United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

DOI-BLM-CO-N05-2017-0009

Public Comments on Preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA)

November 2018

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Northwest District White River Field Office 220 East Market St Meeker, CO 81641

PUBLIC REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY EA The BLM made the preliminary environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) available for public review from 5/7/2018 to 6/6/2018. The BLM issued a press release and directly notified interested individuals and organizations on the mailing list through either email or letter. A public meeting was held on 5/23/2018 at the Meeker Public Library to discuss the alternatives and the analysis in the EA.

During review of the public comments, the BLM became aware of an oversight in which four individuals on the mailing list had not been directly contacted. The BLM then contacted these individuals and provided them an opportunity to submit comments. PARTICIPANTS The following individuals, businesses, non-governmental entities, and other public agencies attended the public meeting and/or submitted written comments:

Albert and Mary Krueger Jim Hancock Joe Guiterrez Alec Spears (Strawberry Creek Outfitters) Allen Matsuda John Bailey (Triple M Land, LLC) Amanda Edinger John Etchart John Kelley Angie Castaldo (Kelleys Guns) Anne Rickenbaugh Josh Horrocks (Colorado Wild Public Lands) Betsy Bair Justin Robinson (Senator Gardner) Bill deVergie Kay Edinger (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) Bill Stewart Kenny Rogers (4M Ranch) Billy Fletcher Kristi Wilson

Blaine Galbreath Lonnie Ewer Luke Schafer Blake Harsha (Conservation Colorado) Brian Meinhart Lyle McKee (Representative Tipton) Mark Ferguson Bryce Ducey (Strawberry Creek Land and Cattle LLC)

DOI-BLM-CO-N05-2017-0009-EA_Public Comments 1 Buddy Parker Mark Rigatti

C. Howes Matt Ward Callie Hendrickson Michael Berg (White River Conservation District) Carlos Estrada Michael Boeckem

Carlos Ruiz Michael Friedenberg Casey G. Michael Mcart (LPR Ranch) Chancey Decker Michael W. Jones

Chris Dalti Oma Jean Gorman

Chris Talbot Pat Ewer

Chris Williams Paul Miller

Connie Kelley R. Ryan Driskel Cy Kezan Randy Arnold (Tri-State) Reed Kelley Dan Kehrig (Rio Blanco Herald Times) Danna Camblin Richard and William Wise David Hughes Rick Tingle (Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC) (Louisiana Purchase Ranch) Dean Talbot Rick Yeager Rod Owens Dennis Doerr (Elk Ridge) Roy Vannoy Donovan Boudreaux (Vannoy Ranch) Russell and Mary Edith Stacy Farms Earl Stout (Strawberry Creek Outfitters) Estrada Family Ryan Chilvers

Evan Coleman Sarah [No Last Name] Franz Froelicher Scott Marshall (Colorado Wild Public Lands)

DOI-BLM-CO-N05-2017-0009-EA_Public Comments 2 Freddy Sanchez Shane Edinger

Garrett Edinger Shawn Edinger

Gary Davis Sheridan Edinger Gary Moyer Si Woodruff (White River Conservation District) (Rio Blanco County Commissioners) Gayle Rogers Soren Jespersen (Crawford Ranch) (The Wilderness Society) Georgia Kofoed Stan Wyatt (Augustus Energy Partners II, LLC) Gian Minoletti Steve and Kim Jordan Grant Edinger Steve LaBau (Buffalo Horn Ranch) Greg Hanberg Steven Allen H. Howard Cooper (Three Crown Ranch, Susie Palmer LLC and Red Wash Ranch, LLC) Hal Blood Tasha Edinger

James Spears Thomas Arnold

Jason Thompson Toby Garcia Jean Perry Tom Martinez (Colorado Wild Public Lands) Tristan Nielsen Jeff Finn (White River Conservation District) Jeff Musgrave Veronica Ruiz (Western Outdoor Adventures) Jeff OBryant

PUBLIC COMMENTS The written comments the BLM received on the preliminary EA are attached in Appendix A. The BLM will respond to public comments in an appendix in the final EA, which will be made available when the BLM issues a decision on the proposed land exchange. NEXT STEPS Before making a decision, the BLM will respond to public comments and request an appraisal from the Department of the Interior’s Appraisal and Valuation Services Office to determine if an

DOI-BLM-CO-N05-2017-0009-EA_Public Comments 3 exchange is in the public interest and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations (including that the exchange is of equal value or can be equalized within the regulatory limits (43 CFR 2201.7-1(a)).

Before issuing a decision, the BLM will complete an internal review process which includes reviews by the White River Field Office, Little Snake Field Office, Northwest District Office, Colorado State Office, Regional Solicitor’s Office, and the Washington Office.

Once a decision is made to either approve or disapprove an exchange proposal, the BLM must publish and distribute a Notice of Decision (43 CFR 2201.7-1). The Notice of Decision will be published in the Rio Blanco Herald Times and Craig Daily Press as a legal notice. In addition, the BLM will notify the project mailing list and issue a press release. The BLM must also notify the Governor at least 60 days prior to conveyance of public lands.

A protest period is available for 45 days following publication of the Notice of Decision. If protests are received, they are addressed by the State Director. Protests may be raised related to the EA or content in the Decision such as the public interest determination or determination of equal value.

The State Director’s Decision in response to a protest is appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) in accordance with 43 CFR 4.410.

DOI-BLM-CO-N05-2017-0009-EA_Public Comments 4

Appendix A – Copies of Public Comment Letters

(Note: Mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers have been redacted.)

8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Buffalo horn land exchange

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo horn land exchange

EARL STOUT Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:32 PM To: [email protected]

I received a emails that says there is a new proposal plan "b". In the new deal the public looses another thousand acres of land that the public will never get back. And the blm calls it the (preferred plan) which is WRONG for the blm to try to sway public opinion in any way on this matter. In my opinion the original proposal is a excellent idea that would benefit the public for years to come. The new plan we loose acres of land and existing agreements can change in time. I think the only people worried about the original proposal are a few guide and outfitters and anybody they can convince to join them. In my opinion the original proposal is the way to go because the land we gain is more accessible to more people elderly people especially. The land we loose is steep poor access and only benefits the people making the most noise over this issue. So I hope you stick with the original plan or scrap the whole plan altogether.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 — ..‘,.

3CHNAUZER— An ancient Germanbn L cJI 1 3 C iffeciionate animal with a thick cc diS in acute sense of hearing make i an cxcellenl watchdog. It is — )ften used as a herd,yo or as a mouser in warek —Sxa }ZIM ?

7018 MAY II PH 2: 22 FzZL ::U

I Z%o F Wa /4,t& M. / cg7%/

j— 5P4 509-i

t. 7..

- e- - 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Proposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange, support Alternative B

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Proposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange, support Alternative B

C. Howes Wed, May 16, 2018 at 12:10 AM To: "[email protected]"

We the people have spoken. As a land owner in Rio Blanco county, please enact Alternative B. This accomplishes the much-needed better access to Windy Gulch and Black Mountain.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Land Exchange

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Land Exchange

LaBau, Steve Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:28 PM To: "[email protected]"

I have been hunting the area effected by the proposed land exchange and I believe the status quo is the best and only option. As an out of state Hunter I anticipate that I may discontinue my trips to Colorado if there is a land exchange that takes place.

Steve LaBau Eagle, Idaho

Sent from my iPad

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Land swap

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Land swap

Evan Coleman Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:22 PM To: [email protected]

Well, it seems the newspaper article and public opinion is swayed toward leaving the land as it is. I'm not completely familiar with the actual geography of the land in question, but it seems to me that alot, some, most ?? of the land currently owned by the Buffalo Horn Ranch is not easily accessible to the public anyway. That in my opion is a big factor, how easily can we access the land the public currently has? I have been up windy gulch area, but haven't ventured to the end- because it's my understanding it dead ends at private land. I prefer to see that area opened up more. A nice place to hit the hills close to town. But like i said i realy don't know the lands in question as well as I should. I see the the 1000 acre trade difference is a problem for people. I guess the powers that be need to decide if the 1,835 acres owned by the ranch is worth more to the public than the 2,815 acres it currently has.

Thanks-

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] proposed land exchange

Kay Edinger Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:05 PM To: "[email protected]"

I'm writing in regard to the proposed land exchange between BLM and Buffalo Horn Ranch. My family and I and many of our friends hope the exchange takes place. We enjoy our hiking trips and horn hunting trips and having increased access to public lands would be great. Thanks for your consideration.

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Proposed Land Exchange May 21, 2018

P e Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:52 PM To: "[email protected]"

In regard to the proposed land exchange, My husband and I come to Colorado yearly and love to go on hikes with my family who resides there. The beauty that you find out in Colorado is breathe taking. We hope the exchange goes through!

Regards,

Pat Ewer

Amery, Wisconsin 54001.

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Propose Land exchange - May 21, 2018

Patricia Ewer Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:46 PM To: "[email protected]"

Greetings,

My thoughts on the proposed land exchange is-- it would be advantageous to have more public land access to BLM land. My husband and I love to hike in this area when we come to Colorado. We hope the exchange goes through!

Regards,

Patricia Ann Ewer | Packaging Analyst II, CCP 3M Package Solutions

| www.3M.com

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is only for the intended addressee(s). Any use by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete it from your system.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1

8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Land Exchange

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Land Exchange

Allen, Steven (Colowyo) Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:43 AM To: "[email protected]"

This proposal is, like usual, bad for the public.

We are giving up more acres in exchange for supposedly opening up access that is already accessible.

I am adamantly opposed to this deal. I have seen several of these “deals” over the years in and around Meeker and the general public always loses in the end.

Steven K. Allen

Sr. Laboratory Technician

Member ASTM D-5

Colowyo Coal Co.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1

8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Proposed Land Exchange May 23 2018

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Proposed Land Exchange May 23 2018

Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:13 AM To: [email protected] Cc:

Greeting, In regard to the proposed land exchange, I truly enjoy, when I come to Colorado yearly, going on hikes with my family who resides there. I tell others what an experience it is to spend time in the outdoors, walking and exploring the crevices of your beautiful state. I hope the exchange goes through!

Regards, Lonnie T Ewer Echo Construction

Amery, Wisconsin 54001

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1

8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] land exchange

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] land exchange

Stan Wyatt Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:38 PM To: [email protected]

I would like to support the idea of a land exchange to provide public access in the Smith Gulch area. Connecting the Black Mountain WSA and Windy Gulch WSA and giving more public access in this area which also is near the State's new Colorow Mountain State Wildlife area, certainly is good for the public. 'I support public access to public lands and would encourage the federal government to continue to pursue more opportunities to eliminate federal lands that are surrounded by private lands which provide no public access to the federal lands. Exchanging these "land-locked" public lands for private lands that help tie together larger blocks of public lands for public use with easier access is a positive in my opinion. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Stan Wyatt Meeker, Co

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1

8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Alternative A

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Alternative A

ELEMENTS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT BOND ANGLES Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:27 PM To: [email protected]

My name is Jeff OBryant. I am a resident here in Meeker for about two years. I am familiar with these kinds of lands swaps like Buffalo Horn Land Exchange. It helps on properties that are remote and or landlocked within private boundaries. After the information shared I feel Alternative A is the better formula because it puts lands not accessible to the public usable. And lands difficult to manage under public forum to be maintained easier being private.

Jeff OBryant

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo horn land exchange

Gian Minoletti Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:39 PM To: [email protected]

I’m writing this email in opposition to the land exchange with buffalo horn ranch. As a hunter and outdoorsman, exchanging prime hunting areas and allowing buffalo horn to control prime areas and water will be detrimental to the public Hunter. Please do not go ahead with the exchange.

Thank you,

Gian minoletti Denver, Colorado

Sent from my iPhone

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn,BLM land exchange

Rick Yeager Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:23 AM To: [email protected]

This propoals is a win win situation for Buffalo Ranch and a lose lose situation for public and wildlife.

Rick Yeager

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Proposed Buffalo Horn BLM land exchange

jim hancock Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:53 PM To: [email protected]

To whom it may concern,

I am writing as a public citizen and avid user of public lands to voice the strongest possible objection to any land exchange between the Buffalo Horn Ranch and the Bureau of Land Management in the Strawberry Creek area of northwestern Colorado. The proposed trade would only serve to further restrict public access to prime recreational and hunting lands in that area. Buffalo Horn already controls huge tracts of land and there is no good reason to turn over more of what is owned by the people of the United States to an already giant landowner.

Please resist any temptation to meet short term budgetary requirements by permanently giving up an irreplaceable piece of our national heritage.

Thank you,

Jim Hancock Aspen, Colorado

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn land exchange

Dennis Doerr Mon, May 28, 2018 at 10:05 PM To: [email protected]

Hello,

I'm letting you/BLM know that after looking at the proposal of the land swap between BLM and the Buffalo Horn ranch, I do not approve or support this land swap. The public I feel will loose a very valuable piece of BLM parcel compared to the parcel being considered for trade by Buffalo Horn Ranch. Please consider pulling out of this deal as I/we the public feel this is not in the best interest of our public lands.

Thank you, Dennis Doerr

Thornton, Co 80229

Virus-free. www.avg.com

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 p %- -— --

..:

&Qt7W% z . - 2i4L- Mnt4e1 ,12ettcJ /haj4%y’ S43’ a eta’ aJ V%_aLtset -i-.%*fl ....1446 6 MS%aQ fl a east t*. Sc

...... __ . -a - gor-s2p -97-fl . . . 4fl4’ 4, Qtmt-,%acs,vta1wan %-

: h -...... *:i . r (_ p 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Swap

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Swap

Spears, James Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:06 AM To: "[email protected]"

BLM,

I object the proposal for a land swap with the Buffalo Horn Ranch in the Strawberry Creek area. The swap is not mutually beneficial.

Sincerely,

James Spears

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Writing to voice opposition to DOI-BLM-CO-N050-2017-0009-EA (Buffalo Horn Land Exchange)

Sauls, Heather Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:51 AM To: Buffalo Horn LEX AR Email

------Heather Sauls Planning & Environmental Coordinator BLM White River Field Office 970-878-3855 [email protected] ------

------Forwarded message ------From: Jeff Finn Date: Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:41 AM Subject: [EXTERNAL] Writing to voice opposition to DOI-BLM-CO-N050-2017-0009-EA (Buffalo Horn Land Exchange) To: [email protected]

Heather

Hello. I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed land exchange https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=disp atchToPatternPage¤tPageId=101844

This exchange would, from what I have been able to research and read, exchange valuable publicly-owned land with elk, deer and other wildlife and hunting and not something that is in the best interests of the public who own the land.

Thank you

Jeff Finn

Englewood, CO 80111

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo horn blm land exchange

ryan chilvers Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:42 PM Reply-To: ryan chilvers To: [email protected]

I am against this proposed exchange! This is a losing situation for the public.

Thanks,

Ryan Chilvers

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn, BLM land Exchange

R. Ryan Driskel Tue, May 29, 2018 at 4:18 PM To: [email protected]

I do not support the proposed Buffalo Horn / BLM Land Exchange in northwest Colorado. While I support land exchanges for hunter access, the proposal gives the ranch by far the best habitat in the area. The public is losing out in the deal's current form.

-R. Ryan Driskel, Longmont Colorado

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Decker, Chancey Wed, May 30, 2018 at 12:35 PM To: "[email protected]"

To Whom It May Concern,

It is my understanding that a land swap is in the works for Rio Blanco County and parts of Moffat as well. I would like to take the time to voice my opinion on this matter. I am a current resident of Pennsylvania and have hunted this area for several years. My crew (around 6 to 10 depending on prior commitments) typically hunt the Windy Gulch area just off of Hwy 64. Each year this area becomes more and more congested, making it really hard to get in there much less hunt it. I fully understand that its “first come, first serve” when it comes to public land hunting but it’s hard to kick old habits. Myself and at least 9 other PA hunters would be in big favor of this swap as it affords us additional hunting opportunities in our preferred hunting area. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions what so ever. Thank you so much for taking the time to read this email.

Chancey Decker

Washington, PA 15301

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Donovan Boudreaux Wed, May 30, 2018 at 7:09 AM To: "[email protected]"

I have hunted throughout the Meeker, CO area for the last 12 years and I am in agreement with this proposed land swap. This would give more accessible land to public hunters - as it exist now there is BLM land that is unaccusable due to private ranches.

Donovan Boudreaux

The information transmitted in this electronic message may contain CONFIDENTIAL and/or PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message from your computer system immediately.

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Land swap

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Land swap

Hal Blood Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:03 AM To: "[email protected]"

I would like to voice my support for the Buffalo Horn land swap. I am from Maine and have hunted the area several times for elk. The small parcels of public land within the Ranch are of no use to a hunter as most of them are too small and isolated to bother trying to access them. I like the idea of having a larger parcel of public land to hunt on where there is a better chance that elk will be there. Sincerely Hal Blood Dennistown, ME

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] land exchange rio blanco and moffet county

Michael W. Jones Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:39 PM To: "[email protected]"

This might be a good thing I have hunted around smith gulch and would appreciate easer access alternative A would be my choice

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] No Buffalo Horn Land exchange

Michael Mcart Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:16 PM To: "[email protected]"

I vote "NO" on the proposed Buffalo Horn Ranch/ BLM land exchange. I believe this is not in the best interest of the public who owns the land Buffalo Horn Ranch wants.

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] land exchange

william Wise Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 7:20 AM To: "[email protected]"

We have hunted elk and deer in CO for over 30years. It is a privilege as a nonresident to hunt in CO on BLM land. Sometimes however it is frustrating not to be able to get onto public land surrounded by private. The proposed land swap between BLM and Buffalo Horn Ranch appears to take steps to eliminate smaller BLM tracts with limited access to create larger contiguous tracts for the public. Managing the larger tracts vs small isolated must be better for all involved. Thank You for the chance to comment.

Richard M. Wise and William E Wise

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Comments on Bhlex

Williams, Chris/DEN Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 5:33 AM To: "[email protected]"

To whom it may concern

I would like to provide comments on the proposed public private land exchange with the Buffalo Horn Ranch and BLM.

1. I am certainly in favor of this exchange as it will provide additional public lands in which I can access/hunt in this area. 2. I have hunted in this area for many years and BLM certainly affords some great hunting opportunities in this area 3. The proposed lands that BLM would acquire specifically from this exchange would directly impact and expand my hunting area in a quality parcel of land

What would be the timing of this exchange as far as what hunting season might this new BLM land be accessible? 2018, 2019 season?

Thanks for being a good land manager and champion for our public lands on the western slope.

Chris Williams

______

NOTICE - This communication may contain confidential and privileged information that is for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any viewing, copying or distribution of, or reliance on this message by unintended recipients is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Public Comment- Proposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Rigatti, Mark/GVL Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 10:06 AM To: "[email protected]"

I am writing in support of the Bureau of Land Management’s preliminary environmental assessment of a proposed land exchange in Rio Blanco and Moffat counties that would consolidate public lands and increase public access for hunting and other recreation.

Having hunted in the area and with plans to do so again in the future, I see the land exchange as being within in the public’s best interest since it will:

1. Provide additional public lands in which I can access/hunt in this area. 2. Enhance the area for BLM lands to increase great hunting opportunities in this area 3. The proposed lands would directly expand my hunting area in a quality parcel of land

Mark Rigatti

______

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange - Comments

Paul Miller Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 1:49 PM To: [email protected]

To Whom It May Concern:

I believe the land swap being contemplated with the Buffalo Horn Ranch in Meeker, CO is a good thing for hunters and public land access generally. The BLM land being swapped by the Buffalo Horn is currently land locked with limited public access. The swap as I understand it will not only provide access to approximately 4,000 more acres to the public, but allow the public further road access to currently inaccessible land. Total accessible land will increase allowing for more hunting and more general outdoor use.

As an out of state hunter who has hunted in this area, I support this swap.

Thank you.

Paul Miller Miami, FL

Sent from my iPad

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Randy Arnold Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 11:03 PM Reply-To: Randy Arnold To: "[email protected]"

Here is my public comment on the proposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange. Please see attachment letter!

Randy Arnold

Willows, Ca 95988

Buffalo Horn Land Exchange.docx 14K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 RANDOLPH O. ARNOLD Willows, CA 95988-

June 2, 2018 Subject: Public Comment on the Proposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange I am definitely in favor of the proposed land exchange between the Buffalo Horn and the BLM because the intent is to make possible public access to land that is nearly inaccessible as it stands today. Over the years, I have spent a great deal of time in the area known as Smith Gulch that is owned by the Buffalo Horn Ranch. In addition to knowing that area very well, I am also very familiar with Windy Gulch study area and Black Mountain. This is a beautiful, hard-to-access area which is abundant with deer, elk, and other wildlife. The problem with this area for the public is lack of access. Although there is access to the most rugged of sportsmen, the public in general cannot hike or ride into this area on horseback because of the difficulties it presents. This exchange with Buffalo Horn Ranch will allow individuals access to tens of thousands of acres of BLM land, including the very special Windy Gulch Wilderness study area. It will be imperative for the government agencies that take charge of this property to restrict motorized access. This is not only a very pristine, beautiful area, but it is also very sensitive to motorized travel and thus should have restrictions if it is going to be preserved and not ruined by motorized vehicles. This would be a beautiful addition to the walk-in area that is already there. This is the access that is needed for the general public to enjoy the Windy Gulch study area which encompasses about 18 square miles. The abundance of wildlife will not stay in that area if people are allowed to drive all over it. This land exchange would make it possible for the average, general public person to walk and hike into 25-30 square miles of public BLM land. As it stands now, it is almost impossible for the general public to do that. This is a wonderful opportunity to open up this beautiful area to the general public, not just a few neighboring ranches that use our BLM lands for their own private use. The negative comments of neighboring ranches is almost always based upon financial loss of their almost exclusive use of public BLM lands for their own private gain. They pasture their cattle on public ground for a ridiculously minimal fee per head of cattle. Then, in the fall they use that same public BLM ground to run their hunting business. Why? Because they have easy access to BLM land through their ranch, which the public does not enjoy unless they want to buy a hunt at considerable expense. Not making the exchange will only help those who use public BLM lands as their own private property. So let’s give access to some pristine BLM land by exchanging private property for BLM property at a fair exchange rate back to the general public. The very limited access of BLM land has been going on for far too long. I personally feel that Alternative A, the original proposed exchange, was in the public’s best interest. However, that being said, I would not be disappointed if Alternative B was adopted, because anything is better than nothing. Wouldn’t it be nice if this decision was based on the wants and needs of the general American public so they can enjoy more BLM land that is currently inaccessible? So what if we have to exchange other pristine BLM land to get this exchange done. The other land that is involved in this exchange will never be easily accessible for the general American public anyway. Let’s stand up and do something positive for the people and not make this a missed opportunity. 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Proposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Proposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Chris Dalti Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:52 AM Reply-To: Chris Dalti To: [email protected]

Dear Bureau of Land Management,

Please accept my comment for the support of the Buffalo Horn land swap. I have hunted the Meeker area several times enjoying the vast expanse of land in pursuit of elk. Coming from the East Coast and specifically the smallest State in the Union being RI, it has been quite a challenge for me. As I understand it, their are small parcels of public land within the Ranch that are of no use to a hunter and they don't benefit anyone as most of them are too small and isolated to bother trying to access them. I think the idea of having a larger parcel of public land to hunt on where there is a better chance that elk will be there makes more sense for all involved. Thanks for the chance to express my opinion.

Respectfully,

Chris

Christopher Dalti Commercial and Residential Realtor

The Dalti Group

Lincoln, RI 02865

Providence, RI 02904

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Land exchange

Freddy Sanchez Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 7:55 PM To: [email protected]

I hunt in the area and think the trade is a good idea because it will give me more land to hunt. Thank you

Sent from my iPad

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] BLM and Buffalo Horn Ranch proposed land swap

MARK and MORGAN Ferguson Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:41 PM To: "[email protected]" , "[email protected]"

Hello, My name is Mark Ferguson and I'm contacting you in regards to the proposed BLM and Buffalo Horn Ranch land swap. I'm the contact person for Strawberry Land and Cattle LLC. We are a group of families that own a parcel of land on Strawberry Creek that is split between Moffat and Rio Blanco County. Attached you will find our response to the proposed land swap. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or have information to pass on.

Thank you, Mark Ferguson Strawberry Creek Land and Cattle LLC

Sent from Outlook

BLM response.docx 14K

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 June 1, 2018

BLM Meeker Office

220 East Market St.

Meeker, CO 81641

To Whom it may concern;

My name is Mark Ferguson and I’m contacting you as the representative of Strawberry Creek Land and Cattle LLC. We are a group of families that own land on Strawberry Creek in both Rio Blanco and Moffat Counties. Our parcel of land is in close proximity to the proposed land swap between the BLM and Buffalo Horn Ranch (DOI-BLM-CO-N050-2017-0009-EA).

While none of the parcels in consideration directly borders our land, we would like it to be known that we are strongly opposed to of any proposed land swaps. We are in favor of Alternative C, no land being swapped. The reasoning for our opposition to this land swap is mostly that it will set precedent for possible future land swaps. Our concern is that if Buffalo Horn Ranch were to acquire other private land parcels in the future, they will possibly want to swap for more land in the future. In addition, this swap brings up the possibility of Buffalo Horn Ranch wanting to acquire more BLM land hunting leases, which would negatively impact ours and other landowners hunting.

In addition, we believe that this land swap only benefits Buffalo Horn Ranch and their outfitting operations, at the expense of the public. We believe this land swap is proposed by Buffalo Horn to give them more contiguous private land, thus closing it off to public access.

In closing, we as Strawberry Land and Cattle LLC are against any of the proposed land swaps. We believe the best alternative is no swap of land between the BLM and Buffalo Horn Ranch.

Thank you for allowing our input on this very important issue. Please feel free to contact me as needed.

Mark Ferguson

Strawberry Creek Land and Cattle; LLC

Arvada, CO 80004

8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land exchange

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land exchange

John Bailey Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:26 AM To: [email protected]

To whom it may concern, I hunt in this area and I feel it would give us more land to Hunt,.

It has become very difficult in this area to hunt unless we get more land to hunt.

I think this exchange is a good Idea.

Sincerely,

John J Bailey

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 cv ‘S F

¼ 1< t p 1$.” c -Th N, I t C.

4% 4- 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Randy Arnold Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:45 AM Reply-To: Randy Arnold To: "[email protected]"

There is only one conclusion that I have been able to come to by reading hours of negative comments on this land exchange.

The other ranchers want things to stay the way that they have been for decades. Why? Because they feel that the properties in the exchange are already in their control (like they own it). They can show you their grazing and guides permit as proof. The public's role in all of this is to pay ranchers in order to have access onto BLM (public) ground through their ranch. It just seems wrong that a person should have to pay $5000-6000 dollars to hunt public BLM property. That is a very sweet deal for them but not for the average American citizen. This minority group of individuals have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by stopping this land exchange. What does killing this land exchange do for the public? NOTHING!

Is this good for the Buffalo Horn Ranch? No one would go though this process if it wasn't important to them. If a person wants to know why they are going through this, ask them! But this is what I think I know. The Buffalo ranch will give BLM 1835.26 private acres for 1759.57.00 BLM acres. That may sound like a not so good trade. For all practical purposes, the 1759.57 BLM acres are land locked except to the private land holders around it. On the other hand, the Buffalo Horn's 1835.26 acres allow vehicle access to not just these acres but vast amounts of BLM land that have been inaccessible to most people. How much land are we talking about? Counting the squares on the Alternative B map reveals roughly 25,000 acres, maybe more. This is an awesome opportunity to open up a very large block of public BLM land.

Is everyone happy? The truth is a few people are damn mad. The other truth is this: The Public wins from this exchange. Is this perfect? NO! The BLM is in charge of caring for millions of acres of land that is suppose to belong to the people. There is vast amount of that land that we the people are not able to enjoy. That needs to end. Why not start with this exchange. I certainly am in favor of getting this done!

Thomas J. Arnold

Willows, CA 95988

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1

Mr. Grant Edinger, manager of the Buffalo Horn Ranch submitted a letter to the editor in the May 17, 2018 edition of the Herald Times regarding the proposed BLM land swap. A response to his letter might help its readers to better understand what is at stake in this proposal initiated by a private property owner, the Buffalo Horn Ranch (BHR) in the upper Strawberry Creek area along Rio Blanco County Road 7.

As an employee of BHR Mr. Edinger is clearly advocating for what is best for his employer and the owner of BHR. His comments are very one-sided and in praise of all the very ill-defined gains to the public. His letter fails to mention the price we the people and neighbors have to pay if this deal should become reality.

BHR has been promoting a “land exchange” since 2011. The public was invited to provide written comments in April of 2017. Those comments can be read on the BLM website. Upon review it is clear that over 90% of the opinions rendered opposed the exchange, now described as “option A”. In this latest round of trying to make a deal, “option B”, which is a scaled-down version of the proposed land swap, is being heavily promoted by the owners of BHR.

Most of us are familiar with making a “deal”. When we talk about making a “deal” we usually have an outcome in mind benefitting us at the expense of the other party. This is also the case in this property exchange deal. BHR has approached the BLM over the years to engage in exchanging properties with the goal of benefitting their operation and their holdings. The reverse, with the BLM approaching BHR, has not occurred, which begs the question: who stands to gain and who stands to lose from this deal?

BHR will receive land more valuable than what they are surrendering. Our understanding is that the lands will be appraised after the land swap is approved, and at that time no further public comment will be solicited. It is worrisome that the appraised value is unknown at this time and it may result in a loss to the taxpayers. We do not have the benefit of a crystal ball in order to see what these public lands surrendered today will be appraised at again tomorrow or in 100 years. By then it will be too late to get these lands back into the hands of the public.

BHR is already impacting life up Strawberry Creek in a big way. A neighborhood of smaller ranches has been replaced by a corporate neighbor and the days are long gone when there was a sense of common goals and values. This “option B” will diminish private land values of adjacent landowners and change long established patterns of land use. For example, certain landowners will no longer border current BLM parcels of the same size, curtailing existing hunting and grazing operations. This change will be to the detriment of families who have been in this valley for more than 100 years.

Mr. Edinger states that this land exchange will increase the public’s access to BLM lands. While short-term access be may be improved, the loss of high-quality BLM land will have a longer-term effect. As BHR acquires more land, access to public lands will change in this area. Given the negative impact on its neighbors, it may become more desirable for landowners to sell to BRH, therefore giving BHR more control over access points.

In closing, a highly advantageous “deal” with the BLM to acquire desirable public lands should be regarded with a healthy degree of scrutiny. The BLM lands in Rio Blanco county provide not only recreational opportunities to the local community, but are relied on for our economy.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Albert Krueger, M.D., and Mary K. (Villa) Krueger

Meeker, June 5, 2018

To the BLMC concerning the proposed land swap BLM with Buffalo Horn Properties LLC (Buffalo Horn).

It is our understanding that the comments submitted in January of 2017 may not be considered for the current public comment period. We are protesting if any or all of those comments would not be considered for this comment period. This land swap proposal is still the same land exchange proposal but just in a different format and size. In principal, the concerns still apply to all parts of the original proposal which have not been removed from the originally proposed land exchange.

General considerations:

Albert and Mary K. Krueger as operators of the family owned Villa Ranch and Mary K. Krueger Outfitting are in opposition to the proposed land swap. A land swap of this magnitude is not at all in the best interest of the public at large and especially those who engage in hunting big game, deer and elk on BLM lands.

The proposed land swap is not a fair trade since the land proposed to be acquired by Buffalo Horn is by far more valuable than the land offered to the public.

The property values of landowners adjacent to the public lands affected by the proposed land exchange may be significant diminished.

Parcel B:

The proposal of trading parcel B to the public will alter the current characteristics of the Black Mountain and Windy Gulch Wilderness Study Areas located to the west of Villa Ranch.

BLM officials have stated that an important motive for the acquisition of parcel B is improved access of the public to the BLM lands. Currently all of the public lands surrounding parcel B are can be accessed by the public, either by motorized vehicles from the west and the north or on foot and horseback. Big game outfitters are an additional resource to facilite access on foot or by horseback. None of the public lands surrounding parcel B are landlocked by private properties.

With a potential end of the WSA (Wilderness Study Area) sometime in the future, modern off road motorized vehicles will increase motorized traffic to the area and change the wilderness characteristics of the area forever.

The area around parcel B with current private ownership of parcel B creates a prime elk habitat and an elk sanctuary, a critical aspect for the health of the elk herd in the area. The elk herd enjoys and thrives with using the area as a prime calving ground.

The current constellation of parcel B in private ownership and the two WSA have created a unique parcel of land very much appreciated by a certain segment of the hunting public. Over the years, we have met hunters who have accessed the area by public access and they really appreciate the existence of a remote, more difficult to access BLM land. They have emphasized that this area caters to their choice of seeking remoteness and solitude as a very special experience of hunting public lands. Hunting guests with licensed outfitters like Mary Krueger, very much have voiced a high level of satisfaction with the current constellation of land ownership and do not want to see a change.

Parcel F-8

Mary and Albert Krueger have agreed to lease land from the Vannoy family for cattle grazing. The Rawlson and Vanoy Ranch is very much affected by the proposed privatization of parcel F-8. Under the exchange proposal about 40 permitted acres of the F-8 parcel of land fenced and exclusively used for more than 100 years as part of the Vanoy Ranch would be appropriated to the Buffalo Horn Ranch LLC. Considering the size of the parcel removed in relationship the privately held property, this proposal would mean an economic hardship, let alone the cost involved to re-locate fences and roads.

Albert and Mary Krueger

Meeker, CO 81641

8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Chris Talbot Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:33 PM To: [email protected]

The land swap between the BLM and Buffalo Horn Ranch is a great idea. It would open up more hunting area access and more recreational access. The people who run Buffalo Horn are great stewards of the lands assets.

Sincerely, Chris Talbot

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1

May 21, 2018

Submitted electronically via: [email protected]

Heather Sauls, Planning and Environmental Coordinator BLM White River Field Office 220 E. Market St. Meeker, CO 81641

Re: Buffalo Horn Land Exchange (DOI-BLM-CO-N050-2017-0009-EA)

Dear Ms. Sauls,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Preliminary Environmental Assessment (Preliminary EA) for the proposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange in Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties in Northwest Colorado. These comments are submitted on behalf of The Wilderness Society and Conservation Colorado.

Our organizations generally support the exchange as detailed in the preferred Alternative B. Black Mountain and Windy Gulch Wilderness Study Areas are some of the last undeveloped wilderness-quality lands remaining in the area, and as such provide important wildlife habitat and wildlife-related recreational opportunities. The exchange as detailed in Alternative B would increase public access to the wildlife and recreational resources of the Black Mountain and Windy Gulch WSAs through the acquisition of Parcel B, in exchange for several small islands of public lands which are currently largely inaccessible to the public because of surrounding private lands.

While we are generally supportive of the proposal in Alternative B, we are concerned that increased motorized access to the Black Mountain and Windy Gulch WSAs could lead to significant new impacts to the wilderness characteristics present in these WSAs, including through potential motorized vehicle trespass. Existing routes leading up into Windy Gulch and down into Smith Gulch from Parcel B are likely to get significant new pressure from motorized users, particularly during hunting season. BLM must ensure that these routes remain closed to motorized use, and that increased access to these areas does not result in increased motorized trespass into the Wilderness Study Areas. BLM should consider ways to mitigate these potential impacts, such as by applying any money acquired through equalization payments towards monitoring, enforcement and restoration of closed routes in the WSAs, including new signage, fencing or barriers where required to prevent new or increased motorized trespass in the WSAs, particularly in Smith Gulch. By taking simple measures to prevent vehicle trespass into the WSA, BLM can ensure that impacts to wilderness characteristics are minimized while vastly increasing public access to these outstanding areas through this exchange.

Finally, while we appreciate the efforts of the BLM to improve the quality of this Preliminary EA by conducting lands with wilderness characteristics inventories for the proposed acquisition parcels, it is unclear why Parcel F-5 was not inventoried. As we pointed out in our scoping comments on this

proposal, Parcel F-5 is clearly contiguous with lands currently managed to protect their wilderness character as the Black Mountain Wilderness Study Area, and thus is highly likely to meet the criteria for lands with wilderness characteristics as defined by Manual 6310. While we do not support the inclusion of this parcel in the proposed action, and appreciate that it has been removed from the Preferred Alternative, BLM must inventory this parcel before it is considered for inclusion in the exchange.

I. Comments on specific parcels considered for exchange

a. BLM lands to be exchanged to private

Parcel C-1 – Approximately 340 acres of C-1 are within the Danforth Hills LWC as identified by the BLM Little Snake Field Office (see attached BLM LWC Inventory Report and Map for Unit CON-010-42: Danforth Hills). These lands were found to contain the wilderness characteristics of apparent naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, including hiking, horseback riding, and wildlife-viewing. BLM has not recognized these lands with wilderness characteristics in this EA and must do so to accurately reflect the affected environment of the proposal.

Parcel F-5 – This parcel is contiguous with the Windy Gulch WSA and likely qualifies as lands with wilderness characteristics. The boundary between this parcel and the WSA is an administrative boundary only, and is not based on any existing on-the-ground linear feature. This parcel must be inventoried for lands with wilderness characteristics before inclusion in this exchange. We appreciate and support the removal of this parcel from the Preferred Alternative in the Preliminary EA.

b. Private lands to be acquired by BLM

Parcel B – Parcel B is described by BLM as “the heart of the exchange”. Because BLM bases its public benefit assessments on the supposition that acquiring Parcel B will provide new and secure public access to the Black Mountain and Windy Gulch Wilderness Study Areas, it is crucial that this parcel, or similar, be included in the exchange.

Thank you for considering these scoping comments on the proposed Buffalo Horn Lands Exchange. Please contact us with any questions or to discuss these comments in more detail.

Sincerely,

Soren Jespersen, Planning and Policy Representative The Wilderness Society

Craig, CO 81625

Luke Schafer, West Slope Advocacy Director Conservation Colorado

Craig, CO 81625

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Polygon 042

June 2013

Form 1: Document Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Findings on Record

Is there existing BLM wilderness characteristics inventory information on all or part of this area?

NO X (If no, go to Form 2) YES ___ If yes, and if the area has subunits within the broader area, list the unique identifiers for each of those subunits:

Inventory Source: ______Inventory Area Unique Identifier(s):______Map Name(s)/Number(s):______BLM District(s)/Field Office(s):______

BLM Inventory findings on record: Document existing inventory information regarding wilderness characteristics (if more than one BLM inventory area is associated with the area, list each area and answer each question individually for each inventory area):

Document BLM Wilderness Characteristics Findings on Record (Historic Findings) Inventory Source Document: Area Unique Sufficient Naturalness Outstanding Outstanding Identifier Size? (YES/NO) Opportunities opportunities Supplemental (YES/NO & for Solitude for primitive Values? acres) (YES/NO) & unconfined (YES/NO) recreation (YES/NO)

(add rows as needed)

Form 2: Current Conditions: Presence Or Absence Of Wilderness Characteristics

Area Unique Identifier LWC Polygon 42 Acreage______(If the inventory area consists of subunits, list the acreage of each and evaluate each separately).

1. Is the area of sufficient size? (If area meets an exception to the size criterion, check “Yes” and describe the exception):

Yes X No_____ (If “no” is checked, the area does not have wilderness characteristics; check “NA” for the remaining questions)

Description (boundaries of the area--wilderness inventory roads, property lines, etc.):

LWC Polygon 42 is surrounded primarily by private lands with the exception of two parcels of state trust land in the center of the area. There are two sections of the border that are BLM. One is a road that travels up Dickman Draw and provides access to two separate oil/gas sites. The oil/gas sites are at points; 42-002 and 42-008 where the border is cherrystemmed around them. The second portion of the BLM border is an unnamed BLM road that acts as the southwest border.

2. Does the area appear to be natural?

Yes X No_____ NA_____ (If “no” is checked, the area does not have wilderness characteristics; check “NA” for the remaining questions)

Description (land ownership, location, topography, vegetation, and summary of major human uses and activities):

The area has low sedimentary mountains with tall grasses in the valleys and low lands. Other areas have mixed grass and shrub lands. The majority of the area is surrounded by private ranches or public land that has travel restrictions. This adjacent land with travel restrictions has prevented roads from forming from motorized recreation. Overall the area appears to be affected primarily by the forces of nature.

3. Does the area (or the remainder of the area if a portion has been excluded due to unnaturalness and the remainder is of sufficient size) have outstanding opportunities for solitude?

Yes X No_____ NA_____ (If “no” is checked, the area may still have wilderness characteristics – see question 4)

Description (describe the area’s outstanding opportunities for solitude): During the inventory no other people were seen within the boundaries of the LWC Polygon. When on top of the mountains or hillsides expansive views of undeveloped land can be taken in. A feeling of solitude can also be felt within the shallow valleys, where the presence of other humans is screened from detection. When within the area a feeling of solitude can be felt.

4. Does the area (or the remainder of the area if a portion has been excluded due to unnaturalness and the remainder is of sufficient size) have outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation?

Yes X No_____ NA_____ (If “no” is checked, the area may still have wilderness characteristics; if “No” is checked for both questions 3 and 4 the area does not have wilderness characteristics, check “NA” for question 5)

Description (describe the area’s outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation): With high ridges offering sweeping views and low valleys that offer opportunities for solitude, outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation exist in; cross country hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, and any other form that a user can imagine. The pinyon pine and juniper vegetation that abound in the LWC polygon add to the natural appearance while recreating and provide habitat for wildlife. The naturalness and geography of the area provide outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation.

5. Does the area have supplemental values (ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value)?

Yes_____ No_____ NA X

Description:

6. Summary of Analysis to document information that constitutes the inventory finding on wilderness characteristics. This does not represent a formal land use allocation or a final agency decision, and does not represent a decision in regard to how the area will be managed or address impacts of management decisions. Explain the inventory findings for the entirety of the inventory unit. When an LWC has been identified that is smaller than the size of the total inventory unit, explain why certain portions of the inventory unit are not included in the LWC (e.g. the inventory found that certain parts lacked naturalness).  Does the area meet size requirements or exceptions? Yes X No_____  Does the area appear natural? Yes X No_____ NA_____  Does the area offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation? Yes X No_____ NA_____

Check one: X The area, or a portion of the area, has wilderness characteristics and is identified as land with wilderness characteristics (all 3 bullets must be answered “yes”). ___ The area does not have wilderness characteristics (one or more of the bullets is answered “no”).

7. Prepared by (list team members, titles, date, signatures; add lines as needed):

Evaluator (name/title): Clint Mitchell/Recreation Intern Date: 07/11/2013 Evaluator (name/title): Brendan M. Grady/Recreation Intern Date: 07/11/2013

8. Reviewed by (District or Field Manager): Name: ______Title: ______Date: ______

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS INVENTORY

APPENDIX C – ROUTE ANALYSIS1 (Factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road2 for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes.)

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: LWC Polygon 42

Route or Route Segment3 Name and/or Identifier: 001

1 This form documents information that constitutes an inventory finding on wilderness characteristics. It does not represent a formal land use allocation or a final agency decision subject to administrative remedies under either 43 CFR parts 4 or 1610.5-3.

2 Road: An access route which has been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road.

a. Improved and maintained – Actions taken physically by people to keep the road open to vehicle traffic. “Improved” does not necessarily mean formal construction. “Maintained” does not necessarily mean annual maintenance.

b. Mechanical means – Use of hand or power machinery or tools.

c. Relatively regular and continuous use – Vehicular use that has occurred and will continue to occur on a relatively regular basis. Examples are: access roads for equipment to maintain a stock water tank or other established water sources, access roads to maintained recreation sites or facilities, or access roads to mining claims.

3 If a portion of a route is found to meet the wilderness inventory road criteria (see Part III) and the remainder does not meet these criteria (e.g., a cherrystem road with a primitive route continuing beyond a certain point), identify each segment and explain the rationale for the separate findings under pertinent criteria.

(Include Transportation Plan Identifier, if known, and include route number supplied by citizen information, when available.)

I. LOCATION: Refer to attached map and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference attached photo log:

Describe: A spur route to an active oil or gas site traveling from route 002. The route travels between points 42-004 and point 42-002.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT

A. Current Purpose4 (if any) of Route: (Examples: Rangeland/Livestock Improvements (stock tank, developed spring, reservoir, fence, corral), Inholdings (ranch, farmhouse), Mine Site, Concentrated Use Site (camp site), Recreation, Utilities (transmission line, telephone, pipeline), Administrative (project maintenance, communication site, vegetation treatment)).

Describe: This allows access to an active oil or gas site.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW):

1. Is there a ROW associated with this route?

Yes X No Unknown

2. If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

To allow oil and gas operations would be reason to allow a ROW

3. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose?

Yes X No Unknown or N/A

Explain: The oil or gas site is active and showed tracks from recent travel to and

4 The purpose of a route is not a deciding factor in determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes. The purpose of a route does provide context for factors on which such a determination may be based, particularly the question of whether maintenance of the route ensures relatively regular and continuous use. The purpose also helps to determine whether maintenance that may so far have been unnecessary to ensure such use would be approved by BLM when the need arises. from the site.

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA

A. Evidence of construction or improvement using mechanical means:

Yes X (if either A.1 or A.2 is checked “yes” below) No (if both A.1 and A.2 are checked “no” below)

1. Construction: (Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means?) Yes X No

Examples: Paved Bladed X Graveled Roadside Berms Cut/Fill X Other

Describe: The road was cut into a hill side mechanically 2. Improvements: (Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access?) Yes No X If “yes”: by Hand Tools by Machine

Examples: Culverts Hardened Stream Crossings Bridges Drainage Barriers Other

Describe: NA

B. Maintenance: (Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use?): Yes (if either B.1 or B.2 is checked “yes” below) No X (if both B.1 and B.2 are checked “no” below)

1. Is there Evidence or Documentation of Maintenance using hand tools or machinery?

Yes No X If “yes”: by Hand Tools by Machine

Explain:

2. If the route or route segment is in good5 condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable?

Yes X No

Explain: Access to the active oil or gas site would be reason to allow maintenance or improvements to the route.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: (Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use?) Yes X No

Describe evidence (e.g., direct, vehicles or vehicle tracks observed, or indirect, evidence of use associated with purpose of the route such as maintenance of facility that route accesses) and other rationale for whether use has occurred and will continue to occur on a relatively regular basis (i.e., regular and continuous use relative to the purpose(s) of the route).6 Truck tire tracks from this spring were seen leading to an estimation that the road is driven once every

5 Good condition would be a condition that ensures regular and continuous use relative to the purposes of the route. Consider whether the route can be clearly followed in the field over its entire course and whether all or any portion of the route contains any impediments to travel. 6 Include estimate of travel rates for the stated purposes, e.g., trips/day or week or month or season or year or even multiple years in some facility maintenance cases. month.

IV. CONCLUSION:

Does the route or route segment7 meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)?

Yes X = Wilderness Inventory Road No = Not a road for wilderness inventory purposes

Explanation8: Due to the mechanical construction, amount of use, and access to an active oil or gas site that is provided a Wilderness Road Inventory Road designation shall be given.

Evaluator(s): Clint Mitchell Date: 06/27/2013

Form 3: Route Analysis: The Route Analysis includes factors to consider when determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes. For the purposes of this analysis, use the following definition of a “road”. This definition is drawn from and the FLPMA legislative history and historic BLM inventory direction.

Road: An access route which has been improved and maintained by mechanical means to insure relatively regular and continuous use. A way maintained solely by the passage of vehicles does not constitute a road. a. Improved and maintained – Actions taken physically by people to keep the road open to vehicle traffic. “Improved” does not necessarily mean formal construction. “Maintained” does not necessarily mean annual maintenance. b. Mechanical means – Use of hand or power machinery or tools. c. Relatively regular and continuous use – Vehicular use that has occurred and will continue to occur on a relatively regular basis. Examples are: access roads for

7 If part of the route meets the wilderness inventory road definition and the remainder does not, describe the segment meeting the definition and any remaining portion not meeting the definition and why.

8 Describe and explain rationale for any discrepancies with citizen proposals.

equipment to maintain a stock water tank or other established water sources, access roads to maintained recreation sites or facilities, or access roads to mining claims.

If a portion of a route is found to meet the wilderness inventory road criteria (see Part III) and the remainder does not meet these criteria (e.g., a cherrystem road with a primitive route continuing beyond a certain point), identify each segment and explain the rationale for the separate findings.

Wilderness Characteristics Inventory Area Unique Identifier: LWC Polygon 42 Route or Route Segment Name and/or Identifier: 42-002, Route 2

I. LOCATION: Refer to attached map and BLM corporate data (GIS). List photo point references (where applicable) or reference attached photo log:

Map Title: ______Map Date: ______

Describe: Route 2 travels from Moffat County Road 32 to Moffat County Road 57 through Duckman Draw on the western border of LWC Polygon 42. Points 42-003, 42-004, 42-005, 42-006, 42-007, and 42-009 all lie along the route.

II. ROUTE CONTEXT The purpose of a route is not a deciding factor in determining whether a route is a road for wilderness characteristics inventory purposes. The purpose of a route does provide context for factors on which such a determination may be based, particularly the question of whether maintenance of the route ensures relatively regular and continuous use. The purpose also helps to determine whether maintenance that may so far have been unnecessary to ensure such use would be approved by BLM when the need arises.

A. Current Purpose (if any) of Route: (Examples: rangeland/livestock improvements (stock tank, developed spring, reservoir, fence, corral), inholdings (ranch, farmhouse), mine site, concentrated use site (camp site), recreation, utilities (transmission line, telephone, pipeline), administrative (project maintenance, communication site, vegetation treatment)).

Describe: Route 2 provides access to several oil and gas sites. The route travels through private land where range access may be an additional use.

B. Right-of-Way (ROW): B.1. Is there a ROW associated with this route? Yes ____ No ____ Unknown X

If yes, what is the stated purpose of the ROW?

B.2. Is the ROW still being used for this purpose? Yes ____ No ____ Unknown or N/A X

Explain:

III. WILDERNESS INVENTORY ROAD CRITERIA A. Is there evidence of construction or improvement using mechanical means? Yes, if either III.A.1 or III.A.2 is checked “yes” below X No, if both III.A.1 and III.A.2 are checked “no” below _____

A.1. Construction: Is there evidence that the route or route segment was originally constructed using mechanical means? Yes X No _____

Examples (partial list): Paved___ Bladed X Graveled___ Roadside Berms___ Cut/Fill X Other___

Describe: The road appeared to be bladed, cut into the hillside, and have ditches for drainage.

A.2. Improvements: Is there evidence of improvements using mechanical means to facilitate access? Yes X If “yes”, improvements by? Hand Tools ____ by Machine X No ____

Examples (partial list): Culverts___ Built Stream Crossings___ Bridges___ Drainage X Barriers___

Describe: There appeared to be drainage ditches along the full extent of the route.

B. Maintenance: Is there evidence of maintenance that would ensure relatively regular and continuous use? Yes, if either III.B.1 or III.B.2 is checked “yes” below X No, if both III.B.1 and III.B.2 are checked “no” below ___

B.1. Is there evidence or documentation of maintenance using hand tools or machinery? Yes X If “yes”, maintenance by? Hand Tools ____ by Machine X No ____

Explain: The route appears to be bladed to maintain or ensure access to the oil pads.

B.2. If the route or route segment is in good condition, but there is no evidence of maintenance, would mechanical maintenance with hand tools or machines be approved by BLM to meet the purpose(s) of the route in the event this route became impassable? “Good condition” would be a condition that ensures regular and continuous use relative to the purposes of the route. Consider whether the route can be clearly followed in the field over its entire course and whether all or any portion of the route contains any impediments to travel. Yes X No ____

Explain: The BLM would approve maintenance to ensure access to oil sites as well as private lands.

C. Relatively regular and continuous use: Does the route or route segment ensure relatively regular and continuous use? Yes X No ____

Explain: Describe evidence (e.g., direct: vehicles or vehicle tracks observed; or indirect: evidence of use associated with purpose of the route such as maintenance of facility that route accesses) and other rationale for whether use has occurred and will continue to occur on a relatively regular basis (regular and continuous use relative to the purpose(s) of the route). Include estimate of travel rates for the stated purposes (e.g., trips per day, week, month, season, year, or even multiple years in some facility maintenance cases). The route is bladed and had several tire tracks from past users.

IV. CONCLUSION: Does the route or route segment meet the definition of a wilderness inventory road (i.e., are items III.A and III.B and III.C all checked yes)? If part of the route meets the wilderness inventory road definition and the remainder does not, describe the segment meeting the definition and any remaining portion not meeting the definition and why. Also, describe and explain rationale for any discrepancies with citizen proposals.

Yes X = Wilderness Inventory Road No ____ = Not a road for wilderness inventory purposes

Explain: The route was constructed mechanically, is maintained mechanically, and ensures regular and continuous use.

Evaluator (name/title): Brendan M. Grady/Recreation Intern Date: 07/11/2013

42-001 !

T5NR96W 42-003 T5NR95W ! T5NR94W CON-010-042 42-002 10,387.58 acres LWC 42-004! ! 1,221.93 acres Excluded

42-005 ! 42-010 42-008 ! 42-007! ! !

42-009 !

T4NR96W T4NR95W T4NR94W

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Unit CON-010-042 LWC Inventory Surface Management Status · Danforth QR318 Excluded from Original LWC Boundary Bureau of Land Management LWC Boundary No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 13 Colorado Land Board as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these QR data for individual use or aggregation use with other data. Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Lands Managed for LWC Craig Private All boundaries are an approximate representation. !Maybell ! ! Wilderness Study Area (WSA)

Hayden ! ! Observation Point 0 0.5 1 2 ¤£40 Hamilton 07/31/13 Miles 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Dean Chris Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:25 PM To: "[email protected]"

I have hunted this area for about thirty years. The swap would open up areas to hunting that are land locked presently. Option B would allow more access to all recreation. This swap would enhance the area for hunters and recreation. Thank you for your consideration.

Dean A. Talbot

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn

Clint & Jeannie Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 9:38 PM To: [email protected]

I think is a good idea to exchange a larger amount of their land for a small amount of BLM land. It helps them and it enlarges the BLM territory.

Oma Jean Gorman

The only thing that stands between you and achieving your dreams, is YOU!

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Allen Matsuda Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:51 PM To: [email protected]

To whom this may concern,

We have been neighbors to the Buffalo Horn ranch for over 10 years and have not had conflicts with them. They have been good neighbors.

I would favor Alternative B because exchanging less public ground is best. I can understand Buffalo Horns reasoning to do the land exchange because trying to manage your property with BLM ground that is in the middle of it is a nightmare. The public tends to leave gates open when they are supposed to be closed, drive on private ground thinking they are on BLM, shooting an animal and venturing onto private ground without permission are some of the reasons we support the exchange. We deal with this every year as our property borders BLM. Buffalo Horn is trying to manage their property to be contiguous land to help eliminate some of these problems. Plus the BLM is gaining more acres of land than they are exchanging for and thus having more acres for the public to hunt and/or use.

Triple M Land, LLC Moffat County property owner

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn Land Exchange

Amanda Edinger Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 5:57 PM To: [email protected]

Hello...... I noticed there is a purposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange and wanted to put in my 2 "sense" in on the idea. I hope im not too late because I see it is due today but I think its an awesome idea, I love it! I have hunted the area many years and like the idea of not having to worry about trespassing.

Thank You Amanda Marie

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn land exchange

Angie Castaldo Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:13 PM To: [email protected]

To whom this may concern,

After reviewing the information, this seems like a win win deal. Making better use of our precious natural resources seems like a smart choice. With more and more people calling our beautiful state home, making more public land more readily usable to the public seems like a good choice. I am in favor of the land exchange between Buffalo Horn Ranch and the BLM.

Thank You

Angie Castaldo

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] BLM

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] BLM

Billy Fletcher Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 7:44 PM To: [email protected]

This has to be a buddy deal. I would like for someone to explain to me the benefit the government (me) will get out of this one sided obvious under the table deal. I would check someone’s bank account. Sent from my iPhone

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Buffalo Horn land Swap

Blake Harsha Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:16 AM To: [email protected]

It looks to me with both parties having land that is landlocked by the other it would make sense to do a land swap to open up more area for both parties.

Blake Harsha--Hunter

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1 8/8/2018 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mail - [EXTERNAL] Land swap

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] Land swap

Bryce Ducey Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:43 PM To: [email protected]

I am writing this email as a public land user supporting the land swap with Buffalo Horn Ranch. This swap will open up a large amount of land that is much easier for the public to be able to access than the spotty public lands that are mostly shut off by private access. The land swap I believe would be a good benefit to the local public land users.

Bryce Ducey

Sent from my iPhone

WRFO_BHLEX, BLM_CO

[EXTERNAL] BHR exchange/ BLM

Carlos Estrada Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:14 AM To: [email protected]

Why would anyone think this is a bad idea. We travel from Arizona to hunt this area. We also have enjoyed exploring the terrain and wildlife watching. Good areas like this is getting harder to find. We enjoy the local people as well, who I would think would make good use of this BLM as well. We implore you not to make a hasty decision and consider all tax payers input. This land is for the public, so their opinion should not be taken lightly. From my understanding, this land exchange we be beneficial to BHR but, it would greatly benefit the public. We appreciate the opportunity to be heard and very clearly say...We support alternative A!!

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AELYn1GFDkIls59VT2WPjyAee4ZE7XZ_Vea51RwoGhLhLh2beemX/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3fcfcc5bfb&jsver=dKKOVr-M4GM.e… 1/1

COLORADO WILD PUBLIC LANDS

June 6, 2018

BLM WRFO Land Exchange Comments 220 East Market St Meeker, CO 81641

Via e-mail: [email protected]

Dear BLM WRFO,

The following are the comments of Colorado Wild Public Lands on the proposed Buffalo Horn Land Exchange, as described in the environmental assessment (EA). We commend the White River Field Office for producing a clearly written, user-friendly document. (It should still be improved, as we advocate in section I below.) We have also found the field office staff to be courteous and helpful, despite an often stressful process. The information presented at the May 23 open house was helpful and staff presented it articulately. We thank them for pleasant and productive interactions. We would also like to express appreciation for the agency keeping an open mind, responding to scoping comments, and presenting two different Action Alternatives. Colorado Wild Public Lands views all of this as an agency acting in the spirit of NEPA, rather than just jumping through the hoops.

After reviewing the EA and other documents we would like to offer the following comments and suggest that Alternative C – No Action, is the alternative that would best serve the public interest.

I. IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN THE EA.

As good as it is generally, the EA does suffer from some incomplete analyses in the following areas, making it difficult to assess the full impact of the land exchange:

The private parcels have not been surveyed for cultural or paleontological resources (EA at 73 and 75). As such we cannot assess the full impact of the exchange on the public’s • 1 interest in protecting these resources. We do know that the public parcels have both cultural and paleontological resources on them, but the EA does not offer any plans to mitigate for the loss of these parcels.

While the EA does discuss the issue of grazing allotment reductions, it does not include quantification of the impacts for the smaller grazing allotments that could be affected.• A reduction in AUMs for any of these allotments might be significant to the permittees’ operation. The EA notes that AUM reductions could increase operating costs. Id. at 87.

The EA states that the need for the land exchange includes “minimizing public trespass on adjacent private parcels” (EA at 2), yet there is no documentation at all of trespass• incidence.

A scoping comment submitted by the Wilderness Society and Conservation Colorado identifies parcel C1 as having “approximately 340 acres of the Danforth Hills lands with •wilderness characteristics unit as identified by the BLM Little Snake Field Office” (WS/CC comments at 3); however, the EA makes no mention of this. It is also likely that Parcel F5, due to its contiguity with Windy Gap WSA does have Lands with Wilderness Characteristics; it has not been inventoried.

The EA identifies both priority and general sage grouse habitat on Parcel G (EA at 11), yet there is no sage grouse habitat on private parcel B. The EA should address how it would• mitigate for the loss of the habitat under Alternative B.

The EA does not identify the private party proponent for this land exchange, that is, the owner(s) of Buffalo Horn Properties, LLC. Colorado Wild Public Lands has previously •requested this information from the BLM, and subsequently included the request in our FOIA letter dated May 22, 2018. We believe that this information is essential to an open public process.

II. THE PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

A. INTRODUCTION.

The governing statute for BLM land exchanges, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, declares the following policy:

the public lands be retained in Federal ownership, unless as a result of the land use planning procedure provided for in this Act, it is determined that disposal of a particular parcel will serve the national interest.

43 U. S. C. 1701(a)(1). This act also states that the values of federal land to be traded away must not be more valuable than the lands to be acquired. 43 U. S. C. 1716. This is further detailed in BLM’s land exchange regulations:

Determination of public interest. The authorized officer may complete an exchange only after a determination is made that the public interest will be well served. When considering the public interest, the authorized officer shall give full consideration to the opportunity to achieve better management of Federal lands, to meet the needs of State and local residents and their economies, and to secure important objectives, including but not limited to: Protection of fish and wildlife habitats, cultural resources, watersheds, wilderness and aesthetic values; enhancement of recreation opportunities and public access; consolidation of lands and/or interests in lands, such as mineral and timber interests, for more logical and efficient management and development; consolidation of split estates; expansion of communities; accommodation of land use authorizations; promotion of multiple-use values; and fulfillment of public needs. In making this determination, the authorized officer must find that:

(1) The resource values and the public objectives that the Federal lands or interests to be conveyed may serve if retained in Federal ownership are not more than the resource values of the non-Federal lands or interests and the public objectives they could serve if acquired, and

(2) The intended use of the conveyed Federal lands will not, in the determination of the authorized officer, significantly conflict with established management objectives on adjacent Federal lands and Indian trust lands. Such finding and the supporting rationale shall be made part of the administrative record.

43 CFR 2200.0-6(b).

It would clearly not be in the public interest for the BLM to acquire parcels A-3 and A-5 (alternative A). We also believe that there would be, on balance, a net loss in trading the BLM parcels proposed to acquire parcel B (alternative B). Our reasons for this are detailed in the remainder of these comments.

B. THE BLM SHOULD NOT ACQUIRE PARCELS A-3 AND A-5, THUS ALTERNATIVE A CANNOT BE APPROVED.

1. The public would have, at best, limited access to parcels A-3 and A-5. While there are arguably some benefits to acquiring parcel A-5, they, and any benefits from obtaining parcel A-3, would be greatly diminished, or in some cases negated altogether, by the Master Surface Use Agreement (MSUA) that covers both parcels. The EA states this directly: In light of the current MSUA, and the uncertainty about what management authority/ability the agreement would or would not provide to the new land owner, it may be in the public’s best interest to avoid acquisition of these parcels.

Id. at 29; emphasis added.

Note also that the MSUA states that the roads in these parcels are solely for use by the surface owner, and the energy company and its contractors. EA at 127. The MSUA:

in no way conveys rights of access to individuals or parties for any other purpose whatsoever. Hunting, sightseeing, horseback riding, use of recreational vehicles and other such activities are expressly forbidden.

EA p. 12; this is said to be a direct quote from the MSUA.

In other words, the public would not be able to use any of the roads in these parcels (except BLM road 1512 in parcel A-5), and might not even be able to use the parcels for any activity. But even if they could use the parcels, the presence of various energy-related operations would greatly reduce the value of these parcels for any form of recreation, including camping and hunting. Given the frequent human presence from the energy company’s operations, the wildlife habitat on these parcels is likely ineffective, i.e., it can’t be used by many species because of frequent, and often intensive, human disturbance.

2. Oil and gas leasing and subsequent development could occur on the acquired parcels. There is high potential for oil and gas on the private parcels, and A-5 has a current lease. EA at 391 . Leasing and subsequent development could occur even on the portion of A-5 that is land with wilderness characteristics. EA at 64.

1The information on current leases on the exchange parcels in the EA conflicts somewhat with that in the Feasibility Report. Compare EA at 39 with Feasibility Report at 2. The BLM needs to clarify this.

A-3 has been designated for an interstate oil-gas pipeline, a preferred route for a future pipeline. EA at 85. There is an easement/right of way for a pipeline on A-5. EA at 25.

Under alternative A, the BLM would have a net increase of 650 acres of split mineral estate lands. EA at 41. This would increase the difficulty of managing BLM lands in the WRFO area.

3. Sage grouse habitat to be acquired would not be effective, useful, or manageable. Sage grouse habitat is present on two of the private parcels to be acquired, including some priority habitat (almost all of parcel A-3 and over 1000 acres of A-5 – EA at 68). However, grouse “require large expanses of intact sagebrush habitat”. Ibid. With lots of human activity and many roads and oil-gas well pads present, the habitat would be ineffective and of little, if any, use to the species. Also, the understory on these parcels is “extremely likely” to be “dominated by cheatgrass and annual forbs which structurally provide insufficient cover for nesting grouse”. EA at 68.

But even if the habitat was of high quality and had little human disturbance, BLM probably could not apply stipulations (e. g., timing of operations, well locations) on oil-gas development because of MSUA. See EA at 25, 29, 69, 70. In other words, BLM could not apply measures that would sufficiently protect sage grouse, and the habitat would still be useless. Thus there would be little or no value in the agency acquiring the sage grouse habitat in these parcels. The EA even states this directly:

Due to the uncertainty at this time with what the MSUA would and would not provide the new land owner (BLM) in regards to management considerations for sage-grouse, it would be in the public’s best interest to avoid the acquisition of these parcels as the BLM may not have the ability to manage them in a way that would support the management decisions outlined in the 2015 GRSG RMPA.

EA at 70; emphasis added.

Under either action alternative, parcel G, which is said to have both priority and general sage grouse habitat (EA Table 1 at 11), would be traded to private. However, there is no discussion of parcel G’s sage grouse habitat in the EA’s section on sage grouse (id. at 68-70). Thus the public cannot discern how much sage grouse habitat of what quality would be traded to private ownership. Additionally, the EA does not discuss mitigation for loss of this habitat or methods of protecting it in private ownership (such as a conservation easement.

This would violate the NW Colorado Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) of September, 2015:

Land Tenure Adjustment MD LR-11: Retain public ownership of GRSG PHMA2. Consider exceptions where:

It can be demonstrated that: 1) disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will provide a net conservation gain to the GRSG; or 2) the disposal of the lands, including land exchanges, will have no direct or indirect adverse impact on GRSG conservation.

MD LR-12: (PHMA) In isolated federal parcels, only allow tract disposals that are beneficial or neutral to long-term management of GRSG populations.

MD LR-13: (GHMA2) For lands in GHMA that are identified for disposal, the BLM would only dispose of such lands consistent with the goals and objectives of this ARMPA, including, but not limited to, the ARMPA objective to maintain or increase GRSG abundance and distribution.

ARMPA at 2-22, 2-23.

4. Cultural resources might not be protected. Parcels A-3 and A-5 have not been surveyed for cultural resources3 (EA at 74), thus the BLM does not know what it would receive in return for exchanging parcels that have some cultural properties, including four that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. EA at 73-74. In general, the public interest is not served by disposing of lands with important cultural resources, at least not without enforceable conditions that would ensure their protection. Indeed, trading away cultural properties without legally enforceable stipulations to protect them would create a “finding of adverse impact”. EA at 74, citing 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(vii).4

2 “GRSG” is greater sage grouse, “PHMA” is priority habitat management area, and “GHMA” is general habitat management area.

3 These surveys on private lands proposed for exchange should have been done before the EA was completed. Note that an agreement to initiate a land exchange, which in this case was signed December 1, 2016 (EA at 2), includes “[a] grant of permission by each party to conduct a physical examination of the lands offered by the other party”. 43 CFR 2201.1(c)(9). 4 The EA mis-cites this as “4 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(vii)”, but this is actually from Title 36, not Title 4, of the Code of Federal Regulations. 6

5. The proposed transfer of A-3 and A-5 would not ensure protection of paleontological resources. Parcel C-1, which would be traded away, has four scientifically important localities containing fossils. EA at 75. The private parcels have not been surveyed5. Ibid. Thus there could be a net loss of fossils in public ownership. In any case, the BLM has not yet determined how fossil resources traded to private ownership would be protected under alternative A as “the BLM is currently exploring options to obtain or protect the scientific data these localities would provide”. Ibid.

6. Important, even unique, vegetation communities would be exchanged for more common vegetation. The riparian area in C-1 (Price Creek) has a “relatively unique riparian plant community” (EA at 66), while the riparian area in A-3 (Deep Channel) has more common vegetation (Id. at 66), and is choked with weeds. Id. at 65. On the latter riparian area, “[t]his [riparian] system holds no unique values in terms of wildlife habitat to terrestrial animal species.” EA at 73.

The aspen community on parcel D-3, which would be traded away, is also unique. EA at 71. In general, the higher elevation areas that would be traded to private interests “are generally more intact, with a diverse, native understory” compared to the lower elevation parcels BLM would acquire. EA at 71. Under alternative A, the BLM and public would lose 2200 acres of the “higher elevation mixed mountain shrub community” (especially parcels C-1 and E-2) in return for 2900 acres of lower elevation pinyon-juniper and sagebrush communities. EA at 66.

7. The exchange would not benefit public big game hunting. Hunting is a major use of some of the BLM parcels proposed for exchange to private. EA at 33; see also the response to scoping comments. Alternative A severely curtails back-country hunting opportunities through the conveyance of C1, E2 and F5, with no comparable lands coming back to the public. The MSUA restrictions on access could eliminate hunting opportunities on or through the A parcels altogether. There is no habitat comparable to that of C1 on any of the private parcels due to the difference in elevation of C1 compared to the A and B parcels. The increased access to more public lands purported as the major benefit of Parcel B does not provide reciprocal hunting opportunities; there is no surface water on Parcel B, and Deep Creek Channel on A3 is described as holding “no unique values in terms of wildlife” (EA at 72) .

The EA explicitly touts the high value hunting opportunities that the public parcels provide. The Socioeconomic analysis describes the SRPs on the public parcels as “located in areas highly valued by big game hunters” (EA at 58). In particular, C1, lost to the public under

5 As with cultural resources, these surveys should have been conducted on private land. See footnote 1 above. 7

both alternatives “does provide unique wildlife habitat as it supports a wooded riparian community that provides water, cover, and forage for many big game species,”(EA at 29); in other words, the big Elk like it here because it offers everything they need. The private parcels have little to no surface water, and offer none of the deciduous trees and shrubs that big game need for cover and forage.

The lands proposed for exchange lie within GMUs 11 and 211, “units known for their big game harvest numbers … Licensed hunters hunt … within these GMUs, and are known to pay thousands of dollars each year for multi-day trips on private lands. To earn supplemental income, some private landowners in these GMUs operate hunting lodges or lease portions of their land to outfitters [or run outfitting businesses themselves] who are able to charge a premium for guided trips . . . “ (EA at 50 and 51).

These high quality public hunting grounds provide a lot of income to local families. Action Alternatives A and B would adversely affect the outfitters who hold SRPs on the parcels to be conveyed, making Buffalo Horn a big winner in the competition for clients at the expense of three other permittees, Louisiana Purchase Ranch, Strawberry Creek Outfitters and Crawford Ranch; Crawford Ranch will also suffer from the reduced grazing allotments. The EA states “. . . loss of access to these areas could be perceived as adversely affecting the desirability of guide and outfitting services provided by these outfitters.” (EA 58)

Even if the BLM offered replacement lands for these SRPs, one of the biggest values in hiring an outfitter is the intimate connection they hold with their permit areas and the resulting knowledge of the game movements; it takes a long time to cultivate this and having to learn new terrain diminishes their value to their clients, at least temporarily.

Alternative B does retain some of the high quality hunting grounds on parcels E2 and F5 that Alternative A would trade away. However, Parcel B does not offer the same quality habitat and concentration of big game as the higher elevation public parcels in the exchange, and it does not mitigate for the economic loss to the SRP holders on those upland parcels. (See Section C below for more discussion about this.)

Additionally, the A parcels, would be constrained by the MSUA. Not being able to apply timing stipulations (i.e., to protect calving, fawning, migration, etc.) would hinder BLM’s ability to protect big game to the point where acquisition of parcels A-3 and A-5 would not be worthwhile, as the EA states:

Should the BLM not be able to apply management decisions outlined in the RMP, particularly in regards to oil and gas-related activities and ROWs, there

would be little opportunity to reduce impacts to big game and little incentive for the BLM to acquire these parcels.”

EA at 29; emphasis added.

Many of the parcels are said to have winter range for deer and or elk. EA Table 4 at 29. However, winter is a time when big game animals need to conserve their energy. With frequent human disturbance under the MSUA, the animals would be stressed or have to expend much energy to avoid the disturbance, thus the habitat would not be effective or usable.

Public access to A-3 and A-5 would at best be limited because of the MSUA, as is discussed in subsection B 1 above. But even assuming there was reasonable access to A-3 and A-5 once they were transferred to public ownership, the additional human use would displace the game and decrease the chances for hunter success and the overall hunting experience. The 648-acre portion of A-5 with wilderness characteristics:

is likely to be requested to provide outfitting and guiding services for big game hunting if it were to become BLM lands based on the use of the area by private land hunters and the use on the surrounding BLM lands.

Lands With Wilderness Characteristics: LEX Parcel A-56, at 4. In other words, if there was access for big game hunting on parcels A-3 and/or A-5, the benefits of having BLM manage parcel A-5 would be mainly for hunters who hired an outfitter/guide, not for the general public.

8. Management of livestock grazing would be complicated by any exchange. There are numerous allotments and range improvements on the various parcels involved in the proposed exchange. See EA Tables 7 and 8 at 43-45. It is unclear how these would be managed if land ownership changed. For example:

It is unknown whether Buffalo Horn would choose to realign any allotment boundary fences to exclude their new private parcels.

EA at 46. See also EA at 59, which states that if Buffalo Horn LLC acquired parcel C-1, it might erect fences that would restrict movement of other permittees’ cattle. As mentioned above the EA does not include any quantification of AUM reductions ensuing from the land exchange. These AUM reductions could have a negative impact on local livestock

6 This document appears on the website for the proposed land exchange. 9

operations which are an important part of the local economy and heritage. Moreover, reduction in grazing allotments has regional implications as the allotments are utilized by producers from as far away as Steamboat (Banning Angus).

While the BLM has suggested that there could be an increase in grazing opportunities in Upper Smith Gulch (see EA at 46), there is no certainty that BLM would include them in future management planning. Also, permittees would incur expenses to improve these new allotments with fences, water tanks, and the road maintenance necessary to build and maintain these improvements. Additionally, permittees would be responsible for managing the extensive noxious weed infestation on Parcel B (EA at 65), including scotch, musk and bull thistles, as well as houndstongue, all of which are inedible to cattle and so aggressive as to render infested areas inaccessible to any medium or large animals, resulting in useless rangeland.

9. Miscellaneous concerns.

--Parcel A-5 contains hazardous waste, including eight abandoned oil wells and an abandoned pipeline. Further investigation would be needed to determine clean-up actions. EA at 77. BLM would inherit a contaminated site that it would have to clean up if it acquired this parcel.

--Parcels A-3 and A-5 would not meet Public Land Health Standards 3 and 4. EA at 81.

C. THE BENEFITS OF ACQUIRING PARCEL B WOULD BE MINIMAL AND NEGATED BY TRADING AWAY VALUABLE LANDS

1. Increased public access could be detrimental to the resource. Acquiring parcel B is desired because it would provide access to two wilderness study areas that are currently difficult to access. But low public use now (because of difficult access) is good for maintaining wilderness character and effective wildlife and plant habitat. Increased public use if the parcel were managed by BLM could “disrupt and displace wildlife”. EA at 29. Increased public use would also decrease hunting quality and the chance for hunting success, as is evidenced by various scoping comments.

2. The parcel could easily be leased and developed for oil and gas. Along with all the other proposed exchange parcels, parcel B has high potential for oil and gas. EA at 39. It would remain available for leasing. Id. at 16. In addition 48 percent of the parcel has private mineral estate. Id. at 39. Thus future leasing and development for oil and gas would be a persistent threat to public use of this parcel, or at least to the quality of any recreational experience.

Any oil-gas development would greatly reduce the quality of any recreational experience (hunting, hiking, wildlife viewing, etc.), including in the two wilderness study areas. Leasing and development would be facilitated by an existing easement/right of way for a pipeline on the parcel. EA at 25. Should development be proposed, BLM would not be able to control it on almost half of the parcel.

3. Parcel B has a lower quality vegetation community and less species diversity than the BLM parcels to be traded away. Parcel B has “extensive areas within Smith Gulch infested with Scotch thistle”. Increased public access means an increase in spread of weeds would be likely, and treating weeds on parcel B would be difficult without improving the road. EA at 65, 66.

The composition and quality of the vegetation on parcel B is less than that of the BLM parcels to be traded away:

Parcel B is composed largely of basin big sagebrush and greasewood bottoms surrounded by pinyon-juniper dominated ridges. These are probably the two most common and abundant habitat types in the WRFO. EA at 71.

The riparian area in C-1 (Price Creek), on the other hand, has a “relatively unique riparian plant community”. EA at 66. Parcel D3 has a “unique” Aspen community. EA at 71. The other public parcels also support habitat not present on Parcel B; “These higher elevation communities are generally more intact, with a diverse, native understory. We would expect the bird species associated with these communities to be represented at the appropriate densities throughout these 16 parcels.” EA at 71. So the BLM would give up a parcels with a “relatively unique” plant community and habitat supporting avian diversity for one that has very common vegetation and less species diversity.

4. Management of livestock grazing would be complicated by the proposed exchange. See discussion in subsection B 8 above.

5. Increased public access to, and use of, the parcel would increase the frequency of human-caused fire ignitions. There is strong evidence that areas with motorized access have a much larger number of fire starts.7 This issue is not addressed in the EA.

7 See, e. g., The Final Environmental Impact Statement for Roadless Area Conservation, Volume 1, at 3-104, 3- 105. USDA Forest Service, 2000. 11

6. The benefits of obtaining parcel B, if any, would be minimal, and they would be negated by the loss of parcels C-1, D3 and F-5.

D. RETAIN PARCEL C-1

Parcel C-1 is proposed for exchange to private in both alternative A and B. The difficulty of public access (EA at 17) limits the use of this parcel, though it is adjacent to Buffalo Horn Ranch (ibid.).

Parcel C-1 has one of only two riparian areas among all the parcels in the proposed exchange. This is “a relatively unique” riparian plant community. EA at 71-72. Also, “this [riparian] system holds unique wildlife and riparian value”. EA at 72.

Parcel C-1 contains approximately 340 acres of the Danforth Hills lands with wilderness characteristics unit as identified by the BLM Little Snake Field Office. See scoping comments of The Wilderness Society and Conservation Colorado, dated January 23, 2017, at 2-3 and 5. See also Lands With Wilderness Characteristics: Polygon 042, BLM, June, 2013, and CON-010-042, which is a map of the Danforth parcel. Both are attached to these comments. The BLM must not exchange a parcel with wilderness characteristics, especially as proposed under alternative B, as it would not receive anything comparable in return.

Parcel C-1 has “four scientifically important [paleontological] localities” (EA at 75). It is not clear how, or even if, these important sites would be protected if the parcel is transferred to private ownership: “BLM is currently exploring options to obtain or protect the scientific data these localities would provide.” Ibid. Notably, surveys for paleontological resources were not conducted on private lands (ibid.; see discussion in subsection B 5 above), so the BLM does not know what it would receive in return for trading away a parcel with valuable fossil resources.

III. APPRAISAL/VALUATION

A. THE BLM HAS NOT PROVIDED CRITICALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON APPRAISALS NEEDED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EXCHANGE IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST At CWPL, we believe that proper and transparent valuation of the land exchanges is crucial to any Public Interest Determination. As such, we always request that appraisal information be available early in the process for public scrutiny. Generally, we find that others are requesting this information as well; in the instance of Buffalo Horn, there was

one other scoping comment raising the issue of valuations, and there have been others requesting the information in the context of the EA comment period. CWPL has submitted a FOIA request for: 1.) The April 2014 preliminary evaluation referred to in the Feasibility Analysis, as well as documents supporting this analysis; 2.) Appraisal instructions prepared by the Appraisal and Valuation Services Office, pursuant to the Agreement to Initiate; 3.) The actual appraisals undertaken or commissioned by the AVSO, when they are completed (please see comments below); We do not anticipate receiving this information in time to include proper analysis by the closing date of this Buffalo Horn comment period, so we offer these comments and observations instead.

The staff of the WRFO has emphasized what an important role appraisals play in this exchange. The Feasibility Report says that the final exchange parcel configuration has not been offered for analysis in the Preliminary EA; “When the BLM receives the final appraisal, some non-Federal lands may be dropped from the exchange or be re-configured to equalize values.” (Feasibility Report at 4). Again, at the BLM open house on May 23, staff said it has not yet developed the “final exchange map” because they are anticipating having to re- arrange the parcel configuration due to differences in valuation.

Despite the requirement in Section 206 of FLPMA that appraisals be requested within 90 days of the completion of an Agreement to Initiate, which in the case of Buffalo Horn was completed in December of 2016, BLM tells us that the appraisals are not completed. Yet they know enough about the values of the lands in the proposal discussed in the EA to be able to say that the final proposal will be a different one. Essentially, the agency’s reluctance to participate in an early and transparent appraisal process denies the public an opportunity to assess and comment on the exchange. The BLM itself is telling us that the proposal we are assessing and commenting on now, will not be what comes out in the Record of Decision. How can we determine whether the proposal is in the public interest if we do not even know what it is?

B. APPRAISALS SHOULD PROPERLY VALUE PUBLIC LANDS WITH REGARDS TO THEIR FULL USE POTENTIAL, RECREATIONAL BENEFITS, AND PUBLIC VALUES

1. Appraisal considerations for the small public parcels The treatment of larger parcel identification and whether components of any contemplated exchange are valued separately as independent parcels or as a single tract to be sold in a single transaction depends upon the ATI or written instructions provided to the appraiser.

Therefore, the specific terms of the ATI or the written instructions provided to the appraiser can have profound impacts upon any conclusions of market value reached during such an assignment. The instructions dictate whether component properties of a contemplated exchange are considered separately and then totaled using a summation process, or valued together as one whole property. Bundling the smaller acreages into a single tract can influence the choice of comparable sales used to determine the market value of the smaller parcels by artificially creating a larger acreage with which to compare them. Appraisals should consider the inherent values of the individual properties, and the selected comparable sales should reflect these values.

2. Recreation and Assemblage as Highest and Best use of Larger Public Parcels The Valuation Analysis in the Feasibility Report (p. 4) says the highest and best use the federal parcels is recreation for some parcels and assemblage with other acreage for others. We would like to suggest that the use potential for some of these parcels is not either/or, but rather both/and. In the area of the Buffalo Horn Ranch, a significant marketing factor is the appeal of big game hunting, and the quality of hunting on a given private parcel is a significant portion of that property’s desirability. Parcels C1, D3 lie on the outside edges of the Buffalo Horn Ranch and are contiguous with both public and private land not owned by Buffalo Horn. These two parcels should be valued with the highest and best use being both recreation and assemblage with other acreage.

There is, according to an article in the Appraisal Journal, an unconventional highest and best use called a Ranch Preservation Community (RPC)8. This is a large acreage, limited lot subdivision, in which smaller, deeded acreages are sold as homesites, but include a common interest in a much larger acreage. The appraiser writing the article found that acreage marketed this way sold for substantially more than similar properties marketed as ranch property. Typically, these very large homesites are marketed for their privacy, exclusivity, natural beauty, recreational opportunities such as hunting, archaeological resources, biodiversity and contiguity to large blocks of public lands; C1 benefits from all of these attributes, and D3 from most of them and the parcels’ inclusion with the Buffalo Horn Ranch would imbue these now public parcels with all this potential, increasing their value exponentially.

3. Access High quality big game hunting generally occurs in areas with the right elements of habitat (abundant forage, water and cover) and in areas that are remote. BLM Parcels C1 and, to a lesser extent D3 with its Aspen stands, benefit from these characteristics. And these

8 Mundy, Bill. “Trophy Property Valuation: A Ranch Case Study”, Appraisal Journal, Jan. 1, 2003, p. 2. 14

characteristics are enhanced by the difficulty of public access to the area. As such, the BLM should not under-value these parcels due to lack of easy access.

Frequently, appraisal instructions require the appraiser to consider exchange parcels as not accessible. This might be accurate in the pre-exchange condition, but this consideration can artificially deflate value if the exchange itself makes the property accessible. Under UASFLA, the Highest and Best Use analysis requires detailed consideration of not only the present use of a property, but also any future potential uses. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this in a 2009 decision in which the court found that the BLM should have used the value supported by the proposed use rather than the use that preceded the action.9

Emphasis on motorized access improperly values parcel C1, D3, E2 and B. In the case of the public parcels, the highest and best uses include high value hunting, which benefits from a lack of easy access and assemblage with a larger, accessible acreage which then confers access to the previously inaccessible public parcels. In this context, lack of motorized access is a benefit to the present recreational value of the public parcels and a neutral value to their future use in assemblage.

Parcel B, which reportedly currently has superior vehicular access, will likely not be impacted significantly in terms of market value by the contemplated exchange. In fact, as its ownership will now be public, the market value of this property may be negatively impacted. While now in private ownership, this accessible parcel could theoretically be developed in some way for residential use; this will no longer be possible after the exchange. Making this private land public may either be neutral or negative in terms of the market value of this parcel.

Too much emphasis on motorized access undermines the influence of assemblage in valuing the parcels. Assemblage of C1 and D3 and E2 with private acreage not only increases the value of these parcels, but it increases the value of the now conjoined private property. Indeed, with hunting being such an important driver in the area real estate market, the RPC type large acreage/limited development appeal of the assemblage is likely much more valuable than the subdivision/single family development potential for a private parcel B, which has no private assemblage value.

4. Partial Acquisitions

9 National Parks Conservation Association v. Bureau of Land Management et al, Case Nos, 05-56814, -56815, - 56843, -56832, -56908, Ninth Circuit, November 10, 2009, amended November 12, 2009. 15

When partial acquisitions of real property are involved, the UASFLA requires the consideration of potential damages and benefits to the remainder property. Parcels C1, D3, E2 and F5 are part of much larger blocks of BLM (public) lands; they are higher elevation parcels “with vegetation comprised of pinyon-juniper, deciduous mountain shrub, and to a lesser extent, Douglas Fir and Aspen communities,” EA at 65. The habitat on these parcels contributes significantly to the quality of the hunting on the big public blocks of which they are part. Conveying these parcels to a private interest diminishes the public values of the remainder blocks of public lands by removing the attributes (forage, cover and water on C1) of the public lands that make for good hunting.

These same attributes, when traded through the land exchange, greatly increase the quality and therefore value of the conjoined private hunting grounds; the exchange conveys access to and control of the habitat that big game find attractive. The exchange further increases the value of the private lands by combining the public acreage with already valuable larger acreage and providing motorized access to the formerly public parcels (assemblage). Thus the appraisals should consider not only the present monetized value of C1,D3, E2 and F5, but they should include the diminution of value on the remainder blocks of public lands, as well as the increase in value the exchange confers on the private property that is receiving the previously public benefits.

5. Additional Public Values should be considered

In addition to the recreational value of the upland public parcels, their habitat, especially the quality riparian area on C1, supports a diversity of species; this diversity is a benefit to the general public, not just to the human residents of the area. The EA notes: “The aspen (Parcel D3) and riparian (Parcel c1) communities in particular are unique in the respect that these ecosystems tend to support a rich array of migratory bird species including red- naped Sapsucker, purple martin and house wren. . . We would expect the bird species associated with these [upland] communities to be represented . . . throughout these 16 parcels”. (EA at 71). There are significant cultural and paleontological sites throughout the public parcels as well. None of these values are typically included in appraisals, as they are difficult to monetize; however, they contribute to the well-being of the local wildlife and to aesthetic value of these parcels and resulting user experience of those who venture on to them.

6. Exchange removes the effects of a competitive market on the public lands When one considers both the benefits that Buffalo Horn would enjoy through the land exchange and the negative impact that removing these lands from public ownership could have on the hunting opportunities from neighboring lands, it is possible that neighboring property owners and hunting outfitters might find these public parcels attractive

acquisitions. However, conveyance of these properties through a land exchange by-passes any competition in the market by making this acquisition opportunity exclusive to the Buffalo Horn Ranch. Parcels C1 and D3 could benefit private interests other than the proponent if they were offered through sale, rather than exchange; however, both Parcels are Category II parcels, and not eligible for sale. Rather than creating an exclusive opportunity for one individual, the public interest might be better served by leaving these parcels in the public commons that currently benefits everyone.

C. APPRAISAL METHODS WILL IMPACT THE PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION Without consideration of all these factors, the appraisals will likely undervalue the public parcels. Valuing the small parcels by bundling them into a single big one has the potential to obscure the values of the individual parcels. The necessity of monetization through the appraisal process overlooks the cultural, paleontological and non-game wildlife values of the public parcels. Consideration of only one Highest and Best Use limits the full potential for value on the public parcels. And conveyance through land exchange removes the potential effects of competition on the value of the large public parcels.

The land exchange has potential to be a dis-service to the public, as it transfers public assets without making efforts to maximize the value the public receives in the transaction. As such, BLM should consider retaining the larger parcels in public ownership, because it does not have a tool with which to ensure the public receives proper value for the lands conveyed out of public ownership.

IV. PUBLIC INTEREST DETERMINATION

A. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS NOT WELL SERVED BY THE CONVEYANCE OF PARCEL C1. The parcel holds valuable riparian habitat, paleontological resources, and approximately 340 acres of the Danforth Hills Lands with Wilderness Characteristics as identified by the BLM Little Snake Field office.10 The public must not exchange a parcel with wilderness characteristics, especially as proposed under Alternative B, as it would not receive anything comparable in return. Additionally, the BLM has not presented a plan for protection of the paleontological resources, nor completed analysis on the private parcels necessary for the agency to know what, if any, resources the public would receive.

B. THE PUBLIC IS NOT SERVED BY THE CONVEYANCE OF PARCEL F5.

10 See scoping comments of the Wilderness Society and Conservation Colorado, dated Jan. 23, 2017 at pp. 2, 3 and 5. See also Lands With Wilderness Characteristics: Polygon 042, BLM, June, 2013, and CON-010-042 which is a map of the Danforth Parcel. 17

This Parcel is adjacent to the Windy Gulch WSA. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the parcel may have wilderness characteristics.11 See scoping comments of The Wilderness Society and Conservation Colorado, dated January 23, 2017 at 2-3 and 5. The BLM needs to do an inventory of the parcel’s wilderness characteristics before it can be considered for exchange. This inventory is required by Section 201(a) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C 1711(a) and by the BLM’s own policies:

Regardless of past inventory, the BLM must maintain and update as necessary, its inventory of wilderness resources on public lands. Specifically, an update must be considered when “a project that may impact wilderness characteristics is undergoing NEPA analysis.”

BLM Manual at 6301.06 A and A 4.

Thus, Parcel F5 must be inventoried for LWC, and the information disclosed to the public before it can become part of a land exchange.

C. ALTERNATIVE B IS PREFERABLE TO ALTERNATIVE A BUT IT DOES NOT ADDRESS ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN SCOPING

Alternative B does consolidate land ownership, simplify some management issues, and provide better access and resulting recreation opportunities to the BLM lands around the WSAs. However, when considering the public interest determination, there is tension between these public benefits and the area characteristics that local users value.

The scoping comments on the land exchange proposal overwhelmingly supported the status quo – Alternative C – “No Action”. BLM says they field a lot of questions about access to the Windy Gulch WSA. However, not one comment requested or even supported the improved access to the public lands around the two WSA’s provided through acquisition of Parcel B. Indeed, the majority of comments upheld the value of the effort required to enjoy the area’s more difficult to access public lands. So, the question becomes, “What is the proper balance between serving the outside interest and serving the local needs?” The agency seems to be weighting the interest potential of users from outside the area over the needs and desires of area residents and user groups. This tension suggests that BLM should earnestly consider Alternative C – No action.

11 Ibid. 18

V. CONSIDER OTHER ALTERNATIVES

One benefit of the alternative B would be that the BLM could consolidate its lands by disposing of small, isolated parcels. However, this could also be accomplished by sale of these parcels. Note that many of them are in Category I (EA at 3), under which parcels can be sold as well as exchanged. See White River Resource Management Plan at 2-52, 2-53. Another option would be for BLM to pull the C parcels out and proceed with the exchange for the smaller, scattered D, E, F and G parcels, with a conservation easement on the G parcel to ensure proper management for the sage grouse. This option would enhance recreation opportunities and management efficiencies, preserve the most desired hunting opportunities, reduce problems associated with changed grazing allotments, and eliminate most of the outstanding issues with archaeological resources and sage grouse habitat management.

Any action alternative should include conservation easements and/or deed restrictions to protect sage grouse habitat and cultural and paleontological resources.

CONCLUSION

The proposed land exchange is not in the public interest. It would require BLM to relinquish a parcel, C-1, with valuable ecological resources, but the agency would receive less valuable lands in return. Parcels A-3 and A-5, which the BLM would obtain under alternative A, are lands with common vegetation and are heavily infested with weeds. The exchange (under either EA alternative) would primarily benefit Buffalo Horn Ranch at the expense of the general public.

Because of the MSUA, access for public use might not be allowed, and would at best be limited. Parcel B, which the agency would obtain under both alternatives A and B, is encumbered with private minerals on almost half of it acreage, and both it and the portion with federal minerals could be leased and developed for oil and gas, negating the benefits of increased public access.

The sage grouse habitat on parcel A-5 is of little to no value to the species due to its condition. The MSUA would make it very difficult or impossible to manage this parcel to sufficiently protect sage grouse. Under alternative B, disposing of parcel G and getting no sage grouse habitat in return might violate the ARMPA, though information is lacking on the quantity and quality of sage grouse habitat on parcel B.

'vodag eqr ul perenle^e puel aqrJo duu e sl sFlI'dewZt} OIO-NOI f,M'I quoJuec z

'1-3laoredgo 1red sapnlJur leql puBIJo srllsrraperpqf, ssaureplr/v\ qll1v\ spupl aql uo ilodar E sr srql'ocs'I uodeg zbotlod Jn 'I qrroJuec I

SIIgIHXlI

sroperrc Jo prPog spue'I rllqnd pIM operolof, er.{JJoJIBr.leq u0

'reulr o alenud e ol slacred aql lles Jo 'tlJeuaq d1ru1 plnonrr crlqnd eqt qJrq^,\ JaBun a8e4red a8ueqcxa ragaq B JoJ >lool plnoqs N'Ig eql 'dtqsraunao puel aleprlosuoJ ot JepJo ur slacred t{'Ig pelulosr 'llpurs eqtJo asodsrp oJ'Dalord srql roJ'alqeuJallp uorlJe ou eqt'3 anpeuralle pales hl'Ig feql puatutuoJal el

'drqsraumo crlqnd uI ulelueJ ol peeu leql slessB elqenlB^ aJB r.{rrq/l^Jo IIE'sf,rlsuepeJBqs ssauJeplyvl r{ll1\ puPI osle pue'seornosar lecttololuoaled pup leJnllnJJo ssol p ur llnsal plnoJ e8ueqcxa aqg

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Polygon 042

June 2013

EXHIBIT 1