BOARD COMMISSIONERS Sasa 3. snr EnateujecinnGegcany. “rw egocuray EAGLECOUNTY May 4,2010 The Honorable Jared Polis 501 Cannon House Office Building ‘Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Polis: We respecttlly submit this letter as a summary of our positon on the Eagle County portion of the Hidden Gems proposal, including suggestions to your office about what adjustments remain in order to produce a stronger consensus for an appropriate and defendable wilderness bill, ‘Our recommendation follows a process that started inthe surmmer of 2009 when the Wilderness Workshop first requested a leter of endorsement from the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Since then, we have gathered a great deal of verbal and written input from the citizens of Eagle ‘County. This material has now been transfered unfiltered and in its entirety to your office [As proposed, the Hidden Gems project would more than double the acreage of wilderness in Eagle County, The current Holy Cross, Eagle’s Nest and Flat Tops wilderness areas anchor our current ‘many-faceted recreatioal-resort economy and unquestionably enhance the quality of life forall our citizens. At the same time, we recognize the importance of motorized and mechanized reereatonal use to the quality of lie of many of our residents, andthe variety of experiences we are able to offer many of our guests. Iti our position that ample room exists for both the addition of new wilderness and the ‘continuance of non-wikderness recreational activities in our county. “Much ofthe input we have received from the public on Hidden Gems passionately reflects “all or nothing” categorical support or non-suppon for new wilderness designations. Our summary position as Eagle County Commissioners reflects te request we posed to those giving us input for site-specific information on the various parcels. Based on that, we have attempted to provide our own parcel by parcel recommendation (Attachment A ~ Hidden Gems Site Specific Evaluations). We were unable to investigate the parcels and boundaries on the ground to the level of detail that we would have liked due to budget constraints and staffing resource imitations. Some concerns affect nearly every parcel in one way oF another. age Count Bulg, 00 Broaoway, P.O. Bax 50, Fal, Clee 81631-0850,We put each parcel into one of thee positions ‘© Support: Some of the lands targeted are very obviously suited for this most restritive designation, as is noted by the White River National Forest (WRNF) Plan of 2002. We ‘lieve that these deserve to he memorialized as wilderness by congress, and our position to support reflects consensus about these lands ‘+ Do not support: Some lands proposed by Hidden Gems are not appropriate for wilderness in their entirety for a variety of reasons. We opposed designation in those. ‘Could support with further boundary evaluation: This includes lands in which Significant questions remain which impair our support for designation as proposed. These areas require additional evaluation regarding existing conditions historic uses, and future ‘threats and opportunites before being worthy of wilderness designation. Many are supportable as wilderness with some Further additional carve-outs, For these, we offer in cur attachment a roadmap for your further inquiry, and our qualified support given the ‘outcome of that continued boundary adjustment effort For the pat year, the Hidden Gems advocacy group coordinated an admirable local outreach clfor, meeting with stakeholders, including HATS, land at water management agencies, active recreation users, motorized and mechanized user groups, ranchers, and hunters. To their redit they have made over 50 revisions to the Hidden Gems maps, pursing a reductive approach to the proposed lands based on input, addressing many valid concerns, We belive this process, which we have encouraged since our frst work session with the group, has resulted ina stronger proposal with more overall public understanding than existed atthe outset. Logically, the process has been led by a wilderness alvocacy group, and, understandably, motorized and mechanized ‘groups continue to contend that they have not been provided sufficient audience, It is now time for this process to enter a new level of independent inquiry. Our fervent hope is thatthe process necessary to cary this effort forward will continue with the independence and gravitas that your office can provide, ata similar level and intensity of public ‘outreach and research that it has received to date. We are very eager for your office to continue ‘with confirmation of wilderness qualities and site-specific input from constituents, local jurisdictions and user groups so that you will be able to carry a wilderness bill forthe Eagle County area before congress with even more support than is eurently enjoyed. Our input ‘through this letter is intended to help those efforts Most ofthe existing wildemess areas in Eagle County are at high elevation. These meet the spirit and intent ofthe Wilderness Act that “lands designated should be untrammeled, self contained, and primeval.” Much of the Hidden Gems proposal now being considered involves lower elevation transitional areas, which may or may not be in pristine condition. They are still of immense ecological and emotional value, however, as they preserve sensitive habitats, assure ecosystem connectivity and provide an appropriate buffer hetween sensitive alpine areas and the 17 percent of our county that isnot publicly held. Eighty three thousand acres of what is being proposed by the Hidden Gems group was established by the WRNF management plan as Wilderness Study Areas (WSA), and some additional portion was further established to be ‘managed as roadless areas with & numberof historically used roads being decommissionedEagle County strongly supports and recommends that all ofthe WSA lands be considered by congress for wildemess designation, and that roadless lands identified by the WRNF travel ‘management plan atthe very least, continue to be managed as such, Under proper management and care, we believe that lower elevation lands that have been distutbed by roads or logging or ‘ther uses in Eagle County can be returned to a wilderness condition, The question for some of these properties remains: are they worthy ofthis most restrictive designation, or can they be ‘managed sufficiently through some other Forest Service or BLM designations? ‘We encourage and support the continuance of motorized and mechanized uses on our public lands in areas where they can be properly managed to avoid user conflicts and minimize impacts fo natural resources. We are aware, however, of areas where these uses are not appropriate, and that there are places within our county today where these uses unnecessarily threaten the integrity of natural systems and the quality ofthe natura environment Overall, the Special Provisions section ofthe Wilderness Act would seem to address certain sacerns we have which blanket the enti proposal - the ability to mitigate and fight wildfire, ritigate post-catastrophic fire erosion where necessary to protect watersheds, to allow explicit Permission for HAATS military training fo continue on any future wilderness, and search and rescue by air. We could only support wilderness designations that explicitly protect these ‘Thank you for your consi propos ion of our positions on this important and lasting land use Sincerely, Eagle County Board of Commissioners thu 9 Ft ARG LL ‘Sara J, Fisher jon Stavney Per F. Runyon Chairman ‘ommissioner Commissioner Attachment