New trails planned for the top of Rabbit Ears Pass promise smooth singletrack, but the process to get those pathways has been rocky.
In a classic New West battle pitting those wanting more trails for recreation against those fearing encroachment on wildlife, the conflict centers around the Mad Rabbit project, a U.S. Forest Service plan to increase the number of recreational trails atop Rabbit Ears Pass.
Already six years in the making, the proposal is proving to be an example of the challenges facing both communities and land managers as they balance growing recreational demands with the need to conserve and minimize impacts to wildlife and habitat. So, the gloves are still off, with diverse recreational users scrapping for access while others vie for protecting habitat, with the Forest Service acting as referee.
Just ask the Forest Service, whose inbox has been sizzling at the seams with comments on the proposal.
“There are plenty of people involved in this one, with plenty of viewpoints,” Forest Service recreation program manager Brendan Kelly said. “Being a recreational project, a lot of people are excited for different reasons.”
The Mad Rabbit project dates to 2013, when local voters approved Steamboat’s 2A Trails ballot measure, which received 71% of the vote and dedicated funds from an existing 1% lodging tax — estimated to exceed $5 million over 10 years — to help build trails over the decade that followed. The ballot proposal called for 46 sections of trail within 30 miles of town, with the Mad Rabbit trail network on Rabbit Ears one of the final pieces of the voter-approved Steamboat Trails Alliance Proposal.
“It’s the last jewel in a string of projects outlined in the 2A Accommodations Tax program and will offer great access and take traffic away from other high-use areas like Buffalo Pass,” said Laraine Martin, executive director of local bike advocacy group Routt County Riders, adding it was a joint effort by everyone from local biking and running nonprofits to the city, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Many of the trails outlined in the Steamboat Trails Alliance Proposal have already been built, especially up on Buffalo Pass just north of town where cleaning up unofficial user trails and creating new ones was prioritized to bring the zone into the official Forest Service trail network. Mad Rabbit, named for the original concept of connecting the Mad Creek and Rabbit Ears Pass areas with trails, comprises phase two.
But it’s turning into another example of the Yampa Valley’s struggle to balance recreation demand with natural resource protection, an equilibrium that’s proven hard to find.
In 2007, thanks to the efforts of the local Emerald Mountain Partnership, the BLM acquired 4,139 acres on Emerald Mountain, Steamboat Springs’ crown jewel, through an exchange with the Colorado State Land Board. The deal opened up trails to non-motorized recreation. It, too, proved contentious. So did the Forest Service’s phase one of the 2A trail building project on Buffalo Pass. Even the Steamboat Ski Resort’s various expansions, including this winter’s opening of the new Mahogany Ridge chair on Pioneer Ridge — adding 655 acres of advanced/expert terrain while making Steamboat the second largest ski resort in Colorado — has seen people on both sides of the habitat preservation vs. recreation fence.
The original Mad Rabbit proposal has since been scaled back due to opposition from groups maintaining that the new trails would encroach on critical wildlife areas. Now, despite the Forest Service’s release in August of a multi-year Environmental Assessment for the project, which had been overhauled to address public comments, the proposal continues to ruffle feathers.
The environmental assessment process for the project began in 2017 and “has gone through a few different iterations,” Kelly said, adding the Forest Service also vetted it with everyone from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Division of NAtural Resources, with three different comment periods over that time.
“Those were the times for everyone to voice their concerns, which we took into consideration,” said Kelly, noting the Forest Service received about 700 comments during the comment periods, placing it “in the middle of the road” as far as feedback.
The final comments for the draft environmental assessment were due Oct. 15, Kelly said.
“Now we’re reviewing those objections, which is the final component of the process before the district ranger figures out the final path forward, which should come sometime in December.”
What’s all the fighting about?
Located mostly in Routt County on the north side of U.S. 40 west of Rabbit Ears Pass, the final plan proposes 49 miles of new trails accessed from the west summit of Rabbit Ears Pass, while also closing about 36 miles of “user created” — or rogue — trails to preserve habitat. Most of the new trails would be developed within a mile of U.S. 40, a habitat area the Forest Service says is already compromised by the highway.
It would include connectors from Ferndale to Fox Creek and Bruce’s Trail, as well as one from the west summit to Dumont and an alternate to a portion of the Continental Divide Trail. Added trails would also be aligned to minimize impacts to sensitive forest areas and seasonal closures would be placed in certain areas during the elk calving season.
But even after years of review by the Forest Service and an extended public comment period, the controversy goes on. After the environmental assessment was released in August, the opinion page of the Steamboat Pilot newspaper lit up with letters.
Supporters include groups like Routt County Riders, the Steamboat Springs Running Series and others advocating for more trails as other areas get more crowded. Opponents include organizations like Keep Routt Wild, which says the trails encroach upon wildlife habitat.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the Routt County Commissioners also voiced objections to the proposal. In November, the Routt County Board of Commissioners sent a letter asking the Forest Service to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement for the project, which is a higher-level and longer environmental review.
“We applaud the USDA Forest Service for its efforts … to engage the community in the project’s development and to make necessary adjustments to scale-down the project in areas that have been deemed environmentally sensitive,” it read. “However, we would be remiss if we did not share our growing concern about the cumulative impacts of increased recreation on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests in areas adjacent to, or within, Routt County.”
The commissioners also raised Colorado Department of Transportation concerns regarding accessing the Ferndale area off U.S. 40, where many of the trails would begin, and the potential of increased burdens for first responders.
The Colorado Department of Natural Resources also requested a full EIS in its comments, as did Keep Routt Wild, the Colorado Wildlife Conservation Project, and other organizations.
In its letter objecting to the project, Keep Routt Wild argues that a more comprehensive EIS is required by law because most of the trails are in a Colorado Roadless Area and that “3,900 acres of land would be newly disturbed under the current Mad Rabbit proposal.”
“We’re a community organization dedicated to preserving wildlife and wild places in Routt County,” said Keep Routt Wild president Larry Desjardin. “Our mission is to promote policies and practices for the benefit of conserving the Yampa Valley for future generations of outdoor enthusiasts by balancing opportunities for recreational development with the habitat needs of wildlife. Unfortunately, the Mad Rabbit Trails Project falls short of that mark. Specifically, it impinges on critical elk habitat, including elk calving areas and elk summer range—all at a time when the local E2 elk herd, the second largest in Colorado, has seen an unprecedented decline.”
Desjardin also added that many of the trails will also be located in a designated Colorado Roadless Area, or CRA, whose rule is clear.
“Any proposed action that alters the undeveloped character of a CRA requires an Environmental Impact Statement,” he said, adding the expected use on the new trails exceeds the CRA metrics of a recreational user encountering 15 or fewer parties a day. “The Forest Service has not evaluated any of this. And it defended the proposal’s impact on elk habitat by using an obsolete model from 1983 that only takes into consideration the impact from roads, not trails, and since there are no roads in the proposal it claims there is no loss to elk habitat effectiveness.”
Desjardin said his group counted more than 20 organizations who objected to the proposal, including the local Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Colorado Wildlife Foundation and more, and proposed a compromise proposal that increases recreational opportunities while protecting the needs of wildlife. “We hope the Forest Service accepts it as it would become a model on balancing recreation and conservation across the Rocky Mountain West,” he said.
But Kelly maintains the environmental assessment already addresses potential impacts to elk and their habitat and was designed to maximize habitat connectivity by concentrating trails within a mile of open roads, U.S. 40, and existing day use areas or campgrounds while leaving large, undisturbed areas in the Long Park Colorado Roadless Area.
“In response to public involvement and comments, multiple changes were made to the proposed action to address resource concerns and potential impacts,” he said. While elk get the most attention, the habitat needs of other animals, including the Canada lynx, and other potential impacts were assessed including wetlands, grazing, highways, historical structures, wilderness and roadless areas. “The public is most engaged with elk, but we factored in a number of other plant and animal species as well.”
Kelly added that the Forest Service has worked with CPW all along during the Draft EA. “We used their most recent numbers and continue to engage with CPW as far as potential impacts to elk habitat,” he said. “They’re a longstanding partner of ours and have good information on the current populations and how to best move forward.”
District ranger’s voice will be the loudest
The buck stops with Forest Service District Ranger Michael Woodbridge. But while still taking objections into consideration, he is clear about the current proposal’s EA, recently filing an official Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the project.
Woodbridge said the agency will not prepare a more involved Environmental Impact Statement, saying the environmental assessment “determined the proposed project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.” The district ranger also said the proposed trails “may provide some benefit by taking pressure off the three nearby popular wilderness area trails in the Mount Zirkel, Flattops and Sarvis Creek wilderness areas.”
Proponents of the current proposal agree.
“This is what they came up with and what they feel is a great trail system for everyone,” Routt County Riders’ president Craig Frithsen said, adding that 60% of the original, previously approved trail network has already been cut out of the proposal. “There’s a trail in there for everyone, including those for people with disabilities and a nature walk around a campground. It’s already a good compromise of conservation and developing new trail opportunities.”
Colorado Parks and Wildlife requested a more intensive environmental review to find a better balance between new trails and protecting wildlife habitat.
“We’re hopeful we can continue to work together to ensure an adapted management approach is employed through the final plan, which accounts for the wild and roadless characteristics that the area provides, while also facilitating trail-based recreation,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesman Chris Arend said.
The Forest Service’s Kelly said he’s not surprised at the number of comments received and the contentiousness of the proposal. He said recreation projects in other communities are just as controversial and the environmental-assessment process gives residents a voice.
“People are very engaged because they’re passionate about recreation, whether it’s hunting, fishing, skiing, trails, what have you,” he said. “But we always welcome public input. The more people get involved the more we can understand their concerns. And there are plenty of people involved in this one, with plenty of viewpoints.”