Snake River Planning Commission Tenderfoot Discussion

7/30/2019 Snake River Planning Commission Tenderfoot Discussion

1/4

SNAKE RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION

SUMMARY OF MOTIONS

DECEMBER 6, 2012

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeanne Oltman, Craig Suwinski, John Crone, Noah Klug,

Michael Arat, Denise Levy, and Erik Vermulen

STAFF PRESENT: Kate Berg, Lindsay Hirsh, Jim Curnutte, Thad Noll, Brad Eckert

Craig Suwinki, Chairman, called the meeting of the December 6, 2012 Snake River Planning Commission to

order at 5:37 p.m.

Approval of Summary of Motions: The Summary of Motions of the June 21, 2012 Snake River Planning

Commission was approved as submitted with one correction to the spelling of Jeanne Oltmans name.

REGULAR AGENDA: None

DISCUSSION:

Public Review and Discussion of Tenderfoot Mountain Motorcycle Trail System DraftEnvironmental Assessment

Following is a synopsis of the public and Planning Commission input received, and the resulting

recommendations the Commission forwarded on to the Board of County Commissioners for

consideration as the County prepares comments to the Forest Service.

Public Comment Received at SRPC Meeting

The December 6th Planning Commission meeting was very well attended, with a total of 97 people

signing in on the meeting sign-in sheet. Of those in attendance, 35 people provided public testimony

during the public comment period. There was a large turnout of motorized enthusiasts, with 25

individuals providing comments in support of the proposal. There was also representation from other

County residents who either oppose the proposed trail system or have concerns with aspects of theproposal to be addressed by the Forest Service prior to making a decision. A total of ten citizens

provided public comments noting their concerns with the proposal. In additional to the public testimony

provided at the meeting, seven public comment letters were provided to the Planning Commission prior

to the December 6th meeting, of which two indicated support for the proposal, four noted opposition to

the proposal, and one identified concerns to be further addressed in the EA.

Key Points Noted by Project Supporters:

x Need for More Balanced Use and Availability of Local Motorized Trails Supporters notedthat there is currently a large discrepancy between the available trails for motorized vs. non-

motorized users throughout the County and the WRNF (i.e., there are only 40 miles of motorized

single-track trails in the entire WRNF and only six miles in Summit County). Supporters statedthat they need a legal place to ride in their community, so they arent forced to travel long

distances to areas such as Grand Junction or the Front Range to ride their dirt bikes on single-

track trails.

x Trail Stewardship and Responsible Use Supporters stated that, if they are given a legal placeto ride, they will use it responsibly. They acknowledged that monitoring and enforcement have

been issues in the past, but noted that nearly all motorized single-track trails have been taken

away from this user group because of these past issues, and they will have to be responsible if

they want any trails back. Supports also noted that SCORR and the Tenderfoot Track Club have


2/4

shown they can be responsible with their management of the Tenderfoot track, and they ask for

the Boards support of this proposal to give them an opportunity to show they can be responsible

with the proposed trail system as well. It was stated repeatedly by various SCORR members that

they have a strong incentive to manage the trail system effectively, because they risk having the

trails taken away from them again if they dont.

x Economic Impacts Supporters pointed to negative economic impacts that will result if there isno legal place for motorized users to ride single-track trails in the County. Specifically, it was

stated that there will be negative impacts on businesses in the County that are dependent on

motorcycle use.

x Need for Compromise and Collaboration Supporters repeatedly commented that they hopedthere was a way to make a compromise. The trail supporters continually stated that 21 miles is a

very small trail system and shows that they are willing to compromise and significantly scale

down the proposal to address potential impacts. They requested that the County work

cooperatively with the Forest Service to develop a compromise that accommodates this user

group in addition to other users.

Key Points Noted by Opponents and Concerned Citizens:

x Wildlife Impacts The EA states that the project will adversely impact the Canada lynx, notingthat lynx will be impacted 24 separate times throughout the document. The EA also notes that

elk will be displaced to reduced habitat, and that greenback cutthroat trout will be impacted bystream sedimentation caused by motorized traffic along Routes 67 and 66.2.A.

x Noise Impacts Area residents have concerns about the noise generated by motorized uses inthe Tenderfoot Mountain area. It was specifically noted that the methodology used in the noise

testing was flawed and suggested that a more valid, scientific test should be conducted where an

appropriate number and type of vehicles are included in the test and noise sensors are moved

away from the highway to remove ambient highway noise from interfering with the test results.

x Impacts on Environment and Surrounding Residents Concerns were raised that any areaapproved for motorized single-track trails will essentially become a sacrifice area and that the

Tenderfoot Mountain area is not an appropriate location to sacrifice from an environmental

perspective. Also, concerns were raised that it is not appropriate to locate such a trail system so

close to residences.

x User Conflicts and Impacts on Other Recreational Users Concerns were noted regardingnegative impacts to non-motorized recreational users in the area, including noise impacts and

safety concerns. Suggestions were made to move motorized trails further away from non-

motorized trails, and to add non-motorized routes in certain areas to allow for separation of uses.

Snake River Planning Commission Input

After reviewing the list of potential comments and issues identified in the staff report and hearing public

testimony, the Planning Commission provided the following recommendations to be forwarded on to the

Board of County Commissioners:

1.) Raise All Issues Identified by Staff in County Comment Letter Overall, the PlanningCommission agreed with the concerns and issues raised by County staff and the Board (asdocumented in the staff report), and indicated that all of these issues were worth raising in the

Countys comment letter to the Forest Service. A few minor changes were recommended,

suggesting that the statements on past illegal activity be softened, and the discussion of

monitoring & enforcement concerns and additional weed management efforts be expanded upon.

Specifically, the Commission counted 13 different elements of the proposal that will require

monitoring and enforcement (e.g., spark arresters, noise levels, staying on trail) and questioned

the ability of SCORR and the Forest Service to effectively monitor all of the proposed rules. The

Commission also indicated that weed management needs to be better addressed.


3/4

2.) Need to Accommodate This User Group The Commission unanimously stated that they feelthis user group needs a place to recreate in the County, and that additional motorized single-track

trails need to be accommodated somewhere on the National Forest System lands in our

community. The Commission acknowledged that there is a significant segment of the Countys

population that enjoys motorized recreation and that a solution is needed to create a place for

them to ride locally in their community.

3.) Quality of EA and Incomplete Analysis The Commission is not comfortable with the depthof the analysis completed by the Forest Service, and has serious concerns about the quality and

incompleteness of the EA. The Commission stated that the EA does not provide the informationneeded to make an informed decision. On the whole, the Commission stated that they do not feel

the EA has adequately evaluated alternatives or demonstrated that the current proposal will best

meet the needs of motorized recreationists, nor has it proven that this is the most appropriate

location given the resulting impacts that would occur. Specific issues identified by the

Commission included the following:

a. More Comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives Needed The Commission has seriousconcerns about the Proposed Action being the only actionable alternative analyzed in the

EA. Based on the EA, they do not feel an informed decision can be made on whether this is

the best location in the County to develop the proposed trail system. The Commission wants

to see a more comprehensive, objective analysis of alternatives and clear documentation

noting the reasons the proposed alternative is the best option that will have the least impactson the environment and the community. For example, the Commission noted that the public

has repeatedly stated that 21 miles is not enough. Therefore, the Commission questions

whether there is another, more suitable place where additional mileage could be

accommodated in phases. If 21 miles is not enough and future expansion will be needed, the

Commission feels it is critical to identify whether there is a location where a 20-mile system

could be created with room to expand the system in the future. The Commission further

indicated that future expansion needs should be analyzed at this stage and considered in the

review of the proposal.

The Commission also wants to see a more comprehensive analysis of alternative opening

and closing dates for the trail system that consider any trail closures that may be needed to

address elk migration occurring in the fall (October November timeframe).

b. Analysis of Projected Use Needed The Commission is particularly concerned about thelack of data on the projected use of the proposed trail system. As evidenced by the fact that

people came from other counties to express their support for the proposal to the Planning

Commission, the Commission feels that the proposed system will have some regional draw.

The Commission recommends that the EA provide a substantive analysis of projected future

use and projected future expansion needs, including comparative analyses of other areas

where the Forest Service has implemented similar trail systems.

c. Additional Studies of Noise Impacts Needed The Commission recommends that morestudies on noise impacts are needed, to identify the projected noise impacts to wildlife and

humans (including both other recreational users in the area and area residents).Accordingly, the EA should include a more scientific/mathematical, accurate and

comprehensive assessment of the noise that will be generated by the proposed trail system.

Other areas of the valley need to be tested, including testing of the echoing that will occur.

d. Significant Impacts a Concern- The Commission questioned why this proposal is notviewed as having significant impacts. Based on documented impacts that will occur to

wildlife and the large attendance at the December 6th Planning Commission meeting, the


4/4

Snake River Planning Commission Tenderfoot Discussion

Documents

Transcript of Snake River Planning Commission Tenderfoot Discussion