HOME
Castle Rock Collaboration
Planning Documents
Status Report on the
Planning Study for Castle Valley
Prepared by Conservation Partners, Inc.
This report presents a brief overview of progress to date on the Planning Study for Castle Valley. The study was initiated by the Utah State Institutional Trust Lands Administration ("SITLA"), the Town of Castle Valley ("TCV") and the Castle Rock Collaboration ("CRC"), a branch of the nonprofit Utah Open Lands, in order to explore mutually acceptable ways to address the disposition of 4,427 acres of SITLA lands (the "Land") in the center of Castle Valley. While SITLA, TCV and CRC (the "Parties") have different objectives for the Land, they agree that a continuation of the uncoordinated and unplanned disposition characteristic of previous sales is not in anyones best interests. TCV and CRC desire to preserve the Land in its current natural state, and if that is not possible to minimize development and ensure that it meets community objectives. SITLA operates under a fiduciary obligation to obtain fair market value for lands that it sells or trades.
A planning team ("Team") consisting of Conservation Partners, Studio 2 Design, and Computer Terrain Mapping was engaged to facilitate the process and work towards a land use plan and disposition process that addressed the parties conflicting objectives. In addition, the Team was assisted by Dave Bell, a well-known landscape architect from Utah State who was engaged by SITLA. The planning process began in June, 2000 and has been ongoing for a year and a half. During that time, the Team has traveled to Castle Valley four times to collect information, run public meetings, meet with different constituencies and understand the conservation and development values of the land. The process has been designed to engage the Parties as constructively as possible. A steering committee consisting of representatives of the three parties oversees the project, reviews materials generated by the Team, reports back to their respective groups and assists in identifying and resolving many of the variety of complicated issues in this project.
During the first site visit, the Team began the site analysis to understand the Lands characteristics and map information essential to the plan. In addition, the Team met with over 30 individuals representing different constituent groups ranging from governmental entities, recreation interests, nonprofit groups and landowners. At the public meeting the Team presented its proposed approach, sought input on community objectives and reviewed a set of Guiding Principles or Criteria for Success that was refined over time. This set of principles committed the Parties to constructive, open dialog, and the maintenance of flexible attitudes in the preparation of a plan that would generate fair value for the property while conserving important lands to the maximum extent. Subsequent site visits and public meetings focused on identifying conservation and development lands, identifying appropriate development types, developing alternative development and conservation plan options, reviewing a disposition strategy and discussing elements of a potential binding agreement between the parties to implement the plan. In addition, the Team met with the steering committee in Boulder, Colorado on two occasions for half day planning charrettes during the plan development.
The projects site planning process began with the creation of a site atlas consisting of maps depicting numerous physical, biological, scenic, and land ownership attributes of the valley and site so that everyone began with the same set and understanding of mapped information. Utilizing this information lands suitable for development and those suitable for conservation were identified. Lands unsuitable for development consisted of steep slopes, drainages and areas subject to flooding, geologic hazards, and unstable and highly erodable soils. Due to the fact that the site contains Round Mountain and many other areas with development constraints, the amount of developable land is reduced to approximately 1,684 acres or 38% of the site.
The Team developed a conceptual development plan that responded to TCV and CRCs main concerns for conservation, protection of large areas for wildlife habitat and movement, protection of views and attention to water impacts of new development. The concept plan focuses development in one primary area and three smaller secondary areas, preserving over 75% of the Land in open space. The plan protects the key wildlife areas and even the more dense areas contain wildlife movement corridors. The plan also creates a buffer to Castle Valley Road in order to protect views. In addition, the plan divides the Land into ten parcels varying from 140 to 655 acres, each of which contains portions of development and conservation lands. These parcels will be disposed of by SITLA according to a mutually agreeable schedule. In response to SITLAs desire to obtain fair value for the property, the plan encourages a diverse mix of housing types varying from approximately 3-acre lots to lots in excess of 100 acres. While the overall density has been reduced 75% from the level theoretically permitted by county zoning, the proposed development creates economic value through the quality of siting and design, the phased disposition process, and the fact that the real estate market is moving towards higher values for larger parcels. The land use plan is therefore the prime vehicle through which SITLA obtains fair value for the Land.
While the land use plan establishes the maximum amount of development that can occur on the Land and responds to many issues important to the community, it does not respond to TCV and CRCs ultimate objective to conserve all the Land. To respond to this objective and to cement mutual agreements a contract is being drafted governing the disposition process. Under the terms of this proposed agreement, TCV would annex the Land and adopt the land use plan as the controlling development regulation. The agreement will also identify what TCV and SITLA will bring to the table in the event that development occurs. The contract will establish a timetable for disposition of the ten parcels that comprise the Land over a period of time that is currently estimated to be twenty years. If TCV and CRC desire to acquire a parcel, they will give notice to SITLA of their intent to acquire when it becomes available for disposition. This shall initiate a valuation process to determine the parcels fair market value that is designed to be credible, accurate and independent, and the costs of which shall be shared.
TCV and CRC shall have a one-year option period during which they will attempt to secure funds for the purchase. They may secure private, foundation, and nonprofit funds as well as solicit the involvement of several conservation buyers to assist in the protection effort. A conservation buyer is a private purchaser that acquires property with the intent to preserve it through a permanent conservation easement while retaining the right to construct a limited number of houses. If TCV and CRC are successful in meeting the purchase price, they acquire the parcel. If not, SITLA is free to dispose of the parcel with the land use plan entitlements in place to qualified purchasers. This process may be changed by mutual consent if, for example, TCV and CRC can acquire several parcels at one time. This approach allows all the Parties the opportunity to meet their objectives.
Working through the contract and annexation, and obtaining approvals from the SITLA board, Town Council and CRC will be challenging due to the numerous issues and length of time covered by the agreements. However, all parties have made tremendous strides, have developed mutual understandings, and have developed a stronger commitment to taking the steps necessary to conclude agreements and implement the mutually beneficial land use plan and disposition process.
Castle Valley Planning Study
Notes Summary from June 12 - 14, 2000 Meetings
The following is a summary of meetings conducted in Castle Valley from June 12 through 14, 2000 by the planning team working with the Town of Castle Valley, the Utah State Trust Lands Administration and the Castle Rock Collaboration. A series of meetings was held with the project steering committee representing the three funding entities, different agencies, constituencies and area residents in an effort to give the planning team a variety of perspectives regarding the desired future of the 5,000 acre State Trust Lands in the center of the valley. Some of the key ideas discussed were incorporated into a set of Principles or Criteria for Success which were refined and presented to a public meeting on Tuesday night. The Principles are attached to these notes and have been approved by all of the parties. These additional notes are designed to capture the key ideas expressed at the other meetings. The names of participants, for the most part, are not included since we wanted participants to speak candidly, but we have attributed comments in a more general way to different groups. While not all of the groups we talked to are identified, we think that most of the major ideas have been captured. It is important to remember in reading these notes that they capture a range of attitudes and opinions that have not been endorsed by the parties but which provide important starting points for developing a set of plans and strategies which meet project objectives.
Recreational Interests
There is great concern among recreational interests that two parcels of land
on the north side of the Castle Valley Road be protected in order to preserve
the primary setting and access to Castleton Tower. The Tower was described
as a special icon for climbers because it is one of 50 classic American
climbs, is a source of inspiration and beauty and has a special place in
climbing history. This area consists of two parcels which have previously
been described as G1 and G2. Both parcels are considered important to
protect with G2 being the most important since it is the direct access to
Castleton Tower and location of the campground. G1 provides access to
Parriot Mesa, other towers and is part of the visual foreground for these
landscape features. There was some discussion of changing the boundary
between these two parcels to the ridge that separates them.
Recreation interests believe that the existing campground should remain a low key, primitive camping area with little or no signage. While there was an agreement that maintenance should be improved, camping be more organized to protect the area and toilets provided, the emphasis should be on maintaining a primitive campground at little or no cost to users. Users do not want the land under the control of Utah State Parks since there is concern about over improvement. The Town of Castle Valley would like to retain as much control over the campground and these parcels as possible. Land swaps with federal agencies would be an acceptable way to protect these lands but it was acknowledged that these processes are lengthy and difficult. Outside funding from Patagonia, the Access Fund and others may be available to support protection of these areas because of their importance to climbers. Concern was also expressed about a contiguous and small triangular parcel owned by the 7th Day Adventists which is currently used as a small gravel operation. Protection efforts could include this piece through acquisition of the fee or development rights.
In addition to the lands next to Castleton Tower, recreational interests desire to protect Round Mountain, as much of the lands on the north side of the Castle Valley Road as possible for access to adjacent public lands, protect views and maintain rural character, and provide trail access and connections throughout the valley. Hunters value access to State Trust and BLM lands and would like to maintain this access.
Town of Castle Valley
Town council members briefly described the history of development in Castle
Valley. Land where the Town is located was previously a large ranch which
was sold for development in the early 1970s to a "California-style"
developer. The development was premature and was sold off at bargain
basement prices. The development plan consists of 448 5 ac. lots and
approximately 30 - 40% of the lots have structures on them. About 50% of
the property owners live out of town and of those that live out of town about
25% live out of state. Approximately 80 lot owners own multiple lots. Castle
Valley has become the wealthiest part of Grand County and is the next
biggest town in Grand County to Moab. There are approximately 300 year-round
residents many of whom have a high education level. Castle Valley was
incorporated in 1985 and the Town currently has a budget of $85,000/yr. Its
first property tax was enacted last year which raises approximately $50,000.
Castle Valley has historically been isolationist in County affairs. The
current Town Council is changing this relationship and there is better
communication than in the past. The Town would prefer to annex all State
Trust land if possible.
The Town Council expressed concern about impacts on water and preserving the
quality of the aquifer which underlies the valley. Water to replenish the
aquifer comes from LaSal Mountain. snowmelt. Mike Low, a Utah Geologist, is under
a two year contract to study aspects of water quantity, quality and movement
in the aquifer. The water study is divided into three phases:
Phase 1 = permissible septic density, sampling of quality and nutrients,
complete in 10/00
Phase 2 = geologic characterization, how quickly water moves through
aquifer and in what amounts, speed of recharge
Phase 3 = water quality, center of valley looks good, near rim is
degraded, salty, mineralized
A1996 study found that at current levels of use there is no drawdown of the
aquifer, but the Town is concerned that if they have to go to a community
water and sewer system, costs to users in terms of monthly user fees would be
high and would reduce property values. They are concerned that the Town does
not have the density necessary to pay for a community system. Therefore, the
Town prefers on-site water and septic because the costs of a community system
would be an economic hardship to town existing residents. The study will
also attempt to determine the annual draw down on the aquifer, which is
underlain by rock formations and salts on the sides of the valley that
render water there undrinkable.
Currently the Town is served entirely by private wells, three of which are shared. The Town needs a well somewhere to supply water to those who have bad water and a well protection zone around these source wells. The Town is not a water provider and it is trying to get an EPA designation as a sole source aquifer.
The Town would like to buy as much of the State Trust land as it can by working with partners and funders, or by finding conservation oriented buyers. It would like to create an open space park on as much of the land as possible, maintain the campground and access to public lands. It is interested in providing land management where needed, but this should be minimal, although restoration of some lands is warranted. Members of the Town Council expressed concern about overgrazing of the State Trust lands.
In terms of how development occurs, members of Town Council expressed the following opinions. The plan should allow for economic diversity . If development leads to a higher tax base, some people will be pushed out. They want the development to pay its own way and not impact community services negatively. There is a preference to protect the entire north side of the Castle Valley Road which has immediate access to wild lands and Round Mountain if possible. Some expressed the need for affordable housing. In general, development should blend in, avoid stream beds, keep off ridges and high areas, provide wildlife movement corridors and provide proper landscaping. Some expressed the desire to keep new development adjacent to existing developed areas or develop options which either create larger parcels with higher values or create tight clusters to preserve more open space. There was a desire to control development in terms of limiting fencing, building heights, architectural character and management of pets and visibility. There was also a desire to protect the quality of the night sky and the quiet of the valley. There was mixed opinion about whether the current road into town should remain a cul de sac or be connected back to the main road by a new road through the State Trust land.
The Town currently has 5 acre zoning, defines a "family" as consisting of no more than 4 unrelated adults, is developing fencing regulations, has a shielded light ordinance, sets building height limits at 30 feet and defines home occupations - no non-resident employees.
Upper 80 Residents
Concern expressed about maintaining the wildlife habitat and connections
surrounding the Upper 80 (80-acre subdivided parcel near Round Mountain).
Particularly concerned about the area behind the 80 which is winter deer
habitat (Section 28) and north side of Round Mountain. Native plants are
found at the edge of the steep topography. Concern that new residents will
place 8 ft. fences around lots and have dogs which will impact the viability
of the open range wildlife and wintering habitat . Wildlife corridors need to
be maintained and public access to Round Mountain should be assured. Concern
about the cumulative impact of new development and traffic on the river road,
which is already very dangerous and is receiving more traffic as a result of
two new resort developments. The road cannot be expanded to four lanes and
is considered one of the most dangerous in the state due to its history of
fatal car accidents. Concern expressed about maintaining the quality of the
water in the aquifer and impact that new development and septic systems will
have on the quality and quantity of aquifer water. Plans need to respond to
results coming from the water studies. Desire that any new development not
follow the current subdivision pattern (i.e. 5-acre rectangular lots laid out
with little sensitivity to the land). Some prefer lower density, larger lot
development and concern that sound travels far in the valley. Some desire to
connect to the Castle Valley Road as a loop to make traffic pattern more
efficient and reduce impact of all traffic being forced to use one road for
ingress and egress. Concern about the overgrazing occurring on the State
Trust lands and desire to restore and improve management for health of the
vegetation, wildlife and quality of the landscape. There are some paleo
sites in the area but generally not of high significance.
7th Day Adventist School
School has been operating in valley since 1970. Accommodates 25 high school
kids for the school year on a first come basis and the kids help work at the
farm. The school is run by an independent board separate from 7th Day
Adventist Church and is also financially independent. The farm grows
irrigated alfalfa and corn which require pesticide application.
School is concerned about development occurring in the valley. School does
not use triangular sand pit piece across the road (mining may be occurring on
the adjacent State Trust land). School property has a deed restriction that
apparently requires that proceeds from sale of any land must be used for a
non-profit purpose. School board is currently looking at the potential for
an extended care facility somewhere on its land. The school has ditch
easements across State Trust land to transport water from Castle Creek to the
schools distribution system. The school would be open to exploring
alternatives to keeping the triangular piece across the road out of
development. The school is very interested in the planning process, possible
ways of participating and will keep the Town informed of any changes that
would affect the way it is using its land.
State Trust Lands Administration
Rick McBrier described the mission of the State Trust Lands to administer the
state owned lands for the financial benefit of the public schools. The fact
that the State Trust has been working with the Town of Castle Valley
demonstrates that while State Trust Lands has objectives to dispose of lands,
it wants to perform these tasks in a fashion that has local buy-in to the
extent possible. State Trust Lands has done numerous creative land deals and
land exchanges that both benefited the state schools and local and regional
communities. Good relationships with communities are important and State
Lands desires to explore a variety of creative ways to meet both its and the
community objectives.
Due to concern over the disposition of lands in Castle Valley, there is a moratorium on new dispositions until the planning process is complete. If agreements can be made as a result of the planning process that benefit all sides, State Lands has the latitude to enter into longer term and less conventional transactions. However, there must be accountability on both sides if these more creative transactions are to be effective.
Castle Valley Ranching Operation
Castle Valley is home base for a 200 herd cow/calf operation run by local
rancher. The State Trust land is operated under a grazing lease. The State
Trust land is grazed primarily in May for 3 to 4 weeks, prior to the
availability of Forest Service leases on June 1. When the Forest Service
leases end in October, the herd is brought back through the valley. The
State Trust land is also used as gathering pasture for shipping the cattle
in mid-November, with the rest of the herd driven to Professor Valley for the
winter.
The rancher maintains that cattle and deer coexist well. This is primarily because the deer are browsers of shrubs/sagebrush and use the area at different times of year from the cattle. The viability of the ranching operation is dependent on assess to the State Trust lands. Ranching is tough given the low commodity prices and rancher is forced to rely on outside income. His ranch on Colorado River will become a tourist resort catering to corporate parties since it has become impossible to move cows on the highway by the river. Resort will help to subsidize the ranching operation.
Grand County
Grand County has a 7-member Council. With the help of the Sonoran Institute,
the County recently completed a comprehensive plan which identifies
protecting open space as one of 11 major goals. The County wants to work
with land trusts to protect land and sustain local agriculture. Currently
there are 88 farms and ranches in the county operating on 60,000 acres, of
which only 3,000 acres are irrigated. County feels strong need to maintain
private property rights and maintain scenic values. Only 4% of Grand County
is private land. Currently most development in the County is taking place in
Spanish Valley. The County supports the planning process and believes the
Town should have substantial say in the future of the valley. While the
County supports the 5 acre zoning currently in place, it would prefer
clustering of homesites to protect open lands. The County is concerned about
water, sewer, and storm water drainage. Currently some of the State Trust
land is in the County and some in the Town. If the land stays in the County
it will be subject to impact fees to ensure that new development pays for
itself. Eventually the County would like to work with the Town to prepare a
subarea plan for Castle Valley.