SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
The pre-decisional Environmental Assessment which documented the range of alternatives, affected emvironment, and environmental consequences of each action was available for public review beginning on June 5, 1998. At that time, a legal notice was published in the Ogden Standard-Examiner and copies were mailed to known interested parties. An open house was held at the County library in Huntsville on the evening of June 24, 1998. Newspaper articles describing general details of the plan and some public opinions was published on June 10, 1998.
Comments were taken from this mailing as well as during the open houses until July 7, 1998. These comments were in the form of written letters, phone calls, e-mail, and discussions. They include comments from government agencies.
The comments were identified by a number indicating the sequential number of the comment document. They were then listed by project heading from the proposed actions
5.2 Water Quality
45. Alt. 4 is the most appropriate one for the future of the dam when consideration is given to water quality protection and protecting the environmental aspects of the area. If increased development is allowed the number of visitors will also increase and have a decidedly negative impact on the above mentioned qualities. The debris and refuse generated from increased public pressure will be detrimental to the quality of the area.
5.3 Cemetery Point / Bluff Marina
41. Bluff Marina should be eliminated.
40. I believe that attention should be given and measures taken to de-emphasize the use of the Bluff Marina and beach. I believe this can be done by emphasizing the development and use of Anderson Cove and the Port Ramp areas.
40. I strongly believe that a part of the master plan should include a way of making the cemetery accessible and provide for the serenity and respect any burial ground should receive.
31. The overcrowding and problems associated with the number of recreationists using Bluffs Swim and Marina on a busy day is only the tip of the iceberg.
30. Currently access to the Huntsville Cemetery by the people of Huntsville and others who have deceased friends or relatives buried there is extremely limited. This limitation of access is directly due to the heavy recreational use of the Cemetery Peninsula.
30. I am opposed to the construction of a wet storage bay on the south side of the Cemetery Peninsula. The money, effort,and planning would be better expended at Anderson Cove or Port Ramp Marina.
30. I totally oppose any development of facilities or services by the FS to invite or encourage winter recreational activities in or around Huntsville or the Cemetery Point.
30. I am totally opposed to any boating improvements at Bluff Marina. The Bluff Marina should eventually be discontinued.
23. Close or extremely limit Bluff Marina and beach.
8. I am totally opposed to the continued existence of the marina within Huntsville. This marina should be closed immediately to preserve the quiet, peaceful environment of Huntsville.
13. Leave Cemetery Point alone.
6. Concerned about the proposal to expand the boat marina at Cemetery Point.
5.4 No Alcohol
39. Make Pineview a no alcohol beach.
30. I feel that a strong effort at control (alcohol & drugs) is necessary and can be effective.
23. No alcohol.
19. No alcohol on beach or lake.
13. No alcohol.
2. Pineview and adjacent facilities should be alcohol free.
1. The reservoir, including the campgrounds and beaches should be alcohol free.
45. The existing development be upgraded and the number of visitors be kept to existing numbers. In this way those that use the facility will have a good quality experience and not have to contend with increasing crowding.
44. Lets decrease the pressure, fix current facility problems, and not add more problems by expanding. Money to maintenance.
39. I also agree that Pineview should be a day use only reservoir.
38. In many recreation areas across the country, increased levels of conflicting uses have led
authorities to establish different times for different types of use. I would suggest a system of even and odd calendar dates.
38. The only way to accommodate more people is to limit the types of machines they can use.
37. Alternative 4 best addresses the needs of the users of the reservoir and the residents of the surrounding area.
37. Charging a usage fee seems to offer an immediate solution but I think an equally feasible solution would be to shift the burden of maintenance and other non-enforcement tasks currently handles by the FS over to the reservoirs concessionaires as part of their vending agreement.
33. The District will not publicly acknowledge the severe overcrowded condition of the Pineview area.
33. It is irresponsible planning by the FS to attract additional visitors, ignore rapid valley growth, and refuse to address the problems and consequences of their decisions. Acknowledge overuse, limit visitor numbers, budget for adequate emergency services and long term facility maintenance to put safety, quality, and education back into the Pineview experience.
31. If the Powers to Be are having difficulties managing the current crowds at Pineview, how can they possibly market to and manage more?
30. Many of the proposals contained in the EA will create a greater undesirable impact on Huntsville than has heretofore ever existed.
30. The Winter Olympics should not be used as a reason or excuse to provide any facilities that may not have lasting value to Pineview Reservoir after the Olympics are over.
30. It does not seem wise to expand facilities and to encourage more people to come.
26. Remove all FS access to the lake from the perimeter of Huntsville Town boundary. Relocate to Anderson Cove or Port Ramp where it can be controlled and maintained.
24. The quality and beauty of Huntsville depends on low traffic, noise reduction, lower influx of weekend campers.
24. Remove and diminish the recreation areas around the Huntsville area and Cemetery Point. Any recreation can be on the opposite side of the lake where the highway is.
22. I am very concerned about the unrestricted access that exists to lake. I support efforts to move access to areas where it can be adequately supervised preferably outside city limits and to designated areas like Anderson Campground.
19. Town should receive profit for the trouble, hassle, concerns, and numerous problems for people going through town to the Point.
13. Leave 5900 E. alone.
9. Allow gas motors in North Arm under 10 horse for wakeless trolling.
8. The aspect of sanitation was grossly lacking in your document. How will sewage be handled with the masses that are now present and will only increase with your proposed expansion?
4. We feel it would be unwise to proceed with controversial expansions when many problems already exist.
1. We would support a plan that emphasizes shoreline protection including designating more undeveloped natural areas.
5.6 Geertsen Bay
17. I have concerns about parking situation at Geertsen and am looking forward to helping find a solution.
9. Okay with zoning for Spring Creek and Middle Fork or Geertsen.
7. Keep parking at Geertsen Bay to a minimum - safe on/off highway. Reduce speed limit by 5 mph.
43. The EA should discuss potential impacts to threatened, endangered, and candidate (T & E) species. The Service recommends that the Wasatch-Cache National Forest work with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to design and construct native material bank revetments instead of rip rap. The EA is unclear on the use of fences in this plan (Boundary Mgt. Plan). The EA does not address where fences will be installed, the type of fence that will be used, or the potential impacts on wildlife. Recommends that a game-friendly fence that provides access to the reservoir by wildlife be used.
17. Geertsen Bay, Middelfork Bay, and the the shoreline between these 2 bays is an important waterfowl nesting area and general habitat for a variety of wildlife, and should be maintained as a non-motorized watercraft area.
12. Protect wildlife in the shoreline/wetlands - implement the boat closure at Middle Fork inlet.
4. The proposed trail would run through extensive wetlands. With the recent development in the valley, these areas provide a haven for animals that would otherwise not be able to continue living in the valley.
1. Much of the proposed route traverses or is adjacent to naturally occurring wetlands that provide refuge for a variety of wildlife. Furthermore, this is wintering grounds for several bald eagles.
5.8 Roads / Traffic
42. Of utmost concern is the need for left and right turn lanes into the high use parking lots and marinas, this is especially needed at the Port Marina.
40. I believe that more attention should be given to the traffic that flows through Huntsville and the
problems that come with it. The increased traffic does pose a serious safety problem to the town of Huntsville and the recreationist as well. There have been inumerable auto accidents both on 1st street and on other streets in Huntsville as a result of the recreation traffic.
40. It is also much more convenient for boaters to access Anderson Cove and Port Ramp (developing Anderson Cove). Access of both of these areas provide easy access and minimal contact and conflict with the residents. Highway 39 and Trappers Loop are designated highways designed for heavier and more frequent traffic.
37. Increased traffic at Pineview is inevitable. The best solution is to keep it in check through controlled access.
34. It is difficult to imagine that when you add 950 people to an area the effects remain the same as not adding any people. A paot increase of 950 for an individual area is quite substantial and deserves more attention and analysis than it has been given in this document.
30. Four trips are made by motor vehicles through Huntsville in order to launch one boat once.
30. The traffic of recreational visitors through Huntsville has become very heavy. Any increase in recreational facilities at Bluff or around Huntsville will increase that traffic. The more motor vehicles that travel through Huntsville the more litter accumulates along the road.
30. If the size of Anderson Cove is to be doubled, the boat traffic through Huntsville would be doubled. Boat hauling through Huntsville is already far too heavy.
6. The recreational traffic, especially on weekends in the summer is a continual stream of speeding, noisy, large rigs towing watercraft, campers, trailers, etc. First street is not supposed to be a highway. People and animals are in danger because of this traffic. The traffic creates much noise. It is a shame to route this kind of danger and nuisance through our town.
41. I propose that NO trails be built anywhere on the north or the south shore of the Cemetery peninsula nor in the vicinity of Huntsville.
39. Until there is a change in the type of crowd that uses this reservoir I think a path around Huntsville is a danger to the health and welfare of the citizens.
36. We already have too much traffic right at our back door. There is just a footpath behind our home, but we have had cars, trucks, 4-wheelers, snowmobiles, etc. driving and parking at our back fence. We have had people coming through the fence and onto our property. There are no restroom facilities, so when people park their cars all day, or even camp overnight, I know they are using the open ground for restrooms.
35. Even with limited access, the general public has absolutely no respect for my home and property.
35. If you want greater public access to the lake, develop your trails etc. where you own the property adjacent to the lake front.
30. I now recommend no trails anyplace on the north shore or the south shore of the Cemetery Peninsula nor in the vicinity of Huntsville. The main problem with trails is that they attract people of the wrong element and bring them right into your yard with their trespassing, litter, and racous parties. Trails will bring more motorized vehicles into Huntsville with their access and parking problems accross private property.
29. Pineview Trail should be designed to accommodate equestrian use between Geertsen Bay and Windy Point and from one of the overlooks along HWY 39 on the south side of the reservoir to the Wheeler Creek and Skyline Trail with the Pineview Trail. In order to accomplish this, the expansion of the Pineview Trailhead and parking at one of the overlooks along HWY 39 the need should be considered for ample parking space for RV and horse trailers.
28. Re: trail - very concerned for safety of Huntsville residents. FS and Weber County police cannot enforce what there is.
27. I would like to see improvements to existing trails. Improvements to the trails will benefit town citizens. I'm concerned about safety on the trails.
25. We are concerned about the loss of privacy and security of the homes around the proposed trail. Trail should be on the other side by Anderson Cove.
23. No trails.
21. The trail system should not be developed along the residential shoreline in Huntsville. It draws an unsavory crowd to the area after dark. The trails should be in unpopulated areas.
20. I hope the trail improvements can now be done.
19. No lakeside trail on south side and east side of lake bordering the town. Trail should be by Anderson Cove or by the North Arm or no trail is my first choice.
18. The Pineview Trail East creates a risk to the safety of landowners by increasing the traffic through the backyards and threatens health concerns over sanitation issues.
16. The proposed perimeter shoreline trail should not pass along or through private home sites adjacent to lake.
14. The pathway should be restricted to the Anderson Cove area to address the congestion already experienced in Hunstville. Towns peoples privacy needs to be respected.
13. Are you going to patrol paths?
11. We are not in favor of opening up the area south of the town of Huntsville. It is unnecessary considering the many miles of perimeter available where a true nature path could be developed.
11. There is essentially no FS land at the SW corner of our land at 6875 East 200 South. It has eroded away and sloughed off into the lake (due to years of bicycle and motorbike use). Second, it would bring a lot of people through the relatively wide grassy field owned by the FS which is south of our home. During the late summer and early fall this grass becomes tinder dry and poses an extreme fire hazard. A cigarette dropped by someone walking this path could be disastrous.
8. It will be virtually impossible to build a trail along that route without infringing upon the private property and privacy of the local residents.
5. The trail (Huntsville) could make a very dangerous situation for some of us because it would be at the back door of some of our homes. What about a restroom? What about trash? What about maintaining the trail? What about patrolling the trail?
4. The salient issues were those of safety for the residents and others as well as environmental concerns.
2. We (petition) oppose the plan to construct a 4 to 8 foot wide path around part of Pineview. It would be detrimental to the long-term health and vitality of our communities and families as well as local wildlife and wetland areas.
2. We propose: a small, non graveled path restricted to foot and bicycle traffic, the path should be limited to the areas adjacent to Anderson Cove, Cemetery Point, and possibly North Arm and Port Ramp, the path should not traverse wetland areas nor should the path be built around Huntsville or other residential development.
1. To build a path in this area (southern boundary of Huntsville) would be very expensive in both its initial cost and in long run maintenance.
1. We believe that such a path would only make matters worse for many Huntsville residents. The problems are related to alcohol, drugs, gangs, and other visitors to our town and the surrounding area. The problems are already straining the towns budget and various efforts in patrolling, monitoring, and enforcing public health and safety. The path would make those residents on or near the southern boundary vulnerable to vandalism, robbery, or worse.
1. The proposed path would unduly burden some of the residents of Huntsville and would likely drive many from their homes, especially those living adjacent to the path.
1. The proposed path would likely harm wildlife and in addition to driving wildlife from the area, would destroy ammenities which many of the visitors to the area already enjoy.
1. The path should be limited to a walkway for foot traffic and bicycles. It should be limited to the areas on the southern shoreline of the reservoir adjacent to Anderson Cove, those areas around Cemetery Point that are already recreational areas where no homes exist, and other areas along the
shore northwest of Huntsville. It should not traverse any designated wetland areas.
5.10 Anderson Cove
41. The FS should complete a major expansion of Anderson Cove including a large launching marina, a wet storage facility, swimming and beach area, and more picnic and camping areas.
40. Provide boat launching and storage facilities ample to serve the recreationist. This would best serve the community by protecting them from unnecessary traffic and probably accidents involving injury and property damage. It also protects the recreationist from the liability they face. (Also falls under safety issue)
38. I am opposed to any expansion of camping at Anderson Cove. I am also opposed to providing utility hookups. This would only encourage more high-impact use. Instead, some existing campsites should be designated for tents only, to encourage quiet, low-impact use.
38. I object to such a long term (five years or more) for the concessionaire permit. Short-term permits provide much more incentive for ccmpliance, and also make it less likely that the public will be ripped off.
36. I suggest you put your efforts and our tax dollars into developing the area around Anderson Cove or other FS property adjacent to the lake front that would be better suited. That way you can monitor and control the public using the areas.
34. The Division is concerned about the proposed additional developments at Anderson Cove which will increase the PAOT by 950. There is a current lack of control and management at the area. The purpose and need identifies a concern about visitor safety and that there are conflicts among the different types of users. It also states that the "challenge is to ensure that the proper recreation use of Pineview is consistent with that shared rural vision." There seems to be a conflict between the proposed action and the purpose and need. By increasing the paot by 950 and reducing the capacity on the reservoir, how will conflicts be resolved and the rural vision be kept intact? The analysis should focus on satisfying the purpose and need of the document.
30. I strongly favor the plans to expand the size and recreational facilities and accommodations at Anderson Cove. These plans should provide for swimming facilities.
30. A major marina should be constructed at Anderson Cove. Such a major marina would result in marked reduction and perhaps complete elimination of boat hauling traffic through Huntsville.
30. The wet storage facility should be constructed at Anderson Cove or at Port Ramp Marina rather than at Bluff Marina.
29. Strongly opposed to any further expansion of recreational facilities on public lands through private ventures.
23. Put a major marina and beach at Anderson Cove.
19. Main boat dock should be at Anderson Cove with a large parking lot created to accommodate boats
and vehicles on Anderson Cove side.
14. Building a marina at Anderson Cove would be the best best solution to the congestion experienced along 100 S. in Huntsville.
13. Development and money to Anderson Cove.
8. Anderson Cove plus other areas on the south side of the lake could be developed for commercial use without disrupting the quietude of Huntsville.
6. I would suggest that a major public facility be built at Anderson Cove. Expand the other existing marina on the opposite side of the lake.
5. Put the money (Huntsville trail $) into Anderson Cove. Build a boat ramp over there to make it more convenient for the users. In turn, it will take congestion off of 1st street therefore making our streets a little safer for our children.
4. Building a boat ramp at Anderson Cove would greatly help decrease the traffic through Huntsville and be more convenient for people coming from Trappers Loop, Ogden Canyon, and those who camp at Anderson Cove.
2. The largest boat marina should be built at Anderson Cove to reduce traffic in and through residential areas.
1. The largest boat marina should be constructed in Anderson Cove (this would provide better access for boaters and eliminate the need to haul large boats through Huntsville).
41. Reduce and enforce the number of boats allowed on the lake.
34. The Division is concerned about the enforcement of the boat capacity. With a new boat launch area proposed at Anderson Cove, the problem of communicating when the capacity has been reached increases. A clear process for communicating capacity as well as defining the responsibilities of the different parties involved on and off the water needs to be set. This could be covered in an annual operating plan between the Division and the District and in the concessionaires annual operating plan.
33. 10 acres per boat and a maximum length of 21 feet would create a safer boating experience, eliminate the need for an additional marina and the expansion of the existing marinas, decrease pollution, and reduce impacts to the shoreline and visitors on the beach.
30. I appreciate and approve the plans to reduce the number of boats.
25. The reservoir is filled beyond capacity with boats and wave runners every summer.
10. We strongly believe that any further reduction in the allotment of boats for the Yacht Club would
serve to impact this source of funds (membership funds) made available to us to improve the facilities.
5.12 Safety / Law Enforcement
40. It would seem reasonable that this (deputies on horseback, no alcohol, more manpower) should be a priority of the FS to make Pineview and surrounding area a safe, pleasurable place in which to recreate.
37. Enforcement will continue to be a problem.
37. Unlawful and unsafe behavior takes place on and around the reservoir on a regular basis. Limiting recreational traffic or expanding traffic requires support from law enforcement.
35. The laws and ordinances in place controlling activity on the lake are not enforced.
34. The analysis needs to include the types of incidents that currently occur and define the types of incidents that are related to day-use vs. overnight use.
34. What is the current agreement with Weber County for law enforcement? How might it change with each alternative? What are the current number of complaints, crimes, citations, and/or arrests? You mention Weber County has a "patrolling schedule"
34. The Division is very interested in working with the District in investigating better means to accomplish cooperative law enforcement. If Division officers will be expected to enforce statutes off water, those duties would have to be defined.
31. At the heart of this issue is safety.
30. It does appear to me that the recreational visitor utilizes these services (emergency) per capita more than the valley residents.
12. Enforcement of FS regulations must be improved. We are especially concerned with the trash that gathers at the shoreline.
9. Use unmarked boats to enforce wakeless speeds, proximity laws, and noise from boat motors.
4. It appears that the FS and Weber County law enforcement are not able to adequately patrol the existing the facilities around Pineview.
5.13 Non Motorized Use
38. None of the alternatives go far enough to encourage non-motorized use of the reservoir. I note from your maps that North Arm is not even under water when the reservoir drops a mere 20 feet. It is imperative that you designate larger areas as nonmotorized.
38. I am disappointed that you have not taken any steps to limit use by PWC's. Not only are they louder and more environmentally damaging than most other boats, but they also unnecessarily limit the number of people who can be on the water, since each hold only one person.
5.15 Management Coordination
34. We feel a cooperative agreement between the District and the Division needs to be developed along with an annual operating plan and a buoy management plan for Pineview Reservoir.
5.16 Document / NEPA
34. The document seems to lack some very important direct, indirect, and cumulative effects or consequences the differnet alternatives will have upon the various environments. Overall, the Environmental Consequences chapter of the document seems to miss any hard analysis of the effects of the proposed actions.
34. The Cumulative actions section in chapter IV lists some ongoing and past activities but gives us no analysis of what the cumulative impacts of the actions may be. Some analysis needs to be done to determine how the increased development and density in Ogden Valley will affect the operations at Pineview. And, how will the proposed actions at Pineview affect the local residents?
34. It (the document) needs to contain the supporting data and references to convincingly demonstrate the effects of the actions. The analysis of the effects needs to be better linked with the purpose and need as well as the issue statements that were developed. The effects analysis seems to lack the depth and quantitative research needed to make an infomed decision on many of the issues.
33. There is no documentation of studies, budgeting, nor planning for expanded emergency services and long term facility maintenance, much less adequate management of wetlands, wildlife, and open space.
33. The unsafe boating conditions, crowded roads and facilities, vandalism, litter, noise, and other impacts to the Pineview area and the Valley residents are issues that should have been resolved through the EA.
33. The EA does not adequately consider adverse secondary impacts of both government and private development in the Pineview watershed. Impacts from projects such as Ski Lake Village, Wolf Creek, Snowbasin, and the increased residential and commercial developments in the Pineview area have not been studied. The expansion of the South Fork Campgrounds, quadrupling of the snowmobile parking, and other developments will all have significant negative impacts on the community with traffic, noise, pollution, crime, etc. Obviously, the natural resources of the Pineview area will suffer further permanent degradation as a result of these impacts.
32. Clearly the Forest Service is again attempting to circumvent the requirements of the NEPA to take a cumulative, interrelated, and hard-study of similar actions/impacts upon the same geographical area,
the Ogden River Watershed.
32. Due to the number of agencies and their jurisdictional responsibilities within the Ogden River Watershed and the focal-point of Pineview Reservoir, all parties must be equal (partnership) participants in the environmental study. For the Forest Service to continue with a one agency and one project assessment can only be viewed as arbitrary, capricious, and prejudicial action.
32. The restrictive tailoring of alternatives is viewed as an attempt to bypass the requirement to sincerely consider several different alternatives equally.
32. A glossary and index section would have been helpful and reference citations should be identified by page number and paragraph.
34. The No Action Alternative of the Socio-Cultural Environmental Effects identifies an increasing concern for noise caused by nighttime parties on the surface of the reservoir or isolated sections of the shoreline. This issue is not addressed in Alt. 2. One idea that has been mentioned is limiting the overnight access on the reservoir.
9. Restrict volume from boats music system to reduce party noises.