Land-use issues filled this week’s Garfield Board of County Commissioners’ (BOCC) agenda on Tuesday, beginning with Sweetwater residents against the proposed state park at Sweetwater Lake. They voiced concerns during the public comment period about what they and the land have to lose if the park is approved. 

When the White River National Forest (WRNF) purchased the Sweetwater Lake Ranch in August 2021, local residents were excited about the protection for the land, wildlife and rural character the purchase would provide. That October, Gov. Jared Polis announced the state park idea, which soured residents and created complications. A member of the group in front of the BOCC Tuesday said that almost 100% of locals were against the park. 

The WRNF released a draft environmental impact statement for a developed recreation area on June 26, which is open for public comment for 90 days.

The group talked about how the proposed state park could violate Garfield County land-use standards and devastate the area with long-term construction, increased human presence, noise and pollution. 

GAME Act redux

Later on, the BOCC revisited the GAME (Great Access for Multiple-use Experiences) Act, a proposed federal/private land exchange involving Bureau of Land Management (BLM) parcels in the Spring Valley area and on the Roan Plateau. The proposed bill was first presented to the BOCC on July 6 by Jeff Small, a lobbyist with 76 Group. 

Small returned Tuesday via Zoom. Scott Smith, owner of Out of Bounds Ranch, who said he initiated the swap, appeared in person. The land exchange involves BLM land near Out of Bounds Ranch and private land on the Roan Plateau. 

Smith’s idea is to purchase two ranch properties on the Roan and trade them for BLM land that would connect two Out of Bounds Ranch parcels near Spring Valley. So, the private land on the Roan would become public and the public land near Out of Bounds Ranch would be privately owned. 

This all depends upon the passage of the GAME Act that would finalize the transaction. Small has said that they chose a legislative land exchange over an administrative exchange because it can be finished sooner, although the bill itself has not been introduced into Congress. 

 A few High Aspen Ranch residents attended Tuesday’s meeting, stating that they did not find out about the proposed swap until they learned about it in the media two weeks ago. 

“We were never contacted. We never heard this was being discussed,” said Meme Kistner, president of the High Aspen Ranch Homeowners Association. “No one asked for neighborhood responses even though we are adjacent to this land.”  

Their concerns focused in part on the entrance road to High Aspen Ranch and nearby Homestead Estates. The road is on the BLM parcel that would go private. 

“We lease the easement through the BLM,” said Kistner, adding that the two subdivisions are responsible for maintaining the road. She said they’ve worked with the local BLM office for years. “We got the road paved. We have done repairs on it. We have done fire mitigation along it. We do weed control. We plow it,” she explained.

Smith said, should the exchange happen, he would give the road to the subdivisions. But Kistner said the legalities and administration would be too costly. 

She also expressed confusion about maps of the proposed parcel close to High Aspen Ranch and nearby Fisher Creek.  

“We understand that this proposed land swap would really benefit the Roan Plateau area,” she said. But, she added, thought must be given to nearby homeowners and the public. “We have to think about the other users of this BLM public land,” she said.

Other High Aspen Ranch residents said that the BLM land in question connects their land to U.S. Forest Service land near the Glenwood Canyon rim and provides good hiking. Small quickly dismissed that claim. 

“My understanding is if you [hiked] from Fisher Creek and High Aspen and you got all the way to the Forest Service land, I believe that’s about 18 miles,” he said. “I don’t know how many people actually do that to get all the way up there and look at the sunset. So I don’t know that that argument really holds water.”

The BOCC voted to support the proposed GAME Act with certain conditions related to no new development. Small said there will be future opportunities for public comment. 

Spring Valley Ranch

The BOCC approved requests from Spring Valley Holdings, owner of Spring Valley Ranch (SVR), to vacate the SVR PUD Phase 1 Final Plat, covering 5,908 acres, revoke the SVR PUD and return the SVR PUD zoning to rural. 

“What we’re basically asking here is to unwind this property back to 1983,” said Jon Fredericks with Land West, a Texas-based design group. “There’s 42 years of history.” Commission Chair Tom Jankovsky said the decision was historic.

 Local resident Miriam Fennell praised the BOCC.“Today is about closing one chapter,” she said, “and ensuring that any future proposal is evaluated under Garfield County’s current comprehensive plan, current land use and development code and today’s standards, not yesterday’s assumptions.” 

You can find all BOCC meetings at the Garfield County website.