G
Huge "Must Act Now" Problems at "Steamboat Lake Park to Routt National Forest.” CO
SUBJECT: COLUMBINE ACCESS
Our right to ride must be heard. We must email to appeal this decision...please comment, if using outlook, CTRL & click below, if not…copy and paste email address below w/ comment.
Those commenting should include: 1) name, address, telephone number, and organization represented, if any; 2) title of the document (“Columbine Access”) on which the comments are being submitted; 3) specific facts and supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider.
Written comments should be addressed to the Responsible Official: Jamie Kingsbury, District Ranger, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, 925 Weiss Drive, Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80487. The fax number is 970-870-2284.
**** comments must be provided at the Responsible Official’s office during normal business hours via telephone 970-870-2299 or in person, or at an official agency function (i.e. public meeting) that is designed to elicit public comments.
Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to comments-rocky-mountain-medicine-bow-routt-hahns-peak-bears-ears@fs.fed.us . When submitting comments on the web, the SUBJECT LINE must be “Columbine Access” to ensure proper routing.
Project information can be found at http://fs.usda.gov/goto/mbr/projects
For additional information contact Kent Foster at (970) 870-2142 or kfoster@fs.fed.us, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, 925 Weiss Drive, Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80487.
Q&A
Q: Why did the Forest Service do an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the Columbine Access?
A: The FS contracts with Steamboat Lake Snow Club to groom approximately 100 miles of trails in the north Routt National Forest and around Steamboat Lake. To get from Steamboat Lake to the forest, the groomer currently goes on FSR490. FSR 490 provides access to several private landowners who want to plow FSR490 so they can have access to their property in the winter and they are threatening to sue the FS. The Forest Service has an easement to groom on FSR490 but the easement is old and may not hold up in court. Also, the quarry parking lot (which is on Forest Service property) at the start of FSR550 provides access to the forest all the way to Wyoming. The quarry lot is adjacent to several anti-motorized private landowners who have complained about noise, smell and sanitation issues. So the Forest Service has proposed building a new parking lot about 1.5 miles up FSR550 and a new groomed trail through Columbine Meadows to get the groomer to the new parking lot.
Q: What is the purpose and need for the EA?
A: (1) To maintain groomed access from Steamboat Lake State Park to the Routt National Forest, (2) to move parking away from residential areas and (3) to reduce conflicts with private landowners.
Q: What are the 3 alternatives stated in the Environmental Assessment?
A: (1) No change; (2) Forest Service Proposal and (3) Routt Powder Riders proposal.
Q: What are the advantages of Alternative 1, the NO CHANGE proposal? (See Figure 1 on page 7 of the EA for a map of this proposal.)
A: The benefits include:
· No cost to build a new parking lot.
· No unintended consequences.
· The County would not have to plow an additional 1.5 miles (3 miles round trip).
Q: What are the disadvantages of the NO CHANGE proposal?
A: The disadvantages are:
· It does not meet the purpose and need because it does not move the parking lot away from residential areas and it does not reduce conflicts with private landowners.
· There could be safety issues with the groomer, skiers and wheeled vehicles all using FSR 490.
Q: Why does RPR support the NO CHANGE proposal?
A: RPR prefers our proposal, Alternative 3. (See below for information on Alt. 2 & 3.) However, RPR supports the NO CHANGE proposal over Alternative 2, the Forest Service proposal, because FSR 490 can be groomed to a depth that will allow passage of the groomer and wheeled vehicles. Also, RPR does not believe there is a legitimate need to build a new parking lot and RPR does not want the quarry lot to be closed.
Q: What is Alternative 2, the Forest Service proposal?
A: The Forest Service is proposing a new parking lot 1.5 miles up FSR550 from the quarry parking lot. A new groomed trail through Columbine Meadows, a popular area used by skiers on the northwest side of Hahn’s Peak, will bypass FSR 490 and connect to the new parking lot. The Columbine Meadows area will be designated as a “Historical Non-Motorized Use Area”. Snowmobiling will not be prohibited in this area –however, the Forest Service is expecting voluntary cooperation by motorized users. (See Figure 2 on page 9 of the EA for a map.)
Q: What are the advantages of Alternative 2, the Forest Service proposal?
A: The benefits include:
· The new parking area has already been impacted by logging operations.
· The new groomed trail will mostly use existing trails.
· The Forest Service estimates only 50 trees will need to be cut.
· This does not go so far as to designate a non-motorized area – it only designates a “historical non-motorized use area”. RPR does not support the designation of any terrain as non-motorized.
Q: What are the disadvantages of the Forest Service proposal?
A: The disadvantages are:
· The EA states that the “snowmobilers respect and share this area (“historical non-motorized use area”) by avoiding it” yet Alternative 2 puts motorized users right through the middle of it so how can motorized users possibly avoid it?
· Areas which have previously been designated as “suggested non-motorized use” have ultimately been change to “non-motorized use” such as the Poverty Bar Trail and the SLO trail after the complaints from the non-motorized users.
· The trail through the middle of Columbine Meadows is sure to cause conflict with the non-motorized users.
· The area though Columbine Meadows has steep side hills and motorized users could easily fall off the trail and in some places could end up trespassing on private property.
· Cost of building a new parking lot when one already exists at the quarry.
· The proposed size of the lot may not fully address demand especially after allowing for snow storage.
· The EA says the new parking lot will be for motorized users but does not address where non-motorized users will park.
· The cost for Routt County to plow an additional 1.5 miles (3 miles round trip) was estimated at $1,500 by Paul Draper, County Road & Bridge Director, This amount may not be a reasonable amount.
· Access will be limited in the early and late seasons because this is a dirt road and was not designed for winter travel.
· Your opportunity to get to the parking lot will be dictated by the County’s plowing schedule which might not include weekends in a time of budget cuts. This 3-mile section certainly will not get priority plowing.
· Removes access to the forest for property owners in the area who are motorized users.
· Limits access to FSR488 and California and Slater Parks from the quarry lot.
· The gate on FSR 550 just past the quarry lot is closed from May 1st to June 15th prohibiting access to the new parking lot during this time.
Q: What is Alternative 3, the RPR proposal?
A: RPR’s proposal consists of 3 segments: (1) an expanded and modified parking lot at the quarry, (2) a new parking area for both motorized and non-motorized users at Trilby Flats, and (3) a groomed snowmobile trail along the alignment of the Prospector Trail #1156 continuing along CR129 right-of-way to FSR 550. (See Figure 3 on page 10 of the EA for a map.)
Q: What are the advantages of Alternative 3, the RPR proposal?
A: The benefits include:
· Avoids conflict between non-motorized and motorized in the Columbine Meadows area.
· No need to groom FSR 490 which reduces conflicts with private landowners.
· Ease of user access.
· Ease of plowing for the County because both parking areas are adjacent to CR129.
· Access to the parking area will not be dictated by the County’s plowing schedule.
· Does not limit access in the early and late portions of the snowmobiling season.
· Mostly uses existing trails and County right-of-way. (Note: in September 2009???? all three of the current commissioners voted to continue to authorize snowmobiling on CR129 from Clark to Columbine.)
· No need to designate a “historical non-motorized use area” that would certainly lead to conflict for non-motorized users or potential for future closed terrain.
· Maintains full access to FSR 488 and California and Slater Parks.
· Material from the expansion of the quarry lot will be used to build a berm that will address the noise issue raised by the adjacent landowners.
· RPR will execute a Special User Permit to place a porta-potty in the quarry lot during snowmobiling season to address sanitation concerns.
· The new parking lot at Trilby Flats parking provides for overflow parking for both motorized and non-motorized users whenever the quarry lot is full, prevents users from parking alongside CR129 which is unlawful and dangerous because traffic is moving at 45 mph and it will add disbursed parking.
· Maintains access to the forest for property owners in the area who are motorized users.
· Provides year-round parking access to all users.
Q: What are the disadvantages of the RPR proposal?
A: The disadvantages are:
· Cost of building a new parking lot at Trilby Flats.
· Cost of expanding the quarry lot and building the berm for noise control.
· Parking is not moved away from residential areas.
· The Forest Service estimates that 200 trees will have to be cut in this alternative which is more than in Alternative 2. RPR questions the number of trees to be cut in Alternative 3.
· Proposed trail along CR129 is closer to private property than Alternative 2.
· Impacts more ground surface than Alternative 2.
· Additional costs to plow the Trilby Flats lot which is alongside CR129 and not out of the way.
Q. What other factors should be considered when evaluating the alternatives?
A: The EA discusses the environmental consequences of each alternative including: watershed (soil and water), wildlife, transportation, and recreation as well as the social, heritage and vegetation impacts. See pages 14-34 of the EA for more details on these factors.
SUBJECT: COLUMBINE ACCESS
The Forest Service has proposed 3 alternatives in the Columbine Access project to maintain groomed access from Steamboat Lake State Park to the Routt National Forest, move parking away from residential areas and to reduce conflicts with private landowners.
View our concerns and suggestions regarding the Columbine Access Project. Official RPR Columbine Access Comments
Our right to ride must be heard. We must email to appeal this decision...please comment, if using outlook, CTRL & click below, if not…copy and paste email address below w/ comment.
(BEFORE NOVEMBER 2ND):clockBEFORE NOVEMBER 2ND)
eMAIL Address
comments-rocky-mountain-medicine-bow-routt-hahns-peak-bears-ears@fs.fed.us
eMAIL Address
comments-rocky-mountain-medicine-bow-routt-hahns-peak-bears-ears@fs.fed.us
Those commenting should include: 1) name, address, telephone number, and organization represented, if any; 2) title of the document (“Columbine Access”) on which the comments are being submitted; 3) specific facts and supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider.
Written comments should be addressed to the Responsible Official: Jamie Kingsbury, District Ranger, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, 925 Weiss Drive, Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80487. The fax number is 970-870-2284.
**** comments must be provided at the Responsible Official’s office during normal business hours via telephone 970-870-2299 or in person, or at an official agency function (i.e. public meeting) that is designed to elicit public comments.
Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc) to comments-rocky-mountain-medicine-bow-routt-hahns-peak-bears-ears@fs.fed.us . When submitting comments on the web, the SUBJECT LINE must be “Columbine Access” to ensure proper routing.
Project information can be found at http://fs.usda.gov/goto/mbr/projects
For additional information contact Kent Foster at (970) 870-2142 or kfoster@fs.fed.us, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, 925 Weiss Drive, Steamboat Springs, Colorado 80487.
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT
COLUMBINE ACCESS PROJECT-Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT
COLUMBINE ACCESS PROJECT-Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests
Click Below to view our concerns and
suggestions regarding the Columbine Access Project
Official RPR Columbine Access Comments
suggestions regarding the Columbine Access Project
Official RPR Columbine Access Comments
Q&A
Q: Why did the Forest Service do an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the Columbine Access?
A: The FS contracts with Steamboat Lake Snow Club to groom approximately 100 miles of trails in the north Routt National Forest and around Steamboat Lake. To get from Steamboat Lake to the forest, the groomer currently goes on FSR490. FSR 490 provides access to several private landowners who want to plow FSR490 so they can have access to their property in the winter and they are threatening to sue the FS. The Forest Service has an easement to groom on FSR490 but the easement is old and may not hold up in court. Also, the quarry parking lot (which is on Forest Service property) at the start of FSR550 provides access to the forest all the way to Wyoming. The quarry lot is adjacent to several anti-motorized private landowners who have complained about noise, smell and sanitation issues. So the Forest Service has proposed building a new parking lot about 1.5 miles up FSR550 and a new groomed trail through Columbine Meadows to get the groomer to the new parking lot.
Q: What is the purpose and need for the EA?
A: (1) To maintain groomed access from Steamboat Lake State Park to the Routt National Forest, (2) to move parking away from residential areas and (3) to reduce conflicts with private landowners.
Q: What are the 3 alternatives stated in the Environmental Assessment?
A: (1) No change; (2) Forest Service Proposal and (3) Routt Powder Riders proposal.
Q: What are the advantages of Alternative 1, the NO CHANGE proposal? (See Figure 1 on page 7 of the EA for a map of this proposal.)
A: The benefits include:
· No cost to build a new parking lot.
· No unintended consequences.
· The County would not have to plow an additional 1.5 miles (3 miles round trip).
Q: What are the disadvantages of the NO CHANGE proposal?
A: The disadvantages are:
· It does not meet the purpose and need because it does not move the parking lot away from residential areas and it does not reduce conflicts with private landowners.
· There could be safety issues with the groomer, skiers and wheeled vehicles all using FSR 490.
Q: Why does RPR support the NO CHANGE proposal?
A: RPR prefers our proposal, Alternative 3. (See below for information on Alt. 2 & 3.) However, RPR supports the NO CHANGE proposal over Alternative 2, the Forest Service proposal, because FSR 490 can be groomed to a depth that will allow passage of the groomer and wheeled vehicles. Also, RPR does not believe there is a legitimate need to build a new parking lot and RPR does not want the quarry lot to be closed.
Q: What is Alternative 2, the Forest Service proposal?
A: The Forest Service is proposing a new parking lot 1.5 miles up FSR550 from the quarry parking lot. A new groomed trail through Columbine Meadows, a popular area used by skiers on the northwest side of Hahn’s Peak, will bypass FSR 490 and connect to the new parking lot. The Columbine Meadows area will be designated as a “Historical Non-Motorized Use Area”. Snowmobiling will not be prohibited in this area –however, the Forest Service is expecting voluntary cooperation by motorized users. (See Figure 2 on page 9 of the EA for a map.)
Q: What are the advantages of Alternative 2, the Forest Service proposal?
A: The benefits include:
· The new parking area has already been impacted by logging operations.
· The new groomed trail will mostly use existing trails.
· The Forest Service estimates only 50 trees will need to be cut.
· This does not go so far as to designate a non-motorized area – it only designates a “historical non-motorized use area”. RPR does not support the designation of any terrain as non-motorized.
Q: What are the disadvantages of the Forest Service proposal?
A: The disadvantages are:
· The EA states that the “snowmobilers respect and share this area (“historical non-motorized use area”) by avoiding it” yet Alternative 2 puts motorized users right through the middle of it so how can motorized users possibly avoid it?
· Areas which have previously been designated as “suggested non-motorized use” have ultimately been change to “non-motorized use” such as the Poverty Bar Trail and the SLO trail after the complaints from the non-motorized users.
· The trail through the middle of Columbine Meadows is sure to cause conflict with the non-motorized users.
· The area though Columbine Meadows has steep side hills and motorized users could easily fall off the trail and in some places could end up trespassing on private property.
· Cost of building a new parking lot when one already exists at the quarry.
· The proposed size of the lot may not fully address demand especially after allowing for snow storage.
· The EA says the new parking lot will be for motorized users but does not address where non-motorized users will park.
· The cost for Routt County to plow an additional 1.5 miles (3 miles round trip) was estimated at $1,500 by Paul Draper, County Road & Bridge Director, This amount may not be a reasonable amount.
· Access will be limited in the early and late seasons because this is a dirt road and was not designed for winter travel.
· Your opportunity to get to the parking lot will be dictated by the County’s plowing schedule which might not include weekends in a time of budget cuts. This 3-mile section certainly will not get priority plowing.
· Removes access to the forest for property owners in the area who are motorized users.
· Limits access to FSR488 and California and Slater Parks from the quarry lot.
· The gate on FSR 550 just past the quarry lot is closed from May 1st to June 15th prohibiting access to the new parking lot during this time.
Q: What is Alternative 3, the RPR proposal?
A: RPR’s proposal consists of 3 segments: (1) an expanded and modified parking lot at the quarry, (2) a new parking area for both motorized and non-motorized users at Trilby Flats, and (3) a groomed snowmobile trail along the alignment of the Prospector Trail #1156 continuing along CR129 right-of-way to FSR 550. (See Figure 3 on page 10 of the EA for a map.)
Q: What are the advantages of Alternative 3, the RPR proposal?
A: The benefits include:
· Avoids conflict between non-motorized and motorized in the Columbine Meadows area.
· No need to groom FSR 490 which reduces conflicts with private landowners.
· Ease of user access.
· Ease of plowing for the County because both parking areas are adjacent to CR129.
· Access to the parking area will not be dictated by the County’s plowing schedule.
· Does not limit access in the early and late portions of the snowmobiling season.
· Mostly uses existing trails and County right-of-way. (Note: in September 2009???? all three of the current commissioners voted to continue to authorize snowmobiling on CR129 from Clark to Columbine.)
· No need to designate a “historical non-motorized use area” that would certainly lead to conflict for non-motorized users or potential for future closed terrain.
· Maintains full access to FSR 488 and California and Slater Parks.
· Material from the expansion of the quarry lot will be used to build a berm that will address the noise issue raised by the adjacent landowners.
· RPR will execute a Special User Permit to place a porta-potty in the quarry lot during snowmobiling season to address sanitation concerns.
· The new parking lot at Trilby Flats parking provides for overflow parking for both motorized and non-motorized users whenever the quarry lot is full, prevents users from parking alongside CR129 which is unlawful and dangerous because traffic is moving at 45 mph and it will add disbursed parking.
· Maintains access to the forest for property owners in the area who are motorized users.
· Provides year-round parking access to all users.
Q: What are the disadvantages of the RPR proposal?
A: The disadvantages are:
· Cost of building a new parking lot at Trilby Flats.
· Cost of expanding the quarry lot and building the berm for noise control.
· Parking is not moved away from residential areas.
· The Forest Service estimates that 200 trees will have to be cut in this alternative which is more than in Alternative 2. RPR questions the number of trees to be cut in Alternative 3.
· Proposed trail along CR129 is closer to private property than Alternative 2.
· Impacts more ground surface than Alternative 2.
· Additional costs to plow the Trilby Flats lot which is alongside CR129 and not out of the way.
Q. What other factors should be considered when evaluating the alternatives?
A: The EA discusses the environmental consequences of each alternative including: watershed (soil and water), wildlife, transportation, and recreation as well as the social, heritage and vegetation impacts. See pages 14-34 of the EA for more details on these factors.
Thank You and Act Now before it's too late!
Last edited: