Click on our Trippons logo for great savings in Summit County and other Mountain Towns!
April brought near-record warmth to Colorado
Key Colorado reservoirs unlikely to fill this year
Study pins down I-70 ski traffic patterns
New life for the Upper Arkansas River
Udall, Bennet want review of USFS prescribed fire policy
Climbing La Plata Peak
Volcanoes just a drop in the global CO2 bucket
Himalayan glaciers not melting as fast as thought
Gulf oysters tainted by metals from Deepwater oil spill
A plan to add thousands of acres of wilderness in Summit County includes lands around Loveland Pass. PHOTO BY BOB BERWYN
Stakeholders in local wilderness discussions may hold open house meetings to gather more local feedback
By Bob Berwyn
SUMMIT COUNTY — Conservation advocates and local mountain bikers recently met with staffers from Congressman Jared Polis’ office to hash out some of their differences over a plan to add big new chunks of wilderness in Summit County.
“We’ve tried to open the door to the two user groups sitting down together,” said Nissa Erickson, who maintains an office for Polis in Frisco.
Both sides said the talks were positive and helped move the process forward. The Wilderness backers want to set aside key areas under the strict wilderness designation to protect natural resource values and opportunities for wilderness experiences. Mountain bike enthusiasts, represented by the Summit Fat Tire Society, are trying to ensure continued access to some favored local trails.
Wilderness backer Kurt Kunkle said the wilderness coalition has been engaged in constructive dialogue with the Summit Fat Tire Society and other local stakeholders to address some of the outstanding issues. Trail access is only part of the story. Additionally, the wilderness advocates are trying to make sure their proposal meshes with the need to manage fire hazards in local forests, and to address Colorado Department of Transportation concerns about the wilderness plan.
Breckenridge resident Dave Rossi, an avid cyclist who also supports more wilderness protection in Summit County, said the groups working on the wilderness proposal may host some open house meetings together in Summit County to get more public input.
Another idea could be to look at the wilderness proposal through the lens of the county’s planning process by holding hearings with the various basin planning commissions, said county commissioner Karn Stiegelmeier.
One of the keys to a successful compromise could be the use of what are now being called “companion” designations, Rossi said. The idea is to give wilderness status to the core areas in the Hidden Gems proposal, while protecting some of the shoulder areas — where the mountain bike trails are — with a different status that would allow for cycling and potentially some other activities that aren’t permitted in wilderness.
The wilderness backers up to now haven’t been keen on the secondary designations, expressing concern that they could be overturned in the future. But similar management schemes have worked well in other parts of the country, said Ralph Swain, regional wilderness coordinator for the U.S. Forest Service.
Swain singled out a 61,000-acre area near Missoula, Montana, where user groups worked together to designate the Rattlesnake National Recreation Area and Wilderness. The National Recreation Area provides opportunities for recreation close to Missoula and also serves as a buffer to the core wilderness area, Swain said.
The Forest Service doesn’t support or suppose the Hidden Gems plan, Swain said. But the agency stands by its evaluation of potential wilderness lands conducted during the revision of the White River National Forest plan, finalized in 2002.
Swain said it’s not clear whether the lands proposed for wilderness in Summit County meet Forest Service criteria for that designation. At first glance, he said, it would appear that some of the units wouldn’t fit through the Forest Service evaluation screen. But he also acknowledged that they haven’t been put through the screen, so it’s hard to know for sure.
“We’re all for alternative designations for lands that don’t meet wilderness criteria,” said Kunkle. But he said that, just because the lands in the Hidden Gems plan don’t all look like the pristine high country of the Eagles Nest Wilderness, they shouldn’t automatically be excluded from consideration for wilderness status.
Part of the Hidden Gems push is to add diversity to wilderness with lower-elevation areas that provide additional wildlife habitat, he explained. The spectacular rock and ice wilderness at high elevations offers scenic values and opportunities for solitary recreational experiences, but it’s not the richest part of the White River forest in terms of habitat and biological diversity.
Filed under: Environment, public lands, Summit County Colorado Tagged: | backcountry, Breckenridge, Environment, Forest Service, Hidden Gems, Loveland Pass, News, public lands, White River National Forest, wilderness
Powder's falling at Monarch!! Have you reserved your spot yet?
Innovative energy underwrites coverage of energy stories.
[...] ‘Companion’ designations could boost wilderness plan [...]
Hi Bob,
I wanted to make a comment about the non-profit blurb, but I didn’t see a response tab, so I’m making it here.
Are you set up to help anyone write an ad for the Summit Voice? If so, then how much would you need to charge me to write it and then each month for me to run the ad? I’m just thinking for the future if Summit Daily continues to lose readers and advertisers.
Also, how will you get visiting skiers to click on Summit Voice and see the ads?
You’ve started a well written online paper with lots of diversity, and I know you’re going to have to fund it. As readership grows, I’ll want to think about an ad.
Thanks for thinking about this for the future.
Hi Harry, good questions. We’re not set up for traditional ads yet, but we do have the ability to create a graphic image in the sidebar with a link to a business. What we’re setting up right now is a sponsors page, which will include information on supporting businesses or other entities, as well as a link to their web sites. Look for this page to go live later today sometime, at least in a test version. Thanks for the input!
Good article, Bob.
One of the more frustrating things that keeps coming out of the advocates of the Wilderness bill, and perhaps in this case it was just a matter of context, is the dismissive tone around “companion designations”.
I support Wilderness IF these groups are supportive of a companion designation to not just protect land that fits Kurt’s definition of Wilderness, but that protects areas that may not fit the bill as wilderness BUT also fit the bill as wilderness that can allow bicycles.
There have been lots of signs of positive support from the Polis folks at the last meeting around this topic, which would end up protecting MORE, not less land, focusing the lower elevation areas as a companion, where it would have strong protection yet allow bicycles, which have been proven to be less impactful than many other current uses allowed in the classic “W” wilderness designations (that sadly allow in some areas mineral extraction and military overflights).
I am saddened each time I read quotes that seem to imply that advocates demand either classic “Wilderness” in the old version or this thing is a failure. Not true. The SFTS believes that it doesn’t have to be this way, that there is a way to expand and at the same time gain the advocates this proposal needs to pass muster with local officials and electeds in DC.
Without flexibility and openness to innovation, I think the Gems people are up against a wall in Summit.
[...] for a limited wilderness plan encompassing 94,000 acres, with another 170,000 acres protected under companion designations that would allow cycling but restrict other uses. The wilderness group and the various mountain [...]