# 2016 Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange Comments Sought



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*BLM Kremmling/Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange - *Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange

*Documents*

*Federal Register Notice*
https://www.federalregister.gov/art...t-statement-for-the-proposed-blue-valley-land


*News Release*
*BLM seeks comment on proposed land exchange in Grand and Summit counties*

*“We will only complete this exchange if we determine it is in the public’s interest. Land exchanges involve trade-offs, so we want to hear what the public thinks about this proposal,” said BLM Kremmling Field Manager Stephanie Odell, “We are considering this exchange because of the potential to increase public access and important big-game winter range on public lands.”*

The BLM will host two public open house meetings to answer questions, provide more information, and take written comments. The first will be May 23 in Silverthorne at the Summit County Library North Branch, 651 Center Circle; the second May 24 in Kremmling at the Grand County Extension on the Fairgrounds. Both meetings will run from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. The public can stop by anytime during the open houses. 

Comments need to be received by June 8, 2016 and may be submitted to [email protected], faxed to 970-724-3066, or mailed to 2103 E. Park Avenue, P.O. Box 68, Kremmling, CO 80459.
BLM seeks comment on proposed land exchange in Grand and Summit counties (4.19.16)


*Description of parcels* (see maps below)

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/b...el descriptions Blue Valley Land Exchange.pdf


*Maps*

*Overview*
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/b...dat/1-OverviewMap-WildlifeCrossings_24x36.pdf

*Before and After All Parcels*
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/b...ile.dat/9-PrePost-AllParcels-NoTopo_36X24.pdf

*Green Mountain Area*
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/b...401.File.dat/10-PrePost-GrnMtn-Topo_36X24.pdf

*Confluence Area*
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/b....File.dat/8-PrePost-Confluence-Topo_36X24.pdf


Also,
*Blue Valley Ranch Exchange*
Blue Valley Exchange


----------



## MountainmanPete (Jun 7, 2014)

Correct me if I am wrong but from what I can read on this map, everything from the Grand/summit county border south along the Blue River is National Forest. Does that mean it is technically open to camping along that section north of the dam and south of the border? 

Thanks-

Pete


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

*This is not good for boaters*

Correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear to me that all the public stops after the canyon would become private property. This means no stopping for about 11 miles of river and thats a lot of river and a lot of time. 

For anyone who has boated this stretch this deal is not good for boaters


----------



## jvwoods (Mar 5, 2012)

This swap doesn't make sense for blue river recreationalists. The small amount of property that the BLM owns after the canyon should be held onto IMO. I would much rather have a couple slices here and there then nothing at all for 11 miles. Seems like this swap is being proposed just to consolidate the BLM lands which might be good for hunting and such but would have negative impacts on the boating community.


----------



## soggy_tortillas (Jul 22, 2014)

The BLM actually makes it sound like it may be a better deal for all of us... better access at the kayaker take out, maybe even let rafters take out there, along with picnic tables and a restroom. Plus a new take out at the confluence. And foot access to 1.66 miles of river frontage.... which is more than we have now...

I know there have been rumors about trespassing issues with the ranch, but I've never encountered any or heard any first hand accounts. I think the take out they've built for kayakers is really nice, and by the sounds of it they are going to improve that take out and add another near the confluence, along with day use amenities. 

At first glance, it looks like a win win, especially if they're going to provide funding for continued maintenance on the improvements.




*What are the public access trade-offs of this proposed land exchange?*
Under the proposed land exchange, the BLM would exchange 0.31 miles of frontage on the Blue River and acquire 0.97 miles of Blue River frontage. The public would also gain foot access to an additional 1.66 miles of river frontage, which is currently inaccessible by means other than floating.
The public would see a net gain of approximately 1,182 acres available for hunting. The exchange would result in net gains of more than 500 acres of mule deer winter range and more than 300 acres of priority sage-grouse habitat. 
*How would the proposed exchange affect floating the Blue River?
*The proposed exchange does not involve any public lands currently used by floaters to access the Blue River. Boaters will still be able to float through the Blue Valley Ranch as before. As part of the exchange, Blue Valley Ranch has proposed several design features including construction of a new take-out for floaters near the confluence of the Colorado and Blue Rivers, and a permanent rest stop for floaters with a seasonal toilet on ranch property at Spring Creek Bridge. 
*Is it appropriate for private landowners to benefit from a trade involving public lands?* 
Proponents of land exchanges generally make their proposals to benefit their operations and holdings. When the BLM receives a proposal that could potentially benefit the public as well, it may elect to begin a land exchange evaluation process to determine whether the proposed exchange is in the public’s interest. The BLM will only complete a land exchange if it’s determined to be in the public’s interest.
*What specific improvements to public lands would Blue Valley Ranch fund as part of this exchange?*
1. At Green Mountain (near Parcels 2, 9 and 10) - funding for implementation of road and trail improvements for improved access to Green Mountain and the lower reach of Green Mountain Canyon;
2. Near the Confluence of the Blue and Colorado Rivers (near Parcel 8) - funding for construction of day use recreational amenities (e.g., picnic benches and wheel chair access improvements at the cottonwood grove, plus, trails, fishing access points, fencing to enclose the animal pasture, and associated irrigation ditch improvements around Parcel 8);
3. Near the Confluence of the Blue and Colorado Rivers (near Parcel 8) - donation of the seven-acre chevron shaped parcel of land across the river from the cottonwoods;
4. Near the Confluence of the Blue and Colorado Rivers (near Parcel 8) - funding for implementation of in-stream river and riparian aquatic habitat improvements as shown on the Matrix Design Group drawings; and
5. Funding to cover operational and maintenance costs for the improvements.
*What is Blue Valley Ranch proposing on its own land to benefit the public?*
Public access to the existing boating take-out on Blue Valley Ranch property at Spring Creek Bridge would become permanent with a perpetual easement for floaters' use as a take-out and a rest-stop. Currently, Blue Valley Ranch voluntarily allows access at this location, which lies just upstream of Parcels G and H. Blue Valley Ranch would also provide funding for construction of permanent day use rest-stop amenities here, such as picnic benches and seasonal toilets.


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

It does sound nice, but for those who float the whole distance, Spring Creek is very far from the takeout for there to be no stopping. 

Currently you can not put in at spring creek rd and, from what I see, that will continue. That means going from put in to take out is still just as long a day.

The put in for this stretch is very difficult, as is the take out. However, the swap is not really making this easier... the put in is still a repel for rafts.

Whitewater kayakers would benefit, as they would have a toilet at their take out, but really that is all they get.

I suppose hunters benefit a little bit, but I don't know of anyone who has needed this specific area for an increase in hunting size- are you out there?

As with most Colorado Rivers, the signage for these public parcels sucks. That should be improved, but to lose them is a tragedy.

The BLM website is incorrect that it has no negative effect on fishermen. I stop my boat and wade fish these areas and they fish good. The area below trough road is not a very good fishery. Opening that area up, in my opinion, does equal a better access for fishermen.


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

Hard to picture any swap these guys propose actually being in the public's interest.

How does owner ship of the hillside change mule deer habitat? Do the deer go around the no trespassing signs currently in place? Is the whole area he plans to share fenced off?

I am suspicious.


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

Another thought, the public would be losing a stretch of accessible (by car) river that already has stream improvements for an area with no stream improvements, but the promise of some in the future. 

Again, I truly believe this bad for all us Colorado boaters in the long run.


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

I maybe having a conversation with myself here, but screw it, I hope that by posting people get involved and take action cause this land swap is not ok. Here are some of the points that stand out to me:

1. As outlined in my previous, the biggest problem for us floaters is there are no stopping points between Spring Creek and the take out if the swap happens. That is a long way.

2. The swap does not mitigate (as far as I am aware) this length of trip difficulty by adding Spring Creek Road as a viable put in.

3. The swap removes areas once accessible as drive in fisheries, with good stream improvement for areas with no stream improvement, only the promise of future improvements.

4. I would need more research/knowledge, but the land swap areas gives away more river-front land than is gained. The value of river front land is way more than any other land. The public, while gaining land, may actually be losing money.

5. According to the math, the public "gains" about 350 acres of land from the swap. However, 120 acres of land comes from Summit County Open Space. So actual public land net gain appears to be about 33% less than advertised (my math could be wrong).

6. Some land public gets is on (top?) of the canyon... not sure who is using that.... to me it would pretty hard land to use, but maybe it is usable for hunters on the eastern side of the canyon.

7. Blue Valley Acres and Skylark Ranch all gain land, while giving none in exchange, including river front property. This strikes me as odd. Again the public loses.

Anyone out there, please email, write, go to the forums next week and speak out against this. Protect our recreation in Colorado


----------



## fella (Jul 29, 2008)

I've seen few land exchanges that either truly benefit the the general public, or in which the taxpayer does not get the losing end of the deal.


----------



## powrider686 (Aug 12, 2009)

I'll be there to speak against it. And writing them some letters. Giving up access along that stretch of the Blue and through the Blue Valley Ranch is definitely not in the public interest.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*7 and 8 days, respectively, until next Monday, May 23 Silverthorne and Tuesday, May 24 Kremmling meetings. Are you going?*

*23 days until the June 8, 2016 Comment deadline. Will you write and submit your Comment to BLM Kremmling by then?*

To express your Comments, remember they don't mean a thing unless you submit them to BLM in *written* form, by email, fax, snail mail, etc, and/or at the Silverthorne/Kremmling meetings so your Comments can be entered into the exchange process. Refer to the BLM contact info in this thread's original post.

Use these links for written Comment ideas, language and to better understand the BLM land exchange process:

*BLM Land Exchange Handbook (Public) 1995 Latest Version?*
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.72089.File.dat/h2200-1.pdf

*Previous Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange Process from around 2005*
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/kremmling_field_office/documents/exchanges/blue_valley.Par.46447.File.dat/Exchange_Process_1105.pdf

*Example: Land Exchange Feasibility Analysis (Sutey Ranch near Carbondale)*
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/crvfo/lands_and_realty.Par.27559.File.dat/Sutey%20Feasibility%20Analysis%2012-28-11.pdf


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

The Summit County Board of Commissioners is meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, May 17 at the Summit County Courthouse in Breckenridge to discuss the Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange. The exchange discussion will be from 11:15-11:45 am.

http://www.co.summit.co.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/545?html=true

Will you go?


----------



## zercon (Aug 30, 2006)

*New take out*

Does anyone know where the new take out would be in relation to the current one (where you drag your boat up the bank and over that wood walkway) and would it have a ramp for backing down trailers.

"The proposed exchange does not involve any public lands currently used by floaters to access the Blue River. Boaters will still be able to float through the Blue Valley Ranch as before. As part of the exchange, Blue Valley Ranch has proposed several design features including construction of a new take-out for floaters near the confluence of the Colorado and Blue Rivers, and a permanent rest stop for floaters with a seasonal toilet on ranch property at Spring Creek Bridge. "

PS, how about a wood ramp at the put in below the dam to slide boats down


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

I plan on being at the forum in Silverthorne Monday.

I too am curious about where/what the take out improvements are. And second the thought on improving the put in. I would am curious if spring creek is being added as a viable put in location as well.

Hope to see a lot of people at the forum. Hope that as the public we can have numbers to keep our public land.


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

*REMINDER BLUE RIVER LAND EXCHANGE MEETING TONIGHT*

Blue River land exchange meeting tonight in Silverthorne- hope to see people there. Hopefully we can generate enough public interest to save the few public parcels on the Blue River between trough road and spring creek.

Hope to see y'all there!


----------



## dafewillis (Jun 21, 2014)

How did it go, Brett? Thanks for showing up and representing.


----------



## zercon (Aug 30, 2006)

I was there and the general public was not well represented. Of the maybe 25 people in the room it was BLM, a few Colorado parks people and a women with the Blue Valley ranch, as well as the group hired to put the whole swap together. The whole time I was there, I did not speak with anyone pointing out the negative aspects of the swap. I would like to hear more about the down side of the proposal from someone who has taken the time to review the swap.


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

Hi all-

To relate important info that I got from the meeting. 

The BLM does seem interested in helping the public, but we need comments, so please send these in. Comments must be received by June 8- see OleRivers first post in this thread. After this deadline they will make a draft plan, which will have another public comment period near the end of the year. These are really the only two times we the public can voice our opinion and help to get the swap to work in our favor.

My stance is that the swap is negative for rafters as it decreases public land during float (river land is lost between Spring Creek and Trough Rd). This is a big deal because this float is very long and these small parcels provide a stopping/resting point- otherwise a rafter is looking at 6-8 hours of never being able to touch shore (depending on flow).

There is nothing proposed to to improve the put in or have spring creek become a viable put in either.

There is a plan to improve the take out, which will be moved to the old take out location that has eroded into the river long ago (at the fallen down bridge)

Please email the BLM about what you would like to see happen. Losing they small public parcels is another step towards the public losing access to river and recreation in our state.


----------



## SummitAP (Jun 23, 2007)

OK, tell me where I am wrong:

The existing "rest areas" on the spring creek/confluence stretch are VERY NEAR spring creek or the confluence. If there is a suitable rest area at Spring Creek and at the confluence, it seems like the "nonstop" section only increases by 20% but in exchange you'd have improved stopping points at Spring Creek and the confluence.

Also, why would BVR be responsible for improving the put-in which is on USFS land according to the map? USFS in not party to this exchange...


----------



## wamsley (Feb 28, 2011)

Great questions- I will try to answer

The Spring Creek area is relatively near two of the BLM parcels that would be lost. However, Spring Creek is very quick after the canyon (public), so the need to stop there as a rafter is minimal and much nicer to stop down river. Truthfully, I would prefer a further downriver stretch to stop at past BLM G and H, but it does not exist. BLM I is much further down river, but also serves as a nice stretch break (after a long time in the boat) before the final private stretch to the take out.

The confluence area is the take out and essentially public all ready, I would not consider that portion to affect rafters (and truthfully rafters take out before the confluence).

You are correct, BVR is not responsible for making improvements to public lands. However, in the exchange, BVR is paying for river improvements to the confluence area, the take out, and is in charge of the toilet/spring creek rest area. 

Based on this, it seems that the negotiation table is open to having BVR provide public improvements that BLM either lacks funds or for, or is unwilling to provide. The put in is getting pretty eroded and has always been trecherous. Putting in at Spring Creek would be nice too as it would shorten the float for rafters.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

*ALERT: As of today, Sunday, May 29, 2016, 10 days until the exchange Wednesday, June 8, 2016 BLM written Comment deadline.* See links in this thread's original post for BLM contact info to submit your written Comment.


Let's see if we can clarify, confirm and then submit written Comments, in your own words, to BLM by the current June 8, 2016 deadline, about the Proposed Blue Valley Land Exchange. The exchange should be in both the public's and private's interest so that *All Win*. 

The general participants are the public and private property interests. The specific participants are the private property interests of the Skylark Ranch, Blue Valley Ranch, Blue Valley Acres and the public property interests of the Federal and Summit County (Open Space). Read the exchange to confirm as I may have mixed up Blue Valley Acres with Blue Valley Estates, etc. Of course, the entire general public, Grand County, City of Kremmling, Blue Valley Estates, hunters, kayakers, anglers, rafters, other outdoor recreationists, other private property owners along the way up or down the Lower Blue, etc., also have an interest. However, the above entities that represent the private or public interests have property directly involved and, therefore, have the ability to proceed with or abandon the proposed exchange.

At certain exchange process points in this real estate exchange transaction, the entities with property interests may elect to proceed with, negotiate and/or abandon the exchange. See links in this thread's original post. At certain deadline points, all public and private interests may Comment. One of those Comment deadline points is Wednesday, June 8, 2016 after which BLM will review them to determine if the exchange is "in the public's interest".

Possible alternative Comments:

1 Propose to support retention of the proposed exchange's existing language in both the private's and public's interest 

to increase and eliminate parcel access (see exchange links in original post of this thread) for fishing and hunting; 

wildlife preservation;

Spring Creek permanent easement kayak only takeout/raft rest stop only;

proposed property exchanges and stream and takeout improvements near the confluence, etc.;


2 Oppose to support one, some or all amendments and/or additions to the proposed exchange in both the private's and public's interest that proponents provide:

a permanent easement for walk in access from Spring Creek Road parking area to the canyon's USFS public parcel on the west side of the Blue;

a Spring Creek or Spring Creek alternative permanent access easement or reservation of existing public access at Parcel H (with permanent access easement on existing road from Spring Creek Road across from the parking area to Parcel H) (See map links in original post of this thread);

additional permanent public access easements at intervals between Spring Creek (or Parcel H) and confluence access points;

identity of access easements' holder; 

adequacy of proposed and additional access locations for current and future use;

contractual assurances for the public's use rights that include navigation, floating, fishing, etc.;

mitigation by alteration or contractual agreement providing permanent easements or other mechanisms for scouting, portaging and safe navigation and passage around and/or over obstacles;

the future process for management planning regarding public uses of the river above and below Spring Creek Road, etc.

(NOTE: The last several points in #2 are excerpted and paraphrased from Summit County's current Draft exchange Comment letter.)


3 Oppose with one, some or all amendments and/or additions to the proposed exchange that are only in the private's interest.


4 Oppose with one, some or all amendments and/or additions to the proposed exchange that are only in the public's interest.


5 Comments in addition to or separate from the above Comment alternatives.

Remember, to be reviewed and included in the exchange process by BLM, you must submit written Comments.

Also, if you submit written Comments to BLM, how about posting them here in this or a new thread?

.


----------

