quality of life and
earned plans are being taken from us. There doesn't seem to be
anything we can do about this and it isn't fair. They are
infringing on our rights and the way of life we secured many
years ago. We are expected to sit back and take this or just let
it happen. I wonder how they would feel if they were in our
place, and had owned the property all this time.
Please help us to keep this little spot in our world free from
the "big city's" destructive ideas.
The real bottom line to all of this is MONEY. The exploitation of
Canyon Creek is of great concern to us. A few (as usual) will
profit by means of destruction.
Sincerely,
Jack and Patricia Fletcher
• •
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building and Planning
November 7, 1995
Jack and Patricia Fletcher
P.O.Box 317
Gideon, MO 63848
RE: Balcomb/Arbaney Exemption
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Fletcher:
At the request of the Board of County Commissioners, I am responding to your request for
information regarding the above noted exemption request. Please understand that the County
does not have the staff to respond to all letters sent regarding the various developments
occurring in the County. Given your interest and the fact that you live out of state, I will try
to summarize the actions taken by the Board regarding the Balcomb/Arbaney exemption.
At the meeting in June the Board did approve the requested exemption for the splits, subject
to a number of conditions noted in the letter sent to the applicant's father and enclosed for your
review. As a note to your concern regarding the further subdivision of the property, the answer
is that it is possible to subdivide further, but the process will be much more lengthy and the
information required is more extensive. Your other neighbor may have already applied and
been rejected, since he does not qualify for an exemption under the criteria established by the
County. Also, the Board and Planning Commission are working on revisions to the
Subdivision Regulations that would eliminate the exemption process as it exists and replace it
with a process that will be more consistent with the County's needs to evaluate the proposed
subdivision. It will not eliminate the ability of a land owner to request the subdivision of land
in the County, since the minimum lot size is two (2) acres for your area. If someone makes an
application that meets the standards for a subdivision and complies with the zoning resolution,
the Commissioners will have a difficult time being able to deny an application.
109 8th Street, Suite 303
945-8212/625-5571/285-7972 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Hopefully, this letter answered some of your questions. I realize, the answers were not the ones
you wanted to hear, but the people involved did meet the criteria required and if they can meet
the conditions imposed, will receive final approval of the application. At this time there is no
real appeal of the decision, unless the applicant's fail to meet the conditions of approval and
have to go back through the process. If you have any other questions, I will try to answer them
as expediently as possible.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building & Planning Department
enclosure
• •
October 30, 1995
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
Suite 301
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Dear Sirs:
Several months ago, we wrote to you concerning a proposed subdivision
exemption for the following described property situated in the county
of Garfield, state of Colorado:
That portion of the W1/2SW1/4 of Section 25, Township
5 South, Range 90 West of the 6th P.M. lying and being
West of the County Road ori Canon Creek together with,
but without warranty, the water well located on the North
1/2 of the property described above and 0.1 cfs in the
Virginia Ditch, Priority No. 177.
We have heard nothing from you since sending the above mentioned
correspondence. Please advise us of the situation, as it stands
now.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
,I)ack and Patricia Fletcher
P.O. Box 317
Gideon, MO 63848
• 411
P
United States Department of the Intek for J 0 ? 199
5 t"
p .4
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Glenwood Springs Resource Area
50629 Highway 6 and 24
P.O. Box 1009
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602
June 5, 1995
Mr. Mark Bean
Garfield County Planning Department
109 8th Street - Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
rY
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1785g
(7-880)
Dear Mr. Bean:
In response to your request for comments regarding the proposed
Balcomb/Arbaney Subdivision Exemption along the west side of County Road 137
(Canyon Creek Road), I offer the following statements for your scheduled
June 12, 1995, public meeting. The entire western edge of the 40 acre tract
is adjacent to public lands administered by this office. Current uses on the
BLM include wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation such as hunting.
1. Ownership of land adjacent to BLM-administered public land does not grant
the adjacent landowner(s) any special rights or privileges for the use of the
public lands.
2. The adjacent public land is not currently permitted for livestock grazing.
The proponent should be aware of the location of property boundaries to ensure
no encroachment occurs on public land. Should any fence construction be
considered along the private/BLM boundary, the fence standards should allow
for easy passage by big game. This office can provide additional information
regarding fence standards upon request.
3. Adjacent public land is open to hunting and other dispersed recreation
activities. The proponents should be aware that hunting and other recreation
uses are allowed on BLM-administered land.
4. Any roads, trails, paths, or utilities (water, electric, phone or
otherwise) crossing BLM would require right-of-way (ROW) permits from this
office. An environmental assessment report would be completed as a part of
the ROW permitting process.
5. The proposed subdivision lies within deer critical winter range.
Encroachment of homesites and people on big game winter ranges can have a
deleterious effect on game herd populations and health. Animals currently
wintering on the private lands will be displaced to adjoining public and
private lands. Habitat conditions on much of the big game winter range in
this area is considered unsatisfactory.
• •
Garfield County - Page 2
6. The area proposed for subdivision is susceptible to debris flows from
public land. The proponent should be warned of the high debris flow potential
and the hazards that rolling rocks pose to homes. These hazards are greatest
near or below ravines.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If there are any questions, please
contact Jim Byers of this office at 945-2341.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Mottice
Area Manager
104
• •
TABLE 7.--UUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT --Continued
SOIL SURVEY
Soil name and
Shallow
map symbol 1 excavations
Dwellings
without
basements
Dwellings
with
basements
Small
commercial
buildings
Local roads
and streets
12*: :
Inchau ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe:
I slope. I slope. I slope. I slope. I slope.
, 1 ; t
13 :Slight ;Slight ;Slight ;Moderate: ;Slight.
Chilton i 1 slope. 1
; 1 1
14 :Moderate: :Moderate: Moderate: {Severe: ;Moderate:
Chilton ; slope. I slope. ; slope. ; slope. ; slope.
15 ;Severe: :Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
Chilton I slope. I slope. I slope. 1 slope. ; slope.
1 1
16 ;Moderate: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
Cimarron I too clayey. I shrink -swell, ; shrink -swell, I shrink -swell, ; shrink -swell,
II low strength. : low strength. ; low strength. I low strength.
1 1 ;
17 :Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: (Severe:
Cochetopa ; slope. I shrink -swell, ; shrink -swell, ; shrink -swell, 1 shrink -swell,
1 slope, ; slope, I slope, ; slope,
; I low strength. ; low strength. I low strength. ; low strength.
'; I
18*, 19*: 1 I I ; ;
Cochetopa ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: :Severe:
; slope. I shrink -swell, ; shrink -swell, I shrink -swell, : shrink -swell,
: slope, ; slope,
' ; slope, ; slope,
I low strength. ; low strength. I low strength. 1 low strength.
1
Jerry ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: :Severe: ;Severe:
I slope. ; slope, ; slope, ; slope, ; slope,
1 1 shrink -swell, ; shrink -swell, I shrink -swell, 1 shrink -swell,
1 ; low strength. ; low strength. : low strength. ; low strength.
,
20*. ;
Cryaquolls ; 1 •
t ' '
21': I ' ' 1
Cushman ;Severe: :Severe: :Severe:;Severe: :Severe:
: slope, ; slope. ; slope. : slope. slope.
cutbanks cave. 1 1 . '
;
;
Lazear ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe:
I depth to rock, I slope, i depth to rock, ; slope, ; depth to rock,
I slope. ; depth to rock. ; slope. ; depth to rock. 1 slope.
1 1
22 :Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe:
1 dr pl,h
to rook. ; ; nrn) , Ln rook. ; a lope. slow,.
Dateman ' slope, I slope,
23•� ; Severe: ;:;over(•:
{Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
Detra ; slope. ; slope. ; slope. ; slope. ; slope.
1
t '
24*: ; ; ;
Dollard :Severe: :Severe: :Severe: :Severe: ;Severe:
I slope. ; slope, I slope, I slope, I slope,
1 I shrink -swell, 1 shrink -swell, ; shrink -swell, I shrink -swell,
' I low strength. 1 depth to rock. ; low strength. ; low strength.
'
r 1 1 ' 1
t , '
Rock outcrop. : '1 '
I
25 :Severe: :Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe:
; slope,
I large stones. I large stones. 1 large stones. I large stones. ; large stones.
Etoe I slope, I slope, I slope, I slope,
1 ;
1 r
26*: ; '
Farlow ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe:
I slope. ; slope. ; slope. ! slope. 1
1 I slope.
I
I '
See footnote at end of table.
1IFLE AREA, COLORADO
TABLE 8. --SANITARY FACILITIES --Continued
109
I Area Daily cover
Soil name and i Septic tank ; Sewage lagoon I Trench ;
map symbol I absorption areas I sanitary i sanitary I for landfill
Fields ; � landfill I landfill
; '1 ;
12*: '
IPoor:
Inchau ;Severe: :Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: I slo e
I slope, ; slope, I slope, ; slope. I P ,
, thin layer,
depth to rock. ; depth to rock. depth to rock. 1 area reclaim.
I
,ePoor:
13 ;Slight ;Severe: ;Severe: SseerI small stones.
Chilton ; I seepage. I seepage. page.
' I ' , I
, I
14 ;Moderate: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: I :
small stones.
Chilton ; slope. ; seepage, ; seepage. ; seepage. Poor
;
; I slope.
, Poor:
15 ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: Sever: I small stones,
Chilton ; slope• ; seepage, I seepage.slope,
; I seepage. ; slope.
I slope.
16 ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Slight Poor:
Cimarron ; percs slowly. I slope. ; too clayey. I i too clayey.
e
; ; ;
17 ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: IPoor:e
Cochetopa I percs slowly, I slope. ; too clayey, I slope. I slope,
slope. ; I too clayey.
slope. '
1
18*:
Cochetopa ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: Poorslope,
I peres slowly, , slope. too clayey. I slope. too clayey.
slope. ; � 1
; I '
, Poor:
Jerry ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: slope,
I slope, I slope. ; too clayey. I slope.
P ,
I too clayey.
; percs slowly. ; ' � '
19*: ; Severe: ;Poor:
Cochetopa ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Sever:clayey,; slope. ; slope,
percs slowly, ; slope. slope. ; I too clayey.
; slope. I ;
; ;
Jerry ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe. pe
IPoor:
s
I
P slope. slope, too clayey.
I percs slowly. ; I too clayey. P 1 I
' I
' I
I
20. . , ' ;1
Cryayuolls ; ; ;
' ;
21*: ' '
Cushman ;Severe: ;Severe: Severe: ;Severe: ;Poor: depth to rock, I depth to rock, , depth to rock, I slope.slope,
thin layer.
I slope. , slope. I slope. ;
Lazear ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: IPslo�e
I depth to rock, I depth to rock, I depth to rock, I slope. 1 thin layer,
slope. ; slope. slope. '1
area reclaim.
. 11 1 I
'Severe: ;Severe: ;Poor:
22 ;Severe: ;Severe: I slope,
Dateman ; slope, ; slope, slope, I slope. ; P ,
' depth to rock. I depth to rock. 1 depth to rock. ; ; small stones,
I 1 ; I area reclaim.
,
1
''
1 '
�3 Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Poor:
Detra slope. I slope. I depth to rock. I slope. i slope.
'
, 1
24*: I I
Dollard ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: ;Severe: {Poore '
I slope, I depth to rock, ; slope, I slope. ; slope,
I percs slowly, I slope. I too clayey, 1 I too clayey,
depth to rock. ; 1 depth to rock. ; ; thin layer.
1I
; 1 . 1
See footnote at end of table.
RIFLE AREA, COLORADO
1 to 6 percent. The Morval soils are in higher lying areas
and have slopes of 3 to 12 percent. These areas make
up 10 to 15 percent of the map unit.
Permeability is moderately rapid, and available water
capacity is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60
inches or more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion
hazard is moderate.
This soil is used mainly for wildlife habitat, limited
grazing, and some irrigated hay and pasture.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly wheat -
grass, needleandthread, and sagebrush.
When range condition deteriorates, forks and shrubs
increase. When the range is in poor condition, undesira-
ble weeds and annual plants are numerous. Properly
managing gracing maintains and improves lunge condi-
tion. Reducing brush improves the range. Seeding im-
proves range in poor condition. Crested wheatgrass,
western wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye are suitable for
seeding. Preparing a seedbed and drilling the seed are
good practices.
Mule deer, cottontail rabbit, squirrel, and wild turkey
find habitat on this soil.
Community development is limited by the large stones.
This soil is in capability subclass IVe, nonirrigated.
14—Chilton channery loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes.
This deep, well drained, rolling soil is on alluvial fans and
sides of valleys. Elevation ranges from 5,000 to 6,500
feet. This soil formed in alluvium derived from red -bed
shale and sandstone. The average annual precipitation is
about 14 inches, the average annual air temperature is
about 46 degrees F, and the average frost -free period is
about 120 days.
Typically, the surface layer is reddish brown channery
loam about 13 inches thick. The substratum is reddish
brown, light brown, and pink very channery sandy loam
and very cobbly sandy loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Begay and Morval soils. The Begay soils have slopes of
6 to 12 percent. The Morval soils are in higher lying
areas and have slopes of 3 to 12 percent. These areas
make up 10 to 15 percent of the map unit.
Permeability is moderately rapid, and available water
capacity is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60
inches or more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion
hazard is moderate.
This soil is used mainly for wildlife habitat and grazing.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly wheat -
grass, needleandthread, and sagebrush.
When range condition deteriorates, forbs and shrubs
increase. When the range is in poor condition, undesira-
ble weeds and annual plants are numerous. Properly
managing grazing maintains and improves range condi-
tion. Reducing brush improves the range. Seeding im-
proves range in poor condition. Crested wheatgrass,
western wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye are suitable for
15
seeding. Preparing a seedbed and drilling the seed are
good practices.
Mule deer, cottontail rabbit, squirrel, and wild turkey
find habitat on this soil.
Community development is limited by slope and large
stones.
This soil is in capability subclass Vle, nonirrigated.
15—Chilton channery loam, 12 to 25 percent
slopes. This deep, well drained, moderately steep to hilly
soil is on alluvial fans and sides of valleys. Elevation
ranges from 5,000 to 6,500 feet. This soil formed in
alluvium derived from red -bed shale and sandstone. The
average annual precipitation is about 14 inches, the
avoraclo annual air tomporaturo is about 46 degrees F,
and Ihu avorago frost -Iron period is about 120 days.
Typically, the surface layer is reddish brown channery
loam about 13 inches thick. The substratum is reddish
brown, light brown, and pink very channery sandy loam
and very cobbly sandy loam to a depth of 60 inches.
Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of
Begay and Morval soils that have slopes of less than 12
percent. These areas make up 10 to 15 percent of the
map unit.
Permeability is moderately rapid, and available water
capacity is moderate. Effective rooting depth is 60
inches or more. Surface runoff is medium, and the ero-
sion hazard is severe.
This soil is used mainly for wildlife habitat and grazing.
The native vegetation on this soil is mainly wheat -
grass, needleandthread, and sagebrush.
When range condition deteriorates, forbs and shrubs
increase. When the range is in poor condition, undesira-
ble weeds and annual plants are numerous. Properly
managing grazing maintains and improves range condi-
tion. Reducing brush improves the range. Seeding im-
proves range in poor condition in the less sloping areas.
Crested wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, and Russian
wildrye are suitable for seeding. Preparing a seedbed
and drilling the seed are good practices.
Mule deer, cottontail rabbit, squirrel, and wild turkey
find habitat on this soil.
Community development is limited by steep slopes
and large stones. Cut slopes should be revegetated im-
mediately to reduce erosion and prevent gullying.
This soil is in capability subclass Vle, nonirrigated.
16—Cimarron loam, 2 to 12 percent slopes. This
deep, well drained, nearly level to undulating soil is in
narrow mountain valleys and drainageways. Elevation
ranges from 7,500 to 9,000 feet. This soil formed in
alluvium derived from basalt. The average annual precipi-
tation is about 18 inches, the average annual air tem-
perature is 39 degrees F, and the frost -free period is less
than 75 days.
Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown loam
about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is grayish brown silty
10
/HORSE
3942UNTAIN