|
In our December newsletter we reported that the Steamboat Springs City Council approved Mad Rabbit funding 5-2 on December 3. While we were disappointed in this result, we recognize that once the Mad Rabbit NEPA is approved, any party can fund it. We were more disappointed that increased funding for city trails was declined. As Jason Belvins reported in the Colorado Sun, Steamboat is not unique. Belvin writes, “It’s a contentious narrative playing out across the Western Slope as residents of busy mountain towns push elected leaders to focus more on the local quality of life and less on the visitor experience. That’s a bold move in communities built by tourist dollars. And it’s a sign of the changing tides in tourism-based economies. So, what is the status of Mad Rabbit? The Forest Service has indicated multiple times over the past months that the EA (Environmental Assessment) is imminent. This would be the final environmental approval that would allow Mad Rabbit construction to begin. As we previously reported, Forest Service Supervisor Russ Bacon issued 15 instructions to District Ranger
Michael Woodbridge over a year ago that need to be completed before Mad Rabbit
is approved. Most consequential of those instructions was development of an
adaptive management plan. “I instruct the Responsible Official to ensure an
adaptive management plan is collaboratively developed by the Forest Service and
the Colorado Department of Natural Resources prior to Forest Service approval
to start construction and implementation, that would address objectors concerns
related to unauthorized off-trail use, violations of seasonal closures and
recreation setting in addition to impacts on wildlife or habitat, including
developing a potential phased approach to trail construction based on this adaptive
management plan.” A draft of that plan had been completed sometime last August, and can be read here. The agreement on this plan led to Colorado DNR and CPW retracting their objection to the project, and that retraction was a major element in the Steamboat Spring City Council’s decision to fund the project. We subsequently inquired to the status of the Mad Rabbit EA at the Routt Recreation and Conservation Roundtable in December, and was told it was going through a subsequent review by the Forest Service in Washington, D.C. As of the publication of this newsletter, the EA has not been approved. We have no insight into a timeline for a decision. Our working assumption is that Mad Rabbit will eventually be approved in some manner. It is with that assumption that we have made an offer to the Forest Service and CPW to acquire the technical equipment, largely game cameras, needed to execute the baseline elk study called out in the adaptive management plan. We would also manage a volunteer effort for the deployment of that equipment, all under the control of the responsible land manager. Our reading of the adaptive management plan is that gathering the required baseline data is a critical path to assure that impacts are not significant as part of phased implementation of the Mad Rabbit project. Without it, the project can’t proceed. So, some may ask, why are we enabling this? Simply put, we are a science-based organization, and we believe in executing the science called out in the adaptive management plan. The data is not only essential for the phased rollout of Mad Rabbit itself but would also bring useful insights for the planning of future trail projects in Colorado. There is also the overall credibility of adaptive management plans as a basis for project approvals in the future. In theory, a properly designed and resourced adaptive management plan can ensure that a project remains within the bounds of a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact). This is the purpose of this plan. If this specific plan is successful in avoiding or mitigating the impacts, it could become a model for future trail projects, particularly controversial ones. But if it fails due to poor execution, adaptive management plans will receive a black eye from this highly visible project, and are likely to be discounted and avoided in the future. The stakes are high. Conversations with the Forest Service and CPW about our offer have revealed some confusion of who has responsibility for performing the study. We encourage both parties to come to an agreement on who has ultimate responsibility, and on the specific design and execution of the study. We stand ready to help, but the window is rapidly closing to execute the baseline study this year.
|
