United States Department of Agriculture Rabbit Ears Winter...

6

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rabbit Ears Winter Parking Environmental Assessment

Hahns Peak / Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow / Routt National Forest, Routt County, Colorado

June 2014 East Summit Parking, Rabbit Ears Pass

Hahns Peak / Bears Ears Ranger District, Medicine Bow / Routt National Forest

For More Information Contact:

Chad Stewart, District Ranger Hahns Peak / Bears Ears Ranger District

925 Weiss Drive Steamboat Springs, CO. 80487

Phone: 970 870 Email:[email protected]

Fax:970 870 2284

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for

program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office

of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.1


i

Contents Contents ............................................................................................................................................ i Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................................................. 3 Need for the Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 3 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ................................................................................... 4 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................... 6

Alternative 1 (No Action) ........................................................................................................... 6 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ................................................................................................. 6

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................. 15 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................................................... 15 Botany ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Economics ................................................................................................................................. 19 Heritage ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 22 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 27 Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 33 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 35 Visual Resources ....................................................................................................................... 39 Wildlife ..................................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix 1 - Design Criteria Summary ........................................................................................ 45 Appendix 2 - References ............................................................................................................... 48 Appendix 3 - Legal Framework .................................................................................................... 53 Appendix 4 - Public Involvement / Tribal Consultation – Involved Parties ................................. 56 Finding of No Significant Impact .................................................................................................. 61

Context ...................................................................................................................................... 61 Intensity ..................................................................................................................................... 61

List of Tables

Table 1: Existing and Proposed Parking Lot Capacity .................................................................... 6 Table 2: Acres of proposed Parking and Potential Disturbance ...................................................... 6 Table 3: Costs to implement the proposed action .......................................................................... 20 Table 4: Watershed Concerns Associated with the Proposed Action. ........................................... 25 Table 5: Timber Concerns Associated with the Proposed Action. ................................................ 38

List of Figures

Figure 1: Vicinity map .................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: West Summit proposed actions. ....................................................................................... 8 Figure 3: NFSR 296 new non-motorized user parking area. ........................................................... 8 Figure 4: Proposed Meadows Lot .................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Fox Curve parking area expansion................................................................................. 10 Figure 6: NFSR 302 turning lane and raised road bed. ................................................................. 11 Figure 7: New Dumont Parking area. ............................................................................................ 12 Figure 8: Muddy Creek expanded parking area. ........................................................................... 13 Figure 9: East Summit proposed actions. ...................................................................................... 14


1

Introduction We are proposing to improve winter parking on Rabbit Ears Pass by; re-designing three parking lots, closing two lots and constructing two replacement lots, construct turning lanes, restrooms and other facilities on approximately 10 acres. Total disturbed area during construction may be up to 27.79 acres. These actions are proposed to be implemented on the Hahns Peak / Bears Ears Ranger District of the Medicine Bow / Routt National Forest; Routt, Grand, and Jackson Counties, Colorado.

The Forest Service prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of

proposed parking lots and associated improvements may significantly affect the quality of the human

environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this

EA, the Forest Service is fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and

Alternatives section of this document.

Proposed Project Location The Rabbit Ears Winter Parking analysis area is located along US Highway 40 in the Middle Yampa

Geographic Area and Red Dirt Geographic Area as described in the Routt National Forest - Land and

Resource Management Plan of 1997 Revision (Forest Plan). See Figure 1.

Summary

As a follow-up item from the Winter Recreation Management EA (WRM) decision, the Forest Service

completed a parking analysis to improve parking for winter recreation activities along US Highway 40 on

Rabbit Ears Pass. Information from the WRM analysis along with monitoring conducted over the past

several year illustrates the need for better, safer, parking along US Highway 40. Public scoping was

conducted during the winter of 2012-2013, to help assist in developing a proposed action. During the

summer of 2013, Forest Service specialists determined a proposed action on the ground, and a formal

comment period soliciting further comments occurred in the fall of 2013.

Two alternatives are being considered, the No Action, and Proposed Action. Comments received did not

cause need for alternatives to the proposed action, however underscores the need for specific

requirements for successful implementation. The proposed action provides for vehicle and trailer

parking, restroom facilities and other facilities to meet existing demand for winter recreation enthusiasts.

Design Criteria and other mitigations will be followed to protect resources, while meeting the purpose and

need for the proposal.

Rabbit Ears Winter Parking

2

Figure 1: Vicinity map


3

Background

Due to the proximity to Steamboat Springs and Kremmling, allowing easy access from both east and west

on US Highway 40, the Rabbit Ears Pass area is a very popular winter recreation destination for

snowmobiling, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. Parking along this corridor occurs mostly in non-

engineered, off-road parking areas along the highway. This has led to unsafe parking ingress and egress

onto Highway 40, unorganized parking patterns which do not maximize capacity, for users who recreate

in the Rabbit Ears Pass area. Based on this, the need for improved parking has been recognized.

The Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan -1997 (Forest Plan) identified this area

as being "near-capacity" in terms of use along Highway 40 with a high demand for additional facilities off

the highway. The Winter Recreation Management and Routt Forest Plan Amendment Environmental

Assessment completed in 2005 (WRM) identified the need to increase day use parking for existing use

levels as a key recreation issue. Increased parking was considered in an alternative which was not

selected. With an exception to allow overnight parking and camping at the Muddy Creek lot, the Forest

Service deferred other decisions on parking. The Recommended Future Actions listed on page 20 of the

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impacts (DNFONSI) of the WRM states:

1. Complete a parking analysis in conjunction with CDOT for Rabbit Ears … and consider

enlarging Muddy Creek Parking Area to alleviate congestion in other motorized parking lots on

Rabbit Ears Pass.

While developing the proposed action, external scoping with the Colorado Department of Transportation

identified a need to relocate other parking areas away from the highway for public safety, separating

recreation traffic from highway traffic. They also made recommendations for closing/relocating several

parking areas.

Need for the Proposal As identified in the WRM 2005 DNFONSI, there is a need for addressing parking issues on Rabbit Ears

Pass. This analysis will consider and focus only on the parking improvements needed along US Highway

40 on Rabbit Ears Pass. The purpose of this project is to improve existing vehicle parking and staging

facilities on Rabbit Ears Pass for winter recreation users including; engineered parking lots sized to meet

current equipment needs, improved public safety, and additional sanitation facilities for the numbers of

users the Forest Service has been monitoring in recent years.

There is a need for:

Reducing conflicts between parking/parked winter recreational vehicles and through traffic on

Highway 40.

Controlling traffic and increasing safety of entry/exit points to and from parking areas and

Highway 40.

Engineering parking lots to accommodate larger recreational vehicles utilizing the parking areas

in motorized use areas, and provide better parking for non-motorized users.

Providing well-designed safer parking, high quality signs, and appropriate staging facilities.

The purpose of the proposal is to:

Improve existing vehicle parking and staging facilities.

Provide safe, well-designed parking lots to meet existing use.

Improve public safety by relocating parking areas away from Highway 40.


4

Allow for appropriate sanitation facilities.

The purpose of the proposed action is focused on the winter parking needs along Highway 40. The WRM

and DNFONSI addressed where snowmobiling and cross-country skiing are allowed and not allowed.

This proposal does not attempt to raise issues or change decisions already made in the 2005 Decision.

The scope of this analysis as described in the purpose and need is strictly to address the need to improve

vehicle parking and staging facilities along Highway 40 consistent with decisions made in the WRM plan

for recreation use.

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The Forest Service and interested parties have been having dialogue on parking improvements for many

years, before, during and following the 2005 WRM decision. On December 19, 2012 the Forest Service

outreached the public to solicit ideas to address the parking and staging concerns. A scoping document

was sent to known interested parties, including local snowmobile clubs; including but not limited to the

Routt Powder Riders and Colorado Snowmobile Association. Scoping documents and maps were also

posted at all parking areas on Rabbit Ears Pass, and press release in the Steamboat Today newspaper

generated a column helping to raise awareness.

The USFS received 47 responses, ranging from support, to various ideas on how improvements could

occur. Many different ideas were provided in the responses, and the interdisciplinary team met in April of

2013 to seek out the best options. Ideas offered both internally and externally included improvements to

existing locations, closing some lots in favor of larger snowparks, and keeping the status quo.

Snowparks are popular in other parts of snow country and have been successfully used in areas of high

use and where separation of use occurs. They are large parking areas for all users, with each use having

the ability to go their separate directions. In some cases these are fee areas where fees collected are used

to maintain the facilities, including toilets and snowplowing. The snowpark ideas were considered,

however, logical locations on Rabbit Ears Pass would not fully meet the purpose and need resulting in

changes to the existing winter recreation management in the area, which is outside the scope of this

analysis.

In the summer of 2013, the USFS reviewed potential parking lot locations and developed the proposed

action based on comments and ideas received during the initial scoping. This input was instrumental to

develop the final proposed action. A 30 day comment period commenced on November 3, 2013, with

posting of the proposed action in the SOPA, Legal Notice in the Steamboat Pilot. The Notice of Proposed

Action (NOPA) was mailed, both electronically or hard copy on October 31, 2013. A list of individuals,

Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies notified during the development of this EA can be located in

Appendix 4.

Issues/Concerns received from public input and internal resource specialists:

Existing parking – safety concerns, lack of warning signs

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) – lack of buffers between recreation and

highway traffic; parking lots at the end of passing lanes and lack of adequate sight distances at the

East and West Summit of Rabbit Ears Pass.


5

Impacts to rare plants, wetlands and riparian areas – wetlands and riparian areas will be avoided,

see hydrology, soils and aquatics sections for specifics.

Safety of improvements for the public – priorities, signs, need for turning lanes, timely snow

removal

Economic Sustainability – how to pay for improvements, operations and maintenance

No key or significant issues were raised that warrant the need for additional alternatives.

6

Proposed Action and Alternatives A no action and the proposed action alternatives were considered for this analysis:

Alternative 1 (No Action) The EA documents consideration of a no-action alternative through the effects analysis by contrasting the

impacts of the proposed action and any alternative(s) with the current condition and expected future

condition if the proposed action were not implemented (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2(ii).

Under the No Action Alternative, this proposal would not be implemented. No improvements for traffic

and winter recreation parking would occur. Current levels of parking capacity and bathroom facilities

would remain constant. West and East Summit parking areas would remain open and un-rehabilitated.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

To meet the purpose and need, the Forest Service proposes to improve existing vehicle parking and

staging facilities, install appropriate sanitation facilities, close unsafe parking areas, and improve the

safety of parking/turning areas on Rabbit Ears Pass for winter recreation. Implementation of the proposed

actions would begin summer 2014 and may take several years to complete. Priority will be based on

improving safety, ability to implement (e.g. logistics, funding, partnerships). Existing parking areas will

not be closed and rehabilitated until replacement parking capacity is functional. Existing parking

capacity will not be lost. The following tables include lots where changes are proposed. No changes are

proposed at the Bruce’s Trail, Walton Peak and Columbine lots.

Table 1: Existing and Proposed Parking Lot Capacity

LOT NAME Existing Estimated Capacity Proposed Capacity Change

West Summit 70 0 -70

NFSR 296 0 40 +40

Meadows 0 30 +30

Fox Curve 20 20 0

Dumont Lake 20 50 +30

Muddy Creek 60 90 +30

East Summit 30 0 -30

Table 2: Acres of proposed Parking and Potential Disturbance

PARKING AREA GEOGRAPHIC

AREA

PARKING

ACRES

MANAGEMEN

T AREA ACRES

296 Lot Middle Yampa 0.56 4.2 – Scenery 2.88

302 Turning Lane Middle Yampa 0.0 4.2 – Scenery 0.86

East Summit Red Dirt 0.0

4.2 – Scenery 0.79 Middle Yampa 0.0

Dumont Red Dirt 3.0 4.2 – Scenery 7.89

Fox Curve Middle Yampa 0.4 4.2 – Scenery 2.02


7

Meadows Middle Yampa 0.53 4.2 – Scenery 1.0

Muddy Creek Red Dirt 5.2 4.2 – Scenery 11.58

West Summit Middle Yampa 0.0 4.2 – Scenery 0.77

TOTAL 9.69 TOTAL 27.79

The proposed action aligns with goals, objectives, and strategies from the Forest Plan;

Forest-wide Goal 2: Provide a wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities and experiences

to meet the full range of visitor expectations

Forest-wide Standard and Guidelines for Recreation (Forest Plan p. 1-16 thru 1-19)

Routt National Forest Plan Amendment #3: Winter Recreation Management Plan

Desired conditions and recreation opportunity spectrum for the Middle Yampa (p. 3-54 thru 3-

57) and Red Dirt (p. 3-89 thru 3-91) Geographic Areas – providing high quality motorized and

non-motorized opportunities.

Management Area Prescription 4.2 – Scenery: Construct facilities to support recreation activities

which meet the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class for the area; and locate new

facilities off the main travelway, designed to be unobtrusive.

Management Area Prescription 4.3 – Dispersed Recreation: Manage for an ROS class of semi-

primitive motorized or roaded natural. Make resource management activities compatible with

recreation opportunities. Minimize impacts to other resources. Locate develop and manage

recreation sites to protect natural resources. Design roads and trails to blend with the landscape.

Specific actions are grouped by each parking area. Each parking area will be identified along Highway

40 with signs, and trailhead bulletin boards will provide necessary information.

West Summit Parking Current public parking areas along the north and south sides of Highway 40 would be closed for

recreational use. The primary functions as qualified by CDOT of these pullouts are for safety check

areas; brake checks before the westbound descent, and cooling off area after the eastbound climb.

Estimated capacity at the West Summit is approximately 70 vehicles on both north and south side of the

road. Lost parking capacity will be incorporated into the proposed NFSR 296 parking area on the north

side and the proposed Meadows Campground parking area to access trails on the south. Approximately

0.80 acres of parking would be moved to these alternate locations.

The existing pullouts would be closed and rehabilitated except for the area needed for highway use.

Colorado Department of Transportation will continue to plow and maintain the shoulder for highway use.

Signs will be installed explaining the changes and directing people to the new parking areas. The current

trail system will continue to be used, originating from the new parking lots. Unnecessary trails from

existing trailheads will be closed and rehabilitated.


8

Figure 2: West Summit - proposed no parking

NFSR 296 Parking Lot

This parking area is on the non-motorized winter use side of Rabbit Ears. A new parking area would be

constructed on the north side of NFSR 296 just off of Highway 40 with sanitation facilities. The new

parking area would be approximately 0.56 acres in size to accommodate parking for 40 vehicles and snow

storage. The new parking area is adjacent to the 1B Trails, and close to the 1A/1B junction. It would

also improve safety by locating recreational parking away from the highway. Approximately 2.48 acres

could be disturbed during implementation.

Figure 3: Proposed NFSR 296 parking lot.


9

Meadows Campground Parking To replace lost parking on the south side of Highway 40 at the West Summit, a lot on the access road to

the Meadows Campground will be constructed and plowed. It will be approximately 0.53 acres in size to

accommodate approximately 30 vehicles for winter use and snow storage. The lot would not be open to

public use in the summer months while the campground is open. An existing toilet in the Meadows

Campground can be used in the winter months for this trailhead. This new lot is near existing trails, so no

new trails are required. Approximately 3.85 acres could be disturbed during implementation.

Figure 4: Proposed Meadows Lot


10

Fox Curve Parking Area

This parking area will be increased in size in order to move parked vehicles further from Highway 40,

separating recreation and highway traffic, and create safer parking. No change in capacity is planned. The

level of the parking area will be raised improving visibility and reducing the incline when merging onto

the highway during winter driving conditions. One way traffic flow into and out of the lot will be defined

and separation of the lot from the highway will be created. Approximately 2.02 acres could be disturbed

during implementation.

Figure 5: Fox Curve parking area expansion.


11

NFSR 302 Turning Lane

NFSR 302 is plowed in the winter by a recreation special use permit holder providing guided snowmobile

tours. The existing intersection was designed primarily for summer use. A turning lane will be

developed along the south side of Highway 40 for a deceleration lane for the snowmobile tour operations.

This will require building up and expanding the shoulder and raising the roadbed of NFSR 302 as it

approaches Highway 40. This will improve safety for vehicles turning off the highway, reduce the steep

incline during winter driving when approaching the highways, and allow better visibility. The analysis

area (see map) identifies the maximum area that could be disturbed, 0.61 acres.

Figure 6: NFSR 302 turning lane and raised road bed.


12

Dumont Parking Area

Winter recreationists using the existing parking area are in close proximity to through traffic, merge onto

the highway at multiple locations, and frequently obstruct traffic while attempting to park and/or merge

onto the highway.

A new parking area, approximately 2.56 acres, would be constructed along NFSR 315 to accommodate

snow storage and capacity for 45-50 vehicles with trailers for winter use. The existing motorized user

parking area along the north side of Highway 40 would become part of a turning lane. The remaining

portion of the old parking area would be rehabilitated.

Turning lanes and new parking area would allow vehicles to park away from the highway to improve

safety. It would also provide for a single exit/entry point onto Highway 40. The larger parking area

would offset the lost parking capacity from closing East Summit parking area, incorporate parking

capacity from the current parking area, and allow more parking to meet the purpose and need of this

project. Sanitation facilities are proposed with the new parking area. The analysis area (9.39 acres)

includes all areas that could be disturbed during implementation.

Figure 7: New Dumont Parking area.


13

Muddy Creek Parking Area

Currently this parking area is the only lot located off of Highway 40 which increases safety by providing

a single point of entry/exit and keeps recreational vehicles removed from through traffic. The proposed

action would include enlarging the existing parking area by 1.0 acres into the surrounding trees.

Overnight parking will be available for approximately 45 vehicles and trailers. An additional parking

area would be constructed to the northeast (2.38 acres), with capacity for 47 vehicles and trailers for day

use only. Both lots will have room for snow storage.

Turning lanes could be constructed if traffic levels warrant for safer ingress and egress to Highway 40.

Additional capacity to existing sanitation facilities would be provided consistent with use levels by adding

an additional toilet building. The amount of disturbed area during construction would be approximately

8.58 acres. The larger parking area would offset the lost parking capacity from closing East Summit

parking area, accommodate snow storage, and provide both day and overnight parking. The existing

parking area may be designated for overnight camping. Gates and traffic control devices may be installed

to facilitate resource protection, control season of use, and insure efficient parking.

Figure 8: Muddy Creek expanded parking area.


14

East Summit Parking

This parking area will be closed due to recreation use. Winter recreationists using this parking area are in

close proximity to through traffic, merge onto the highway at multiple locations, and frequently obstruct

traffic while attempting to park and/or merge onto the highway. Lost parking capacity will be

incorporated into the expanded parking areas at Dumont and/or Muddy Creek parking areas.

Approximately 0.79 acres will be rehabilitated.

Figure 9: East Summit proposed actions.

Closing of the East Summit lot is the highest priority project. This can’t be done until replacement

capacity is developed. The following is a priorities list of projects within Alternative 2:

1. Dumont Parking – construct new lot

2. Muddy Creek – Expand existing lot

3. Muddy Creek – construct new lot

4. Close and rehabilitate East Summit Lot

5. NFSR 302 Turning lane

6. NFSR 296 lot

7. Meadows Lot

8. Close West Summit Lot

9. Fox Curve Lot


15

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Aquatic Resources

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The proposed actions are within the Walton Creek and Milk Creek-Muddy Creek sixth level watersheds.

There are no streams within the analysis areas. Riparian areas along stream channels are typically wide

willow, or alder communities. There are a few willow, grass, and alder riparian and/or wetland

communities that have formed in off-channel wet depressional areas along stream channels in the area.

State water quality classified uses in the analysis area include aquatic life cold 1, recreation E, water

supply, and agriculture. Aquatic species include brook trout, and various amphibians.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative there would be no change from the existing condition. No additional ground

disturbance or soil compaction would occur. There would be no affect to aquatic species.


No ground disturbance will in occur in streams, riparian area, or wetlands although ground disturbance

will occur adjacent to wetlands at two sites. The proposed project would have minimal impact to aquatic

habitat, aquatic Management Indicator Species, and amphibians. Short term impacts to habitat and

individuals may occur during implementation. Design criteria should minimize impacts to aquatic

resources.

Threatened and Endangered Species, R2 Sensitive Species

An evaluation of project effects on Federally listed species and Regionally Sensitive species are included

in the separate Aquatic BE/BA Report. This project is anticipated to have no effect to the bonytail chub,

Colorado pikeminnow, greenback cutthroat trout, humpback chub or razorback sucker. The Proposed

Action may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning

Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing for the Northern leopard frog and boreal toad.

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

Alternative 2 would provide for management of aquatic resources consistent with the Forest Plan.

DESIGN CRITERIA If breeding sites are found for any of the sensitive amphibian species and it is determined that the

proposed actions would negatively affect the site, then operations would cease in that area until

site specific mitigations can be implemented.


16

Botany AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Elevation in the analysis area ranges from 6,775 to 9,565 feet. Vegetation across Rabbit Ears Pass is

predominantly Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forests mixed with wet and dry meadows. Extensive

wetland complexes occur across the area.

his project defined the analysis area.

Threatened and Endangered Plant Species

No federally listed Threatened, Endangered or Proposed (TES) plant species or habitats were expected or

found in the project area or Routt County (USFWS 2014). Therefore no consultation with the US Fish

and Wildlife Service has been initiated for the proposed action.

R2 Sensitive Species

The 2013 Region 2 Sensitive Species List consists of 88 species, of which 31 are known or suspected to

occur on the Routt National Forest. Based on the pre-field review 17 species have potential to occur

within the project area. Surveys detected presence for one R2 sensitive species, Rabbit Ears gilia

(Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. webberi. Presence of narrowleaf moonwort (Botrychium lineare) cannot

reasonably be determined during surveys and will therefore be carried forward in the analysis (R2 FSM

2672.43). The other species were dropped from further analysis.

Narrowleaf moonwort (Botrychium lineare) has broad ecological amplitude, but has few, widely-disjunct

documented occurrences and small population abundances (Beatty et al. 2003). It occurs in riparian areas,

forest meadows and spruce-fir and lodgpole forests. Elevations can range up to 10, 500 ft. Global

distribution of this species is considered imperiled (CNHP 2014)

Rabbit Ear’s gilia (Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. weberi) is a northern Colorado endemic perennial herb with

a limited geographic range (Ladyman 2004). Distribution centers around Rabbit Ears Pass. It appears to

be an early to mid-successional species and typically inhabits road cuts and openings in coniferous forests

at elevations between 8000 and 9600 feet (Ladyman 2004). Global distribution of the subspecies is

considered vulnerable to extirpation (CNHP 2014). Surveys detected one occurrence in the vicinity of the

NFSR 296 parking area (~25 plants), one occurrence in the Meadows CG Parking AA (population ~200

plants), and one occurrence in the NFSR Turning Lane (~30 plants).

Species of Local Concern (SoLC)

Based on the pre-field review and field survey 62 SoLC species had potential habitat. Surveys did not

detect and SOLC species in any of the analysis areas, but did detect boreal bog sedge (Carex magellanica

var.irrigua) in the vicinity of the NFSR 302 Turning Lane. Presence of eight Botrychium species cannot

reasonably be determined during surveys, therefore these species will also be carried forward in the

analysis (R2 FSM 2672.43).

Boreal bog sedge (Carex magellanica var.irrigua) occurs in sphagnum peat lands, wet meadows, and

fens. One occurrence was found just downslope from the NFSR 302 Turning Lane. Other sphagnum

species were also found in the same area. Because sphagnum species are considered fen-obligates in

Colorado (Weber and Whitman 2007), it is highly likely that this area is a fen.

Reflected moonwort (Botrychium echo), western moonwort (B. hesperium), lance-leaved moonwort (B.

lanceolatum var. lanceolatum), common moonwort (B. lunaria), Mingan moonwort (B. minganense), pale

moonwort (B. pallidum), and northern moonwort (B. pinnatum), occur in forest meadows, disturbed areas,


17

avalanche chutes, clearings and along roadsides. Leathery grapefern (B. mulifidum) and little grapefern

(B. simplex) occur in wetlands, riparian transition areas and forest meadows at the spruce-fir zone.

Effects to Species Evaluated

No Threatened or Endangered species are carried forth in the analysis. Thus, the following effects section

applies only to Forest Service R2 sensitive species and species of local concern.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES


Under this alternative there would be no change from the existing condition. No improvements for traffic

and winter recreation parking would occur. Current levels of parking capacity and bathroom facilities

would remain. West and East Summit parking areas would remain open and would not be rehabilitated.

No additional ground disturbance or soil compaction would occur.

With the exception of the Rabbit Ears gilia population in the NFSR 302 Turning Lane AA, populations of

rare plants are unlikely to experience any direct or indirect effects from this alternative. Owing to its

proximity to US 40, the Rabbit Ears gilia population in the NFSR 302 AA could still be crushed by

vehicles pulling onto the shoulder and/or buried by sediment dislodged by these activities.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would not contribute to significant cumulative effects to rare plants or fens in or near the

analysis areas. Past and on-going actions within in the analysis area include hazard tree removal,

livestock grazing, winter recreation by snowmobiles and cross-country skiers, and summer recreation

including OHV-use, biking, hiking, and dispersed camping.


Direct effects to terrestrial species such as Rabbit Ears gilia include trampling of individuals resulting in

breaking crushing or uprooting. Individuals may be covered or smothered by slash, chips, or soil and may

have trees fallen over them. These impacts can physically damage individuals, populations, and/or the

habitat where they grow. This may reduce growth, development and/or seed set. Such impacts may also

cause mortality of individuals.

These direct effects are most likely to impact populations of Rabbit Ears gilia at the Meadows

Campground Parking and the NFSR 302 Turn Lane. Assuming the Meadows Campground Parking is

maintained as winter-use only design criteria #2 would reduce the impacts to the population of Rabbit

Ear’s gilia at the Meadow Creek Campground area, and may actually increase the population density by

creating a disturbance regime that reduces encroachment of woody shrub species. If the parking area

becomes year-round use, the disturbance will likely result in the population’s extinction. The NFSR 302

turn lane population, which is growing in unnatural habitat (road fill) will be extirpated as a result of the

proposed action. The loss would be mitigated by collection and planting of seed in the general vicinity of

the proposed action.

Indirect effects include changes in hydrologic function that could potentially impact species inhabiting

wet or mesic habitats such as ponds, fens, or other wetlands. Heavy soil disturbance exacerbates soil

erosion and sedimentation. A more open environment with increased runoff could increase upland erosion

in peak flows, scouring , and soil cover leading to changes in microclimates. Increased stream flows

result in stream down-cutting and the subsequent drying of adjacent areas. Sedimentation affects seed

germination and recruitment. Adherence to design criteria should reduce these effects to negligible

impact levels.


18

Cumulative Effects

Past and on-going actions within in the analysis area include hazard tree removal, livestock grazing,

winter recreation by snowmobiles and cross-country skiers, and summer recreation including OHV-use,

biking, hiking, and dispersed camping.


A determination of “No Impact” (NI) was made for all but one species because the populations do not

appear to be affected by current travel management and recreation activities. Natural events could still

result in mortality of individuals or extirpation of populations but these events would not result from

management activities.

A determination of ‘May adversely impact individuals or populations but would not lead to loss of

viability on the planning unit” (MAII) was given for Rabbit Ears gilia Ipomopsis aggregata ssp. weberi),

because individuals may be crushed by traffic in the highway corridor.


A determination of May adversely impact individuals or populations but would not lead to loss of

viability on the planning unit” (MAII) was given for all species except boreal bog sedge (Carex

magellanica var. irrigua) because individuals may be crushed during construction of parking areas and/or

turning lanes. These individuals and/or populations are unlikely to re-establish in these areas owing to the

substantial increase in habitat disturbance frequency.

A determination of “No Impact” (NI) for all species was made for boreal bog sedge (Carex magellanica

var. irrigua) because adherence to design criteria should reduce these effects to negligible impact levels.


Alternative 2 would provide for management of botany resources consistent with the Forest Plan.

DESIGN CRITERIA

Flag for avoidance and Delineate a 100’ buffer around known occurrences of R2 sensitive plant

species and local concern plant species. Where impacts are unavoidable, work with botanist to

implement mitigation measures.

At the Dumont and Meadows Parking Areas:

(1) Plow the parking surface when temperatures are consistently below freezing to promote

freezing of the road. This will remove the insulation provided by the snow allowing the

subgrade to freeze to a greater depth and reduce parking surface damage that might occur

from use during unfrozen conditions.

(2) Use shoes or runners to keep plow blades at least 2 inches above existing surface for

graders or 4 inches for runners on dozers.

(3) Snow storage areas outside of parking lots - keep ground vehicles off of native soils

unless there is at least 2 inches of frozen ground or at least 1 ft of packed snow to protect

sensitive plants adjacent to the lots.

Avoid any damage or degradation rare wetlands such as fens and springs.

Where revegetation is planned, work with the forest botanist to identify appropriate species for

planting following guidelines in the MBR Revegetation Plan.

At Meadows Parking, collect seed from Rabbit Ear’s gilia for establishing a new population to

replace existing population. Plant seed within two years of impact and monitor new population

for at least two years following impacts.


19

Economics AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Winter recreation on Rabbit Ears pass is important to the communities of Steamboat Springs, Kremmling

and Walden. Snowest Magazine rates the Rabbit Ears Pass area in the top 10 destination snowmobile

areas in the western United States annually. Recreationists purchase gas, supplies and equipment from

stores in all three communities. Kremmling, Walden and to a lesser extent Steamboat Springs, advertise

the great snowmobiling opportunities to be found on Rabbit Ears Pass to attract visitors from across the

region and the entire country to utilize lodging in those communities.

The Steamboat Ski Area is a destination ski resort attracting large numbers of people from around the

world. As Steamboat is considered a destination ski resort, Rabbit Ears Pass is a destination snowmobile

area attracting people from around the United States. Visitors to destination resorts generally do not ski

every day on the resort, and seek other adventures in the area, including cross country skiing,

snowshoeing, and snowmobiling. The Forest Service authorized a commercial snowmobile tour, ski and

snowshoe tour operators provide these services for the visiting public. Several snowmobile and ski shops

in each of these communities cater to recreationists who use Rabbit Ears Pass during the winter months.

Current parking issues detract from the recreation experience on the east side of the pass, reducing the

likelihood for return visitation from out of state visitors. The idea of improved parking on the pass causes

optimism for creating a more sustainable economic model in the smaller communities of Walden and

Kremmling. Recently, hotels in Steamboat Springs are beginning to cater to snowmobiles in addition to

the traditional ski town marketing. While exact numbers are not available, these trends show the

importance of National Forest winter recreation opportunities.



No changes to Forest Service management and parking on Rabbit Ears Pass would occur. The high

quality snow and additional marketing of the area by commercial entities would attract new customers,

and use in the area would remain constant.

Forest Service costs of managing the Rabbit Ears Pass area would remain the same. Costs include

salary, snowmobile operation and maintenance, and costs for supplies and vault pumping for the toilet

facility.


The proposed action represents a large investment by the Forest Service to managing this world class

area. Completion of all the projects would be very costly, almost cost prohibitive if completed at one time

Table 3 lists costs of implementing the proposed action. In addition to the one-time cost, recurring

annual costs of maintenance, primarily snowplowing, needs to be considered. Using information for

plowing needs based on estimated time to plow acres of parking, and an average to above average snow

year, an estimated cost is anticipated of approximately $27,000 annually to plow lots. This alternative

will increase operating and maintenance costs by adding three toilet and trailhead facilities. With regards

to declining budgets, Forest Service recreation management has traditionally responded to the trend by

reducing operating costs through reducing the number of facilities through strategic planning and closing

lesser used or outdated facilities..


20

Table 3: Costs to implement the proposed action

Project Activity Cost

East Summit Close-rehabilitate $16,000

Muddy Creek Cut trees, expand existing lot, construct new lot $80,000

Muddy Creek Toilet, Information Kiosk $27,000

Muddy Creek Acceleration/deceleration lanes- ($100,000 each direction) $200,000

Dumont Construct new lot/close rehab. existing lot $67,000

Dumont Toilet – Information Kiosk $27,000

Dumont Acceleration/deceleration lanes – ($100,000 each direction) $200,000

Fox Curve Add fill and gravel, redesign $16,000

Meadows Construct new lot $27,000

NFSR 296 Construct new lot $26,000

NFSR 296 Toilet, Information Kiosk $27,000

NFSR 302 Construct turning lane $43,000

West Summit Close-rehabilitate $16,000

Signs In all locations, coordinate with CDOT $10,000

TOTAL COST TO IMPLEMENT $782,000

Implementing the proposed action is a positive for the recreation and travelling public, but the costs may

appear non-sustainable, and contradicts policy for reducing operating costs for recreation. Following

guidelines in the Forest Service Framework for Sustainable Recreation, the decision to complete the

parking lots is a commitment of resources but also meets the criteria of investing in special places. The

cost of completing these projects cannot be entirely born on the Forest Service, and will need partnerships

with local, state and federal government agencies and stakeholders, including businesses and advocacy

groups.

This alternative would be achieved through one of the following ways; work with partners to cover the

costs of improvements, meaning generating funds through grants, partnerships, donations etc. If

commitments from outside sources cannot be secured, charging fees need to be considered, otherwise this

alternative is not implementable. The Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) authorizes

federal agencies to charge fees in return for providing amenities. This is not an access fee, but a fee to

cover the installation of improvements and maintenance of amenities.

Recurring costs need to be included in whichever option develops, and a revenue stream developed to

implement this alternative either through partners or considering a fee structure for all winter parking lots

on Rabbit Ears Pass.


Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Forest Plan.


21

DESIGN CRITERIA

Develop formal partnerships and agreements with outside organizations to secure funding

for improvements and long term commitment of resources to implement projects. If this

cannot be done, consider the use of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to

generate adequate fees for the operation and maintenance of the Rabbit Ears Area.

Heritage


Data to assess the impacts to cultural resources were collected in September 2010, June 2012, June and

July, 2013. 86.5 acres were intensively surveyed for the presence of cultural resources. Two previously

identified sites were revisited; three newly identified cultural resources were documented.

Existing condition indicates ground disturbance associated with recreation activities, as well as

transmission line and road construction. The desired condition for the protection of cultural resources

would be a stabilized, vegetated surface. Vegetation, particularly in areas with poorly developed soils or

loose sediments, reduces the secondary effect of erosion on archaeological sites.

Existing condition indicates dynamic surface conditions resulting from vehicular traffic. The degradation

of archaeological sites throughout the Rabbit Ears Pass area are from human and natural causes, including

unauthorized artifact collection, direct damage from on- and off-road vehicles, soil disturbance, horizontal

displacement of cultural material, and secondary erosion. Finally, inadequate assessment for the presence

of cultural materials in the past, before the realignment of Highway 40, has likely resulted in the

destruction of cultural material without adequate documentation.

All of the cultural resources identified have been determined not eligible for inclusion to the National

Register of Historic Places. The Forest Service has determined a finding of no effect to historic properties

for the proposed project. The Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this

determination on 11/18/2013.



Direct and Indirect Effects: If there is no federal action, then there is no undertaking, as defined in 36

CFR 800.2(0), for Section 106 of the national Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).

Cumulative Effects: Taking ‘no action’ may result in the further deterioration of at least one significant

archaeological site due to increased erosion, and exposure of artifacts from increased erosion could

increase the potential for collection and vandalism.


Direct and Indirect Effects:

In the current survey areas, three newly identified cultural resources were identified. There are no

cultural resources that are either eligible or unevaluated for their potential for inclusion to the National

Register of Historic Places. All cultural resources have been determined to be not eligible.


22

Managing the location and scope of vehicular traffic on Rabbit Ears Pass would have an overall beneficial

effect on cultural resources present in the area. The desired condition for the protection of cultural

resources would be a stabilized, vegetated surface. Vegetation, particularly in areas with poorly

developed soils or loose sediments, reduces the secondary effect of erosion on archaeological sites.

Management of traffic through bounded and engineered parking surfaces can protect known cultural

resources from the damage exhibited in areas where this type of activity exists.

Under the implementing regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR

800) and Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2360), sites considered not eligible to the NRHP may be

directly affected once adequately recorded, evaluated, and concurrence is received from the State Historic

Preservation Officer regarding NRHP eligibility.

Cumulative Effects: Archaeological sites are discrete locations, typically bounded by the extent of

artifacts and features located. The sites are then analyzed at the landscape level to understand past human

lifeways. For the purposes of this project, the landscape level is determined by the proposed project area.

The cumulative effect from the proposed activities in Alternative 2 would be marginally different than

Alternative 1 (No Action) when considering the direct impact to known archaeological sites.

If new dispersed camping sites are created by recreationalists, then there is the potential to damage

otherwise unidentified archaeological sites.

The reduction of roads or routes of ingress into more remote locations on the Forest is beneficial to

archaeological sites. Eliminating routes into the Forest that can be used for unauthorized recreation

activities reduced the potential for damage or vandalism to archaeological sites.

In surveyed areas, recording and archiving basic information about each site for future reference serves to

partially mitigate potential cumulative effects to cultural resources. For those sites that have been

identified and determined to be “not eligible” for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places, the

detrimental effect of this loss is low. These sites have been documented in a way that collects all

information relevant to broader understanding of that site’s relationship to the cultural landscape.


Alternative 2 would provide for management of cultural resources consistent with the Forest Plan.

DESIGN CRITERIA If cultural resources are found during implementation s the result of ground disturbance, stop construction

temporarily and notify Zone Archeologist.

Hydrology INTRODUCTION

This report assesses the potential environmental effects to water, riparian, and wetland resources of the

proposed Rabbit Ears Winter Parking project and provides recommended design criteria to minimize the

effects of the proposed action.



23

Watershed names and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) numbers from the 2013 USGS National

Hydrography Dataset are used in this analysis. The proposed actions are within the Walton Creek

(140500010405) and Milk Creek-Muddy Creek (140100010702) sixth level watersheds. There are no

streams within the analysis areas.

Riparian areas along stream channels are typically wide willow, or alder communities. There are a few

willow, grass, and alder riparian and/or wetland communities that have formed in off-channel wet

depressional areas along stream channels in the area.

State water quality classified uses in the analysis area include aquatic life cold 1, recreation E, water

supply, and agriculture. These designations require that streams and water bodies be: (1) capable of

sustaining a wide range of cold water biota including sensitive species, (2) suitable for recreation on or

about water bodies where ingestion of small quantities of water is probable, (3) suitable for drinking

following standard treatment procedures, and (4) suitable for irrigation and livestock consumption.

Minimum state water quality standards have been established by the Colorado Department of Health and

Environment (CDPHE) in accordance with these designated beneficial uses. None of the streams in the

analysis area have been listed as impaired on the CDPHE 303(d) list (Colorado 2012). In the Watershed Condition Assessment (2010), both watersheds were classified as Condition Class 2.

Class 2 watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural

potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an unstable drainage network. Physical,

chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able

to support beneficial uses. This ranking was based on a road density on sensitive soils and number of

stream diversions. The CDPHE water quality control division has designated portions of the watersheds within the project

areas as being in sensitivity zone 1 or sensitivity zone 2 for domestic water supply, see Colorado 2008 for

a description of different sourcewater areas. A Memorandum of Understanding between the CDPHE and

United States Forest Service ensures that the Forest Service recognize CDPHE designated sourcewater

areas as a “Municipal Supply Watershed” (FSM 2542), and ensures protection of water quality while

allowing for municipal uses (Colorado 2009). Design criteria outlined in Appendices A and B will ensure

protection of water quality. Roads and parking lots have the potential to affect the hydrologic regime and water quality in multiple

ways. Unpaved roads and parking lots are a major source of sediment in forested watersheds. The

disturbance prism, cutslope, ditch, sidecast or fill material and other areas subjected to concentrated

runoff are all potential sediment sources. Erosion rates are generally highest during construction and

decrease over time as disturbed areas are stabilized by revegetation or development of an armored

surface. Erosion rates may increase when these areas are maintained or reconstructed as the previously

stabilized surfaces are re-disturbed. Disturbed surfaces, cutslopes and ditches can continue to produce

large amounts of sediment as long as traffic or maintenance operations prevent revegetation of surface

stabilization.

Water quality concerns would result from 1) increased sedimentation from new connected disturbed

areas, and 2) chemical contaminants that are transported to stream channels. From a chemical

contaminant standpoint, the greatest concern would be from fuel spills or leaks, and sanitation facilities.

Since most of the use would occur during the winter, any contaminants either spilled or leaked into the

snowpack would remain in the snowpack until spring melt. Once spring melting began, all of the


24

contaminants would be released at once in a sudden pulse. This is different from summer use where spills

or leaked contaminants are washed away during the next storm event, and do not accumulate over time.

DESIRED CONDITION The desired condition is to maintain the hydrologic regime and water quality. The watersheds within the

analysis area have been affected by road building and sensitive soils in the area. Any new development in

these watersheds would need to maintain the current condition of the watersheds, and should work toward

improving watershed function. Maintaining runoff patterns and preventing pollutants associated with the

parking and sanitation facilities will help to maintain the desired condition.


There is little potential for the proposed changes in parking on Rabbit Ears Pass to affect hydrological

resources due to the small amount of ground disturbance proposed and the fact that no streams are located

within the analysis area. With implementation of the project specific design criteria, no direct effects to

riparian areas or wetlands would be expected. Minor effects to floodplains may occur, but these effects

would not affect overall stream function.

Effect from sediment delivery into stream systems is the primary concern associated with the proposed

action. An increase in impermeable area and concentrated runoff as well as snowplowing at the parking

areas would increase runoff and possibly sediment transport from these areas. Using engineered plans to

ensure routing of water away from stream channels or into sediment traps would ensure streams are not

affected by this proposal.

Effects to water quality would be minimal. All new sanitation facilities and parking lots are in upland

areas. There would be no impact to designated source water areas and no effect on community water

supplies.

Alternative 1 (No Action) Direct and indirect effects: Under this alternative there would be no change from the existing condition.

No improvements for traffic and winter recreation parking would occur. Current levels of parking

capacity and bathroom facilities would remain. West and East Summit parking areas would remain open

and would not be rehabilitated. No additional ground disturbance or soil compaction would occur.

With no ground disturbance there would be no potential for increased sedimentation or connected disturbed areas associated with building of new parking lots. There would be no potential for additional direct effects to community water supplies from ground disturbing activities. There may be a slight risk to water quality due to the high use of the area and lack of sanitation facilities; however, there have been no apparent impacts up to this point and the high use parking areas are not within stream corridors reducing the potential for impacts. There would be no direct or indirect effects to riparian areas, wetlands, or floodplains.

There would be no direct or indirect effects to streams, riparian areas, wetlands, springs, or floodplains.

Wetland function would not be affected relative to the existing condition. Cumulative effects: This alternative would not contribute to significant cumulative effects. Past actions

that have occurred in these watersheds include the Green Creek fire in 2002, which affected the Milk

Creek-Muddy Creek watersheds, as well as development on the Steamboat Ski Area which has affected

the Walton Creek watershed. Future actions that may occur in these watersheds include the Steamboat


25

Front Hazard Fuel Reduction project, livestock grazing, winter recreation by snowmobiles and cross-

country skiers, and dispersed recreation.

Livestock grazing by sheep occurs throughout the analysis area. Cattle grazing also occurs in the Milk

Creek-Muddy Creek watershed, however these allotments are not near the analysis area and would not

impact this proposal.

Winter recreation would continue as presently managed, with current impacts to snow compaction and

possible water quality impacts from snowmobiling continuing at present levels.

This alternative is consistent with Forest Plan direction, and would not result in irreversible or

irretrievable effects to the soil, water, wetland, floodplain, or riparian resources. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) Direct and indirect effects: The proposed action would improve existing vehicle parking and staging

facilities, install appropriate sanitation facilities, close unsafe parking areas, and improve the safety of

parking and turning areas on Rabbit Ears Pass for winter recreation. The new parking proposals would

create approximately 9.7 acres of new parking, and may disturb up to 27.8 acres during construction.

Approximately 1.6 acres of current parking will be closed and rehabilitated. Trails that originated at the

parking areas proposed for closure will be rebuilt from the new proposed parking lots. Table 1 shows the

approximate size of each new parking facility as well as the potential disturbed area, and watershed

concerns at each location. There are no streams within the analysis area; therefore this alternative would have little potential to

affect the hydrologic regime or channel stability. The increase in runoff from a larger amount of graveled

or paved surfaces may slightly increase water delivery to stream systems, however this would have

minimal impact due to the small area being impacted. The new parking lots are in upland areas with

ground disturbance minimized as much as possible. This project will occur over a number of years,

therefore the disturbance in any year would be small. The total disturbance in both watersheds would be

less than 0.1 percent of their total area.

Table 4: Watershed Concerns Associated with the Proposed Action.

Parking

Area Parking

Acres Acres of

Possible

Disturbance

Watershed Watershed Concerns

296 Lot 0.6 2.88 Walton Creek No concerns. The area is dry. 302

Turning

Lane

0 0.86 Walton Creek Steep slope from Highway 40 to NFSR 302 with

riparian vegetation below this site. Could be impacts

to riparian vegetation and the stream channel through

increased sedimentation during and after construction. Dumont 3.0 7.89 Milk Creek-

Muddy Creek This area is dry with some riparian vegetation along

the eastern border. Fox

Curve 0.4 2.02 Walton Creek No concerns. This is an existing disturbed area.

Meadows 0.5 1.0 Walton Creek No concerns. This area is dry and already has been

impacted. Muddy

Creek 5.2 11.58 Milk Creek-

Muddy Creek There is wet, riparian vegetation along the western

boundary of the possible disturbance area. The new

turn lanes will impact the drainage ditch along the

highway.


26

West

Summit -0.8 -0.8 Walton Creek None

East

Summit -0.8 -0.8 Milk Creek-

Muddy Creek None

The greatest concern is with sediment delivery from the new Dumont and Muddy Creek parking lots and

302 turning lane, as these two areas parallel stream systems. Ensuring that engineered plans are

developed for water and sediment transport away from the stream systems or into sediment basins will

ensure these areas are not impacted by the proposed action. The new turning lane for the Muddy Creek

parking lot will impact the current drainage from the highway. Planning for water routing in this area will

be properly engineered to avoid water running over the roads. There is little risk of chemical contamination to any streams. The new sanitation facilities would be

located in upland areas away from stream channels. Implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Design

Criteria would minimize these risks and ensure compliance with state water quality regulations and the

Clean Water Act. There would be no impact to designated sourcewater areas and no effect on community

water supplies. There would be no direct effects to streams, riparian areas, wetlands, springs, or floodplains. Wetland

function would not be affected relative to the existing condition. There may be an indirect effect through

increased sedimentation due to an increase in impermeable surfaces, however this would be a very small

increase and negligible on a watershed scale.

A section 402 permit for stormwater discharge would be required for construction of the parking lots

when there is more than one-acre of new disturbance in these areas. A 404 permit would not be necessary

as there would not be any discharge of dredged or fill material into any waters of the United States.

This project may have minor effects on floodplain processes, but no facilities will be constructed within

floodplains, therefore it is consistent with Executive Order 11988 for the protection of floodplains. All

construction has been designed to avoid disturbance in wetlands and minimize disturbance to wetland

function and indirect effects to wetlands. Design Criteria and Best Management Practices are intended to

further reduce risks to wetlands. The overall project is consistent with Executive Order 11990. Cumulative effects: With implementation of the Design Criteria outlined this alternative would not contribute to significant

cumulative effects. Other past, present and future activities in this area contributing to cumulative effects

are the same as those in Alternative 1.

With monitoring and implementation of the Design Criteria, this alternative is consistent with Forest Plan

direction, and would not result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to the soil, water, wetland,

floodplain, or riparian resources.


Forest Plan Standards and Associated Design Criteria

Forest Plan Standards (USDA 1997) and associated Design Criteria from the Water Conservation

Practices Handbook (FSH 2509.25) will be followed as a matter of policy. These practices are proven to

protect soil, aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Implementation of these standards and guidelines will

protect the soil and water resources and ensure compliance with legal requirements for water and riparian

resources.


27

DESIGN CRITERIA

Locate parking areas and sanitation facilities 100 feet from stream channels and outside of

riparian areas.

Ensure the drainage ditch at the Muddy Creek turning lane is redeveloped to ensure water is

routed away from the road surfaces.

Ensure sediment from Muddy Creek and Dumont parking areas and turning lanes does not impact

stream systems. Use engineered designs and sediment traps as needed.

Avoid soil disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Do not operate equipment

when conditions will result in rutting of soils.

Locate vehicle service and fuel areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps on gentle

upland sites. Mix, load and clean on gentle upland sites. Dispose of chemicals and containers in

State-certified disposal areas. Consideration should be given to disposal of human waste,

wastewater and garbage and other solid wastes.

The East and West Summit Parking lots shall be ripped, seeded, and/or have slash scattered to

prevent erosion and reduce compaction. Scattering of slash may be in lieu of constructing water

bars. Scattering of slash shall cover approximately 30-50% of the area. Parking areas may

require ripping to reduce compaction as well as scattering slash. These parking lots will be

ripped to a depth of 4-6 inches and seeded with an approved seed mix, if necessary.

Close parking lots as necessary during spring thaw to protect the surface and prevent rutting, and

increased erosion.

Ensure areas for snow storage are accounted for in the design of parking areas and increased melt

water from these portions are engineered into the design

Recreation


The Rabbit Ears Pass and Buffalo Pass areas receive abundant snow consistently from November through

April annually, making this a popular area to recreate for all winter recreation users – motorized and non-

motorized, resulting in intensive use of the area. This intensive use led to competition between user

groups and reduced quality recreation experience. To maintain the quality experience for all, the Forest

Service completed a management plan in 2005 to manage the area through separating uses. The Winter

Recreation Management and Routt Forest Plan Amendment (WRM) analysis designate non-motorized

areas on Rabbit Ears Pass and in portions of the Buffalo Pass Area but the decision deferred proposals to

improve parking.

Access to both motorized and non-motorized uses and consists of 8 distinct parking areas, all accessed

from US Highway 40. These lots are primarily used for day use, except the Muddy Creek lot which does

allow for overnight camping. Use varies by time of day, day of the week, and availability of fresh snow.

Capacity at the lots in the WRM was estimated at 110 for all of the lots on the motorized area and 100 for

the non-motorized area. The Forest Service has been monitoring use by counting cars, truck and trailers

at various time since completion of the WRM analysis. In the non-motorized lots, capacity is rarely

exceeded, so existing capacity is adequate. In the four snowmobile parking lots, existing available

parking capacity is limited, resulting in bad parking conditions. This is described by unsafe parking along

the highway, along access road into the Muddy Creek lot, limiting two-way traffic, and sometimes

parking in non-motorized parking lots, which caused user conflicts and bad feeling.


28

While the parking areas appear to be adequate in the summer months, capacity is lost due to inadequate

snow storage. For a winter parking area to be fully functioning, both adequate space for snow storage

and ability to maneuver in a lot is needed. Parking lots also need to be designed for good flow. All these

are limiting factors on Rabbit Ears Pass. More space is required for the existing use considering traffic

counts, average vehicle/trailer size and snow storage.

An older capacity analysis completed for snowmobile outfitting and guiding in 1996 estimated a carrying

capacity for approximately 333 people at one time (PAOT). The WRM estimated 2.5 people per vehicle

at snowmobile lots, showing a need for 135 parking spaces for snowmobiles. USFS monitoring of

parking on Rabbit Ears Pass has seen days when 150+ vehicles with trailers were crammed into the four

lots on the east side of Rabbit Ears Pass. 135 vehicles are more of a normal situation.

The roadside lots (West Summit, Bruce’s Trail, Fox Curve, Walton Peak, Dumont Lake, East Summit)

are sometimes unsafe when full, due to a lack of space. They are “shallow”, in terms of lacking a buffer

from the highway traffic. This results in vehicle moving around in the parking areas travelling close to or

partially in the traffic lanes. The Colorado Department of Transportation tracks accidents, and while

adverse road conditions (icy, slushy, snowing, poor visibility) are a partial causal factor, there are several

instances of accidents caused by vehicle entering traffic from parking areas, or waiting to turn into

parking areas. To date, no fatalities have occurred. The West Summit and East Summit lots are in

locations with limited site distances and appear to have higher accident rates.

Forest Service management of the Rabbit Ears Pass parking lots and dispersed recreation consists of

monitoring the motorized/non-motorized boundary for infraction of Forest Supervisor special orders, use

in parking lots and public education and information gathering. The Forest Service also maintains the

toilet facility at the existing Muddy Creek Lot with periodic cleaning and vault pumping. Costs include

salary, snowmobile operation and maintenance, and costs for supplies and vault pumping for the toilet

facility.


Not implementing the proposed action will maintain the status quo. People will continue to be drawn to

Rabbit Ears Pass for quality skiing, snowshoeing and snowmobiling, but parking will continue to be a

problem, especially on the east side where snowmobiling parking capacity is underserved. Existing

known safety problems will continue to be concerning and costs associated with managing the winter

recreation on the pass will remain the same. Costs associated with developing new parking areas will

not be incurred.


Implementing the proposed action will benefit the recreation and travelling public along highway 40.

Improvements to the Muddy Creek and Dumont lots while closing the East Summit lot will improve

safety and comfort for both groups. Signage and acceleration and deceleration lanes will improve traffic

flow and safety margin during bad weather. Added facilities will protect the environment while providing

comforts for recreationists. Increased capacity of the lots will provide adequate parking for larger

vehicle/trailer combinations and for good snow storage.

No increase in parking capacity is needed for the western part of Rabbit Ears Pass, the non-motorized

parking areas, creation of the two new lots and closing the West Summit lot to parking will be a short

term impact to skiers and snowshoers, but it will benefit them in the long run. Short term, the change will

be felt because people will not be able to utilized the same route, or powder stashes for backcountry

skiing. In the longer term, the changed parking will create new options, and spread out concentrated use


29

of the 1A and 3B trails. Proposed traffic flow at the new lots and at the Fox Curve lot will create a

separation of highway through traffic and recreation traffic, resulting in a safer experience.

There will be no adverse cumulative effects of implementing alternative 2.


Alternative 2 would be consistent with the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

for the recreation resource.

DESIGN CRITERIA Phase implementation with priority to safety concerns

Assure that new facilities meet the Accessibility Standards, Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) and

Built Environmental Image guidelines for the travel corridor and new facilities.

Coordinate with CDOT on sign installations and access plans.

Soils

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This project area is in the Rabbit Ears Range of the Rocky Mountains. This range is composed of shale

and sandstones that have been intruded by Pliocene volcanic rocks that make up the high ridges and peaks

of the range. Soils in the area are derived from glacial till, residuum and alluvium from the surrounding

sandstones and volcanic rocks.

Topography of the general area is gently rolling, with upland areas generally having well drained soils,

and lowland areas being poorly drained. The poorly drained soils frequently maintain riparian and

wetland vegetation. Due to the gentle topography of Rabbit Ears Pass and the abundance of winter

precipitation, wetlands and riparian areas are frequent.

The Water Influence Zone (WIZ) as described in the Watershed Conservation Practices (WCP) Handbook

(FSH 2509.25) is the area next to or near streams and wetlands, and is the greater of 100 feet or the mean

height of mature dominant late seral vegetation (willows in the analysis area) from streams or wetlands.

The WCP lists design criteria to maintain or improve watershed health. Locating new concentrated-use

sites outside of the WIZ is desired to prevent impacts to wetland soils and watershed health.

West Summit – Close parking This area is located in forested uplands on a ridge along the highway. It splits a ridge with drainage of the

area going both east and west. The parking area is made of fill from other locations. It is compacted and

does not support vegetation. The surrounding soils are greater than 60 inches deep and well drained, of

moderate permeability with a runoff potential of medium. Revegetation potential is low because the fill is

most likely subsoil and does not have a lot of nutrients. These activities are not within a WIZ.

NFSR 296 Parking Area The area is located in shrub/grassland habitat. Drainage appears to go south-southwest toward the

highway and an ephemeral stream and a riparian area. The area is located in two soil mapping units,

including characterized by poorly and very poorly drained soils associated with riparian and wetland


30

soils. , there is smaller percent made up of well drained upland soils, where the parking lot is proposed.

The approximate disturbed area is not within the WIZ of the adjacent stream/wetland. The actual parking

area is not within the WIZ.

Meadows Campground Parking The area is located in upland shrub/grassland habitat. The area is flat with little natural drainage. It has

previous disturbance from an old road. The major soil type is either a moderately deep well drained soil

or a shallow (10 – 20 in) somewhat excessively drained. The approximate disturbed area is not within the

Water Influence Zone of the adjacent stream/wetland. The actual parking area is not within the WIZ.

Fox Curve Parking Area The location of this area is in a forested upland habitat. Drainage appears to run to the northeast. A

perennial stream is to the north-northeast approximately 500 feet away. Surrounding soil types are either

a moderately deep to deep well drained or shallow somewhat excessively drained. They have a surface

cover of about 2 inches of needle litter and duff. Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid (0.6 to 6.0

inches per hour). Runoff is slow to medium. The actual parking are is not within the WIZ.

NFSR 302 Turning Lane The location of this area is shoulder/right-of-way of US Highway 40 and intersection with NFSR 302.

The proposed activities are within the margins of previous disturbance. The analysis area is adjacent to

the riparian area of Walton Creek, a perennial stream. Drainage off of the highway is south towards

Walton Creek. Surrounding soils are either poorly drained alluvial floodplain type soils. Permeability is

moderately slow and runoff is slow. The location is mostly riparian adjacent to the highway right of way.

Wetlands are within 100 feet of the maximum area that could be disturbed, so following specific design

criteria listed in the Botany and Hydrology sections will prevent adverse effects to resources.

Dumont Parking Area

The area is located in an upland grassland/shrub area. Drainage is to the east-southeast. Soils are deep,

slightly wet, moderately well drained. Permeability is moderately slow. Runoff is slow. Surrounding

soils are poorly drained alluvial soils. GIS mapping shows a small portion of this lot to be on a wetland.

Field investigation resulted in determining these not being wetlands (Tepler 2014). The approximate

disturbed area is not within the Water Influence Zone of the adjacent stream/wetland. The actual parking

area is not within the WIZ. The turn lanes are on already disturbed areas along the highway. The parking

area to be removed is composed of compacted, un-vegetated fill. Rehabilitation of this lot will allow

more natural flow in the adjacent wetland.

Muddy Creek Parking Area This area is located in both a forested and grassland site. Drainage is to the southeast into an ephemeral

drainage way and wetland riparian area complex. The soils of the forest site are deep and well drained.

Permeability is moderate and runoff is moderate. The grassland soils are an alluvial soil derived from

mixed sources. They are very deep and well drained. GIS mapping shows a small portion of this lot to be

on a wetland. Field investigation resulted in determining these not being wetlands (Tepler 2014). The

area to the southeast is a poorly-very poorly drained wetland riparian area complex. The turn lane is

within 100 feet of the wetland riparian area complex so following specific design criteria listed in the

Botany and Hydrology sections will prevent adverse effects to both resources. The actual parking are is

not within the WIZ.


31

East Summit Parking This area is located in along the highway in an already disturbed area. The fill is compacted and un-

vegetated. The project is not within the WIZ. Rehabilitation of this lot will allow natural vegetation to

be re-established.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES These proposed parking areas are considered part of perment transportation system so are not considered

detrimental soil disturbance (USDA 1992)


This alternative maintains the existing condition of the project areas, so no new indirect or direct

detrimental effects to the soil or the watershed will occur.


There are a couple of activities that are going to occur with this project; rehabilitation of parking areas

and construction of parking areas and turn lanes. Each can cause detrimental effects to the soil resource

and the watershed.

Construction of Parking Areas

There will be soil disturbance from grading and filling the areas. Fill slopes can erode. No design criteria

have been approved so the effectiveness cannot be evaluated. The erosion that might move off the fill

slopes after vegetation has grown in is not expected to travel far. The undisturbed vegetation and soils

outside of the maximum disturbance areas have slow to moderate runoff potential, enough ground cover

and vegetation to allow the erosion to settle. Castelle et al. (1994) found in a review of literature on WIZs

that a buffer of 45 feet protects most wetlands and streams. Lakel Et Al (2010) studied WIZ widths and

reported similar results. Heede (1990) reported that buffer strips up to 60 feet wide captured practically

all sediment in areas with slope lengths up to 425 feet. Gharabaghi Et Al (2006) reported that in the first

15 feet of a buffer 95% of the silt and sand size particles are captured. In general, if erosion is not

excessive then there will not be excessive sediment and the undisturbed areas will keep most of the

sediment from traveling the distance to the stream and/or wetland.

The parking areas can collect numerous pollutants from automobiles, including heavy metals such as

copper, zinc, lead, nickel and cadmium (Lacy 2009) in addition to nutrients, oil, greases. These pollutants

can become part of the runoff. If there is not enough undisturbed soil and vegetation between a stream or

wetland to filter out the pollutants they can enter surface waters. The mechanisms of removing pollutants

in runoff are filtration by grass blades or other vegetation, sedimentation, infiltration into soil and

biological activity in the grass/soil media (Walsh et al. 1997). Most research on vegetated buffers to filter

these pollutants has been done along roadways and in urban areas. While these parking areas are not

roadways and may not or may not have the same amounts of pollutants the research is still valuable.

Pollutants in the parking lot runoff are removed by sedimentation, filtration, infiltration into soil and

possibly other mechanisms in the undisturbed areas, thereby protecting surface waters. Most metals in

parking lot runoff are found in particulate form, insoluble form. Walsh et al. (1997) cites a paper that

found less than 2% of metals were leachable and that much of the total mass of metals in urban runoff is

absorbed onto soil particles. Hence, only a small soluble portion of metal mass deposited onto the

undisturbed areas is likely to pose a risk to plants, animals that eat the plants and groundwater. Oils and

grease are broken down by sunlight and biological organisms that makes them more susceptible to

vegetation uptake or renders them in a form that is not a pollutant.


32

It is expected that the undisturbed soil areas surrounding the parking areas, other than Dumont and

Muddy Creek, will be sufficiently large enough and because they have slow to medium runoff potential

the soils and vegetation will capture sediments and allow for infiltration of dissolved pollutants and

attenuate them.

The Dumont Parking area is to be constructed on a wetland or at the least will not be 100 feet from the

wetland. Muddy Creek Parking area is to be constructed on a wetland or at the least will not be 100 feet

from the wetland. These areas will not meet the Routt Standards.

Cumulative Effects

The area surrounding the activity areas and the watersheds was selected for the analysis of cumulative

effects. The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are described in Chapter 2.

Alternative 1 – (No Action)

There would be no known adverse cumulative effects with this alternative. The no action alternative

would not cumulatively add to a measurable effect within the activity areas. There are no future

foreseeable actions that would cumulatively add to a measurable effect for the soil resource within the

activity areas.


When considering soil productivity Alternative 2-Proposed Action when combined with past, present and

foreseeable future effects would not have any cumulative effects because the parking lots and the no

parking areas are consider part of the permanent transportation system.

When considering the addition of heavy metals cumulatively on soil and groundwater there can be an

increase close to the area of origin. No research was found on graveled snowmobile parking lots. These

areas may have more pollutants due to idling and fueling of snow machines. Most information comes

from research on urban runoff and pollutants from highways. Walsh (1997) cites studies of atmospheric

deposition that resulted in elevated concentration of metals. Barrett et al. (1995) reported that pollutants

in highway runoff have not been thoroughly investigated although higher concentrations are found along

highways. Highway runoff effects on groundwater are minimized by processes in the soil such as

precipitation and adsorption. These processes are dependent on soil type and thickness which in the

surrounding areas is sufficient to attenuate the metals. Minimal effects on groundwater have been located

in areas with fairly thick soils, which immobilize many pollutants in runoff (Barret etal. 1995). Little and

Wiffen (1978) reported on lead retention in roadside soil and vegetation along a highway. They estimated

that 22% of the total lead emitted in vehicle exhaust in 10 years was present in the soil and vegetation

within 300 feet of the road. Barrett et al. (1995) concluded that deposition rates of lead and zinc on filter

strips were less than one tenth the allowable rate for metals application on cropland. Threats to human

health and the environment from metals deposited from highway runoff on vegetated areas are minimal.

Watersheds

The watersheds that contain these activity areas have soil productivity functioning at desired potential

levels. When the disturbances from this project are evaluated as part of the existing watershed

disturbances the watersheds are still in properly functioning condition for the soil resource.



This alternative would maintain consistency with Forest Plan direction for the soil resource and there

would be no irreversible or irretrievable effects.


33

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) This alternative would maintain consistency with Forest Plan direction for the soil resource and there

would be no irreversible or irretrievable impacts.

DESIGN CRITERIA

During construction and until vegetation is sufficient to control erosion of fill slopes of

the Dumont and Muddy Creek parking areas provide for erosion control (e.g. silt fence or

hay bales).

Seed all fill slopes with proper seed mix.

Provide ground cover on fill slopes for soil moisture to get plants started.

Drain run-off from the Muddy Creek overnight parking area to the west

Transportation


This analysis is limited to the corridor along US Highway 40, and adjacent National Forest System lands.

Currently, eight parking areas from milepost 146 to milepost 156 of US Highway 40 allow for both

motorized and non-motorized parking on Rabbit Ears Pass. Total capacity of these lots is estimated at

approximately 110 vehicles on the motorized/mixed use side (east Rabbit Ears), and approximately 100

on the western, non-motorized side of Rabbit Ears Pass (WRM). Six of the eight existing lots are

adjacent to US Highway 40, along the road right of way (ROW) and all lots on Rabbit Ears Pass are

currently plowed by CDOT crews. No formal agreement or contract is in place for this plowing. During

times of heavy snow patterns, CDOT sometimes does not get to lots in a timely manner. Recreationists,

some having driven hundreds of miles, will still park instead of going home irregardless of comfort or

safety of others. This results in parking congestion, and sometimes on the shoulder of a major federal

highway.

None of the lots have acceleration or deceleration lanes for egress in and out of the lots so vehicles enter

US Highway 40 directly into the travel way in posted speed limits of 45 mph to 65 mph, depending on

location. Vehicles entering the highway need adequate space between oncoming traffic for acceleration

and turning. Vehicles leaving the highway to access parking need good space behind to allow for

deceleration and turning. CDOT does have requirements for mandating lanes for acceleration and

deceleration based on traffic levels and patterns.

At the request of CDOT, the Forest Service collected traffic data at the two most popular lots, Muddy

Creek and Dumont, in the winter of 2012/2013 to determine if existing use required turning lanes, using

CDOT thresholds for use. Traffic counts were taken at the busiest time periods of the normally busiest

day of the week. Results did not exceed levels of traffic requiring installation of acceleration and

deceleration lanes. This monitoring also tracked average size/length of vehicles to help with parking lot

design.

Vehicle counts by the district recreation department monitoring determine adequate capacity exists in the

western four lots accessing non-motorized recreation opportunities. Monitoring shows capacity is

exceeded on busy days for the eastern four lots in the motorized/mixed use area. This results in

overcrowding of lots, parking in unsafe areas, and blocking in of vehicles and trailers, and even parking

on the shoulder of the highway.


34

The following is a summary by lot of existing condition and concerns for parking areas along US

Highway 40 on Rabbit Ears Pass:

Columbine Parking – Limited site distance in the westbound direction. Speed limit is posted at

45 mph, and there westbound does have two lanes. This is a smaller lot and no changes are

proposed.

East Summit Parking – On a curve along US Highway 40 with speed limits of 55 to 65 mph,

depending on direction. Sight distance is limited for westbound traffic and the parking is at the

end of a two lane passing zone. No deceleration lanes in either direction. Some accidents in this

location cite cause being parked vehicles pulling into traffic, causing accidents. In the winter of

2012, a truck pulling a snowmobile trailer turning around to get into a parking spot caused a semi

with trailer to stop suddenly, jackknifing the trailer, and stopping traffic for over an hour.

Muddy Creek Parking – The only overnight parking lot on Rabbit Ears Pass, this lot fills quickly,

and overflows onto the access road. Vehicles can park safely off the highway ROW, but this

closes off two way traffic which limits ability for plowing and emergency vehicle access.

Dumont – This lot is popular for day use snowmobilers. It is along highway 40, and good site

distance exists. Depth of this lot is lacking, i.e. no turnaround space, and vehicle with trailers

often use highway 40 for turning and backing. This can stop traffic and cause problems 65 mph.

The lot is located at the end of a two lane passing zone westbound. Several accidents have

occurred at this milepost, however it is not noted whether the lot or the end of the passing lane is

of engineering concern.

NFSR 302 turnout – Winter access was not planned when this road was built off of the highway.

Egress to highway 40 is steep, and potential exists for vehicles “popping” up into oncoming 65

mph highway traffic. Forest Service permitted commercial snowmobile operator must slow

customer shuttles from 65 mph to very slow to negotiate the turn, without a way to get off the

travelway.

Walton Peak – No changes are proposed for this lot. Capacity and parking distance off of the

highway are adequate.

Fox Curve - Disturbance from road construction or previous alignment of the road is larger

than the graveled parking area providing adequate room to grow, and move from the roadway.

Bruce’s Trail – No changes are proposed for this lot. Capacity and parking distance off of the

highway are adequate.

West Summit - The most popular non-motorized lot, closest to Steamboat Springs. The lot on

the north side of the road is more heavily used. Eastbound vehicles from Steamboat Springs

turning left at the end of a passing lane are subject to stopping for westbound traffic. The existing

situation is potentially fatal, and several accidents have occurred, citing sideswipes at parking

area, or parked vehicles entering traffic. Site distances are limited, and speed limits are 55 mph.


The existing parking problems will continue to worsen. These issues have gone unchanged for at least

15-20 years. As recreation use increases, the problems will only worsen, and potential of accidents will

stay the same or increase. CDOT will continue to plow lots without agreement or compensation. No

additional costs will be needed to implement this alternative.


35


Improvements identified in the proposed action will provide for adequate parking for recreationists based

on previous and current vehicle counts. Off roadside parking is preferable for both recreation and

highway user safety. Elimination of the East Summit and West Summit lots will reduce potential for a

major accident to occur. Both lots sit at the top off passing areas with limited sight distance.

Where traffic necessitates, planned acceleration and deceleration lanes will provide for smooth traffic

flow, reducing slowdown for highway vehicle traffic. Many accidents on Rabbit Ears Pass are during low

visibility, poor road condition times. These improvements will provide for a larger safety margin.

While traffic thresholds are not requiring acceleration/deceleration lanes at this time, they are being

analyzed as a possible action, so that if needed in the future, they can be built without further

environmental analysis. Displaced capacity by closing the East summit lot will increase traffic using both

the Dumont and Muddy Creek lots. The traffic levels collected during 2012/2103 were well below

thresholds mandating turning lanes, but continued monitoring but it is not determined that this will

require the need for acceleration/deceleration lanes at either or both lots.

The cost of this alternative is a consideration. One-time costs of developing and improving parking areas

needs to be considered, as well as annual maintenance costs of snowplowing, and parking lot facility

maintenance. As facilities are designed and developed, anticipated costs may change.

DESIGN CRITERIA

Coordination with CDOT will assure all improvements accessed from the US Highway will be

done in accordance with Federal Highway Regulations.

Monitor traffic levels at the new lots to determine if acceleration and deceleration lanes are

required by CDOT.


This alternative is consistent with the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Vegetation


The project area occurs within Forest Plan management prescription area (MA) 4.2 - Scenery. This MA

directs that these areas be managed for scenic values while allowing multiple use management, such as

recreation activities and timber harvest to occur. In area 4.2, timber harvest is not scheduled and does not

contribute towards the allowable sale quality (ASQ) of the forest plan.

Forest vegetation cover types in the analysis area consist of Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), Englemann

spruce (Picea Englemannii) and Subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). The forested areas are dominated by the

spruce/fir cover type due to the high elevation of the analysis area. The affected areas consist of mature

stands of timber with a spruce/fir understory firmly established in places.

DESIRED CONDITION


36

The Forest Plan states that the desired condition for MA 4.2 is to provide high quality scenery, while

allowing multiple use management such as timber harvest and recreation. The landscape will have a

predominantly natural appearance and be relatively undisturbed or slightly disturbed by human activity.

Vegetation management will enhance the scenic resource and blend with the natural landscape.

Environmental Consequences

There is limited, if any, potential for the proposed changes in parking on Rabbit Ears Pass to affect timber

resources due to the small amount of vegetation disturbance proposed. With implementation of

recommendations (Table 1), no direct effects to timber resources would be expected. Minor vegetation

disturbance will occur, but these effects would not affect overall system function or that of the timber

resource. Given that these areas would be converted to recreational use, forest regeneration would not be

required.


Direct and indirect effects: Under this alternative there would be no change from the existing condition.

No improvements for traffic and winter recreation parking would occur. Current levels of parking

capacity and bathroom facilities would remain. No additional ground disturbance or timber removal

would occur.

With no ground disturbance there would be no potential for loss of forest cover. There would be no direct

or indirect effects to the timber resources of the area. Forest function would not be affected relative to the

existing condition.

Cumulative effects: This alternative would not contribute to significant cumulative effects. Past actions

that have occurred in these areas include the Green Creek fire in 2002, which affected the Milk Creek-

Muddy Creek watersheds, as well as development on the Steamboat Ski Area. Future actions that may

occur in these watersheds include the Steamboat Front Hazard Fuel Reduction project, CDOT’s hazard

tree removal along highway 40, livestock grazing, winter recreation by snowmobiles and cross-country

skiers, and dispersed recreation.

This alternative is consistent with Forest Plan direction, and would not result in irreversible or

irretrievable effects to the timber resources.


Direct and indirect effects: The proposed action would improve existing vehicle parking and staging

facilities, install appropriate sanitation facilities, close unsafe parking areas, and improve the safety of

parking and turning areas on Rabbit Ears Pass for winter recreation. The new parking proposals would

create approximately 9.7 acres of new parking, and may disturb up to 27.8 acres during construction.

Approximately 1.6 acres of current parking will be closed and rehabilitated. Table 1 displays the

approximate size of each new parking facility as well as the potential disturbed area, and timber concerns

with implementation recommendations at each location.

There are minimal amounts (described in Table 1) of timbered areas within the parking areas; therefore

this alternative would have little potential to affect the overall forested environment. There will be a

slight loss of forested cover. The new parking lots are in upland areas with ground disturbance minimized

as much as possible. This project will occur over a number of years therefore the disturbance in any one

year would be small.


37

The total loss of timbered area would be less than 2.0 acres. This potential loss meets the exact Forest

Plan Silviculture Standard 11, where “permanent openings that serve specific management direction on

other than suitable timber land are appropriate”.

There would be no direct effects to the overall health of the forested area. Forest function would not be

affected relative to the existing condition. There may be an indirect effect through minimal loss of

forested cover, however this would be a very small decrease and negligible on a watershed scale.

Cumulative effects: With implementation of the recommendations outlined, this alternative would not

contribute to significant cumulative effects. Other past, present and future activities in this area

contributing to cumulative effects are the same as those in Alternative 1.

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY With implementation of the recommendations listed in Table 1, this alternative is consistent with Forest

Plan direction, and would not result in irreversible or irretrievable effects to the timber resources.


38

Table 5: Timber Concerns Associated with the Proposed Action.

Parking

Area

Acres Timber Concerns Implementation

Recommendations

(in order of preference)

296

Parking

0.6 No concerns. The area is dry.

Possibly 8 – 15 trees to be

removed.

Pile and burn

Chip

Bury

Haul away.

302

Turning

Lane

0 No concerns. There is a steep

slope from Highway 40 to NFSR

302. Possibly 3 – 8 trees to be

removed.

Pile and burn

Chip

Bury

Haul away.

Dumont

Parking

3.0 No concerns. No trees to be

removed. This area is dry with

some riparian vegetation along

the eastern border.

No timber exists to be removed.

Fox Curve

Parking

0.4 No concerns. No trees to be

removed. This is an existing

disturbed area.

No timber exists to be removed.

Meadows

Parking

0.5 No concerns. This area is dry

and already has been impacted in

the past. Possibly 8 – 10 small

trees to be removed.

Pile and burn

Chip

Bury

Haul away.

Muddy

Creek

Parking

5.2 There will be approximately 25

CCF of timber to be removed

from this area. Approximately

1.0 acres of timber will be

removed. Large conifer trees

exist. Dependent and

consideration of time constraints.

Force Account:

cut and deck for firewood

cut and deck for deck sale

Timber Sale:

prep, sell, cut and remove.

Service Contract:

cut and deck for firewood or deck

sale.

West

Summit

Parking

-0.8 No concerns. No trees to be

removed. This area is dry and

already has been impacted in the

past.

None, this area is scheduled for re-hab.

East

Summit

Parking

-0.8 No concerns. No trees to be

removed. This area is dry and

already has been impacted in the

past.

None, this area is scheduled for re-hab.


39

Visual Resources


The proposed new parking areas are located within the Middle Yampa and Red Dirt Geographic

Areas. The characteristic landscape consists of spruce/fir, aspen, lodgepole pine, shrubs, grasses

and forbs. The proposed parking areas can be viewed from US Highway 40 which is a primary

travel route for highway travelers and forest visitors.

Variety Classes Variety Classes identify different degrees of landscape variety. Variety Class B is identified

within the majority of project area. The Class B landscape (Common) refers to areas with variety

in form, line, color and texture but tend to be common in scenic quality

Sensitivity Level

US Highway 40 and Dumont Lake Road (NFSR 315) are rated as Sensitivity Level 1.

Sensitivity Level 1 includes travel ways and use areas where forest visitors have major (highest)

concern on scenic quality.

Visual Quality Objectives

The Routt National Forest Inventoried Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) map and the Routt

Forest Plan adopted Visual Quality Objectives provide visual goals for management activities.

Each visual quality objective prescribes a different degree of acceptable alteration of the

landscape based on the importance of aesthetics. The project area is situated within Management

Area Prescriptions 4.2 – Scenery and is assigned Partial Retention VQO. Management Area 4.2

emphasis includes providing high quality scenery while allowing multiple - use management

within the travel corridor.

Partial Retention VQO requires management activities remain visually subordinate to the

characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color, and texture common to the

characteristic landscape but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern,

etc. remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. A grace period of one year is

provided for meeting Retention and Partial Retention VQOs after the completion of the project.

All adopted visual quality objectives are placed under guidelines in the revised Routt Forest Plan.

Guidelines are advisable courses of action, which should be followed to achieve forest goals, but

are optional. Deviations from guidelines must be analyzed during project level analysis and

documented in a project decision document but do not require a forest plan amendment.



There would be no direct and indirect effects as there would be no new parking areas. Existing

parking areas would remain open to recreation users. Several existing parking areas would

continue to impact scenic quality of the scenic highway corridor.


Rabbit Ears Parking

40

The proposed action would include developing several new parking areas and as well closing and

rehabilitating several existing parking areas. There would be some short-term direct effects on

visual resources when travelers driving on US 40 State Highway through the project area would

notice the ground disturbed by construction activities that contrast with the surrounding natural

appearing landscape. Indirect effects could occur if travelers re-enter the closed parking area and

cause visible resource damage of the landscape. Overtime, scenic quality would enhance when

disturbed ground is greened up and covered with new vegetation. Closing and rehabilitating old

Dumont Lake parking, West Summit pullouts except for emergency parking sites and East

Summit pullouts would enhance the scenic quality of the scenic highway corridor.

The Rabbit Ears parking project would maintain and meet the desired scenic condition of the

characteristic landscape of the Middle Yampa Red Dirt Geographic Areas.

FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY and CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

In the no action alternative, several existing parking areas continue to not be consistent with

Partial Retention VQO. In the proposed action alternative, new proposed parking areas would

meet Partial Retention VQO when the design criteria for visual resources are followed in the

project area. Existing old Dumont parking and West Summit pullouts except for emergency

parking sites and East Summit pullouts would be closed and rehabilitated to blend in with the

surroundings and meet Partial Retention VQO. Past, present and future management activities

were reviewed for cumulative effects on visual resources. Past management activities have been

implemented within and adjacent to the project area. Cumulative effects would be negligible for

no action and proposed action alternatives.

All future management activities within and adjacent to the analysis area are required to have

visual resources evaluated as part of the project level planning to ensure that management

activities will comply with the Routt Forest Plan adopted visual quality objectives.

DESIGN CRITERIA

Protect existing vegetation located within the immediate foreground of all proposed

parking areas as feasible for softening visual impacts of new parking when viewed from

State Highway 40.

Provide green buffer and plant trees between the Dumont Road (NFSR 315) and State

Highway 40 for the proposed New Dumont Parking lot as to minimize the visual impact

when viewed from Dumont Road and State Highway 40. Buffer may be used for snow

storage when plowing the parking during the winter. Rehabilitate the existing old

Dumont parking to blend in with the surrounding landscape and enhance the scenic

quality.

Rehabilitate existing West Summit pullouts except for emergency parking sites and East

Summit pullouts to blend in with the surrounding landscape and enhance the scenic

quality as viewed from State Highway 40.


41

Wildlife

INTRODUCTION

This purpose of this report is to describe the effects of Rabbit Ears Winter Parking Project on

terrestrial animal species located in the analysis area. This report will discuss the direct, indirect,

and cumulative effects of activities associated with the parking activities specific to terrestrial

animal species. A report specific to terrestrial Management Indicator Species (MIS) was also

prepared for this project and provides additional detail on the anticipated effects of the project to

MIS.

Threatened, endangered, sensitive, proposed, and candidate terrestrial animal species known or

suspected to exist or with potential habitat are analyzed in the Rabbit Ears Winter Parking Project

Animal Biological Evaluation (BE) & Animal Biological Assessment (BA). This document

provides additional information on how implementation of the proposed action would affect

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species occurring on, or with suitable habitat within

the analysis area.

Separate BEs and BAs specific to plant and aquatic animal species were prepared for this project

by the Forest Botanist, Marti Aitken, and South Zone Fisheries Biologist, Rick Henderson,

respectively.


The analysis area contains portions of two geographic areas— Middle Yampa and Red Dirt

geographic areas. The analysis area includes management areas 4.2 Scenery and 4.3 Dispersed

Recreation as described in the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Routt National Forest

(Forest Plan 1997 revision).

The most dominant cover types in the project area are grasses, forbs, and shrublands. Small

amounts of spruce-fir, lodgepole pine, and bare soil are also present. During the last seven years,

the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, including the project area, have experienced a pine

beetle outbreak of epidemic proportions. Some of the areas around the Muddy Creek parking

area contain beetle killed lodgepole pine.

Animal species that occur in the cover types found in the analysis area are typical for those cover

types on the Routt National Forest. The Natural Resource Manager (NRM) Wildlife database

contains several observations of different taxa within a quarter mile buffer of the project area.

Several species are likely to occur in the area, although not recorded in the database or observed

during the field survey. Fish and aquatic species are covered in the aquatic animal specialist

report. A brief summary of the animals that occur in the project area are listed below. More

detail on some of these species can be found in the BE/BA, and MIS reports.

Animals known to occur in the analysis include:

Mammals: American marten, black bear, moose, elk, deer and water shrew.

Birds: Olive-sided flycatcher, red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, and Wilson’s warbler.

Reptiles: There are no records of reptiles occurring in the analysis area although it is likely that

the common garter snake and possibly the smooth green snake occur within the analysis area.

Rabbit Ears Parking

42


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Wildlife

This section will discuss the predicted effects of implementing the Rabbit Ears Winter Parking

Project on wildlife resources. Although this section touches on threatened, endangered, proposed,

candidate or sensitive species (TEPCS), a more detailed discussion on the effects of

implementation of the project to TEPCS species can be found in the animal BE and BA prepared

for this project.


Under the No Action Alternative, this proposal would not be implemented. No improvements for

traffic and winter recreation parking would occur. Current levels of parking capacity and

bathroom facilities would remain constant. West and East Summit parking areas would remain

open and un-rehabilitated. The acre of trees that would be cut for the proposed action would

remain intact. This would benefit wildlife species that use this area. Short-term disturbance from

parking lot construction would not occur, so there would not be impacts to the species that use the

area, especially birds that use the trees and open meadows for nesting and roosting. However, the

current recreation use and human caused disturbance would remain the same.


Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The MIS analysis prepared for this project indicates that implementation of an action alternative

may impact habitat for one Routt National Forest terrestrial MIS: the vesper sparrow. The action

alternatives are anticipated to have no impact to the other 3 Routt National Forest terrestrial MIS

(northern goshawk, Wilson’s warbler, golden-crowned kinglet).

Impacts to the vesper sparrow from implementation of the proposed action are not anticipated to

affect the forest-wide population trend. Impacts to both species’ habitats are considered within

the range of natural variability. Habitats that are affected will recover for this species in the long-

term. Please refer to the MIS report prepared for this project for more detail.

Sensitive Species

Implementation of the proposed action “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to

result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing”

for the American marten, pygmy shrew, and olive-sided flycatcher. The proposed action would

have “no impact” to all other Region 2 sensitive species. Additional detail on these findings can

be found in the BE prepared for this project.

Threatened and Endangered Species

A BA was prepared for federally listed species for Alternative 2. The BA reached the following

determinations for listed terrestrial species:

Canada Lynx – May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Yellow-billed cuckoo – No impact (BE determination)

Greater sage-grouse-No impact (BE determination)

North American wolverine-No impact (BE determination)


43

The BE prepared for this project reached a conclusion of “no impact” for the western yellow-

billed cuckoo, greater sage-grouse, and North American wolverine based on the criteria that the

project area has a lack of available habitat. Canada lynx habitat exists in the project area and may

be affected by implementation of Alternative 2. This project has been designed in association

with the SRLA (USDA Forest Service 2008) and is consistent with the SRLA guidance.

Potential impacts to lynx habitat could occur as a result of implementation as described in the

BA. However, project implementation should not adversely affect the ability of an individual

lynx to survive within the Walton Peak LAU. Please refer to the BA for additional detail

regarding the project’s effects to threatened and endangered species.

Raptors

The Routt National Forest Plan directs that all raptor nest sites should be protected. Surveys

conducted during the summer of 2012 resulted in the detection of one active red-tailed hawk nest

within a quarter mile buffer of the analysis area. An observation of a Swainson’s hawk was

recorded in 2004 in the buffer area. Design criteria have been developed to ensure protection of

raptor nest areas. The red-tailed hawk nest will be checked by wildlife personnel prior to

implementation and if it is active, construction will be deferred for that portion of the project

(Muddy Creek parking lot expansion) until the birds fledge and a biologist is confident that work

can proceed without disturbing the birds. The standard seasonal restriction for red-tailed hawks is

approximately March 15th-August 1

st.

Elk

The proposed action has the potential to affect elk summer range in the analysis area because of

disturbance from construction; however this is only short term. Construction will not occur

during the seasons when winter range and calving areas are needed by elk, so issues related to

seasonal restrictions on use of travelways are not necessary. In addition, the analysis area does

not occur in designated elk winter range. The area is already heavily used for recreation and

experiences high amounts of human disturbance. The proposed action is consistent with TES

standard #1, thus design criteria are unnecessary to maintain consistency with this standard.

Two Forest Plan standards address habitat effectiveness for native ungulates. TES Standard #3

states: “Provide adequate cover to maintain screening, through time, along roads where timber

management activities are taking place to minimize disturbance and harassment of deer and elk”.

TES Standard #10 states: “In forested ecosystems, maintain habitat effectiveness for deer and elk

at 50% or greater, as measured at the Geographic Area scale”. Elk habitat effectiveness is driven

by changes in the hiding cover index as well as the road density index. The proposed action will

not affect either of these variables.

Birds

In 2008, the Forest Service Chief signed an MOU with the Fish and Wildlife Service to promote

the conservation of migratory birds. This MOU was pursuant to Executive Order 131866, 66

Fed. Reg. 3853 (2001), Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. The

Executive Order directs agencies to take certain actions to further comply with the migratory bird

conventions, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

(BGPEA) and other pertinent statutes. The purpose of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird

conservation by identifying strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse

impacts on migratory birds.

The MOU in D3 outlines that the Forest Service shall: Evaluate the effects of agency actions on

migratory birds within the NEPA Process with a focus on species of management concern along

with their priority habitats and key risk factors.

Rabbit Ears Parking

44

The evaluation of agency actions should: balance long-term benefits against any short- or long-

term adverse effects; pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and

juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area; consider approaches to the extent

practical for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities

including: (1. altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the breeding

season, 2. Retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are underrepresented, 3. Retaining

the integrity of breeding sites, especially those with long histories of use, 4. giving due

consideration to key wintering areas, migration routes and stop-over sites, 5. minimizing or

preventing the pollution or detrimental alteration of environments utilized by migratory birds);

and coordinate with FWS when planning projects that are likely to have a negative effect on

migratory bird populations and cooperate in developing approaches that minimize negative

impacts and maximize benefits to migratory birds.

An evaluation of effects of the proposed action to sensitive bird species listed in the Region 2

Forest Service Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List is included in the Biological Evaluation

and Management Indicator Species report prepared for this project. The project has been

designed to the extent practical to minimize incidental take through project design criteria. These

criteria protect raptor breeding sites that may be discovered, retain snags, and plan for future

forest.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the proposed action will add to the other activities and actions affecting

wildlife in the analysis area. Cumulative effects in the Walton Peak LAU, which is in the Red

Dirt and Middle Yampa geographic areas, are fully described in the BA written for this project.

In brief, the main ongoing activities and actions in the vicinity of the Rabbit Ears Winter Parking

Project analysis area are hazard tree removal, fuels reduction, and high levels of recreation. The

cumulative nature of these effects is currently not anticipated to be significantly affecting wildlife

populations.


This section is an evaluation of the consistency of the action alternatives as related to wildlife

with direction in the Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by

the most recent forest plan revision (USDA Forest Service 1998) and the Southern Rockies Lynx

Amendment (SRLA, USDA Forest Service 2008).

The action alternatives developed for this project, as described above and designed are consistent

with applicable Forest-wide threatened, endangered, sensitive species and wildlife standards,

management area and geographic area standards and guidelines defined within the Routt National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1998).

DESIGN CRITERIA

TES and Raptors: If specific impacts from the permitted activities to raptor species or

threatened, endangered, & sensitive species and/or their habitats (e.g., breeding sites) are

identified, then management will be adjusted as necessary in annual operating plans to

reduce or eliminate those impacts.

Eliminate mortality to wildlife from entrapment in vent pipes by installing caps on the

vault toilets.


45

Appendix 1 - Design Criteria Summary

AQUATIC RESOURCES If breeding sites are found for any of the sensitive amphibian species and it is determined

that the proposed actions would negatively affect the site, then operations would cease in

that area until site specific mitigations can be implemented.

BOTANY

Flag for avoidance and Delineate a 100’ buffer around known occurrences of R2

sensitive plant species and local concern plant species. Where impacts are unavoidable,

work with botanist to implement mitigation measures.

At the Dumont and Meadows Parking Areas:

(4) Plow the parking surface when temperatures are consistently below freezing to

promote freezing of the road. This will remove the insulation provided by the

snow allowing the subgrade to freeze to a greater depth and reduce parking

surface damage that might occur from use during unfrozen conditions .

(5) Use shoes or runners to keep plow blades at least 2 inches above existing surface

for graders or 4 inches for runners on dozers.

(6) Snow storage areas outside of parking lots - keep ground vehicles off of native

soils unless there is at least 2 inches of frozen ground or at least 1 ft of packed

snow to protect sensitive plants adjacent to the lots.

Avoid any damage or degradation rare wetlands such as fens and springs.

Where revegetation is planned, work with the forest botanist to identify appropriate

species for planting following guidelines in the MBR Revegetation Plan.

At Meadows Parking, collect seed from Rabbit Ear’s gilia for establishing a new

population to replace existing population. Plant seed within two years of impact and

monitor new population for at least two years following impacts.

ECONOMICS

Develop formal partnerships and agreements with outside organizations to secure

funding for improvements and long term commitment of resources to implement

projects. If this cannot be done, consider the use of the Federal Lands Recreation

Enhancement Act to generate adequate fees for the operation and maintenance of

the Rabbit Ears Area.

HERITAGE

If cultural resources are found during implementation s the result of ground disturbance,

stop construction temporarily and notify Zone Archeologist.

HYDROLOGY Locate parking areas and sanitation facilities 100 feet from stream channels and outside

of riparian areas.

Ensure the drainage ditch at the Muddy Creek turning lane is redeveloped to ensure water

is routed away from the road surfaces.

Ensure sediment from Muddy Creek and Dumont parking areas and Fox Curve turning

lane does not impact stream systems. Use engineered designs and sediment traps as

needed.

Rabbit Ears Parking

46

Avoid soil disturbing actions during periods of heavy rain or wet soils. Do not operate

equipment when conditions will result in rutting of soils.

Locate vehicle service and fuel areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps

on gentle upland sites. Mix, load and clean on gentle upland sites. Dispose of chemicals

and containers in State-certified disposal areas.

The East and West Summit Parking lots shall be ripped, seeded, and/or have slash

scattered to prevent erosion and reduce compaction. Scattering of slash may be in lieu of

constructing water bars. Scattering of slash shall cover approximately 30-50% of the

area. Parking areas may require ripping to reduce compaction as well as scattering slash.

These parking lots will be ripped to a depth of 4-6 inches and seeded with an approved

seed mix, if necessary.

Close parking lots as necessary during spring thaw to protect the surface and prevent

rutting, and increased erosion.

Ensure areas for snow storage are accounted for in the design of parking areas and

increased melt water from these portions are engineered into the design

RECREATION

Phase implementation with priority to safety concerns

Assure that new facilities meet the Accessibility Standards, Visual Quality Objectives

(VQO) and Built Environmental Image guidelines for the travel corridor and new

facilities.

Coordinate with CDOT on sign installations and access plans.

SOILS

During construction and until vegetation is sufficient to control erosion of fill

slopes of the Dumont and Muddy Creek parking areas provide for erosion control

(e.g. silt fence or hay bales).

Seed all fill slopes with proper seed mix.

Provide ground cover on fill slopes for soil moisture to get plants started.

Drain run-off from the Muddy Creek overnight parking area to the west

TRANSPORTATION

Coordination with CDOT will assure all improvements accessed from the US Highway

will be done in accordance with Federal Highway Regulations.

Monitor traffic levels at the new lots to determine if acceleration and deceleration lanes

are required by CDOT.

VISUAL RESOURCES

Protect existing vegetation located within the immediate foreground of all proposed

parking areas as feasible for softening visual impacts of new parking when viewed from

State Highway 40.

Provide green buffer and plant trees between the Dumont Road (NFSR 315) and State

Highway 40 for the proposed New Dumont Parking lot as to minimize the visual impact


47

when viewed from Dumont Road and State Highway 40. Buffer may be used for snow

storage when plowing the parking during the winter. Rehabilitate the existing old

Dumont parking to blend in with the surrounding landscape and enhance the scenic

quality.

Rehabilitate existing West Summit pullouts except for emergency parking sites and East

Summit pullouts to blend in with the surrounding landscape and enhance the scenic

quality as viewed from State Highway 40.

WILDLIFE

TES and Raptors: If specific impacts from the permitted activities to raptor species or

threatened, endangered, & sensitive species and/or their habitats (e.g., breeding sites) are

identified, then management will be adjusted as necessary in annual operating plans to

reduce or eliminate those impacts.

Eliminate mortality to wildlife from entrapment in vent pipes by installing caps on the

vault toilets.

Rabbit Ears Parking

48

Appendix 2 - References

AQUATIC RESOURCES

Behnke, R.J. 1979. Monograph of the Native Trouts of the Genus Salmo of Western North

America. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, Colorado.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society

Monograph 6.

Behnke, R.J., and M. Zarn. 1976. Biology and Management of Threatened and Endangered

Western Trouts. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-28.

Campbell, J. B., 1970. Hibernacula of a Population of Bufo boreas boreas in the Colorado Front

Range. Herpetologica 25:278-282.

Hammerson, G. A. 1999. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Second Edition. University

Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 484 pp.

Jones , M. S., J. P. Goetl, K. L. Scherff-Noris, S. Brinkman, L. J. Livo, and A. M. Goebel.

1998. Boreal Toad Research Progress Report: 1995-1997. April 1998. Colorado Division

of Wildlife, Fort Collins. 171 pp.

Livo, L. J. 1998. Identification Guide to Montane Amphibians of the Southern Rocky

Mountains. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. 25

p.

Loeffler, C., editor. 2001. Conservation Plan and Agreement for the Management and

Recovery of the Southern Rocky Mountain Population of the Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas

boreas). Boreal Toad Recovery Team. 76 pp + appendices.

Packauskas, R.J. (2005, August 24). Hudsonian Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hudsonica):

a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Region. Available:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/hudsonianemeralddragonfly.pdf (2006,

June 29)

Pioneer (Pioneer Environmental Services). 1993. Results of Survey for the Rocky Mountain

Capshell Snail in Colorado Alpine Lakes. Prepared for Eldora Enterprises Limited Liability

Company, Lake Eldora Corporation and Colorado Division of Wildlife.

Puttmann, S.J. and K.J. Kehmeier. 1994. Rocky Mountain Wood Frog, Rana sylvatic,

Recovery Plan. State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife.

20 p.

Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1997 Revision. USDA Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Region (R-2), Lakewood, Colorado. Also included is the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Sensitive Species List latest update 12/01/03. Rocky Mountain

Region, Golden, Colorado.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/hudsonianemeralddragonfly.pdf


49

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for

Bureau of Reclamation’s Operations and Depletions, Other Depletions, and Funding and

Implementation of Recovery Program Actions in the Upper Colorado River above the

Gunnison River. ES/GJ-6-CO-99-F-033. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mountain-

Prairie Region (6). Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002a. Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals:

Amendment and Supplement to the Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Mountain-Prairie Region (6). Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002b. Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus)

Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the Razorback Sucker Recovery Plan. U.

S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mountain-Prairie Region (6). Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002c. Colorado Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius)

Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the Colorado Squawfish Recovery Plan.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mountain-Prairie Region (6). Denver, Colorado.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002d. Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery

Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Mountain-Prairie Region (6). Denver, Colorado.

BOTANY

Beatty, B.L., W.F. Jennings, & Rawlinson. R.C 2003. Botrychium ascendens W.H. Wagner (trianglelobe

moonwort), B. crenulatum W.H. Wagner (scalloped moonwort), and B. lineare W.H. Wagner

(narrowleaf grapefern): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/botrychiums.pdf [Jan

28, 2008].

Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) 2014. Tracked Vascular Plant Species Web Page: . Last

accessed January 14, 2014.

Ladyman, J.R.A. (2004). Ipomopsis aggregata (Pursh) V. Grant ssp. weberi V. Grant and Wilken (scarlet

gilia): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ipomopsisaggregatasspweberi.pdf .

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Rabbit Ears Winter Parking Official Species List. February 21, 2014.

Consultation Tracking Number 06E24100-2014-SLI-0068.

Weber, W.A. .& Wittman, R.C. 2007. Bryohphytes of Colorado. Pilgram Process, Inc. 231 p.

HERITAGE

Andrews, J.T., P.E. Carrara, F. B. King and R. Stuckenrath. 1975. Holocene

Environmental Changes in the Alpine Zone, Northern San Juan Mountains Colorado. Evidence

from a Bog Stratigraphy and Palynology. Quaternary Research 5:173-197.

Feiler, Eric J. and R. Scott Anderson. 1993. The Paleoecology of the Dome Creek Meadow,

Bear River Corridor, Garfield County, Colorado. Ms. on file with the Medicine Bow-Routt

National Forest, Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

Kornfeld, Marcel. J. Miller, L.C. Todd, J. Saysette and G.C. Frison. 1992. Paleo-Indian

Occupation in a Portion of Colorado's Middle Park: Preliminary Report on Several Sites with

Rabbit Ears Parking

50

Goshen Complex Manifestations. University of Wyoming. Paper presented at the 1992 Plains

Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Naze, Brian. 1986. The Folsom Occupation of Middle Park, Colorado. Southwestern Lore

52(4):1-32.

Miller, Wick R. 1986. Numic Languages. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. D'Azevedo, pp.

98-106. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 11, edited by William C. Sturtevant.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

HYDROLOGY

16 U.S.C. 475. Organic Administration Act. June 4, 1897.

33 U.S.C. 1251, 1254, 1323, 1324, 1329, 1342, 1344. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act,

(Clean Water Act). Amended November 27, 2002.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. (2012, March 30) [Colorado’s Section

303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and Evaluation List], [online]. Available:

http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/93_2012(03).pdf

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2009. Memorandum of Understanding

Between State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and

United States Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region. FS Agreement No. 09-MU-

11020000-024, 6p.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2008. Metadata for spatial GIS data

for Colorado Sourcewater areas.

Executive Order 11988. Floodplain Management. May 24, 1977.

Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands. May 24, 1977.

F.S.H. 2509.25. Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook. May 5, 2006.

F.S.M. 2542. Municipal Supply Watersheds. September 4, 2007.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Steamboat Springs, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Routt National

Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Medicine Bow-Routt Watershed Condition Assessment. Laramie,

WY. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Routt National Forest.

RECREATION





51

USDA Forest Service, Winter Recreation Management and Routt National Forest Plan

Amendment, May 2005

USDA Forest Service Implementation Guide to the Framework of Sustainable Recreation,

May 2012

SOILS




TRANSPORTATION




VEGETATION

16 U.S.C. National Forest Management Act. 1976.

16 U.S.C. National Environmental Policy Act. 1969.

16 U.S.C. Multiple-Use Sustained_Yield Act. 1960.

16 U.S.C. Organic Administration Act. 1897.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan. Steamboat Springs, CO. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Routt National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Medicine Bow-Routt Watershed Condition Assessment.

Laramie, WY. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Routt National

Forest.

VISUAL RESOURCES

USDA Forest Service 1974. Handbook #462 National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2,

Chapter 1. Visual Management System. Washington D.C.

USDA Forest Service 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Routt National Forest

Land Resource Management Plan, 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow- Routt

National Forest. Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

WILDLIFE

Natural Resource Manager, Natural Resource Manager (NRM) Wildlife transactional database,

S_R02_RCEF data, EDC, Accessed 27 December 2013.

Rabbit Ears Parking

52

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Routt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1997

Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. Steamboat Springs,

Colorado.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Routt Winter Recreation Management Environmental Assessment

(WRM).

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment. USDA Forest Service

National Forests in Colorado & southern Wyoming. Available on-line:

http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5199575.pdf

USDA Forest Service 1974. Handbook #462 National Forest Landscape Management Volume 2,

Chapter 1. Visual Management System. Washington D.C.

USDA Forest Service 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Routt National

Forest Land Resource Management Plan, 1997 Revision. USDA Forest Service Medicine

Bow- Routt National Forest. Steamboat Springs, Colorado

http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5199575.pdf


53

Appendix 3 - Legal Framework

AQUATIC RESOURCES

A variety of laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies guide management of water

resources on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The Organic Act (16 USC 475) identifies

maintenance of favorable conditions of flow as one purpose of the National Forest system. This

includes retaining the “sponge and filter” quality of stream systems which absorb and store water,

and naturally regulate runoff (FSH 2509.25).

The Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 etc.) requires maintenance and restoration of the physical,

biological, and chemical integrity of waters of the United States. The federal government has

granted states the regulatory authority to enforce state water quality standards and requirements

of the Clean Water Act.

The National Forest Management Act prevents watershed condition from being irreversibly

damaged and protects streams and wetlands from detrimental impacts. Land productivity must be

preserved. Standards, guidelines and management directives set forth in the Land and Resource

Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Routt National Forest (USDA 1997) include directives

related to management of water resources on NFS lands. The Forest Plan incorporates the Water

Conservation Practices (WCP) Handbook (FSH 2509.25), which provides measures to meet legal

requirements. WCP Handbook direction and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines pertinent to

this analysis are outlined in Appendix B.

Executive Order 11988 (1977) directs federal agencies to provide leadership and take action on

federal lands to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated

with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Agencies are required to avoid the direct or

indirect support of development on floodplains whenever there are practicable alternatives and

evaluate the potential effects of any proposed action on floodplains.

Executive Order 11990 (1977) requires federal agencies exercising statutory authority and

leadership over federal lands to avoid to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse

impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Where practicable, direct or

indirect support of new construction in wetlands must be avoided. Federal agencies are required

to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.

HERITAGE

Forest Service policy (FSM 2361.3) requires that projects with the potential to affect

cultural resources, including lands which will leave federal agency control through sale

or exchange, be surveyed for cultural resources in order to comply with 36 CFR 800; the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the Archeological Resources

Protection Act of 1979; and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. To

comply with these laws, any cultural resources known to be 50 years of age or older will

be recorded according to State Historic Preservation Office standards, evaluated for

eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, and assessed for potential effects

from the proposed action. If eligible cultural resources cannot be avoided by project

activities, adverse effects will be mitigated.

Rabbit Ears Parking

54

HYDROLOGY

A variety of laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies guide management of water

resources on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The Organic Act (16 USC 475) identifies

maintenance of favorable conditions of flow as one purpose of the National Forest system. This

includes retaining the “sponge and filter” quality of stream systems which absorb and store water,

and naturally regulate runoff (FSH 2509.25).

The Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 etc.) requires maintenance and restoration of the physical,

biological, and chemical integrity of waters of the United States. The federal government has

granted states the regulatory authority to enforce state water quality standards and requirements

of the Clean Water Act.

The National Forest Management Act prevents watershed condition from being irreversibly

damaged and protects streams and wetlands from detrimental impacts. Land productivity must be

preserved. Standards, guidelines and management directives set forth in the Land and Resource

Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Routt National Forest (USDA 1997) include directives

related to management of water resources on NFS lands. The Forest Plan incorporates the Water

Conservation Practices (WCP) Handbook (FSH 2509.25), which provides measures to meet legal

requirements. WCP Handbook direction and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines pertinent to

this analysis are outlined in Appendix B.

Executive Order 11988 (1977) directs federal agencies to provide leadership and take action on

federal lands to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated

with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Agencies are required to avoid the direct or

indirect support of development on floodplains whenever there are practicable alternatives and

evaluate the potential effects of any proposed action on floodplains.

Executive Order 11990 (1977) requires federal agencies exercising statutory authority and

leadership over federal lands to avoid to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse

impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Where practicable, direct or

indirect support of new construction in wetlands must be avoided. Federal agencies are required

to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.

VEGETATION A variety of laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies guide management of

timber resources on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The National Forest

Management Act (1976), the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), and the

Multiple-use Sustained-yield Act (1960) govern management actions. Standards,

guidelines and management directives set forth in the Land and Resource Management

Plan (Forest Plan) for the Routt National Forest (USDA 1997) also include directives

related to management of timber resources on NFS lands.

SOILS A variety of laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies guide management of timber

resources on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The National Forest Management Act (1976),

the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), and the Multiple-use Sustained-yield Act (1960)

govern management actions. The Organic Act (16 USC 475) identifies maintenance of soil

productivity as one purpose of the National Forest system. Standards, guidelines and


55

management directives set forth in the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the

Routt National Forest (USDA 1997) also include directives related to management of resources

on NFS lands. The Soils Management Handbook (FSH 2509.18) and Watershed Conservation

Practices Handbook (FSH2509.25) list specific standards and guidelines based on these laws.

VISUAL RESOURCES

There are numerous Federal laws require all Federal land management agencies to consider

scenery and aesthetic resources in project planning. The Routt Forest Plan provides guidance for

all resources management activities of the Routt National Forest. The Forest Plan includes

standards and guidelines for the visual resources in the Forest-wide Direction and Management

Area Prescriptions.

Providing scenic quality and a range of recreation opportunities that responds to the needs of

National Forest customers and local communities is one of the several Regional goals as stated in

the Forest-wide Direction.

The Routt Forest Plan desired condition for visual resources is to provide scenic quality and

maintain the overall landscape character in ten years after the implementation of the Forest Plan

and to continue draw visitors through the physical setting and scenic beauty of the Routt National

Forest after 50 years of plan implementation.

Rabbit Ears Parking

56

Appendix 4 - Public Involvement / Tribal Consultation – Involved Parties

Ancient Forest Rescue

Michael McGowan

PO Box 762, San Luis, CO. 81152

Banjo Sheep Company

Patrick & Sharon O'Toole

PO Box 22, Slater, CO. 81653-0022

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

1536 Wynkoop, Ste B 501, Denver, CO. 80202

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance

PO Box 1512 Laramie, WY. 82073

Black Mountain Trails Committee

Bill Hiss

1201 S Shelly Dr, Deming, NM. 88030-5527

BLM, Little Snake Field Office

John Husband

455 Emerson St, Craig, CO. 81625

Blue Ribbon Coalition

Jack Welch

246 S Holman Way, Golden, CO. 80401

Center for Native Ecosystems

Megan Corrigan

1536 Wynkoop, Ste 301, Denver, CO. 80302

Chew Ranch

PO Box 126, Jensen, UT. 84035-0126

Circle Four Lodge

Tom & Patricia Anne Lindley

PO Box 770971, Steamboat Springs, CO. 80477

City Clerk

Shirley Seely

300 W 4th St, Craig, CO. 81625

City of Steamboat, Parks, Open Space &

Recreation Chris Wilson

PO Box 775088, Steamboat Springs,

CO. 80477

Clark Ranch Partnership

Doug Carlson

PO Box 668, Clark, CO. 80428-0668

Clark Store

Susan Saari

PO Box 825, Clark, CO. 80428

Colorado Mountain Club

Anne Vickery

5255 Pennsylvania Ave, Boulder, CO. 80303

Colorado Mountain Club

710 10th St Ste 200, Golden, CO. 80401

Colorado Mountain College

1330 Bob Adams Dr., Steamboat Springs, CO.

80487

Colorado OHV Coalition

Toni Louder

470 Woodbury, Craig, CO. 81625

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Bill Atkinson

925 Weiss Drive, Steamboat Springs, CO. 80487


Brian Holmes

PO Box 1181, Meeker, CO. 81641


Danielle Domson



Jamin Grigg

73485 HWY 64, Meeker, CO. 81641


Jeff Yost



Jim Haskins

PO Box 1165, Hayden, CO. 81639


Libbie Miller



Liza Rossi



Mike Bauman

712 Riford Rd , Craig, CO. 81625


Mike Middleton

PO Box 775777, Steamboat Springs, CO 80477


57


Steve Znamenacek

925 Weiss Drive, Steamboat Springs, CO 80487


Stuart Macdonald

1313 Sherman St Rm 618, Denver, CO. 80203

Colorado State Forest Service

John Twitchel


Colorado State Representative

512 Cannon Bldg, Washington DC. 20515-0603

Colorado Trout Unlimited

David Nickum

1536 Wynkoop, St. Ste100, Denver, CO. 80202-

1138

Colorado Wild Inc

Rocky Smith

1030 Pearl Ste 9, Denver, CO. 80203

Columbine Cabins Inc

Lyman Fancher


Continental Divide Trail Society

James Wolf

3704 N Charles St Ste 601, Baltimore, MD.

21218

Craig Chamber of Commerce

Christina Currie

360 E Victory Way, Craig, CO. 81625

Craig City Council

300 W 4th St, Craig, CO. 81625

Cyclone Creek LLC

Dave Harrison

1781 Macom Dr, Sedalia, CO. 80135-8722

Dels Triangle 3 Ranch

Ray Heid


Duncan Livestock Company

PO Box 47, Slater, CO. 81653-0047

Egeria Land and Cattle

Kirk Shiner

33420 RCR 1 Antelope Rd, McCoy, CO. 80463

Elkridge Homeowners

Kevin Ford


Fetcher Ranch

PO Box 866, Clark, CO. 80428-0866

Grand County Historical Association

Don Woster

PO Box 165, Hot Sulphur Springs, CO. 80451

Historic Preservation, Intergovernmental Services

Laureen Schaffer


Intermountain Forest Association

Tom Troxel

2218 Jackson Blvd Ste 10, Rapid City, SD.

57702-3452

Intermountain Resources LLC

Randy Harrison

PO Box 670, Montrose, CO. 81402

Inyan Kara Grazing Association

Jim Darlington

PO Box 458, Newcastle, WY, 82701

Jones and Lynch Logging

Patrick Lynch

PO Box 294, Encampment, WY. 82325

Little Snake Motorcycle Club

470 Woodberry, Craig, CO. 81625

Look Ranch

PO Box 1087, Clark, CO. 80428-1087

May S-S Ranch LLLP

David May

933 Alta Vista Dr., Craig, CO. 81625-3222

Morgan Creek

John Smith

PO Box 789,Craig, CO. 81626-0789

Museum NW Colo Historical Society

Dan Davidson

590 Yampa Ave, Craig, CO. 81625

Needmore Ranch

3900 N Mccoll Rd, Mcallen, TX. 78501-9160

Northwest Colorado Snowmobile Club

Joe & Jenny Tonso

PO Box 3, Craig, CO. 81626

Nottingham Land & Livestock

Mike Nottingham

PO Box 969, Craig, CO. 81626-0969

Peroulis Bros Ltd Partnership

PO Box 355, Craig, CO. 81626-0355

Poulter Colorado Camps


Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Allan Reishus

601 Sandrock Dr, Craig, CO. 81625

Rabbit Ears Parking

58

Rocky Mountain Youth Corps

Gretchen VanDeCarr


Round Mountain Ranch

Dan Souders

51870 Rcr 129 , Steamboat Springs, CO. 80487-

9422

Routt County Cattleman's Association

Larry Monger

39765 CR 44, Steamboat Springs, CO. 80487

Routt County Commissioners

Nancy Stahoviak


Routt County CU Extension Office

CJ Mucklow


Routt County Historic Preservation

Dee Bolton


Routt County Planning Commission

Chad Phillips


Routt County Riders

Brad Cusenbary


Routt Powder Riders


Senate Office Building

Senator Mark Udall

317 Hart, Washington DC, 20510-0606

Sheep Mountain Partnership

General Delivery, Slater, CO. 81653-9999

Sierra Club, Trappers Lake Chapter

Rich Levy


Smith Rancho Ltd

Bradford Smith

PO Box 215, Craig, Co. 81626-0215

Stagecoach State Park

Craig Preston

PO Box 98, Oak Creek, CO. 80467

State Historic Archaeology Preservation Office

Edward Nichols

1300 Broadway, Denver, CO. 80203

State Planning Office

Director

Herschler Bldg 1E

122 W 25th Ave, Cheyenne, WY. 82002

Steamboat Chamber Resort Association

Tom Kern


Steamboat Lake Marina

Karl Bunker


Steamboat Lake Outfitters

Sue Applegate



Julie Arington

Steamboat Lake State Park


Straightline

Brett Lee


Stratton Sheep CO

Charles Juare

PO Box 321, Rawlins, WY. 82301-0321

Strawberry Park Group


The Nature Conservancy

Jamie Williams


Thompsen Family Limited Partnership

1495 Pine Grove Rd Unit A101,

Steamboat Springs, CO. 80477

Timberline Trailriders Inc

Robert Stickler

30355 Cty Rd 14B, Steamboat Springs, CO.

80487

Trout Unlimited

Rick Hammel

355 County Road 201, Craig, CO. 81625

Vista Verde Ranch


Walden Mayor

James Carothers - Mayor

PO Box 489, Walden, CO. 80480

Weatherly-White Family Partnership

2101 Hawthorne Pl, Denver, CO. 80206

Western Watersheds Project

Jonathan Ratner

PO Box 1160, Pinedale, WY. 82941

Westland Holdings Inc



59

Wilderness Ranch

George Nickas

PO Box 9175, Missoula, MT. 59807

Wiregrass West Ltd

1515 N Riverhills Dr, Temple Terrace, FL.

33617-3841

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Rick Straw

528 S Adams, Laramie, WY. 82070

Yampatika

Sonja Macys


Zirkel Air Quality

Dan Ely

4300 Cherry Creek Dr S , Denver, CO. 80222

Dave Garner

716 Fields Ln, Simpsonville, KY. 40067-6457

Don Vogel

46660 Rcr 129, Steamboat Springs, CO. 80487-

9412

Frank Gerken


Holly Richter

9525 S. Riverview Ln, Hereford, AZ. 85615-

9077

Ivan Kawcak

7833 Co Rd 29, Craig, CO. 81625

J N May

22500 CTY RD 52E, Steamboat Springs, CO.

80487

Jack Taylor

200 E Colfax Rm 274, Denver, CO. 80203

Jim Espy

PO Box 146, Savery, WY. 82332-0146

Joe Lake


John Bartmann

34469 Weld County Road 25, Greeley, CO.

80631

John Geddie

8040 Bellamah Ct NE, Albuquerque, NM, 87110

John Keslick

214 N Penn St , West Chester, PA. 19380

John Mason

667 Gray Squirrel Way, Franktown, CO. 80116-

8766

John Randolph


John Spezia


Mike Flanders

PO Box 302, Hayden, CO. 81639-0302

Pablo Geronimo

2761 E Highway 40, Vernal, UT. 84078-9270

Richard Blackmore

1145 Sparta Dr, Lafayette, CO. 80026

Richard Teck

2140 Centre Ave Bldg A, Fort Collins, CO.

80526

Ron Snowden

2127 Cty Rd 18 N, Craig, CO. 81625-7906

Spike Meyring

51950 RCR 129, Steamboat Springs, CO. 80487-

9482

Steve Coolidge


Steve and John Raftopoulos

893 Stout St, Craig, CO. 81625-3045

Terry Nelson


Chuck Vale

54395 CR 62, Clark, CO. Tom Maneotis

PO Box 156, Oak Creek, CO. 80467-0156

William & Ramona Green

2951 Co Rd 18 N, Craig, CO. 81625

SOUTHERN UTE TRIBAL COUNCIL

Alden Naranjo

NAGPRA Coordinator

PO Box 737, Ignacio, CO. 81137

UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE

Terry Knight

THPO

PO Box 468, Towaoc, CO. 81334-0248

NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE

Conrad Fisher

THPO

PO Box 128, Lame Deer, MT. 59043

Rabbit Ears Parking

60

CHEYENNE AND ARAPAHO TRIBES

Lynette Gray

THPO

PO Box 238, Concho, OK.

73022NORTHERN UTE TRIBE

Betsy Chapoose

Cultural Rights and Protection

PO Box 190, Ft. Duchesne, UT. 84026

UTE BUSINESS COMMITTEE

Curtis Cesspooch

Tribal Council

PO Box 190 Ft Duchesne, UT. 84026

NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE

Darline Conrad

THPO

PO Box 396 Ft Washakie, WY. 82514


61

Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the

definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed

and considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined

that [the proposed action and alternatives] will not have a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My

rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of

significance cited above.

Context For the proposed action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the

environmental analysis in this EA.

The disclosure of effects in the EA found the actions limited in context. This project

proposes to construct less than 10 acres of winter parking lots. Temporary disturbance will be

less than 30 acres within the 1.13 million acre Routt National Forest. This is a very small

project with a large benefit to the public.

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information

from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this

project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to

concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental

effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained

from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and

intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the

Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

Impacts resulting from the proposed action will largely be beneficial to the human

environment. Locations for new facilities are in areas where environmental effects are

negligible. Safety and access to the National Forest during the winter months will be

enhanced and sanitation facilities will reduce human impacts on the environment.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

The proposed action will improve public safety in regards to access to the National Forest

from US HY 40 by moving parking facilities farther away from the traveled way and

controlling access points to these facilities. Other projects outlined in the proposed action will

improve sanitation for the public.[Proposed Action, p4-p8]

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural

resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically

critical areas.

No adverse impacts to aquatic resources were identified [Aquatic Resources Environmental

Report, p9]

Rabbit Ears Parking

62

No ecologically critical areas or populations of sensitive species were identified that would be

impacted by this project [Botany Environmental Report p10-p12]

No Historical or Cultural Sites were identified that would be adversely impacted by this

project [Heritage Environmental Report, p15-p16]

No wetlands were identified that would be adversely impacted by this project [Hydrology

Environmental Report, p16-p21; Soils Resource Report, p23-p27]

No adverse impacts to soils were identified that cannot be mitigated using design criteria.

[Soils Environmental Report, p23-p27]

No adverse impacts to visuals were identified [Visual Resources Environmental Report, p33-

p34]

No adverse impacts to wildlife were identified [Wildlife Environmental Report, p35-p38]

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial.

No comments from the public or from FS resource specialists resulting in controversy, or

created a need for developing an alternative to the proposed action [Public Involvement &

Tribal Consultation p3-p4]

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks.

There is a low degree of uncertainty regarding the risks to the human environment under the

proposed action. The effects of these types of actions are well understood. [Need for the

Proposal, p2]

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

There is a low degree of risk that the projects identified in the proposed action will establish

precedent for future actions. [Need for the Proposal, p2]

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively

significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action

temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

The proposed action is not likely to contribute to adverse cumulative effects to the overall

environment of the area. Cumulative effects analysis in each resource area’s Environmental

Reports did not identify any risk to significant impacts. [Environmental Impacts of the

Proposed Action and Alternatives, p9-p38]

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause

loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

The proposed action is not likely to affect any resource that is eligible for listing in the

National Register Of Historic Places or loss of such resources as none are identified in the

project area. [Heritage Environmental Report, p15-p16]


63

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The proposed action is not likely to affect any species or it’s habitat that has been determined

to be critical under the Endangered Species Act.[Aquatic Resources Environmental Report,

p9; Botany Environmental Report p10-p12; Wildlife Environmental Report, p35-38]

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

The proposed action does not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law requirements

for protection of the environment. This EA was prepared in compliance with all applicable

laws and regulations [Applicable Laws listed in Appendix 3, p47-49] and complies with the

Forest Plan [Environmental Impacts section for each resource area states this [p9-p35].

United States Department of Agriculture Rabbit Ears Winter...

Documents

Transcript of United States Department of Agriculture Rabbit Ears Winter...