United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Medicine Bow - Routt

National Forests and Thunder

Basin National Grassland

2468 Jackson Street

Laramie, WY 82070-6535

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/mbr

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570 Date: May 25, 2011

Mr. James R. Linville

P.O. Box 772873

Steamboat Springs, CO 80477

CERTIFIED – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Dear Mr. Linville:

On April 15, 2011, you filed a timely notice of appeal of District Ranger Jamie Kingsbury’s

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for the Columbine Access

Project Environmental Assessment (EA). This project is located on the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears

Ranger District of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

Your appeal was filed pursuant to 36 CFR 215 and challenged Ranger Kingsbury’s decision to

select Alternative 2, the Proposed Action with minor adjustments. Your appeal was assigned

number 11-02-06-0022 for tracking purposes.

This letter constitutes my decision on your appeal, including the specific relief requested. Prior

to arriving at my decision, I reviewed the appeal record, including your appeal, the DN/FONSI,

the EA, and all of the supporting documentation in the project record. I also weighed the

recommendation from the Appeal Reviewing Officer (ARO) and incorporated that information

into my own decision. A copy of the ARO’s recommendation is enclosed for your review.

Forest Action Being Appealed

District Ranger, Jamie Kingsbury, signed the DN/FONSI to implement Alternative 2, the

Proposed Action with minor adjustments, on March 3, 2011. The legal notice initiating the

appeal period was published in the Steamboat Today and Pilot, the newspaper of record, on

March 6, 2011; the appeal period ended on April 20, 2011.

Ranger Kingsbury’s decision authorized a new marked and groomed snowmobile trail, a new

winter trailhead and parking lot adjacent to National Forest System Road (NFSR) 550, and a

“non-motorized use area” as it appears on the DN/FONSI’s Alternative 2 map (p. 9). The

decision further authorized plowing of NFSR 550 from the Quarry Lot to the proposed winter

trailhead and parking area and moving a short segment of the groomed trail from NFSR 418 to

NFSR 418(A) to allow for more efficient grooming. Finally, the decision included design

criteria, as outlined on page 4 of the DN/FONSI.

Appeal Reviewing Officer’s Findings and Recommendation

Your appeal was formally reviewed by a Regional Appeal Review Team (RART) led by ARO

Lori Bell. This team provided an objective review of the appeal record and found that District

Ranger Kingsbury’s decision was appropriate and reasonable and that it provided information

supporting the logic and rationale in selecting Alternative 2, the Proposed Action with minor

adjustments.

The review team also found that Ranger Kingsbury’s decision demonstrated compliance with

applicable laws, regulations, and policies as related to the issues raised in your appeal. In light of this

information, ARO Bell recommended affirmation of Ranger Kingsbury’s decision.

Decision

After reviewing the appeal record, I agree with ARO Bell’s analysis as presented in the enclosed

recommendation letter. I believe the appeal record supports the conclusion that Ranger

Kingsbury’s decision did not violate any law, regulation, or policy associated with the issues

raised in your appeal. I affirm Ranger Kingsbury’s decision in whole, denying your request for

relief. This decision constitutes the final administrative determination of the Department of

Agriculture (36 CFR 215.18(c)).

Sincerely,

/s/ Richard A. Cooksey

RICHARD A. COOKSEY

Deputy Forest Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: Jamie Kingsbury

Rhonda Boyd

Kent Foster

e Forest Rocky 740 Simms Street UAS Service Mountain Golden, CO 80401-4702 'fI Regional Office Voice: 303-275-5350

_________________________________________________ T~D~D~:~3~03~-2~7~~~5~3~67~ ____ __

File Code: 1570-1 Route To:

Date: May 13, 2011

Snbject: Recommendation Memorandum for Appeal of the Columbine Access Project: ll-02-06-0022 (215)

To: Appeal Deciding Officer

As the designated Appeal Reviewing Officer, this is my recommendation on disposition ofthe appeal filed by James R. Linville, under the regulations at 36 CFR 215. District Ranger Jamie Kingsbury signed the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) for the Columbine Access Project on March 3,2011, and a legal notice of the decision was published in the newspaper of record on March 6, 2011. My recommendation is based on the appeal and the decision documentation (36 CFR 215.18(a)). I am forwarding the appeal record to you.

BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2009, the District Ranger on the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District (District), Routt National Forest issued a letter requesting public comment on the proposed Columbine Access project on the Hahns PeaklBears Ears Ranger District.

In October of2010, the District Ranger issued the Environmental Assessment (EA) for public review and comment. Comments were to be submitted by November 3,2010.

On March 3, 2011, the District Ranger signed a DNIFONSI authorizing a new snowmobile trail to be marked and groomed on National Forest System lands on the Hahns Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District.

RELIEF REQUESTED

The Appellant requests the decision be amended to include the following:

USDA

1. Build a new parking lot for snowmobile trailers on 550, north of Columbine, either at the USDA Forest Service proposed site or on the right of 550 just around the first comer after leaving the Quarry.

2. Get the FS together with Columbine residents, SLO, State Parks, Routt Powder Riders and the North Routt Snow Club to reach an agreement between all ofthese entities that they should encourage any snowmobilers they come in contact with, who want to use terrain north of Columbine, to trailer to the new parking lot rather than riding.

3. With signage and public education make snowmobile travel in the area of Columbine private lands "local traffic only" asking outsider users not to snowmobile there unless invited by a Colnmbine resident.

4. By continuing to groom 490 the snowmobile community would still have access to FSR 488 leading west out of Trilby Flats.

It's Cool to Be Safe Printed on Recycled Paper 0

5. Discussion with Routt Powder Riders (and to a lesser extent the State Parks) is critical for this plan to work.

6. Make the FS land between the private land of Columbine and Hahns Peak all non­motorized, starting from the eastern boundary of those private lands and reaching to the south up to FSR 418 and to the north only to about Y2 mile before reaching 550.

7. The FS should encourage and facilitate an agreement between SLO and Columbine residents concerning guided tours.

ISSUES AND DISCUSSION

APPEAL ISSUE I: The EA does not follow NEPA guidelines that require a full analysis of alternative solutions in that recent changes to the preferred alternative fail to include needs ofthe non-motorized community for access and interests in quiet experience.

Sub-issue I.A: Purpose and Need for Action

Appellant states: On p. 4 under Purpose and Need for Action the Decision talks about maintaining snowmobile access from the town of Hahns Peak to areas north of Columbine and talks about the need to reduce impacts on private land owners in Columbine, but says nothing about non-motorized needs.

Rule:

None cited.

Discussion:

The Proposed Action proposes to reroute an existing snowmobile trail and to construct a parking area near the trailhead (EA pg. 4). The Proposed Action was developed based on the Purpose and Need for Action (EA pg. 2). As stated in the EA: "The purpose ofthis project is to maintain a groomed and marked snowmobile trail access and connectivity and to improve access to parking. The need is to eliminate groomed snowmobile access on the portion of NFSR 490 on private land." While impacts to non-motorized uses are considered and addressed in the decision and analyzed in the EA (pp. 25-28), this issue did not drive the proposal. The EA acknowledges that the proposed groomed trail through Columbine Meadows will "impact the quiet and quality experience" of the area. However, the design criterion that requires signing and education should keep impacts to the vicinity of the trail (EA p. 27).

The District's Response to Comments document, Comment 2a, states:

"This action was not intended to .... create non-motorized recreation areas. This was not identified in the purpose and need for action. The Forest Service does understand competing recreational uses exist, and this area was preliminarily included in a winter recreation analysis in 2004-05, but decisions on any land use designations in this analysis area were not made. Many comments identified this as a need; however, these comments are out of the scope of this analysis."

The Appellant fails to demonstrate how the project decision violates law, regulation or policy as required by 36 CFR §215.14(b)(7) and (b)(9).

Recommendation: I recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue. Sub-issue I.B: Other Alternatives Cousidered.

Appellant states: On p 5 under Other Alternatives Considered the only two mentioned are the snowmobile user's suggestion for parking at Trilby Flats and the do-nothing alternative. The three specific alternatives suggested by the non-motorized community are not even mentioned.

Rule:

None cited.

Discussion:

During the formal comment period for the analysis, the Forest Service accepted several alternative proposals from the non-motorized community. However, the suggested alternatives were eliminated from further analysis for the following reasons:

• The "True North" proposal included a trail adjacent to private property and was therefore dropped because it did not meet the significant issue of "private property concerns" (EA pp. 12-13).

• Friends of Routt Backcounty (FORB) offered an alternative for consideration prior to the scoping period; the District included this alternative in the scoping document/request for comments (letter dated 7117/09). During the scoping period, FORB modified its proposal to include the parking/trailhead at NFSR 550. This alternative was dropped from detailed analysis because it proposed actions outside the scope ofthe analysis by requiring parking management at Steamboat Lake State Park (SLSP) (Response to Comments, Comment 4b). A comment letter received from the SLSP stated that they had no plans to change the management at the park (Email dated7129109.AppeaIRecordp.65).Further.this alternative did not address the purpose and need for maintaining access. (Appeal Record p. 204). Instead, its intent was to remove snowmobiling on the west side ofHahns Peak and to designate areas for exclusive non-motorized use. Designating such areas was not part of the purpose and need (Response to Comments, Comment 4b). The FORB alternative would have increased traffic behind Hahns Peak Village, thereby undoing previous planning efforts and decisions (Response to Comments, Comment 2c) (EA pp. 11-12)

• A Colorado Snowmobile Association alternative was also eliminated from detailed study because it did not address the significant issue of "private property concerns" and the parking/trailhead location did not address significant issue of "Impacts to community" (EA p.ll)

The Appellant fails to demonstrate how the project decision violates law, regulation or policy as required by 36 CFR §215.l4(b)(7) and (b)(9).

Recommendation: I recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.

Sub-issue I.C: Proposed Actiou Map

Appellant states: No access to Hahns Peakfor non-motorized users has been provided or even mentioned.

Rule:

None cited.

Discussion:

This issue was raised by Mr. Linville during scoping (letter dated 8/15/09). Providing non­motorized users access to Hahns Peak does not meet the purpose and need of the project and was therefore found to be outside the scope of the proposal (Appeal Record, Response to Comments, Comment lc). In addition, page 26 of the EA states: ''No access will be lost to any recreation user group. Areas traditionally used by user groups will continue to do so."

The Appellant fails to demonstrate how the project decision violates law, regulation or policy as required by 36 CFR §215.14(b)(7) and (b)(9).

Recommendation: I recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.

Sub-issue I.D: Needs of the Non-motorized Community

Appellant states: No mention is made in the Decision about other non-motorized uses of the area; such as, the Courreur Des Bois ski race held in March each year and how proposed FS action will affect that event. This is brought up to demonstrate the failure of FS personnel to adequately assess the needs of the non-motorized community.

Rule:

None cited.

Discussion:

Non-motorized uses are analyzed in the EA, Recreation Affected Environment, pages 25-28. The Forest Service recognizes: "A quality winter recreation experience is a subjective assessment of the wants, needs and desires of a specific user group. The definition of quality is different for motorized and non-motorized recreationists, and often varies within user groups depending on what type of experience the user is seeking." This section also acknowledges that recreation conflict is possible through these differing expectations (noise, safety).

Although the assessment of non-motorized recreation needs was not identified in the purpose and need for action, the Forest acknowledges that competing recreational uses exist in the area. They also acknowledge that the area was preliminarily included in a winter recreation analysis in 2004-05 but that decisions on any land use designations in the analysis area were not made since this was not identified as the purpose and need for action at the time. Many comments competing recreational uses as a need for this project; however, these comments were deemed outside ofthe scope of this analysis (Appeal Record, Response to Comments document, Comment 2a).

The Appellant fails to demonstrate how the project decision violates law, regulation or policy as required by 36 CFR §215.14(b)(7) and (b)(9).

Recommendation: I recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.

APPEAL ISSUE II: The decision will canse considerable increased conflicts between the non-motorized community and the snowmobile community and the private land owners of Columbine who use Snowmobiles which are not permitted under Executive Order 11644.

Rule:

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands

Discussion:

User Group Conflicts: The Responsible Official agreed to address and mitigate user conflicts through information, education, and signing along the proposed route ofthe area recognized by many as an area preferred by skiers (DNIFONSI p.3, bullet 2). Many snowmobiles and skiers who commented on the proposal identified informal agreements and understandings between recreation groups to maintain this area relatively snowmobile free "out of respect for one another." As indicated in the Response to Comments document, Comment 2b, "The area on Hahn's Peak (as identified in the Alternative 2 map) will be managed as a voluntary non­motorized area to inform those not familiar with local etiquette and to continue the good faith understandings. Existing behavior of all participants is expected to continue." The Responsible Official has also said that she is willing to consider a motorized closure if a problem develops with snowmobiles not staying on the trail through the Columbine Meadow area. (DN/FONSI p. 3, bullet 8)

Private Landowner Conflicts: The EA states: "Under the No Action Alternative, existing conflicts will continue to occur on NFSR 490 with the grooming versus plowing in winter. Existing trespass by recreationists will continue, negatively affecting private property owners ... Parking at the Quarry Lot will continue to impact residents and private property owners through noise, air quality, and sanitation issues. Access to driveways for residents near the Quarry Lot will continue to be compromised by overflow parking on the road, as well as limiting egress for travel on RCR 129" (p. 29).

The FS moved the proposed route further away from private property in the response to comments received on the proposed action (Response to Comment document, Comment3b). Impacts to private property owners as a result ofFS actions were considered a significant issue (EA p. 5); thus, that issue received a higher priority than recreation needs and wants.

Moving the parking to the NFSR 550 location was determined to be a positive effect on the Columbine community because existing noise, air quality, and trespass impacts will be reduced in the vicinity of the community (EA p. 30). The newly aligned trail away from private property will benefit the adjacent Columbine landowners. It reduces conflict and safety issues ofNFSR 490, and distance from private lands should reduce noise and trespass concerns. While snowmobiling will still be allowed on NFSR 490 and along RCR 129, the trail will not be groomed, thereby reducing snowmobile traffic. (EA pg. 30)

There is no evidence in the Appeal Record that this decision will increase conflicts between these user groups. The District complied with the requirements under EO 11644.

The Appellant fails to demonstrate how the project decision violates law, regulation or policy as required by 36 CFR §21S.14(b)(7) and (b)(9).

Recommendation: I recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.

APPEAL ISSUE III: The proposed route is un-groomable in some areas and any attempt to insure compliance of the rule that snowmobiles should stay on the road will be a nightmare, i.e. impossible.

Sub-issue III.A: Safety Considerations.

Appellant states: Several years ago a group familiar with the grooming operations in the area said the approach up the switch backs of FSR 418 was too steep and narrow to allow effective grooming and yet that is where the FS now wants to go instead of the route discussed during the July 2009 meeting. This is a safety consideration.

Rule:

None cited.

Discussion:

The DN/FONSI modified the Proposed Action as follows: "The location of a short segment of the groomed trail from NFSR 41S to NFSR 41S.1(A) will be moved to the north approximately 100 yards to allow for more efficient grooming by reducing grooming across a side slope" c (ON, p. 2). Furthermore, on April IS, 2010 the Forest Service hosted a field trip with Steamboat Lake State Park (SLSP) Zwinsick and Kent Foster (FS Recreation) to review grooming feasibility. Zwinsick consulted their groomer and confirmed the grooming is feasible as located (Appeal Record, p. 20S).

The Appellant fails to demonstrate how the project decision violates law, regulation or policy as required by 36 CFR §21S.14(b)(7) and (b)(9).

Recommendation: I recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affirmed on this issue.

Sub-issue III.B: Compliance

Appellant states: Columbine snowmobilers coming legally from private land to the new groomed route will leave tracks all over the Aspen ridge so any snowmobiler on the groomed route who wants to can join them and no one would know who went where .... The only threat the FS can hold out is a closure - an all or nothing approach which is unverifiable and will only lead to arguments and no action.

Rule:

None cited.

Discussion:

Alternative 2 includes an area identified as a "non-motorized use area." Infonnation and educational signing will be posted along the trail as it passes through the area identified on the map. Additional infonnationleducation signs will be posted at nearby trailheads and other applicable locations. Through this infonnation, education, signing and collaboration with user groups, the Forest Service's intent is to ensure a mutual respect of the various user groups so everyone has a quality recreation experience (EA p. 8). While snowmobilers will be instructed to stay on the trail through Columbine Meadows and the historically non-motorized use area voluntarily, if snowmobiles do not stay on the trail through this area, the District Ranger will consider a Forest Supervisor area closure to snowmobiles off the groomed trail, moving the trail and/or eliminating "groomed" access from this side of Hahn's Peak (DN/FONSI p. 3).

Recommendation: I recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affinned on this issue.

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the District Ranger's decision be affinned and that the Appellant's request for relief be denied.

LORIA. BELL Appeal Reviewing Officer District Ranger, Pawnee National Grassland