|
We have a dedicated web page to the Mad Rabbit project where you can read the latest news. To bring everyone up to speed, Mad Rabbit is a proposed trails project by the Forest Service situated in Routt National Forest. Much of where the project is proposed is within CRAs (Colorado Roadless Areas) and elk habitat, including elk calving areas and summer range. A draft EA (Environmental Assessment) was released in late 2022, which led to over 700 comments being submitted from the public, mostly critical of the project. This was followed by a draft Final EA and draft decision notice to proceed in August 2023. We reported on its contents in our August newsletter. That was followed by a 45-day objection period where one could object to the FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact). We reported on who objected and why in our November newsletter. Since then, the Forest Service reviewed and responded to the objections by the December 11 regulatory deadline. There were 89 objectors in total, but 51 were ruled ineligible. That left 39 objectors. The Forest Service consolidated the objections within those objection letters to 15 discrete issues. Each issue summarized concerns from the objectors, followed by the Forest Service’s response. You can read the Forest Service’s response to each of the 15 issues here, or on our website. The Forest Service rejected all objections. Simultaneously, the Reviewing Officer (Forest Supervisor Russ Bacon) sent instructions to the Responsible Official (District Ranger Michael Woodbridge). These instructions must be completed before Mad Rabbit is approved. These instructions may be found on the objection response document above, but it is much easier to read the consolidated version of instructions on the cover letter to objectors here. There are 15 instructions in total. There is no calendar deadline for completing these instructions. Some are easy to add into the EA or Decision Notice, while others are much more challenging. We note that many of the instructions are specifically tailored to address the legal and process deficiencies that we and others identified in our comments and objections. We’ve done our own internal review and found the Forest Service response to our objections to be inadequate and flawed. Sometimes the Forest Service left out key concerns from an issue, so they responded to a less compelling straw dog, avoiding the most powerful aspects of the objection. Other times they misinterpreted their own regulations, documents, and scientific studies. We’ve articulated our concerns in great detail in our comment and objection letters, and they speak for themselves. We don’t have an estimate of when the instructions will be completed, allowing the decision notice to be signed. Rocky Smith, a long-time forest protection advocate, noted, “I have never seen a list of instructions anywhere near this long for any of the dozens of objections I have been involved with over the last 18 or so years.” Our observation is that the long list of instructions reflects the inadequacy of the original EA, and these issues should have been addressed a long time ago so the public could comment on them. As always, we will keep you updated.
|