• Central City, Central Highlands, York Gulch Road
• Forest Service land exchanges
• Pine Beetle problem
• Clear Creek County and BLM land usage
• Forest Service Small Parcel Land Purchase

Dave gave a brief overview of the current conflict. We are urging Clear Creek to issue a 1041 impact protest regarding the proposed development and pipeline. We are hoping to include Gilpin County as well. A key issue that must be resolved is whether York Gulch is a County Road, or if it belongs to the Forest Service.

The land is presently owned primarily by Louis Morrone, who plans to develop it into a resort hotel, high density housing and commercial area with office buildings. It covers about 310 acres, and it was recently annexed into Central City. Due to this annexation, Central City is required to provide water and sewer to the entire 310 acres once it is developed.

The Forest Service (USFS) opposed the annexation and sent a letter voicing its concerns to Central City. Wong said the area has about 10 acres of common boundary with USFS land, and that it is the type of area the Forest Service would like to purchase for open space uses.

Wong said he has spoken with Morrone about a possible purchase, but Marrone claims the land is now worth $14 million dollars since the annexation. Wong said if the development plans do not materialize, there is a possibility that USFS could purchase the land for a lesser amount at some time in the future.

Wong explained that with the current business plans, the Southern Access Road is vital. The road will be financed by increased taxes to the Central City commercial interests, and a vote is scheduled for November, 1999. Without the Southern Access Road, the resort might still be built, but not the additional housing that has been proposed.

Central owns water rights to Fall River and Clear Creek. They propose to build a water pipeline from the bottom of Fall River at the confluence with Clear Creek, up Fall River Road, and York Gulch Road to their water treatment station and storage area north of town. This would require approximately three large pumping stations, as well as Public Service lines to supply the power. (Once Public Service has supplied electricity to an area, they must offer it to everyone in the area.) Wong said the USFS is not prepared for a project of this size.

He said Central City government has told him they are currently defending a case in Colorado State Water Court and do not expect to start this project until 2001. [Marci's aside: We have heard this sort of "story" before: last time the Central City government met with YG and Fall River residents, they claimed the development project had been a figment of the previous city planner's imagination. This probably means they plan to start right away.]

Wong said this large a project would fall under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), provisions of which could take several years.

Wong said USFS is mostly interested in possible impact to wildlife. They consider the impact to the road to be minimal. U.S. Fish and Wildlife can also become involved if there is possible threat to endangered species. In addition, another Environmental Impact study would be necessary.

Central would rather negotiate a land trade with the USFS so they can own the roadway with fee simple ownership, and avoid having to deal with all the environmental issues. Although any trade would still have to be approved by NEPA, there would be many fewer governmental hurdles. Central has proposed a trade of USFS interest in all the land along York Gulch Road for parcels of land in the James Peak area.

Wong said one big hurdle to USFS trading land for land would be if ownership of the road were in question. He said that many roads in Clear Creek were built prior to the creation of USFS and the National Forest System in 1906(8?). Mining law predates the Forest Service, which is why we are able to own land in a National Forest. (RS2477) Bill Sanders pointed out that his claim is one of the oldest, and dates to 1880s.

We would need to prove that the county or other local governmental entity made improvements to York Gulch Road, using public monies, at some time prior to 1906(8?) and that the road was in the same location. This would allow Clear Creek County to claim ownership of the road, and in all likelihood, block the construction of the pipeline since Central would need USFS easements to make any improvements.

Wong suggested that Christine Bradley, the archivist at the Clear Creek courthouse, could help provide this information. The county would then have to agree to accept ownership of the road, something they have sometimes been reluctant to do. Wong said that maintenance, or lack of it, is not considered pertinent.

Gail Sams noted that Clear Creek County has maintained the lower portion of YG, and accepted state funds for YG for many years. The USFS has developed some of the roads, but YG as far as Chinook was on BLM land which now belongs to the county.

Determining road ownership is critical, because the governmental agency having ownership must give final authorization for any road work. Dean Wooley asked if Gilpin County could stop the pipeline, and Wong said "No."

Wong said that USFS could set requirements, but our unique status as an "off the grid" community would not impact any decisions, since we are not an endangered species. The USFS is interested mainly in process, and whether proper procedure were followed. USFS is not empowered to determine whether the decision was good or bad.

He said that Colorado State Forest Service handles large area spraying for pine beetle. Otherwise individual landowners are responsible for maintaining their own property. He suggested spraying of selected trees as a possible option.

He said no prescribed burns are planned in the area this year. A burn is planned for West Chicago Creek.

In 1986, GCCHLA had petitioned for notification if anything was to be done with any of the nearby BLM land. The county notified us as an interested party. After a brief discussion, it was decided that Department of Wildlife would probably be the best custodian for the land in question. Therefore, no further action was taken.

Gallaher reminded everyone that the USFS could decide to trade all the remaining land in York Gulch to a developer at any time. He urged everyone to purchase whatever nearby land they could, to make the area less attractive for development.

Wong said that while there are no plans to include York Gulch in any trades, it is the sort of land that USFS would like to divest itself of, because of the residential nature of the area, and the problems with administration.

Briefly, the USFS Small Parcel Land Purchase policy allows current landowners to purchase land adjacent to their claims. The idea is to sell the small, odd shaped, unmanageable parcels that exist between claims, and where claims cross. The procedure must be done to exact USFS specifications, and often takes several years. Kramer said a group purchase can speed the process considerably.

Kramer outlined some of the needed procedures. They include the following (with approximate cost):

• archeological survey - $750
• parcel survey - $800
• rewritten legal description - varies
• appraisal - $1900
• zoning fees - $1300

Kramer said the total costs could run as high as $8000 an acre, but could drop to as little as $3000 an acre if the costs are shared. The fees and costs drop, because most are billed by the job, not by the acre.

Gallaher suggested that anyone considering Small Parcel Land Purchase co-ordinate through GCCHLA so the fees can be shared.

May Meeting