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 Draft Environmental 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 the proposal 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: Need for More Balanced Use and Availability of Local Motorized Trails Supporters noted that there is currently a large discrepancy between the available trails for motorized vs. nonmotorized 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 stated that 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 singletrack trails. Trail Stewardship and Responsible Use Supporters stated that, if they are given a legal place to 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

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. Economic Impacts Supporters pointed to negative economic impacts that will result if there is no 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. Need for Compromise and Collaboration Supporters repeatedly commented that they hoped there 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: Wildlife Impacts The EA states that the project will adversely impact the Canada lynx, noting that 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 by stream sedimentation caused by motorized traffic along Routes 67 and 66.2.A. Noise Impacts Area residents have concerns about the noise generated by motorized uses in the 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. Impacts on Environment and Surrounding Residents Concerns were raised that any area approved 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. User Conflicts and Impacts on Other Recreational Users Concerns were noted regarding negative 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 nonmotorized 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 Planning Commission agreed with the concerns and issues raised by County staff and the Board (as documented 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.

2.) Need to Accommodate This User Group The Commission unanimously stated that they feel this 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 depth of 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 information needed 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 serious concerns 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 impacts on 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 the lack 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 more studies 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 not viewed 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

Commission feels that the project will have significant impacts on the environment and the community. 4.) Joint / Cooperative Planning Effort Recommended The Planning Commission highly recommends that the County submit comments encouraging the Forest Service to consider convening a collaborative planning process similar to the processes used to develop a joint management plan for the Golden Horseshoe and the Vail Pass Recreation area, which would take into account the issues and needs of various user groups and interested parties. The Commission is concerned with the current trail system proposal because it is not very comprehensive, is written from a purely motorized perspective and doesnt adequately consider the needs of other users (i.e., non-motorized trail users, hunters, fishermen and other recreationists utilizing the area). Therefore, the Commission strongly supports the potential to pursue a collaborative planning process to more thoroughly evaluate alternatives and develop a plan that takes all interested parties and user groups needs into account. The Commission noted that this would provide an opportunity to cooperatively develop a plan that everyone can live with in an area jointly determined to be the most appropriate location. As part of developing this plan, it was noted that the County could potentially offer to assist the Forest Service with managing and enforcing the jointly planned trail system. Special Events on Backcountry (BC) and Agricultural (A-1) zoned properties The Planning Commission had the following comments on this topic: The Back Country specific portions of the Snake River Master Plan set the theme of the uses and intensity of such uses which is to limit the intensity and impacts in the back country. Significant effort/money has been made in the acquisition of acreage in the back country in order to preserve and protect it. Introducing commercial uses into the back country could be viewed as opening Pandoras Box. There maybe a balance of some limited commercial recreational activities that do not result in the degradation of the surrounding area. Conditional Use Permits might be an effective tool to consider managing some limited commercial uses. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted,

Kate Berg, AICP Senior Planner