# Lower Blue Public Access



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

coronet said:


> Hey all, here's a link to an article in todays Summit Daily regarding possible public access changes to the lower blue. it goes on to say there is a public hearing for comments in Kremmling Tuesday. BLM plan could affect river access in Summit County | SummitDaily.com


Just saw this thread after posting a moment ago in the BLM Draft RMP Meeting thread in the Access and Alerts forum so I'm cross posting my post there into this thread...

The BLM Resource Management Plan, in part, will have a direct and dominating impact on how you use and access the Lower Blue River Corridor from the BoR dam to the confluence with the Colorado River at Kremmling. Unless you read, comment and/or attend the meetings concerning the BLM draft RMP, you will forfeit your right to have a say on how the Blue is managed.

Have any of you attended either of the previous meetings? If so, how many public folks were there?

The Public Comment period is September 16,2011 - January 17,2012.
Have you sent in or will you be emailing any Public Comments?

Are you attending the RMP meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, November 8, 2011 from 4-7pm at the CSU Cooperative Extension Building at the fairgrounds in Kremmling?

Now til January 17, 2012 is the time to do your thing, folks...


----------



## SummitAP (Jun 23, 2007)

I just came here to post this


----------



## threepin (Oct 22, 2005)

*Re: Lower Blue Access/BLM plan could affect river access in Summit County*

BLM Colorado | Kremmling Draft RMP

BLM plan could affect river access in Summit County | SummitDaily.com

Article:
Both banks of a 15-mile stretch of the Blue River could come under private ownership if the Bureau of Land Management approves its preferred draft resource management plan, which grandfathers land exchanges already under way even when those properties involve river corridors. Approving the plan wouldn't make the exchange automatically happen, but makes it a better possibility. 

Other land exchanges involving river banks would be excluded in the future, according to the draft plan. The federal agency is in the process of revamping its 1984 Kremmling Resource Management Plan, which doesn't govern much of Summit County, but does have impacts. 

A sliver at the north end of the county and underground mineral rights on BLM, Forest Service and private land are affected, but Summit County residents also take advantage of Grand and Jackson County BLM land for recreation. 

Summit County Open Space and Trails director Brian Lorch called the amount of land under BLM jurisdiction “an area larger than Rhode Island,” when he sought comment from the Summit County Board of County Commissioners. The commissioners haven't released a statement — particularly regarding the grandfather clause on river-associated land exchanges — but staff is identifying potential areas of impact for their review. 

“There are certainly indirect effects of a huge land mass that people go to recreate on and we are one of the closest economies that's recreation-based,” Lorch said. 

Summit County Commissioner Karn Stiegelmeier is worried about the Blue Valley Ranch land exchange, which Lorch said has been ongoing for about a decade. Public access in the 15 miles from the Green Mountain Dam to the confluence with the Colorado River would be at stake.

“We have concerns about public access to the river in these particular areas,” Stiegelmeier said in a meeting last week. Currently, the Blue River Ranch allows access to the river on Spring Creek Road, and there is another takeout before the one at the confluence, Lorch said, though neither have long-term guarantees for access. 

The county has a stake in the exchange decision because some of its property on Green Mountain could become part of the federal domain, Lorch said. 

A Tuesday meeting in Kremmling provides a chance for the public to provide input on the Bureau of Land Management's revised management plan that governs the next two decades or more of taking land management actions and guiding site-specific decisions. 

“We only revise these resource management plans about every 20 years, so we really want to hear from the public about these alternatives,” BLM field manager Dave Stout said. “These open house meetings are a great opportunity for the public to learn more about the alternatives and provide us with their comments.” 

The public input open house is slated for 4-7 p.m. Tuesday at the Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Service building on the Kremmling fairgrounds. It's the meeting closest to the heart of Summit County. 

The plan for the Kremmling Field Office covers the 377,900 surface acres and 653,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate. It extends into Routt, Larimer and Eagle counties. It analyzes four alternatives, covering all aspects of management, including recreation, travel management, energy development, resource protection, wildlife habitat, special designations, grazing and realty actions. 


*Subsurface mineral estate and the Forest Service
*

The majority of the country's subsurface mineral estate is managed by the BLM — even when it's under Forest Service land — so clauses in the plan about managing mining claims and lease nominations would interest Summit County officials and residents. 

In particular, the Forest Service has designated wilderness and special interest areas in its forest management plan. Special interest areas are deemed important, but don't have the same level of protection as wilderness land — areas like Hoosier and Porcupine ridges, Golden Horseshoe and McCullough Gulch. 

According to Boyd and Forest Service community planner Paul Semmer, mineral estate under Forest Service wilderness is off-limits, as are ski areas and high-investment recreation areas like campgrounds, because those areas have gone through their respective protection processes. Special interest areas aren't automatically protected, though. 

“We wouldn't lease something without their concurrence,” Boyd said, but Semmer explained it further. 

“It's a question of impacts,” he said. The mineral lease proposal would undergo an Environmental Impact Statement or something like it to decide whether the lease can be granted and under what conditions. The Forest Service currently manages the forests according to a plan formalized and approved in 2002. Semmer said it's currently not undergoing any revisions. 

Semmer said the Forest Service also has keen interest in how the BLM has outlined its travel management on areas adjacent to Forest Service land, particularly after the Forest Service approved its new travel management plan this year.


----------



## JerkmyBait (Jun 14, 2011)

I have read the link, but am still confused on how this will effect the river access. Could someone more knowledgable on the subject break it down for me please? I would like to mail in a comment on the subject but I dont really know what to include in the letter. Thanks.


----------



## webby (Jul 11, 2008)

Please email [email protected] your opinion on lossing public access to 15 miles of the Blue River between Green mtn Dam and the Colorado River.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

JerkmyBait said:


> I have read the link, but am still confused on how this will effect the river access. Could someone more knowledgable on the subject break it down for me please? I would like to mail in a comment on the subject but I dont really know what to include in the letter. Thanks.


I attended the 11/8/11 BLM Draft RMP meeting in Kremmling (2 hour drive each way from Arvada, thenkyouverrymush) and, for around 3 hours, talked to several people including BLM personnel about how the BLM Kremmling Draft Resource Management Plan may affect the Lower Blue, especially, about access and use.

Upon signing in, among the handouts was a 2 page disclaimer about the 11/7/11 SummitDaily.com story about how the 15 mile Lower Blue Corridor's banks access may be turned somehow over to private ownership and also about the ongoing Lower Blue Land Exchange being grandfathered in the DRMP.

Essentially, the handout stated clearly that no such ownership transfer of the 15 mile corridor is in the DRMP. Period. End of story. I looked at the couple inch thick DRMP and confirmed it with several people. Don't worry about it. Gone. Done. Not there. Can't do it. Media Gone Wald.

As for the grandfathering of ongoing exchanges such as the LB Valley Exchange thing, yes, there's stuff in the DRMP concerning BLM "Retention Areas" that, if you read Chapter 2, pages 121-123, Alternative B (the "Action" on 2-121 and "Exception..." on 2-123) of Table 2-2, #3 at the top of 2-123 at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...nts.Par.86940.File.dat/KFO_Vol 1_Chapter2.pdf and if you look at the purple "Retention Area" BLM land on the map 2-37 in Appendix A at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...ar.58248.File.dat/2-37_KFO_Retention_AltB.pdf then you may get a little clearer on what's going on in relation to the Lower Blue.

Further, upon initial "glazing" of the map... now, follow me here while looking at the map... the map shows the northern half of the GM Canyon as still being BLM land, which it is not. That land has been confirmed to me as being USFS land. Therefore, that northern half of the canyon may or may not really be a BLM "Retention Area" and may need to be corrected. I'm not sure on this, however, and may provide a Comment asking for clarification as it may or may not have an impact on the Blue Valley Land Exchange, the final RMP or whatever. Not sure. Need to check it out. We'll see. Stay tuned for the nailbiting conclusion!!!

As for timeframe, looks like the DRMP completion and finalization may be somewhere around Spring or Summer, 2013. Maybe. Butt, who nose? Upon a Final completion of the DRMP, the RMP goes into effect. Any LB management plan, the way I understand it, can start, as far as, I believe, BLM is concerned, after this completion because the RMP will govern what BLM can do legally. According to the Summit County Assessor maps, USFS owns all the public land *along the banks* of the GM Canyon (the 5000 acre privately owned Shadow Creek Ranch owns, according to Summit County Assessor around 750' of shoreline mid canyon on the west side of the river where the orange "No Trespassing sign is located on its upstream end) so they may do something before completion, however, likely, they're waiting til the DRMP is finalized. Therefore, timeline-wise for the exchange and the management plan, two separate dealios, it looks like they don't begin until at least mid 2013. 

I may contact USFS Dillon in Silverthorne (you, of course, may also) to see if anything can be done concurrently as far as their land holdings are concerned, but prolly it's a couple years after mid 2013 when the exchange ok'd or denied and/or LB management plan may be completed.

As for the exchange, it appears that a federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needs to be done before getting to the final Decision whether the exchange is done. Therefore, all you people who enjoy All Things EIS type reading may want to ramp up on it in mesmerizing detail and agonizing anticipation of that phase of the exchange. It'll be a wild party you will never forget so strap it on, river rats, it's gonna be a bumpy ride poring through all that ole EIS gobbledygook... an exciting, bumpy ole wave train ride! Don't know about you but I'm just a gettin' all giddy just thinking about reading through all them EIS Rules, Regs, poems, prayers and promises!!! 

Teri, Hannah or other BLM (Public Information?) rep, how about replying in this thread to clarify, confirm and/or modify what I've posted?


----------

