Huge "Must Act Now" Problems at "Steamboat Lake Park to Routt National Forest.” CO

My letter has been written!

By the way, that email link is not working for me on outlook.

CO 2.0 said:

My letter has been written!

By the way, that email link is not working for me on outlook.

Click to expand...

What email address did you use? I couldn't get it to work.

'comments-rocky-mountain-medicine-bow-routt-hahns-peak-bearsears@fs.fed.us'

this one wasn't working for me...

To the top for "action"!

Whatever option you choose, please include the following in your written response:

- We do not want to pay a fee for parking/sleddding.
- We do not want to have to register to use the area (i.e. Buff Pass)
- We do not want any non-motorized area's added.
- Please design the parking area so no one gets blocked in, and there's ample room to turn around with a trailer. ...building a large square or rectangular parking area will just lead to problems since some people can't use common since without lines painted on the asphalt when it comes to parking. For those who have been to the east side of the Snowies, that parking area works great.

Thanks!

Some more background information on this issue


Jamie Kingsbury, District Ranger
Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests
925 Weiss Drive
Steamboat Springs, CO 80487

Re: Columbine Access Project

Dear Jamie:

I am writing on behalf of the Colorado Snowmobile Association (CSA) in regard to the Columbine Access Project Environmental Assessment (EA). These comments should be considered supplementary to those previously submitted by CSA for this project on August 20, 2009. Our general and specific comments particular to this project’s current EA are as follows:

NO ACTION – ALTERNATIVE 1

This Alternative is not acceptable. It fails to address the Purpose and Need for this proposed project and does not address the significant issues which were identified by previous project scoping efforts.

PROPOSED ACTION – ALTERNATIVE 2

Purpose and Need: CSA generally supports the Forest Service Proposed Action – Alternative 2, but with a few changes as noted within our comments below. This Alternative is the only one which fully meets the stated Purpose of this project to: 1) maintain groomed and marked snowmobile trail access and connectivity from Steamboat Lake State Park to the Routt National Forest area north of Columbine, 2) create parking on NFS lands away from residential areas, and 3) reduce conflicts with private land owners – while also meeting the project’s Need to: A) remove Forest Service sponsored snowmobile trail grooming on the portion of NFSR 490 across the private land easement – which seems certain to eventually be lost due to continued increased conflicts, and B) reduce conflicts over parking near the community of Columbine.

This Alternative is also the only one which fully addresses the three significant issues which were identified by project scoping: 1) facilitating landowner access through road plowing of NFSR 490, 2) private property concerns about disturbances from recreationists, and 3) providing adequate parking.

Parking: The proposed new parking lot located northeast of Columbine on NFSR 550 appears to be the best option for an improved winter trailhead. However since this location is 1.5 miles farther than the existing parking lot, it will require a firm commitment from Routt County to provide snow removal to the site over the long-term. If that long-term commitment can be assured, this site should provide acceptable parking for snowmobilers while also eliminating issues raised by Columbine property owners near the existing Quarry Lot.

It is important to maintain existing parking capacity, which has been stated to be 30 to 35 vehicles with trailers on peak days in the Quarry vicinity. Since the EA states on page 4 that the “size should accommodate approximately 25-30 vehicles with trailers,” we suggest making a slight adjustment to the proposed action – to make the size large enough to accommodate 35 vehicles with trailers.

Proper design will be crucial for this new parking lot to be successful – meaning accepted and used by snowmobilers. As we stated in our 8/20/2009 comments, we recommend diagonal side-by-side parking for this site, which would require an entrance and exit at opposite ends of the parking lot so vehicles parked at a diagonal can easily continue through in the same direction they park. Using the criteria outlined in our previous comment letter, this would require a cleared and semi-leveled space a minimum of 210 feet deep by 675 feet long (approximately 3.25 acres).

It is important that sanitation facilities be incorporated from the start at the new parking lot since the lack of toilet facilities was one of the prime issues identified by project scoping. Since this trailhead will be used by both winter and summer recreationists, properly addressing sanitation is essential.

Once this new parking lot has been fully constructed and proven to be working, it is imperative that the existing Quarry Lot be closed to all uses and reclaimed to prevent further long-term conflicts with Columbine residents. Allowing any recreational parking (motorized or nonmotorized) would negate the Purpose of ‘creating parking on NFS lands away from residential areas’ as well as ‘reducing conflicts with private landowners.’ If this existing lot is not closed, the existing conflicts over parking at Columbine will simply continue with little gained through this process.

We suggest blending the development of a small parking lot in the Trilby Flats area, as proposed in Alternative 3, into the final decision. This will help improve access to other snowmobiling areas like California Park, as well as disperse use away from the Columbine vicinity. Additional comments regarding this proposal can be found below in our Alternative 3 comments.

Trail Routes: We believe the changes made in the Proposed Action’s trail route to bypass NFSR 490 across private lands are an improvement over the previous Forest-proposed route. Our 8/20/2009 comments suggested using NFSR 410 and 418, so this proposed route is a variation and improvement upon our previous suggestion – and one which we support.

This route best accomplishes the Purpose of ‘maintaining groomed and marked snowmobile trail access and connectivity from Steamboat Lake State Park to the Routt National Forest area north of Columbine’ and ‘reducing conflicts with private land owners’ in Columbine since it provides the greatest separation between private property and the designated snowmobile trail route. The other proposed routes fail to accomplish this.

We do have concerns about routing the snowmobile trail directly through Columbine Meadows (as elaborated upon in the section below), but at the same time believe that a ‘cherry stem’ route designated through the Meadows can be successfully managed through intensive on-the-ground signing and education.

We suggest adding to the final action a designated snowmobile trail that roughly follows the Prospector Trail (Trail #1156) from NFSR 410 to RCR 129 near Trilby Flats. This trail is a portion of the route proposed in Alternative 3 (the lower east-west leg), and is needed to reduce the potential for trespass onto private property located directly north and south of this route. The addition of route to the final action alternative would improve accomplishing the Purpose of ‘reducing conflicts with private landowners’ since, without it, riders can unknowingly continue to wander onto private property. At a minimum this route should be marked; however we suggest that grooming also be considered since it would provide the best definition of the designated route through private property. Grooming versus simply marking it would also provide the highest degree of safety since groomed snowmobile trails have proven to reduce accidents (Guidelines for Snowmobile Trail Groomer Operator Training, International Association of Snowmobile Administrators, 2005).

Historical Non-Motorized Use Area: It is important to note that snowmobiling is not prohibited in this area and that this is a “voluntary separation of use.” While local snowmobilers are trying to respect this area favored by skiers, we continue to believe that the designation of any suggested or mandatory ‘non-motorized only’ use zone in this area is likely contrary to the intent of the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Forest Plan designated these lands as Management Area 5.11 – General Forest and Rangelands, which favors multiple use recreation versus encouraging managers to favor non-motorized recreation over motorized recreation. Therefore, any action to formally restrict uses in the future would likely be improper and be resisted.

The EA states on page 8 that, “The boundaries use existing easily distinguishable features on the ground to identify the area.” While this may be true for the portion that lies east of (above) the proposed snowmobile trail route (it appears from the map that roads delineate the intended boundaries east of the trail), we’re unclear how distinguishable the intended boundaries actually are on the ground between Columbine and the proposed trail route. Additionally, is it really necessary or appropriate to delineate this portion (between Columbine and the trail) as ‘historical non-motorized use area’ on the map? Given how heavily wooded it is below the trail route (toward Columbine), it may be easier to focus education efforts above (to the east of) the trail, except in any areas where they may actually be open meadows or draws on both sides of the trail.

The EA also states that, “To allow adjacent private landowners who wish to use snowmobiles to access the Forest directly from their private properties, a buffer of approximately 100 to 200 feet is identified on maps for the area.” In reviewing Management Area and ROS maps in the Forest Plan, there is a ‘7.1 – Residential/Forest Interface’ zone around Columbine for which the ROS Guideline is to manage this buffer as either ‘semi-primitive motorized’ or ‘roaded natural.’ Our question is: is the “buffer of approximately 100 to 200 feet” proposed by this EA consistent with the location of the 7.1 MA zone around Columbine? If not, then we suggest considering a closer sync unless it unrealistically narrows egress/ingress opportunities for the adjacent private landowners who desire snowmobile access from their property.

For the ‘cherry stem’ route through this voluntary separation area to be successful, it is imperative that a good signing system to be in place on the ground. There are at least two options which have proven successful elsewhere: 1) if the trail is through an area where the off-trail terrain is intended to be ‘closed’ on both sides of the trail, we suggest posting 12" x 12" reflective signs that simply state 'Stay on Trail' or 'Please Stay on Trail’; or 2) if the trail is through an area where the off-trail terrain is intended to be restricted on only one side of the trail, we suggest 12” x 12” or 12” x 18” reflective signs that state ‘Ski Area – No Snowmobiles Off This Side of Trail.’ This second variation could also be adapted to the first scenario where both sides of the trail are intended to be restricted (Ski Zone – Stay on Trail). The key is to indicate to riders when they are entering the zone and also when they are leaving it, as well as doing a good job of signing the 'designated route' through the ski zone with signs that are within sight of each other all the way through the zone, particularly when there are opportunities to get off-trail (versus being in thick timber). The signs also need to be clearly visible from both travel directions.

Any time a ‘cherry stem’ route is signed through a restricted zone, it is important to have the signed corridor wide enough so that snowmobiles stopped or parked immediately along the trail’s edge are not perceived to be ‘in violation.’ This can have increased importance if hybrid skier use is anticipated in the area.

Project Specific Design Criteria: While the design criteria listed on page 13 are common to all alternatives, we’ll address them as part of the proposed action alternative:

Increase signing to make users aware of new grooming routes and areas of historical use: this will be critically important to help ensure riders don’t continue through Columbine out of habit or because they can’t easily locate the new route around Columbine. As mentioned above, intensive signing through Columbine Meadows will be critically important.

Delay grooming until unpacked snow depths equal or exceed 18 inches: we are a bit concerned about this proposed criterion establishing a minimum snow depth guideline even though, in practice, SLSC typically doesn’t begin grooming operations in this area until there is about three feet of snow on the ground. We recognize there is an ‘18-inch depth’ formal Guideline for the Rabbit Ears/Buffalo Pass areas as per the 2005 Forest Plan Amendment, but note that it is not officially applicable to the North Routt area. Given the SLSC practice of waiting until there is substantial snow on the ground to prevent equipment and resource damage, we question the need to establish any numerical ‘minimum snow depth.’

Our general concern about establishing a minimum depth relates to constantly changing weather and wind conditions in this project area, the potential variability of snow cover from one mountain to another, as well as the basic, ever-changing mechanics of snow itself. Who is going to make this 18-inch determination and ensure it is fairly and consistently assessed and updated to conform to ever-changing variable conditions?

Snow is an ever-changing medium that is very difficult to make generalized statements about. Certainly, 18 inches of snowfall in the morning will not be 18 inches of snowfall at the end of the day. Normal freeze-thaw cycles, natural settling, wind and the mechanics of snow itself ensure that the only constant with snow is that it will continually change. A synopsis of basic snow mechanics is as follows:

The structure of snow particles depends on the atmospheric conditions at the time they are formed. Some of the factors that affect the final shape and structure of an individual particle are air temperature, humidity (moisture in the air mass), wind or uplift both in the high atmosphere and near the ground, and foreign particles present in the air mass (i.e. dust, smoke, etc.).

In general, a snowflake starts as a small particle of some sort high in the atmosphere. This particle may be ice, dust, etc. As the particle travels through the air it accumulates water molecules from vapor and a flake begins to form. If there is uplift wind in the upper atmosphere, the particle can be carried back up several times until it becomes heavy enough to fall to the ground. This is where the most significant differences in snow properties in terms of geographic location take place. Some areas of the country, or even opposite sides of a mountain range, will get more of a certain type of snow as precipitation than others. Snow wetness will also vary dependant on location. These differences become less significant as the snow is allowed to change its form once it is on the ground.

In general, newly fallen snow is light density snow. This means that it generally has a great deal of air space between the various snowflakes that have accumulated. The longer it is on the ground, the denser it becomes – this equates to substantially fewer inches of snowfall depth as the snow “matures” unless it is supplemented with more new snowfall during the day.

Snow that is deposited on the ground begins to metamorphose, or change in form, almost immediately. This process can continue for a long period of time. The tendency is for the snow crystal to change to a more stable form. In general, the crystals will become larger and more rounded. This metamorphism tends to consolidate, or densify, the snow. There is also some degree of bonding that takes place in the undisturbed snow. This process gives the snowpack added strength because the air space becomes less and less as more crystals bond together. Wind action can also help to densify the snow and increase the bonding and strength.

The freezing of liquid water that is present within any snowpack can also greatly enhance the strength of the snow base. Melt water that collects between crystals during warm periods and re-freezes at night or with a temperature drop will also harden the snowpack, but also typically causes the depth to shrink.

The bottom line is that snow depth is continually and constantly changing – whether from natural metamorphose, wind or recreational use – so arbitrary minimum snow depths are a recipe for failure.

Snowmobile trail grooming season of use will be December 1st through May 1st: again, it is appropriate to mention the 2005 Forest Plan Amendment’s Guidelines for the Rabbit Ears/Buffalo Pass areas. This Guideline defines the ‘winter season’ as mid November to mid May. We believe that, particularly in respect to season length, it would be best to be consistent across the District.

Maintain Forest Service Road closure during spring break-up, approximately May 1 to June 15, except as authorized by permit: we need to balance the ‘mid May’ winter season definition with the reality of when ‘spring break-up’ actually occurs on forest roads – to help ensure that the gate on NFSR 550 isn’t closed on May 1st if there are still snowmobile riding opportunities beyond the new parking lot and if the spring road break-up hasn’t started. Therefore, we suggest changing approximately ‘May 1’ to ‘mid May’ to reduce some of the trepidation we’ve heard about this from local riders.

ALTERNATIVE 3 – RPR PROPOSAL

Purpose and Need: This Alternative marginally meets the Purpose and Need by moving the groomed snowmobile trail off NFSR 490. However since it continues to depend heavily on parking at the existing Quarry Lot, it falls short of moving parking away from the Columbine area and therefore also falls short of measurably reducing conflicts with private landowners.

It also does not measurably address the issue of ‘private property concerns’ since large portions of the proposed trails are close to private property and, while improved, the ‘adequate parking’ issue falls short of overall needs.

Parking: We made extensive comments in our 8/20/2009 comment letter in support of a new supplemental parking lot near Trilby Flats. Those comments remain valid and we ask that you carry them forward in your final analysis. This portion of the Alternative continues to have merit and would help meet the Purpose and Need by creating parking on NFS lands away from residential areas which would in turn reduce conflicts with private landowners.

We do not support the portion of this Alternative which proposes to “improve” parking at the existing Quarry Lot. This location does not solve the issue of ‘private property concerns,’ so conflicts would continue. Additionally, we don’t believe there is enough public/Forest Service property available at the gravel pit to build a large enough lot to keep vehicles and trailers from continuing to spill onto RCR 129. In the end there would likely be a lot of time and money spent for little gain. We need to improve parking with a lot that is larger and better designed. This proposal does not accomplish that but, rather, puts off the inevitable fact that eventually the issue will again boil over because private property owners have had enough. This lot needs to be closed once alternate parking outside Columbine is developed and working.

Trail Routes: We stated our support above for the lower east-west portion (Trilby Flats/RCR 129 to NFSR410) of the trail route proposed by this Alternative. This portion has merit and should be considered in the final alternative since it would help address unintentional trespass onto private lands.

We do not support the proposed route along RCR 129 since it runs through the middle of Columbine – which we believe we should be trying to avoid even though the proposed route is a public roadway. This route is less than ideal since sections of it are very sidling and other parts are narrowed by traffic signs, culverts or willows. This, along with competition with road snow removal operations and having to cross plowed driveways, could make trail grooming challenging at times. Additionally, ‘riding in a road ditch’ is not normally an expected or desired experience when snowmobiling in Colorado, unless it is a ‘last resort’ to obtain access to services. If someone wants to ride road ditches, they can go to the Midwest; we’d prefer our Colorado trails take advantage of our wonderful forests and mountains and avoid road ditches whenever possible.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES – WATERSHED

We take issue with the perspectives cited on page 15 regarding “…the release of unburned fuel and lubricant from two-stroke snowmobile engines that can lead to pollutant deposition into the top layer of snow and subsequently surface waters during snowmelt (Adams, 1975; NPS, 2002). In addition, high levels of particulate matter and carbon monoxide due to incomplete combustion are also emitted from two-stroke engines (McDaniel, 2002).” The context portrayed by these two references is inaccurate and should be corrected.

It is a myth that snowmobile engines deposit gasoline, oil, and other contaminants on snow, which in turn purportedly leads to ground and surface water quality degradation and subsequently impacts aquatic life. Rather, scientific monitoring has proven that snowmobiles do not emit gasoline and other contaminants directly into the snowpack or have a negative effect on water quality. Please refer to Multiple Use Trails for Winter Recreation: Facts and Myths about Snowmobiling which is enclosed.

The effect of snowmobile emissions on the chemistry of snowmelt water was extensively studied by Yellowstone National Park’s Center for Resources – Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Section over several consecutive winters (Effects of Snowmobile Emissions on the Chemistry of Snowmelt Runoff in Yellowstone National Park. Arnold, J.L., & Koel, T.M., 2006). This long-term research study represents the most extensive and accurate body of scientific information available on this topic.

The Yellowstone monitoring project began during late March through mid-April of 2003, when two-stroke snowmobile visitation was around 75,000 units per year, and continued for several consecutive winters. Snowmelt runoff samples were collected from four sites along the heavily traveled road corridor connecting Yellowstone’s West Entrance at West Yellowstone, Montana, and the Old Faithful area. Three sites were located immediately adjacent to the roadway in the vicinity of the West Entrance, Madison Junction, and Old Faithful. The fourth site was used as a control and was located near Madison Junction approximately 100 meters from the roadway, away from the effects of snowmobiles. Each site was visited on 9–10 different days during the spring sampling period, with visits dependent on having a daily temperature >5 degrees Celsius for good potential to obtain snowmelt runoff. Water quality measurements related to water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and turbidity were collected at each site.

Snowmelt runoff samples were analyzed for nine volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including benzene, ethylbenzene, ethyl tert-butyl ether, isopropyl ether, meta and para-xylene (m- and p-xylene), methyl tert-butyl ether, ortho-xylene (o-xylene), tert-pentyl methyl ether, and toluene. Of these nine compounds, only five were detected during any one sampling event. The detected compounds included benzene, ethylbenzene, m- and p-xylene, o-xylene, and toluene.

All water quality measurements were within acceptable limits and the concentrations of all VOCs detected each year were considerably below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s water quality criteria and guidelines for VOCs targeted in this study. During the course of the study, VOC concentrations of snowmelt runoff in Yellowstone National Park were well below levels that would adversely impact aquatic systems.

Please correct this inaccuracy in future analysis of environmental consequences.


Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project which is vital to continued snowmobiling access in the North Routt area. We look forward to continue working with you and your staff to help reach reasonable solutions for this important project. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact either myself at 719-658-2221 or kukuk@gojade.org , or our consultant, Kim Raap, at 605-371-9799 or Trailswork@aol.com .

Sincerely,


Janelle Kukuk, President
Colorado Snowmobile Association
2889 US Forest Rd 509
Creede, CO 81130

Enclosure: Facts and Myths about Snowmobiling

Cc: CSA Board of Directors
Steamboat Lake Snow Club
Routt Powder Riders
Tom Metsa

WOW, very nice letter, good job:cheer2:

CSA's work on this is impressive!! They do tons of impressive work like this on a lot of issues but almost seem to hide it from the members. Snowscoop is far from the only benefit of membership:face-icon-small-hap

Letter sent:

To whom it may concern,

I love riding that area. It is open and not over-crowded as Rabbit Ears and Buffalo Pass are. I ride there several times a year and never had the issues with non-motorized individuals that we have with the same users on Rabbit Ears. I used to work in the area as a land surveyor so I am aware of certain complaints by some private land owners and the owners of the cabins at Columbine. It is of my opinion (having dealt with these people on a professional level) that they hold a grudge or resentment towards sledders and are unable to present an unbiased argument.

Myself being an avid snowmobiler, dirtbike user and OHV user I do firmly understand some complaints fully. I do agree that some sledders abuse trails and trespass. But in all respects these "bad apples" are present with all people who enjoy outdoor activities, x-country skiers, hikers, hunters, bikers, sledders and so on. But it seems that snowmobilers are taking the brunt of frustrations and paying extremely high penalties, financial or otherwise. We are having 1000s of acres taken away and turned into either Wilderness or non-motorized use. The sport is growing at a phenomenal rate and areas are decreasing just as fast. This is creating more and more confrontations between motorized and non-motorized. They seem to frequent the motorized use side because they favor the packed and groomed trails. In most cases, these trails are maintained by snowmobiling clubs and not the skiers, but yet they choose to use them, which is fine by me. But, they can't complain when they meet a sledder on a trail that snowmobilers use.

The answer is not taking away riding areas, it is in educating all users to share the area and be responsible, respectful and professional. Nobody likes fighting, it just ruins moods and the day. Myself and the people I ride with are respectful of the skiers, snowshoers and hikers. We slow down, give them room when we pass and don't braaaaaap the throttle, making unnecessary noise just to irritate the other people. More often than not, we get a wave, a nod and a smile for being courteous of them. But I can honestly say that at least once a day we get the opposite. A scowl, an obscene hand gesture or an attempt to hit a rider with a pole. In my book that is attempted assault if the rider is not hit, but assault if the rider is hit. Why is this not talked about? Well, first I believe that we as sledders just shrug it off and go about our merry way, secondly I think that a blind eye is turned by those who should keep the peace. I truly wish that people would just respect each others choices for recreation and just concentrate on enjoying their own. It's really not that hard and the USFS would find that if given the chance, sledders as a whole would embrace changes if we were not FORCED to accept drastic adaptations that take away public lands from well, public use. These lands are taken care of an managed with tax dollars from all of our paychecks, no matter how large or small. Public lands that are being blocked from snowmobiling usage are still being paid for with our tax dollars, but yet we cannot enjoy them?

So I suggest that more meetings be planned and ANNOUNCED publicly to all people. Not hidden in small print in the paper or word of mouth. Use dealers, snowmobile fourms (most are free), radio and of course the paper. Schedule the meeting at a time when all can attend, please don't do it during the day or change the time at drop of a hat. Make it fair and I'm positive that moods on both sides will improve and a agreeable compromise can be obtained where most will be satisfied.

Could you please post the info on your first few posts on the BCR website in the Colorado section? I know a lot of folks there would send letters too, if they knew about this.

OK. That email address is not working. I tried several different email servers.

Comments sent via snail mail

PJ-Hunter said:

comments-rocky-mountain-medicine-bow-routt-hahns-peak-bears-ears@fs.fed.us

Click to expand...

Your document was received by the
comments-rocky-mountain-medicine-bow-routt-hahns-peak-bears-ears mailbox.
This is an automated message, please do not reply. If a response is
required by the Forest Service, it will be forthcoming.

YAY!!