Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trails Ebikes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand County approves letter asking BLM to include full trail alternative for class‑1 e‑bikes; vote splits commission
Summary
After extensive public comment and a multi‑hour debate, the Grand County Commission approved an amended letter asking the Bureau of Land Management to include an alternative in its NEPA scoping document that would open listed mountain‑bike trails to class 1 e‑bikes; the motion passed with three commissioners opposed.
The Grand County Commission voted on May 6 to send an amended letter to the Bureau of Land Management asking it to include an alternative in its scoping document that would open the trails listed in the BLM’s analysis to class 1 e‑bikes.
Commissioner Martinez, who introduced the amended language, said the change would ask the BLM to fully analyze a range of alternatives, including one that opens the trails to class 1 e‑bikes, rather than limiting the analysis to a narrower set of routes. Martinez said the amended wording was intended to increase the range of alternatives the BLM must study in NEPA rather than to mandate a local policy.
The topic drew extensive public comment and raised sharp divisions among advisory committees and commissioners. Samantha Derbyshire, vice chair of Trailmix, told commissioners they had been “blindsided” by the new letter and urged rejection: “To say in this new letter that you took into consideration the input of the advisory committees is a lie,” she said. Other commenters, including representatives of the Motorized Trails Committee and some shuttle and guide operators, asked the commission to permit a broad alternative so the BLM can fully evaluate environmental, safety and access tradeoffs.
Commission debates centered on process and who the commission should defer to: the previously approved collaborative advisory‑board letter or a new position that would explicitly ask the BLM to analyze opening trails to class 1 e‑bikes. Supporters argued the broader alternative would preserve BLM’s ability to study every option; opponents said the county should respect the unanimous advisory‑board recommendation submitted last fall and that opening popular trails could create user conflict and additional maintenance demands.
After discussion the commission approved the amended letter. The motion passed with Commissioners Hedin, Hadler and McGahn recorded as opposed.
What’s next: The letter will be transmitted to the BLM as a cooperating‑agency comment in the scoping record; the BLM’s forthcoming analysis will define the formal alternatives the agency evaluates.
