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 S. Witwer

Routt Powder River Riders, Inc.

1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1600

Denver, CO 80203

CERTIFIED – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Dear Mr. Witwer:

On April 19, 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 11-02-06-0024 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 with one

instruction relative to appeal issue I.B (see ARO letter, p. 3). This instruction requires Ranger

Kingsbury to either make a restroom facility available at the trailhead and parking lot or to amend

the Forest Plan to exempt this site from Recreation – Developed Recreation, Standard 6.

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

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Rocky

Mountain

Region

P.O. Box 25127

Lakewood, CO 80225-0127

Delivery: 740 Simms St.

Golden, CO 80401

Voice: 303-275-5350

TDD: 303-275-5367

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1570-1 Date: May 20, 2011 Route To:

Subject: Recommendation Memorandum for Appeal of the Columbine Access Project: 11-

02-06-0024 (215)

To: Appeal Deciding Officer

As the designated Appeal Reviewing Officer, this is my recommendation on disposition of the

appeal filed by Routt Powder Riders, Inc., under the regulations at 36 CFR 215. District

Ranger Jamie Kingsbury signed the Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI) for the Columbine Access Project on March 3, 2011 and published a legal notice of the

decision 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 Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District.

In October of 2010, the District Ranger issued the Environmental Assessment for public review

and comment. Comments were to be submitted by November 3, 2010.

On March 3, 2011, the District Ranger signed a DN 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 Appellants request the decision be amended to include the following:

1. Reverse the District Ranger‟s decision on the grounds that it fails to follow the Forest Plan, violates NEPA, and is arbitrary and capricious.

2. Remand the decision to the District Ranger with instructions to allow full and informed public participation and to consider only alternatives that meet the limited need and

purpose of the project of resolving perceived conflicts in the Columbine area and

maintaining groomed snowmobile trail access and connectivity between Steamboat Lake

State Park and northern Routt National Forest.

ISSUES AND DISCUSSION

APPEAL ISSUE I: The decision regarding the Columbine access project violates the Routt

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (“Forest Plan”)

2

APPEAL ISSUE I.A: The District Ranger’s decision is not consistent with the recreation

setting in violation of the Forest Plan.

Appellant states: The selected alternative’s proposed parking lot at the intersection of NFSR

550 and 413 is not consistent with the recreation setting as required by the Forest Plan

because it will effectively close snowmobile access to all National Forest land north of

Columbine during a portion of each season. The Forest Plan requires that the agency

“provide parking … and appropriate sanitation facilities and trailheads.” Parking facilities

must be “consistent with the Recreational setting.” The selected alternative does not provide

adequate parking facilities that accommodate the various recreation uses in the area, and is,

therefore, inconsistent with the recreation setting in violation of the Forest Plan.

Moreover, because the proposed new parking lot will be unreachable at times and is the only

lot the District Ranger has made available for snowmobile use, the decision necessarily

includes an undisclosed seasonal closure of the proposed new trail south through Columbine

Meadows, thus eliminating looped-trail winter motorized recreation over a substantial area.

Rule:

Forest Plan

Discussion:

Inadequate parking: The area currently being used for parking, the Quarry Lot, was user-

created and too small to accommodate the need, resulting in vehicles parking along the road

(EA p. 2). The new parking area will be larger in size (approximately 3 acres) and will

accommodate 25-30 vehicles with trailers (EA, p. 4). Moving the parking lot to the NFSR 550

location will increase travel time to parking for all users; however, the size of the new lot will

satisfy parking needs based on parking counts conducted in recent years (EA, p. 27). This is

consistent with management area direction for area 5.11: General Forest and Rangelands. This

provides for specific recreation guidelines to manage for Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

(ROS) class of semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, roaded modified, or semi-primitive

non-motorized (EA, p. 3).

Snow Removal: The Forest is currently working to secure adequate plowing of this segment

of the road to assure access before closing the Quarry Lot (Appeal Record, Response to

Comments Section 2d, p. 186). The Forest understands this is a commitment of resources and

is willing to undertake this for the longer term social gain (Appeal Record, Response to

Comments Section 3c, p. 187). The plowing of roads during the winter season is common in

Colorado. Gravel and native surface roads are plowed on Forest Service lands for timber sales,

special uses and other access needs (p. 23 EA). The Ranger has recognized a long term

commitment to plowing is necessary; this commitment will be negotiated with Routt County.

If Routt County does not commit to this agreement, the Forest will seek other options (DN, p.

3). The plowing of 1.5 miles of road and the grooming of 1 miles of trail meets the purpose

and need to establish a parking area away from Columbine in order to reduce conflicts with

private landowners and completing a loop from the Routt National Forest north of Columbine

to the Steamboat Lake State Park (EA p. 2).

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.

3

APPEAL ISSUE I.B: Failure to include a plan for sanitation facilities at any of the

parking lots was contrary to the Forest Plan.

Appellant states: The Forest Plan requires that sanitation facilities be constructed at

trailheads. See Forest Plan at 1-15. The decision does not require sanitation facilities at the

550 Lot even though the record demonstrates they would be needed. Decision Notice at 3.

Failure to include sanitation facilities at the parking lot and trailhead violates the Forest Plan. Rule:

Forest Plan

Discussion:

The Forest Plan, page1-17, Recreation - Developed Recreation, Standard 6

states: “Provide parking, trailhead panels for trail information/interpretation, and appropriate

sanitation facilities at trailheads. Construct these facilities to be consistent with the

recreation setting.” The DN issued by Ranger Kingsbury authorizes a new winter trailhead and

parking area to be constructed at a site formerly used as a trailhead in the summer. This will

result in the use of this facility year-round. The expansion of the parking area to 3 acres will

accommodate greater use and overnight camping will be allowed. Page 3 of the DN/FONSI

states: “Trailhead facilities are included, and this action may include bathroom facilities.” The

EA, page 4, under the proposed action, also states, “If overall camping or overall use warrants,

a toilet will be installed.” Winter use records indicate use is sufficient to warrant a toilet based

FSM 2300-2006-2: “Provide a sufficient number of toilets. As a general rule, provide one

toilet for every 35 persons” (Appeal Record, p. 203).

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

with instructions that a bathroom facility be made available at this site or that the Forest Plan

be amended to exempt this site from Recreation – Developed Recreation, Standard 6.

APPEAL ISSUE II: The District Ranger’s decision regarding the Columbine access project

violates NEPA.

APPEAL ISSUE II.A: The District Ranger’s decision regarding the Columbine Access

Project violates NEPA because the agency did not afford the public an adequate

opportunity to participate in the decision.

Appeal Issue II.A, Sub-point 1: The District Ranger’s decision violates NEPA because

it was predetermined.

Appellant states: The District Ranger had decided to re-locate the parking lot to the 550 Lot

by March 2009, long before she sent out the scoping in July 2009. In pre-determining the

location of the parking lot, the District Ranger prevented herself from taking the required

hard look at a range of alternatives in violation of NEPA.

Rule:

FSH 1909.15

4

Discussion:

In October 2008, the District listed the “Columbine Parking Area and snowmobile reroute”

as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (Appeal Record, p. 1).

The project was described as follows: “Re-routing of existing snowmobile trail west of

current location and construction of approximately 3 acre parking area near trail head.” On

October 19, 2008, the District conducted a field trip with Routt Powder Riders (RPR),

Colorado Snowmobile Association (CSA), and Steamboat Lake Snowmobile Club (SLSC) to

discuss non-motorized user‟s concerns. On February 11, 2009, RPR wrote a letter to the

Forest Service raising their concern regarding the location of the proposed parking area

(Appeal Record, pg. 13). Ranger Kingsbury responded to RPR‟s letter stating: “Another part

of the Forest Service proposal identified the need for a new parking area north of Columbine

on FSR 550 with capacity for more truck and trailer parking (Appeal Record, p. 29).

During a County Commissioner‟s meeting on March 3, 2009, Ranger Kingsbury was quoted

as saying, “The nearby parking lot‟s location north of Columbine is non-negotiable because

summer parking accommodations for four-wheelers as well as snowmobiles in winter, have

to be considered” (Appeal Record, pp. 33-34). The Forest Service received numerous emails

and letters questioning her comment (Appeal Record, pp. 43 - 53). Ranger Kingsbury

responded to the questions as follows:

“I made a mistake by not saying a parking lot north of Columbine is non-negotiable.

I stand by this comment today. I believe that a winter parking lot south of Columbine

will not address the concerns raised by Columbine homeowners nor address our need

for a summer parking area for ATV‟s. I am completely negotiable on where the

parking lot is located north of Columbine and very willing to see if an additional

parking lot is needed south of Columbine” (Appeal Record, p. 43).

“When putting together this parking area and bypass trail idea, we have always

considered the parking area for year round use. We don‟t want to make the mistake

of small parking lots again for snowmobile and ATV use. When I consider the

summer ATV use, it does not make sense to have the parking lot south of Columbine.

I believe I made a mistake in not saying this upfront. The location of a parking area

north of Columbine is negotiable, including expanding the gravel pit to an actual

parking area. An additional parking area south of “Columbine is also negotiable”

(Appeal Record, p. 47).

“I actually said the location “north of Columbine” is not negotiable. Our intent in the

beginning of every project is to be open to all options. Once I received your

alternative, I realized my mistake in not laying out all the issues associated with the

new parking areas and the need for the parking area to be north of Columbine”

(Appeal Record p. 53). In the July 2009 SOPA, the “Columbine Parking Area and snowmobile reroute” was changed

from a CE to an EA. Project description remained the same as previously stated for the CE

(Appeal Record, p. 2).

As identified above, Ranger Kingsbury made numerous efforts to clarify misconceptions

surrounding her “non-negotiable” statement made at the March 3, 2009 County

Commissioners meeting.

5

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: The Responsible Official explained the purpose of and need for the

project in numerous ways, to diverse entities, and throughout the planning process. The

Responsible Official offered considerable opportunities to comment and participate in the

decision as required by NEPA. I recommend that the District Ranger‟s decision be affirmed

on this issue.

Appeal Issue II.A, Sub-point 2: The Forest Service failed to give adequate notice of the

project because the selected alternative reaches far beyond the limited purpose and

need identified by the Scoping Notice and Environmental Assessment.

Appellant states: The Forest Service selected an alternative that far exceeds the purpose and

need as described to the public. NEPA requires agencies to give the public an opportunity to

participate in the decision making process. As described in the Scoping Notice and

Environmental Assessment, the purpose of the project was described as “maintain[ing]

groomed and marked snowmobile trail access and connectivity from Steamboat Lake State

Park to the Routt National Forest area north of Columbine and [] creat[ing] parking on NFS

lands away from residential areas to reduce conflicts with private landowners.” See EA at 2-

3; see also Decision Notice at 4. The need for the project was to remove Forest Service

snowmobile trail grooming on NFSR 490 and to reduce conflicts over parking near

Columbine. See EA at 2-3; see also Decision Notice at 4.

Rule:

FSH 1909.15, Environmental policy and Procedures Handbook

Discussion:

The Forest Service provided numerous opportunities for the public to participate in the

decision making process, as required by 40 CFR 1501.7; 36 CFR 215.2, 215.6 (a) (4), (6); 36

CFR 215.6(a)(1)(i); 36 CFR 219.5 (a) (1-6); 36 CFR 220(e) (1); CEQ regulations Sec

1501.2; Sec 1501.7; Sec, 1506.6; and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapters 10 & 11.

During the winters of 2008 – 2009 and the spring of 2009, the Forest Service hosted several

meetings to discuss the proposed project with various publics (Appeal Record, pp.13-15, 16-

26; EA p.5). During the summer of 2009, the Forest Service hosted a public meeting and

field trip; the No Action alternative, the Forest Service‟s Proposed Action, and alternatives

presented by Friends of the Routt Backcountry and Routt Powder Riders were discussed at

these events (Appeal Record, p. 223-226; EA, p. 5; DN, p. 5). In July and October of 2009,

the Forest Service listed the proposed action in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), as

required by36 CFR 219.5 (1-6) and 40 CFR 1501.7. Scoping letters were sent to Interested

Parties on July 17, 2009 (Appeal Record, pp. 3-12; EA, p. 5; DN, p.5); the Forest Service

accepted scoping comments on the proposal until August 25, 2009 (EA p. 5, DN p. 5).

The Forest Service used the scoping comments to develop a list of project-specific issues and

alternatives, per CFR 215.6 (a) (4); (6); 36CFR 219.4, 36 CFR 219.5 (Appeal Record pp.

203-204; EA p. 5). These issues and alternatives were discussed and analyzed in the EA as

required by 36 CFR 219.6 and CEQ regulation 1502.14. The EA was provided to the public

6

for a 30 day review period from October 3, 2010 to November 2, 2010 as per 36 CFR 215.2;

36 CFR 219.5 (a) (1-6) (EA, p. 5;p DN, p. 5).

The Forest Service reviewed the comments provided by the public as required by 36 CFR

215.6 (a) (4); (6) and CEQ Regulations Sec 1503.4 (Appeal Record pp. 184-195). The Forest

Service responded to public comments on the EA in the Response to Comments document

(Appeal Record, pp. 184 – 195). Comments relating to the completion of a winter

recreation/travel management plan; separation of recreational uses; and the loss of

snowmobile access and terrain, among others, was addressed (Appeal Record, pp. 185-187;

comments 2a, 2b, 2d, and 4a). The Forest Service responded to those comments (2a, 2b, 2d,

and 4a) by stating that this proposal was not intended to (a) complete a comprehensive winter

recreation/travel management plan; (b) to designate travel management restrictions; (c) to

create non-motorized recreation areas (d) reduce access for any recreation user group

(Appeal Record, pp. 185-187; comments 2a, 2b, 2d, and 4a).

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: The Responsible Official offered considerable opportunities to comment

and participate in the decision as required by NEPA. I recommend that the District Ranger‟s

decision be affirmed on this issue.

Appeal Issue II.A, Sub-point 3: The Forest Service’s failure to document its

modifications to the proposed action or provide its responses to comments violated its

obligations under NEPA to give the public an opportunity for informed participation.

Appellant states: The Forest Service altered its proposed action between the scoping notice

and issuance of the Environmental Assessment without documentation or explanation. The

District Ranger dropped from the proposed action the groomed trail and snowmobile access

point from Trilby Flats along Trail 1156, which she originally proposed to the public in her

July 17, 2009 Scoping Letter. Agency NEPA procedures required her to discuss this major

change to the proposed action. See Alternative Development Options, FSH 1909.15_10.

The Forest Service failed to provide its responses to over 200 comments submitted in

response to the scoping notice and the Environmental Assessment (“EA”). The Decision

Notice (“DN”) states that comments received after issuance of the EA were included in the

EA, but there is no explanation for how the District Ranger included comments and her

responses in the EA or DN. The District Ranger’s failure to provide her response to

comments runs contrary to Forest Service practice and denies the public the opportunity for

meaningful participation in violation of NEPA.

Rule:

FSH 1909.15, Environmental policy and Procedures Handbook, Chapter 10

Discussion:

Following the close of the formal 30-day comment period for this project (November 2,

2009) the Forest modified the proposed action by dropping Trail 1156. The modification

was made during a November 18, 2009 Interdisciplinary Team meeting (Appeal Record, p.

203) and was made following a review of the public comments received during the comment

period (Response to Comments, Section 2e, Appeal Record, p. 186). At the meeting 159

7

scoping responses were reviewed and categorized by the Team and Ranger. Significant

issues were identified and carried forward. The Forest‟s proposed alternative was carried

forward with the modification that the 1156 Trail was to be dropped from the Forest‟s

proposed action because it did not meet the purpose and need of the project (DN, p. 4;

Appeal Record p. 203). Trail 1156 was, however, carried forward and analyzed as part of

Alternative 3 (EA, p. 10). The EA indicates that alternatives were developed based on

significant issues raised by the public and other agencies (EA, p. 1). The EA‟s comparison

of alternatives supported concerns that Trail 1156 would be too close to private lands and

would lead to undesirable impacts (EA, p. 14). The modification is part of the Appeal

Record (p. 203).

Response to Comments: The District prepared a Response to Comments document to

respond to comments raised during the two 30-day comment periods for this project (Appeal

Record, Response to Comments, pp. 184-195). On April 7, 2011, Routt Powder Riders, Inc.

submitted a FOIA request to obtain the Response to Comments document (Appeal Record, p.

201). The Forest sent the Response to Comments document to Routt Powder Riders, Inc. on

April 8, 2011. Documentation of Ranger Kingsbury‟s consideration of 159 scoping public

comments is found in an Interdisciplinary Team meeting on November 18, 2009 (Appeal

Record p. 203). Documentation of Ranger Kingsbury‟s consideration of 79 public comments

received in response to the October 3, 2009 formal comment period occurred on December

14, 2010 (Appeal Record p. 205). All comments received were considered prior to the

preparation of the DN (Appeal Record, Response to Comments, p. 184). The DN states

“minor adjustments to the proposed action were made based on comments received during

the 30 day formal comment period, and final on the ground review by my staff” (DN, p. 2).

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.B: Designation of the non-motorized area east of the Columbine

residential community was outside the stated purpose and need of the Columbine Access

project in violation of NEPA.

Appellant states: The designation of the non-motorized area east of Columbine through the

Columbine Meadows was outside the stated purpose and need of the project. The

environmental assessment must include a statement regarding the purpose and need of the

project. The stated purpose of the Columbine Access Project was: (1) “to maintain groomed

and marked snowmobile trail access and connectivity from Steamboat Lake State Park to the

Routt National Forest area north of Columbine”; (2) “to create parking on NFS lands away

from residential areas”; (3) “to reduce conflicts with private landowners” EA at 2; See also,

Decision Notice at 4. The twin needs of the project were to remove grooming on the portion of

NFSR 490 that extends through private landholdings and to reduce conflicts between

recreationalists and landowners over parking. Id.

Rule:

40 CFR Section 1502.13, Purpose and Need

FSH 1909.15

8

Discussion:

The purpose and need for this project is “to maintain groomed and marked snowmobile trail

access and connectivity from Steamboat Lake State Park to the Routt National Forest area

north of Columbine and to create parking on NFS lands away from residential areas and to

reduce conflicts with private land owners. This action is needed to remove Forest Service

sponsored snowmobile trail grooming on the portion of NFSR 490 across the private land

easement and to reduce conflicts over parking near the community of Columbine” (EA, p. 2).

The Forest Service did not “designate” non-motorized areas as a result of this planning effort.

The map in the EA (p. 8) shows the area as “historical non-motorized use.” The EA also

states:

“The terrain around the proposed trail is commonly known as “Columbine Meadows”, an

easily accessible area used historically by non-motorized backcountry enthusiasts.

Snowmobiling is not prohibited in this vicinity. With other quality terrain in the north

Routt area, many snowmobilers respect this non-motorized use” (EA, p. 4)

The recreation section of the EA, under „Effects of Alternative 2‟, explains how the area

designated as “historical non-motorized” will be signed and mapped as “historical non-

motorized.” The DN changed the boundary of this area to coincide with the 7.1 Management

Are described in the Forest Plan. The eastern boundary of this designated area will be

expanded as shown on the map, coinciding with use of the area by non-motorized users (DN, p.

2). The area on Hahn‟s Peak identified in the Alternative 2 map will be treated as a voluntary

non-motorized area, to inform those not familiar with local etiquette, and continue the good

faith understandings. Existing behavior of all participants is expected to continue.

The Forest Service reviewed the comments provided by the public as required by 36 CFR

215.6 (a) (4); (6) and CEQ Regulations Sec 1503.4 (Appeal Record, pp. 184-195). The Forest

Service responded to public comments on the EA in the Response to Comments document

(Appeal Record, pp. 184 – 195). Comments relating to the completion of a winter

recreation/travel management plan; separation of recreational uses; and the loss of snowmobile

access and terrain, among others, were responded to as follows: “This proposal was not

intended to (a) complete a comprehensive winter recreation/travel management plan; (b) to

designate travel management restrictions; (c) to create non-motorized recreation areas (d)

reduce access for any recreation user group” (Appeal Record, pp. 185-187; comments 2a, 2b,

2d, and 4a).

The Forest Service‟s response to Comment 2d addressed the non-motorized area east of the

Columbine Residential Community by stating:

“The purpose and need for this analysis did not propose to reduce access for any

recreation user group. Based on comments received by both non-motorized and

motorized users the identified “non-motorized” area is a currently viewed as an informal

voluntary separation of uses, and snowmobilers respect this through avoidance. As a

result, general snowmobile traffic is less intense than other areas of the Forest, but some

still exists as a pass through. A voluntary closure is continuation of how people are

currently respecting alternate uses of the area” (Appeal Record, p. 186).

In a memo to the file dated April 20, 2011 (Appeal Record, p. 381), under the subject of

“Terminology Clarification and Design Criteria Correction”, the term “historical non-

motorized use area” was used to describe an area shown on the map. During the scoping for

9

the analysis, this area was called “suggested non-motorized use area” and in the DNFONSI, it

is written as “non-motorized use area.” Each of these terms is synonymous for the voluntary

separation of uses currently in place and to be used to educate non-local snowmobilers in this

area. The omission of “historical” in this definition in the EA was not meant to designate or

change prior definitions.

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: The Forest Service clarified the term “historical non-motorized use area”

and is looking at the voluntary separation of uses currently in place. The area is termed

“historical non-motorized”; it is not designated as non-motorized. I recommend that the

District Ranger‟s decision be affirmed on this issue.

APPEAL ISSUE II.C: The District Ranger failed to consider a range of reasonable

alternatives.

Appeal Issue II.C, Sub-point 1: The District Ranger’s comparison of alternatives fails

to evaluate adequately whether each meets the purpose and need as stated in the

Scoping Notice and Environmental Assessment.

Appellant states: In making her decision, the District Ranger was required to consider a

range of reasonable alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).

42 U.S. C. 4332; 40 C.F.R. 1502.14. Consideration and evaluation of the alternatives is the

“heart” of the NEPA process. Council on Environmental Qual., NEPA’s Forty Most Asked

Questions, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026-01the EA fails to determine which alternatives meet the

purpose and need because it does not compare alternatives on the basis of whether they

provide groomed trail access and connectivity in the area.

Rule:

42 U.S.C. 4332

46 Fed. Reg. 18026-0140

CFR Sec. 1502.14

Discussion:

On November 18, 2009 the Columbine Access IDT analyzed alternatives for adequacy in

meeting the purpose and need and addressing issues (Appeal Record, p. 203). This

discussion provides an adequate discussion as to why alternatives were eliminated from the

analysis. Several public comments and alternatives were received in response to the

Proposed Action that provided suggestions for achieving the purpose and need (EA, p. 5).

Specifically, seven alternatives were evaluated for this project to determine if they: (1)

resolved identified issues; (2) met the purpose and need for the project; and (3) were within

the scope of the analysis. Three alternatives, including the No Action and Proposed Action,

were considered in detail because they met the above mentioned criteria (EA, pp. 6-10). The

remaining four alternatives were given consideration but were eliminated from detailed study

(EA, pp. 11 – 13).

Table 1 (EA, p. 14) compares the alternatives to be considered in detail. Both action

alternatives are shown to meet the purpose and need even though “maintaining groomed

trails and connectivity for winter motorized recreation” is not specifically shown in the table.

10

The purpose and need did not state “maintaining adequate groomed routes for snowmobiles”

as a purpose. The purpose of this project was to maintain groomed and marked snowmobile

trail access (Scoping letter, Appeal Record, p. 3; EA, p. . 2; DN p. 4). The EA (pp. 11-13)

provides an adequate and reasonable discussion as to why these alternatives suggested by the

public were eliminated from detailed study. Finally, the Forest Service‟s Response to

Comments document discusses the range of alternatives under comments 2a, 2c, 4a, 4b

(Response to Comments, Appeal Record, pp. 184 - 195).

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: The Responsible Official considered a reasonable range of alternatives

as required by NEPA. I recommend that the District Ranger‟s decision be affirmed on this

issue.

Appeal Issue II.C, Sub-point 2: The District Ranger violated NEPA when she failed to

analyze the cumulative effects of the Columbine access project with the prior 2005

Travel Management actions that reduced opportunities for winter motorized recreation

together with reasonably foreseeable future effects.

Appellant states: The District Ranger failed to consider the cumulative impact the Columbine

Access Project decision would have on winter motorized recreation opportunities when

considered with other recent Forest Service decisions concerning winter recreation. The

Forest Service is required to consider the cumulative impact of a proposed action with past

actions. 36 C.F.R. 220.4(f).

Rule:

FSM 1909.15

36 CFR 220.4(f)

40 CFR 1508.7

Discussion:

The Recreation cumulative effects section of the EA states: “Considering past, present, and

future actions, no cumulative effects of implementing the alternative is anticipated” (pp.27 -

28). In response to a comment concerning loss of snowmobile access and terrain, the Forest

Service states: “The purpose and need for this analysis did not propose to reduce access for

any recreation user group” (Appeal Record, Response to Comments, comment 2d, p. 186).

According to 40 CFR 1508.7, cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment, not a

particular human use, which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.

The DN (p. 6. Item 7) indicates that the cumulative effects discussion in the EA evaluates

the combined effects of the project with past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future

actions. Based on the EA discussion and information identified during the public review of

the EA, there are no cumulatively significant impacts.

11

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: The Responsible Official analyzed the cumulative effects on the

environment of the Columbine Access Project as required by NEPA. I recommend that the

District Ranger‟s decision be affirmed on this issue.

Appeal Issue II.C, Sub-point 3: The trail along NFSR 418 that was discussed as part of

Alternative 2 is not technically feasible.

Appellant states: The selected alternative is not practical or feasible from a technical and

economic standpoint.

Rule:

46 Fed. Reg. 18026-01

Discussion:

On April 18, 2010, a representative from the Forest and from the SLSC went to the project

area to determine if the entire proposed trail, as well as the proposed trail along NFSR 418,

would be feasible. These individuals concluded that, due to the recent mortality of lodgepole

pine, the trail along the NFSR 418 segment could be easily widened. They also considered

the grooming of the trail; due to the fact that the groomer runs north to south, this segment of

trail would be groomed downhill. The Forest Service then checked with the groomer to see

if the proposed route was feasible and the groomer concurred. Thus, the route was carried

through the analysis (Notes from 4/18/2010 fieldtrip, Appeal Record, p. 208). Ranger

Kingsbury also made a minor adjustment in the location of a short segment of groomed trail

from NFSR 418 to NFSR 418.1 (A) to allow for more efficient grooming (DN, p. 2). 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.C, Sub-point 4: Alternative 3 (the Routt Powder Rider’s Alternative)

was the only reasonable alternative considered.

Appellant states: Alternative 3 was the most reasonable alternative and most effectively

meets the purpose and need.

Rule:

None identified

Discussion:

The Appeal Record demonstrates that the Forest Service reviewed potential alternatives for

adequacy in meeting the purpose and need and addressing issues during a November 18,

2009 IDT meeting (Appeal Record, p. 203). This discussion provided an adequate

discussion as to why alternatives were considered for or eliminated from the analysis.

12

Several public comments and alternatives were received in response to the Proposed Action

that provided suggestions for achieving the Purpose and Need (EA, p.5). Seven alternatives

were evaluated for this project to determine if they: (1) resolved identified issues (2) met the

purpose and need for the project and (3) were within the scope of analysis. Three

alternatives, including the Routt Powder Riders‟ Alternative 3, were considered in detail

because they met the abovementioned criteria (EA, pp. 6-10). The remaining four

alternatives were given consideration but were eliminated from detailed study. The EA

(p.10) provides an adequate and reasonable discussion as to why Alternative 3 was to be

considered and carried forward in the analysis. Table 1 (EA, p. 14) compares the alternatives

to be considered in detail. Both action alternatives are shown to meet the purpose and need.

In addition, the range of alternatives concern were addressed in the response to comments

document, under 2a, 2c, 4a, 4b comments (Appeal Record, Response to Comments, pp. 184-

195).

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: Alternative 3, Routt Powder Riders‟ Alternative, was considered and was

carried through the analysis in the EA. I recommend that the District Ranger‟s decision be

affirmed on this issue.

APPEAL ISSUE III: The Forest Service’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Appellant states: The decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

Rule: 5 U.S.C. 706(2) (A): Administrative Procedure Act

Discussion:

Documentation associated with this project began being compiled in 2006 (Appeal Record,

Chronology of Events, pp. 13-15). However, the project was not listed in the Schedule of

Proposed Actions until (Appeal Record, p. 1). Within the Appeal Record there are numerous

pieces of correspondence, emails, letters, meeting notes, and documented communications

between the Forest and various user groups and interested parties (see Appeal Record, pp. 1-183)

demonstrating the Forest‟s commitment to public involvement.

A 30-day Scoping comment period began after the legal notice for the Columbine Access Project

was published in the newspaper of record, the Steamboat Pilot, on July 26, 2009. The comment

period ran through August 25, 2009. Using the comments from the public and other agencies,

the IDT team developed a list of issues to address (EA, p. 5).

The 30-day formal comment period on the EA began after the legal notice for the Columbine

Access Project was published in the newspaper of record, the Steamboat Pilot, on October 3,

2010. The comment period ran through November 2, 2010. Public comment letters were

included in the project record.

In November and December of 2009, the Forest Service reviewed the public comments and

identified 12 issues to consider. From this list they identified three significant issues to be

carried forward through the analysis (Appeal Record, p. 203):

13

1. Private property concerns – FS trail too close to private property will cause trespass and noise

2. Need for adequate, accessible parking/trailheads 3. Impacts to community – noise, pollution, safety, year round access to homes

The purpose and need for action, as stated in the EA (p. 2), is to maintain to maintain groomed

and marked snowmobile trail access and connectivity from Steamboat Lake State Park to the

Routt National Forest area north of Columbine and to create parking on NFS lands away from

residential areas and to reduce conflicts with private land owners.

A Response to Comments document was prepared that addressed the 200+ comments received

during the two 30-day public comment periods for the Columbine Access Project Environmental

Assessment. All of the comments received were considered prior to the preparation of the

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for this analysis (Appeal Record, pp. 184-

195).

The appeal record demonstrates that public input was considerable and adequately considered in

the planning of this project.

Groomed trail through Columbine Meadows: In the District Ranger‟s letter to the file (dated

April 20, 2011, Appeal Record, p. 381) she clarifies the historical non-motorized use of the area

as meaning a voluntary separation of uses. As snowmobile use is not prohibited, it does not

constitute a designated non-motorized use area. In a letter from the Routt Powder Riders (RPR)

(dated August 25, 2009), RPR discusses the non-motorized area and requests that the land

between private land in Columbine and the Forest Service proposed trail be not designated “non-

motorized” to allow private landowners access to the groomed trail. This was considered and

incorporated by the District Ranger in the Decision Notice (p. 2). In an October 20, 2010 letter

from the CSA, they discuss the historic use of this area as non-motorized, the need for private

landowner access, proper signage and the suggestion to not designate this area as “non-

motorized.” This was also considered by the District Ranger and incorporated into the Decision

Notice (p. 2).

NFSR 418: Please see the response to Appeal Issue II.C, Sub-point 3

Clearing and grooming of over 2.5 miles of trail is unnecessary: Please see the response to

APPEAL ISSUE I.A

The decision to use the 418 trail was unnecessary, arbitrary, and capricious: The Forest

considered all reasonable alternatives during the planning process for this project. Dismissal of

Alternative 3 was based on the fact that the alternative does not meet the purpose and need for

the project (DN, pp. 3 - 4). Alternative 3 does not create a parking area on NFS lands to reduce

conflicts with private landowners (EA, p. 30) and did not route trail (1156) away from private

lands (DN, p. 14). Impacts to private property owners as a result of Forest Service actions were

considered a significant issue and were given a higher priority than recreation needs and wants

(Appeal Record, Response to Comments, Section 3b., p. 186). Furthermore, Alternative 3

resulted in greater environmental impacts by: a) including the crossing of Independence Creek;

b) proposing a trail through ¼ mile of riparian shrub and wetland habitat; and c) creating greater

overall ground disturbance and entailing the greatest amount of tree cutting (EA, p. 17). Finally,

the plowing of roads during the winter season is common in Colorado. Gravel and native surface

roads are plowed on Forest Service lands for timber sales, special uses and other access needs

(EA, p. 23). The Forest understands this is a commitment of resources and is willing to

14

undertake this for the longer term social gain (Appeal Record, Response to Comments Section

3c, p. 187) and is committed to plowing the road (DN, p. 3).

Moving the parking lot was arbitrary and capricious: Please see the response to APPEAL

ISSUE I.A

The decision fails to provide for sanitation facilities: Please see the response to APPEAL

ISSUE I.B

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.

RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the decision of the District Ranger‟s be affirmed and that the Appellant‟s

request for relief be denied.

/s/ Lori A. Bell

LORI A. BELL

Appeal Reviewing Officer

District Ranger, Pawnee National Grassland