Coos Regional Trails Partnership Meeting: May 19, 2008

With attachment: “Mike Smith’s account of the meeting” which we agreed to add to the record at our April 21^st, 2009 meeting.

Attendees: Don Luce, Donna Bishop, Dave Gray, Mike Smith, Allen Moe

April 15, 2008 minutes amended under “multiuse committee”: Mike Smith reported that the “Big Loop” proposal which is a comprehensive area wide multiple use trail plan was not adopted as a CRTP project mainly due to the objections of some hikers on the board that believe that hiking and motorized uses cannot be mingled successfully. Since that vote it was suggested to the committee that to avoid that potential conflict the “Big Loop” proposal should be resubmitted leaving out the hikers thus avoiding any potential conflict. There is huge support among equestrian, mountain bike and OHV groups. The multi use committee would prefer hiker involvement but will now resubmit the proposal to CRTP at the next meeting eliminating the hiker involvement to avoid the conflict that was objected. Hopefully by eliminating this conflict the partnership can now adopt this project.

Dave Gray made a motion to accept the amended minutes and Allen Moe seconded the motion.

Motion passed to accept the amended minutes from April 15, 2008.

Old Business:

Mike Smith led the group in a review of our original Memorandum of Understanding.

Accepted our current Memorandum of Understanding as read.

There was some discussion regarding what the actual role of the CRTP was:

Don Luce related to the group that our previous president, John Bragg presented the role of CRTP as primarily to advise and support the endeavors of various trail user groups and individuals. John suggested that CRTP’s usual role was to help connect users with the appropriate decision makers and resources and by writing letters of support.

Mike Smith reminded us as per our MOU we are to “plan, build and maintain trails”. This is clearly stated in our original MOU.

Mike Smith gave new member Allen Moe a brief description of the “Big Loop” plan. Discussion of the plan followed. Donna Bishop suggested the plan be worded to allow all users with designated areas for certain users where it is not feasible to allow all types of users. Allen Moe said the mountain biker groups are getting away from organized trails. He also expressed the need for areas for certain users but each group has needs that shouldn’t be forced to use all inclusive. Donna Bishop brought up the economical benefits the Big Loop plan could produce for our local area, especially the attraction to OHV users. Donna Bishop suggested we adopt a plan to at least get the trail system in the planning stages with a stipulation we can design appropriate user trails in various areas where necessary.

Don Luce submitted the following written statement:

Don Luce regarding the Big Loop Trail proposal submitted to Coos Regional Trails Partnership on May 19^th, 2008.

While I support the idea of creating a larger contiguous trails system through a system of trails to connect the major trail systems in Coos County, I do not believe the project in its present form is in the best interest of trail users in Coos County. I intend to vote against the request to adopt the Big Loop Project, in its present form, as an “official project” of the CRTP.

The original proposal; discussed in our February and March meeting, stipulated that the definition of multi-use trails would include all users, both motorized and non-motorized. At these meetings I submitted that I might be willing to support the project as long as motorized use was not a requirement. It was and is still my opinion that due to the significantly different relative noise levels, speeds, and physical impacts produced by motorized and non-motorized users, the experiences are mutually exclusive and should not be expected to use the same path. The Big Loop proposal was voted on and defeated.

When multiuse trails include motorized uses they actually eliminate the vast majority of trail hikers from these trails and I suspect they eliminate a significant percentage of equestrian and mountain bike users as well. I think that we should start calling things what they are, instead of trying to pawn off multiuse trails that include both motorized and non-motorized users as something other than what they are “trails that exclude trail hikers”. Each trail user group has needs, and sometimes those needs cannot be met by forcing different trail users onto the same path. Multiuse is a worthwhile goal and where possible, we should try to create systems that can accommodate more than one user group. I think that motorized use is simply not compatible with any trial user whose purpose in using the trail is for observing wildlife and peace and quiet and solitude.

Trail hardening paving stones and cinder blocks are probably not the best thing for mountain bikes and equestrian, but they are the usual solution to the deep rutting that occurs from motorized use.

I have read on some OHV user sites that many trail riders would prefer to not have to be worried about running into hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers.

That brings me to another issue: Safety. I have spoken to many different trail users, hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers and they all express some fear of using trails where motorized use is allowed. A number of families who hike and mountain bike have told me they would not think of bringing their children on a motorized trail.

The proposal would also seek to connect motorized trails to trail systems which currently do not allow motorized use. I definitely cannot support that. The idea has been put forth that while these motorized trails would come to these non-motorized areas the riders would be blocked and be required to go on foot into the area. While I am sure that the majority of trail riders are law abiding and would not seek to circumvent the barriers, it has been my experience that some riders would attempt to ride beyond the barriers and a persistent rider with the proper tools can get beyond any barrier I have seen. This is not a situation that I would like to see created and while I can’t speak for the various agencies involved, I think they would agree that this is just inviting problems.

Finally, the proposal is way too general.

Right now we are being asked to endorse and support something we can’t get a clear idea of. All we can see now is that we are talking about endorsing a general plan to produce connecting trails between (all significant use areas).

I would tell anyone submitting a proposal that we would need to know what exactly we are being asked to support. We shouldn’t be asked to give a blanket endorsement of whatever you decide to include later under these general terms.

Mike Smith made a motion to accept the “Big Loop” plan and post the trail system “no hikers”. There was not a second to the motion. Motion failed.

Committee Reports:

Don Luce reported there were 62 hikers at the Bandon Beach hike on May 10th. The next hike will be held May 31^st on the Euphoria Trail near Bridge. Don will be hiking the system before the scheduled hike to check for trail conditions. He will send observations on trial conditions there to Donna Bishop.

New Business:

Our current by-laws were adopted May 17, 2005. Everyone agreed that this is the official version.

It was agreed that Mike Smith and Don Luce will have a complete revision sent out to members to look at between now and the next meeting.

Members were given copies of our current MOU.

Don Luce talked about how we conduct our meetings. He and Mike Smith had talked about things we could do to make the meetings more productive and to make sure we all respect the attending members time. They suggested that the details of issues that are being brought to a vote need to be submitted in writing prior to the meeting, so everyone has time to read them and discuss them with others prior to the vote. It was also suggested that in respect for the difficulty of the secretary’s job we should each try to write down our position on issues we are voting on, so we can submit them to the secretary and save them as much typing as possible.

Don Luce made a motion to appoint Allen Moe as our Mountain Bike representative. The motion was seconded and passed.

We will continue to meet quarterly. Our next meeting will be held July 15, 2008 at the North Bend Library Conference Room. Meeting to begin at 6:30pm and adjourn at 8: pm.

Meeting adjourned at 8: pm

Mike Smiths Account of the Meeting

5/19/08 Committee Report

Multiuse Committee- Mike Smith (OHV rep.) felt it necessary to review the partnership’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) prior to resubmitting the revised Big Loop project for adoption. When it was revealed after our May meeting that the new president, Don Luce was under the impression that we were operating under a draft document that was never adopted. Mike proceeded to read the correct MOU to those present and emphasized that the document is very pro trail development and pro tourism. He also pointed out that the agreement requires cooperation amongst members toward these goals.

After reviewing the MOU Mike resubmitted the Big Loop project for a vote with a major change to try to remedy the main problem that was voiced by hikers at the previous vote. The Big Loop project would proceed with the parties that are willing to compromise and cooperate to achieve a community trail system. Hikers would be excluded because of strong objections by their representatives. They believe that off highway vehicles (OHV’s) and hikers on the same trail system is not an acceptable situation.

Donna Bishop (equestrian rep.) immediately protested and insisted that hikers be included. She pointed out that not all hikers are adverse to multiple use trails. Mike agreed but pointed out that the plan including hikers was already soundly defeated.

It was suggested by Don Luce (tourism rep. /hiker) that if the language in the Big Loop proposal were changed to make it easier to exclude OHV use it may be acceptable. Mike said that he would support that project if someone else wanted to propose and spearhead it but that is not the project being proposed by the Multiuse committee. Don also submitted a written explanation of his reasons for opposing the Big Loop mainly focusing on the objection to the OHV/hiker interface. Even though this proposal eliminated this interface on the trail it was pointed out that he even objected to a trail system including OHV’s coming into proximity to most of the proposed recreational sites or points of interest throughout the region. Don also mentioned that some water trail users were upset that they were not considered in this Big Loop project. Mike responded that they were indeed included in the plan. The main purpose of this plan is to include all users, agencies and interested parties. Dave Gray (foot trails rep.) indicated that he agreed with Dons feelings on the Big Loop.

A motion was made by Mike to adopt the altered Big Loop project eliminating hikers but it was not seconded. Motion failed.