Sweetwater Lake plan has drawn about 80 comments, many in opposition

The U.S. Forest Service so far has received about 80 comments on a proposal for a joint proposal to establish a new state park at Sweetwater Lake.

Many of those comments oppose the plan, which includes:

• Authorizing a 20-year special use permit to Colorado Parks and Wildlife for improvements and management of the 832-acre site.
• Redesigning the current site to promote recreational opportunities compatible with capacity, historic use, resources, and the surrounding area. 
• Evaluating existing structures for retention with an emphasis on those buildings that provide the best opportunity to interpret the history at Sweetwater. 
• Potentially restoring retained buildings to the historic character of their 1920-to-1940 construction if feasible. 
• Developing a new campground with 15 to 20 primitive or semi-primitive sites in an area known as the lower pasture. 
• Converting the existing nine-site Forest Service campground to day-use picnic sites. 
• Constructing up to 12 new primitive or semi-primitive cabins to retain the historic opportunity that existed at the ranch for many decades. 
• Moving the current equestrian area, providing new barn and stables, and creating up to seven overnight equestrian camping sites. 
• Creating several new access points to the lake, likely near the existing Forest Service campground and on the northeastern shore, and improving the current access points and boat dock. 
• Constructing a new lodge building with administrative, educational, and interpretive spaces to enhance the visitor experience through site amenities and services. 

Many of the comments received so far are from people who live along Sweetwater Road. Those residents worry about increased traffic on the road, especially if the road won’t be improved.

The Sweetwater Community Board has summarized many of its objections into a 16-page document that includes concerns about lengthy response times due to the lack of cell phone coverage, potential dangers in case of wildfire or mudslides, impacts to area wildlife and potential dangers from increased traffic on the road.

Commenter Matt Lou concluded his objection by stating, “Amending the Forest Service management plans should only be considered if it increases the protection (of) the natural and cultural resources, not as an avenue for expansion, enlargement, increase in recreation visitor volume or further development.”

Support Local Journalism

Donate

Routt County resident Chris Manzaneres wrote in favor of the park, writing that “We need more public land, state parks, and national forests and public access with no landlocked parcels before it is all destroyed for (the) profit of a few!

Longtime local resident Tambi Katieb wrote: “The proposed list of improvements far exceeds the carrying capacity of such a fragile environment and should be wildly scaled back. Not to mention the existing access road that travels through both Eagle and Garfield (counties) that will probably not be improved to handle the level of traffic generated by this state park as proposed.”

The public comment period is just part of the Forest Service’s environmental impact statement process under the National Environmental Policy Act. And local governments are keeping a close eye on the process.

Eagle County Manager Jeff Shroll said county officials are watching closely as one of the “cooperating agencies” involved in the Sweetwater proposal.

In an email, Eagle County Open Space and Natural Resources Department Director Marcia Gilles wrote that her department will review the ultimate document created by the Forest Service and will aid the Board of County Commissioners in submitting comments.

There’s still time to comment. The public comment deadline is Aug. 5 for the Environmental Impact Statement on the U.S. Forest Service — Colorado Parks and Wildlife proposal for Sweetwater Lake. Comments can be sent to https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public//CommentInput?Project=64047.