Blue Valley Land Exchange Comments

 

Provided by:

Fred Bartell

Box 2885

Dillon , CO 80435

 

To: BLM Kremmling Field Office

2103 E Park Ave

PO Box 68

Kremmling , CO 80459

 

  1. I have met many of the employees at the Kremmling field office. They are good people who seem to have passion and a sense of responsibility for the jobs they perform for the BLM. What concerns me is that these people are trained in resource management and not the art of negotiating multi-million dollar land deals. The Blue Valley Ranch has hired professionals: facilitators, negotiators and lawyers, who are trained and have lots of experience handling these kinds of exchanges. Quite simply the BLM is out-gunned when it comes to negotiating multi-million dollar real estate deals.

 

There are no rules when you are negotiating real estate deals. Anything can be changed, rewritten, thrown out, added, reconfigured right up until the day it's done. The BLM does not need to compromise on any part of this exchange.

 

  1. Parcel I has good access to the river and includes 1600 ft. of riverfront. The river portion should not be given away under any circumstances , This is a key parcel that will provide floaters a place to take a break while floating the river. It also provides drive in and walk in access. Why not split the grazing land off for the trade but retain the access and riverfront?

  1. Parcels G & H : These properties represent 3700 feet of riverfront that could be doubled by trying to obtain the center section of H. Has the BLM exhausted its efforts to access these properties? The value of these properties is immeasurable!! We can never replace these types of parcels.

 

 

  1. Concerning Parcels I , G and H : Even the novice real estate professionals know the rule: DON'T EVER SELL YOUR RIVER FRONT PROPERTIES. THEY CAN NEVER BE REPLACED. These parcels will be crucial to future generations and their ability to access the Blue River . In the state of Montana , the public is allowed to fish or boat all rivers to the high water mark. Perhaps similar legislation will be passed in Colorado . If the ranch is allowed to privatize the Blue River by gaining control of land sections adjacent to the river, the public will never have easy access to this stretch of the river. The BLM will have removed all other possibilities of foot traffic to the center sections.

 

  1. Parcel 10 : As we discussed while on the tour Friday, August 5, 2005 , it would be of great benefit to the public to retain the rest of parcel 10 down to the river. This portion of land is worth fighting for during negotiations. This is the only possible drive down access point to get to the river north of the canyon. This is a crucial point for the handicapped and elderly. This property would provide a permanent takeout and put in for the Blue River . Currently, the Blue Valley Ranch provides a take-out at Spring Creek Bridge . There is no guarantee that this take-out will be provided indefinitely and has never been considered as a put-in. This is a dangerous position to put the public in. That is, to assume that Blue Valley Ranch will never close down all access at Spring Creek Rd. Bridge .

 

 

  1. The BLM property north of Parcel 10 will present far too many obstacles to put in a road or boat access to the river. The property in this area is far too steep to allow reasonable river access. Combining this BLM property with all of parcel 10 (not just the footpath across the corner) would create a public access and use area that would be a great asset for persons fishing or boating. As the exchange stands now, access by the public to the baulk of the lower Blue River will be limited to only a few extremists who could remain in their boat for 8 to 10 hours.

  1. If the exchange is to continue, the BLM needs to provide a good access to the river as well as points periodically down the river for emergency access and break/picnic areas for boaters and fishermen along the river.

 

  1. I am concerned that there could be an issue that could come about if there is no reasonable access to a particular stretch of river. Could the river be designated non- navigable, restricting public use? The Blue Valley Ranch achieved this designation on a stretch of the Colorado River after the last land exchange involving BLM surrender of riverfront property.

 

 

  1. Land Locked Parcels ( eg . B, C, H, G, ): These parcels are currently being used and maintained by the Blue Valley Ranch. I hope the government is receiving a fair lease value for the use of this land. If the current arrangement works for the Blue Valley Ranch and the BLM why are we bothering to trade it away? There are no taxes or upkeep on the parcels and so they have virtually no over head to the public. Properties G & H that have a chance of being accessible in the future and are leased in the meantime give us cash flow. Why not retain land that will give a strategic access point for the public in the future? The land value will only increase in this area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Parcel 6 mining claims : I am concerned that there could be some environmental issues related to these parcels. Who is going to be ultimately be responsible to clean up these sites. Old mining claims typically have problems that can take years to surface. Upon visual inspection of parcel 6, it does not compare to the Dice Hill parcels this owner is trying to get in the exchange.

 

 

 

 

Summary:

 

During the past two years of dealing with the BLM , I have heard key people make reference to the first trade that involved surrendering river access and property to the Blue Valley Ranch. The consensus has been that this previous trade was not advantageous to the public. Lets not let that happen again!

 

While parts of this exchange may be in the public's best interest, many of the parcels in the exchange will be a huge loss to the public; especially in view of public access to the Blue River . This trade does not have to go through as it is now structured. Time is on our side and the BLM has the time and authority to change the parts of this exchange that do not benefit the long term interests of the public. It is our duty to protect our country's natural resources for future generations.

 

It's not too late to go back and make this deal right. If it is meant to be, it will happen on any time line.