Blue Valey Ranch Land Swap Concerns

•  Land maintenance and management issues will not be reduced for the BLM. The BLM has discussed improving Parcel 10 so that the public can access the river, however, improvements will have to be funded and maintained. It has been suggested that Parcel 8 be improved for a duck habitat. This would again increase maintenance and management issues.

•  BVR will have greater maintenance and management as the public will not have any take outs from Spring Creek until the bridge on Trough Road .

•  There are also issues for Americans with disabilities, as they are loosing accessible river frontage. The “distant” of river frontage may actually be greater; however it is only accessible down a steep embankment.

•  Parcel K should not be included with the land trade. Blue Valley Acres has been approved for a Fire Station but does not currently have sufficient land to develop. There is a possibility that Blue Valley Acres could give access to G in return for Parcel K, without restrictions.

•  The 1 st land trade between BLM and BVR was not given the publicity that this land trade has received.

•  On the Friday tour and at other events, it was clear that the BLM employees have invested a lot of time and energy. Because of this they have also given the impression that the BLM is ready to “put this deal to bed”. We appreciate their efforts but believe that it should take as long as it takes to make the deal right.

Private Land To Federal Government

•  Parcel 1, (Thompson property 657 acres), which BVR does not currently have title, seems to be a fair trade as this property offers more access to the public and is good wildlife habitat. It would seem that this is a fair trade for A, B and C (530 acres). However, the contracts between BVR and the private land owners should be made public knowledge. There is obviously a property value that is being determined. Any offers with contingencies that are “unknown” are not ever considered strong offers. Based on the purchase price of Parcel 2 Thompson's property which is more favorable property would be worth $3,285,000.

•  Parcel 2 (621 acres) and 9 (120 acres) are connected and could be a fair trade but not at the expense of I. Parcel 9 is currently Summit County open space which is not legal hunting ground. BVR is paying Summit County $600,000 or $5,000 per acre or __ per supporting vote. It is possible that Summit County 's opinion can be swayed by $600,000.00

•  Parcel 3 (189 acres) and 4 (160 acres) each of these parcels would be considered a “medium” quality of land. Not offering premier amenities to the public. Acquiring Parcel 4 would alleviate any access problems into National Forest, although unlikely, it could become an issue in the future.

•  Parcel 5 (2.05 acres), no comment.

•  Parcel 6 (178 acres), these parcels would be a huge liability to the BLM. The mine shaft closures and general conditions would need to be cleaned up and improved. It would appear that they are trying to trade Parcel 6 for BLM D and E.

•  Parcel 7 (1.5 acres), the federal lands that Parcel 7 is granting access to are already accessible by foot. Vehicles access is limited to peak summer season.

•  Parcel 8 (62 acres), in the 1999 BLM's environmental access of the river determined that the fishing quality was marginal at best. Blue River fishing from parcel G and H is non comparable. It has also been discussed to improve this parcel for a duck habitat. This will increase the improvement and maintenance responsibility of the BLM. A duck habitat would also inadvertently produce a mosquito habitat. This would also only be accessible during part of the year as the water freezes.

•  Parcel 10 (25 acres pedestrian easement) accessible does not equal usability. Parcel I offers access that can be utilized by seniors or Americans with disabilities. In addition the Department of Interior can eliminate this access during alerts for probable terrorist attacks. If Parcel 10 is included in the trade the entire parcel needs to be included. Which would include the boat access. BVR has concerns about trespassing, but this would in fact create a trespassing issue for Blue Valley Acres.

BLM Land To Blue Valley Ranch

•  Parcel D (166 acres) and E (120 acres), are premier elk and deer hunting areas. It adjoins public lands which will benefit the public.

•  Parcel F (80 acres), BVR already has a grazing lease and is comparable to parcel 3 and 4.

•  Parcel G (78.83 acres) and H (273.17 acres), based on comparable property that is for sale, this property is worth $33,043 per acre or $11,631,136. Has the BLM exhausted all avenues to access Parcel G? There is a possibility that Blue Valley Acres (Filing #2) could give access to G in return for Parcel K, without restrictions. Is Blue Valley Acres (Filing #1) aware that they can legally access Parcel H? If Colorado later adopted the “high water mark” for fishing H and G would be very accessible. Otherwise, if H and G are lost to boaters, BVR could possibly make the river non-navigable. The kayak take out is not a guarantee, in writing, from BVR.

•  Parcel I (390 acres), keep the 30 river front acres and an easement and this would be a fair property to trade. If I is traded, floaters would be forced to float from above BVA (Filing #2) until the confluence.

•  Parcel J (95 acres), was previously traded from BVR in 1999, how many times are we going trade this property? What is the agreed upon sales price from BVR to sell this property? Does J have river access? If so, the public looses more river access and property.

Parcel K (40 acres), parcel K should not be included with the land trade. Blue Valley Acres has been approved for a Fire Station but does not currently have sufficient land to develop. There is a possibility that Blue Valley Acres could give access to G in return for Parcel K, without restrictions. BVR is not even interested in Parcel K. They have offered to “gift” the parcel to BVA (Filing #2), with several restrictions.

The non-federal parcels have been over run by the elk for the last 12 years. This property has been victimized by poor game management. Has the BLM studied BVR to see if they are indeed good resource managers? The parcels that are public, “The public is the most effective game management tool”, per BLM. As an example Parcel G is currently public land in which BVR has a grazing permit. However for 3 years they have included horses, which is a violation of the lease.

In closure, each of these opinions is an assumption of land that would be comparable. The trade is very confusing and no one is able to break it down into smaller acceptable trades.