The Mad Rabbit MTB Trails Proposal

[cokingcat]

The Mad Rabbit MTB Trails Proposal in Steamboat area needs your opposition!!!


1. Alternative B closes the Rabbit Ears pass area to summer motorized while constructing 79 miles of mountain bike only trail- Alternative A only provides 7 miles of multiple use on the Pass. There needs to be a lot more balance in any discussions on the future of Rabbit Ears .

2. Steamboat basin area needs a real trail plan for all users – This type of landscape level planning is required by section 219.6 of the new USFS planning rule

a. USFS has already committed to developing a master plan for the basin but there has been no movement on this project. This type of planning is critical to avoiding future conflict and providing the public with understanding of how all interests will be benefitting from expanded trails;

b. Just because there is a wish list from one user group does not create a master plan for the Steamboat area and outreach was terrible around both the use tax and planning efforts from the bike community;

c. Much of Mad Rabbit expansion is based out of roadside parking lots that USFS has already committed to closing and rehabilitating due to safety concerns with their usage in recent NEPA efforts. How are these basic safety issues to be addressed with massive expansion of usage of these lots?

d. Increased bike usage in the Steamboat Area has negatively impacted many other activities in the Rabbit Ears/Buff Pass area including winter usage reviving conflicts long ago settled. Measures must be put in place to mitigate conflicts from any proposal and tolerance of other uses on USFS lands is not a strong point of the Mad Rabbit Proposal.

3. How will these routes be maintained?

a. Motorized users have committed more than $100,000 per year in priority funding to the maintenance of this area for decades and been told that was insufficient for new trail despite numerous requests;

b. Maintenance requirements must be applied consistently across all user groups;

c. Steamboat lodging taxes (which may only last 10 years) have provided ZERO funding to date for USFS maintenance but this tax has been the basis for explosive trail expansion for a small number of visitors. This simply makes no sense and sets the stage for significant failures of trail expansions in the long term;

d. A lack of maintenance funding for all existing trails has already been identified as a priority for the forest service, but has generated no funding from Steamboat lodging tax revenue;

e. The City of Steamboat has expanded municipal trails for mountain biking in their park system but has received no funding from lodging tax to support these routes. This is a very troubling message about maintenance in the long term and will create significant competition for any future maintenance funding that might become available;

f. City of Steamboat also has significant trail projects benefitting much larger portions of the community that again are not being funded such as the Fish Creek Trail Underpass in the center of Steamboat again increasing competition for any funding;

g. Buffalo Pass Area has already developed more than 70 miles of routes and sustaining more than 150 miles of new route will place a significant burden on any funding source and this simply must be meaningfully addressed.

4. Mitigation of user conflicts must be addressed in the Proposal;

a. This is an area where there was minimal user conflicts previously. User conflicts have already expanded with expanded mtb usages on Emerald Mountain and Buffalo Pass and this project continues a troubling direction of management of the Steamboat Area.

5. Roadless area issues– the motorized community has fought for years to allow trails in Roadless Areas in a dispersed/low intensity manner however:

- Mad Rabbit is anything but low intensity or dispersed as it adds 79 miles of trails to these areas; and

- Even if this proposal is moved forward the intensity of trail development will preclude any expansion of usage in the area in the future which is a major reason that all uses must be addressed in a comprehensive planning effort.



Written Comments:

Hahn's Peak-Bears Ears Ranger District

Attn: Mad Rabbit Trails Project

925 Weiss Drive

Steamboat Springs, CO 80487


Electronic Comments:

comments-rm-medicine-bow-routt-hahns-peak-bears-ears@fs.fed.us

Please add “Mad Rabbit Trails Project” in the subject line

Comment Deadline

February 12, 2018



More Info:

https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=1a609dea352d49e888d497423e8714ed

COLORADO SNOWMOBILE ASSOCIATION
PO Box 1043
Rifle, CO 81650

844-4cosnow (426-7669)
info@snowmobilecolo.com

 

[Jshlee3]

So does this actually close anything that is open to motorized use? I read this in my email and again on this site and it just seems like the beef is with using funds to build this and not creating a master plan for the area before building these trails?

 

[idareyou]

This is how a lot of riding area on Rabbit ears was closed to motorized use years ago. They put in a bunch of non motorized trails in an area then object to the motorized being around the non motorized trails or in the same area. The motorized trails then go away and they have a nice non motorized area.

1. Alternative B closes the Rabbit Ears pass area to summer motorized while constructing 79 miles of mountain bike only trail- Alternative A only provides 7 miles of multiple use on the Pass. There needs to be a lot more balance in any discussions on the future of Rabbit Ears

 

[Jshlee3]

So can this be stopped at this point or are they just taking comments on which proposal to implement?

 

[Snowrooster]

Wow how dumb can we be? Does nobody want access to more terrain? By opposing mountain bikers access to the forest we are dooming our own efforts to get more access. I snowmobile and ski in the winter, hunt in the fall, and dirt bike and mountain bike in the summer and think that we should support all users access to the forest. By denying any user group's access we reduce the chances of all users access, including snowmobiles. I live in Steamboat and have seen the process and documents used to justify these trail projects and can assure you that the statements above that start with "The Mad Rabbit MTB Trails Proposal in Steamboat area needs your opposition!!!" are completely wrong and misinformation that can only harm our cause. Nothing is being closed to motorized, trails are not mountain bike only, there was a huge public process that included local motorized group, this non-motorized trail project sets a standard and precedent for future motorized trails. The USFS is planning massive motorized trail expansion just north of Steamboat and there will be a similar public comment period for those trails. Please do not kill our chances for these future moto trails by opposing this current non-moto trails proposal. The user group proposing this Mad Rabbit project is large and has been a supporter of motorized trail projects in the past. We should want their support in the future but opposing their projects will not gain their support and could turn an ally into an enemy. Do we really want more enemy's? Lets smarten up and support user access to public lands. After all isn't that what we want?

 

[idareyou]

Are you serious?

1. Alternative B closes the Rabbit Ears pass area to summer motorized while constructing 79 miles of mountain bike only trail- Alternative A only provides 7 miles of multiple use on the Pass. There needs to be a lot more balance in any discussions on the future of Rabbit Ears

Thanks for rating my post bad. Looks like you just joined the forum today. Welcome.

Wow how dumb can we be? Does nobody want access to more terrain? By opposing mountain bikers access to the forest we are dooming our own efforts to get more access. I snowmobile and ski in the winter, hunt in the fall, and dirt bike and mountain bike in the summer and think that we should support all users access to the forest. By denying any user group's access we reduce the chances of all users access, including snowmobiles. I live in Steamboat and have seen the process and documents used to justify these trail projects and can assure you that the statements above that start with "The Mad Rabbit MTB Trails Proposal in Steamboat area needs your opposition!!!" are completely wrong and misinformation that can only harm our cause. Nothing is being closed to motorized, trails are not mountain bike only, there was a huge public process that included local motorized group, this non-motorized trail project sets a standard and precedent for future motorized trails. The USFS is planning massive motorized trail expansion just north of Steamboat and there will be a similar public comment period for those trails. Please do not kill our chances for these future moto trails by opposing this current non-moto trails proposal. The user group proposing this Mad Rabbit project is large and has been a supporter of motorized trail projects in the past. We should want their support in the future but opposing their projects will not gain their support and could turn an ally into an enemy. Do we really want more enemy's? Lets smarten up and support user access to public lands. After all isn't that what we want?

 

[03RMK800]

This has not been a public process in terms of outreach--the meetings, planning, input etc all occurred within limited groups in Steamboat. There was not a word in the Denver papers or in neighboring counties until the fix was in. It was an insular group that seems to have gotten the FS on board, made the plan and now that they have only two alternatives, started the public process. I don't think I have seen a plan with only two alternatives. Also, note that there is no "no action" alternative. This is not right.

I don't know enough about the summer motorized use, and the maps don't show what will be lost. As for the danger to winter motorized use-- this is not a summer only matter. It will introduce a bunch of people to relatively easy terrain. Bikers will use it, think its great, quiet, etc., and see that they could ski it. They come up in winter, and they will be surprised and start complaining about the sleds. We lose, just like they made the west side their exclusive (and lightly used) domain.

 

[Snowrooster]

Mad Rabbit

The USFS document is pretty incomplete in explaining the process or describing the options, funding sources and what the funding can be spent on. There was a huge multi year public process and all local motorized groups were invited to participate. I was one of the only ones that did.

Cut and pasted below is the official response (in red) from the Trails Alliance proposers that shows how incredibly incorrect the original email from Colorado Snowmobile Association is. I will never be a member of an organization that shoots itself in the foot by opposing other users access to the forest. A little education can go a long way. Please read.

[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]The Mad Rabbit MTB Trails Proposal in Steamboat area needs your opposition!!!
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)][COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]This is an informational response from Routt County Riders. The Mad Rabbit MTB Trails Proposal needs your SUPPORT!!! [/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]1. Alternative B closes the Rabbit Ears pass area to summer motorized while constructing 79 miles of mountain bike only trail- Alternative A only provides 7 miles of multiple use on the Pass. There needs to be a lot more balance in any discussions on the future of Rabbit Ears . [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]–Alternative B does NOT close any motorized use and adds only 6 miles of MTB only trails. It does add 75 miles of non-motorized, multi- use trails. We are in favor of adding the motorized trails from Proposal A to Proposal B. [/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]2. Steamboat basin area needs a real trail plan for all users – This type of landscape level planning is required by section 219.6 of the new USFS planning rule [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]a. USFS has already committed to developing a master plan for the basin but there has been no movement on this project. This type of planning is critical to avoiding future conflict and providing the public with understanding of how all interests will be benefitting from expanded trails; [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The money being used to fund the Mad Rabbit NEPA study has restrictions that align with the public votes regarding the 2013 2A language and the original 1986 accommodations tax ballot language. It is unlikely that the current money dedicated specifically to the projects outlined in the Steamboat Springs Trails Alliance proposal will fund other trails without a public vote, however, there are excess funds each year that could easily got to motorized trails if the motorized community makes a proposal to use excess [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]accommodations tax funds in that way. RCR and hopefully other trail using groups would likely support that. [/COLOR]
-[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]Actually, there have been dozens of public meetings held in years past and continue in multiple forms today: 2A Trails Committee, USFS, Routt County Riders, Steamboat Springs Trails Alliance, Parks & Rec Commission and City Council. Eric Meyer has sent many emails including Routt Powder Riders included and Timberland Trail Riders since we were made aware of their contact info in 2013. [/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]b. Just because there is a wish list from one user group does not create a master plan for the Steamboat area and outreach was terrible around both the use tax and planning efforts from the bike community; [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]c. Much of Mad Rabbit expansion is based out of roadside parking lots that USFS has already committed to closing and rehabilitating due to safety concerns with their usage in recent NEPA efforts. How are these basic safety issues to be addressed with massive expansion of usage of these lots? [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The projects in proposal B were voted on by 71% of the public and predated the parking lot changes. There was no opposition to the parking lot changes that Routt Powder Riders requested. There was a clear safety issue with the large trailers typically associated with snowmobiles at the east summit. If the USFS follows through and decommissions the west summit parking, the trail system will need adjustments and new parking lots will be constructed. The existing parking lots have worked well for years without safety issues and should be considered to continue as overflow parking for summer trail users. [/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]d. Increased bike usage in the Steamboat Area has negatively impacted many other activities in the Rabbit Ears/Buff Pass area including winter usage reviving conflicts long ago settled. Measures must be put in place to mitigate conflicts from any [/COLOR]




[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]proposal and tolerance of other uses on USFS lands is not a strong point of the Mad Rabbit Proposal. [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The trails project proposal is a summer proposal and does not impact winter use. It does however allow a platform, and blueprint for the winter community to follow. [/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]3. How will these routes be maintained?
a. Motorized users have committed more than $100,000 per [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]year in priority funding to the maintenance of this area for decades and been told that was insufficient for new trail despite numerous requests; [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-RCR has been maintaining trails on public lands for many years and the Yampa Valley Community Foundation has set up the Trail Maintenance Endowment Fund to address future maintenance. This again is a great example for the motorized community to follow. We would be happy to discuss the differences in the models that the non- motorized groups have used to move forward and help the motorized groups to partner with local land managers. It’s likely that even small changes could see immediate impacts and improve access for motorized users. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-This is a very good point. Different users could also benefit and even help each other. [/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]b. Maintenance requirements must be applied consistently across all user groups; [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]c. Steamboat lodging taxes (which may only last 10 years) have provided ZERO funding to date for USFS maintenance but this tax has been the basis for explosive trail expansion for a small number of visitors. This simply makes no sense and sets the stage for significant failures of trail expansions in the long term; [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The accommodations tax can only be spent on capital improvements based on the voter approved ballot language from 1986. RCR, the [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]city and the public have voluntarily contributed about $230k in two years to the endowment fund that already has contributed to maintenance and will continue to do so indefinitely. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The verbiage of the accommodations tax does not allow funding for maintenance. There have been significant steps taken to set up the USFS and other land managers with long term trail maintenance funding. These funds have been successful locally and will likely be duplicated in other areas. [/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]d. A lack of maintenance funding for all existing trails has already been identified as a priority for the forest service, but has generated no funding from Steamboat lodging tax revenue; [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]e. The City of Steamboat has expanded municipal trails for mountain biking in their park system but has received no funding from lodging tax to support these routes. This is a very troubling message about maintenance in the long term and will create significant competition for any future maintenance funding that might become available; [/COLOR]



[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]- [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]Again, there have been significant steps taken to set up the USFS and other land managers with long term trail maintenance funding. These funds have been successful locally and will likely be duplicated in other areas. The city saw the bulk of the initial accommodations tax for its trail expansion projects. Morning Gloria was the first project to receive funds from the accommodations tax money. Other 2A funded projects in the city include the NPR (No Pedaling Required) trail, enhanced pedestrian crossings, the lower spring creek secondary trail improvements, a core trail type extension has been planned near hotels adjacent to hwy 40, and bathroom installation and parking lot improvements at the Cow creek trailhead. [/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]- [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]f. City of Steamboat also has significant trail projects benefitting much larger portions of the community that again are not being funded such as the Fish Creek Trail Underpass in the center of Steamboat again increasing competition for any funding; [/COLOR]




<table style="border-collapse: collapse; background-color: rgb(100.000000%, 100.000000%, 100.000000%)"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border-style: solid; border-top-width: 0.000000pt; border-right-width: 0.000000pt; border-bottom-width: 1.440000pt; border-bottom-color: rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%); border-left-width: 0.000000pt"> [COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]g. Buffalo Pass Area has already developed more than 70 miles of routes and sustaining more than 150 miles of new route will place a significant burden on any funding source and this simply must be meaningfully addressed. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]4. Mitigation of user conflicts must be addressed in the [/COLOR]


</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border-style: solid; border-top-width: 1.440000pt; border-top-color: rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%); border-right-width: 0.000000pt; border-bottom-width: 0.000000pt; border-left-width: 0.000000pt"> [COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]Proposal;
a. This is an area where there was minimal user conflicts [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]previously. User conflicts have already expanded with expanded mtb usages on Emerald Mountain and Buffalo Pass and this project continues a troubling direction of management of the Steamboat Area. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]5. Roadless area issues– the motorized community has fought for years to allow trails in Roadless Areas in a dispersed/low intensity manner however:
- Mad Rabbit is anything but low intensity or dispersed as it adds 79 miles of trails to these areas; and [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]- Even if this proposal is moved forward the intensity of trail development will preclude any expansion of usage in the area in the future which is a major reason that all uses must be addressed in a comprehensive planning effort. [/COLOR]


</td> </tr> </tbody></table> [COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The current amount of developed trail on Buffalo pass is 40 miles. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]Route County Riders truly feels the Colorado Snowmobile Association has missed the mark with this publication, although the Mad-Rabbit is not a winter plan, motorized users should support it. We recommend working with the Mad Rabbit Trails Proposal to achieve your goals, there is a path for us all to reach these goals together. Lets get all the positives from both Proposal A and B approved, together we can get an awesome playground built. [/COLOR]

 

[Snowrooster]

Extras

Sorry about the extra #'s and %'s at each line start. Not sure why it posted like that. The words are correct but did not post in red. It's pretty obvious which are responses though.

 

[03RMK800]

Well, I won't confuse the post with efforts to color the text, and I certainly won't color the situation rose as attempted on behalf of the bikers. This is not a good proposal. Apologies for the ALL CAPS - not yelling, just distinguishing comments.

The USFS document is pretty incomplete in explaining the process or describing the options, funding sources and what the funding can be spent on.
TRUE! IN FACT, CALL AND TALK TO KENT FOSTER, WHO WILL TRY TO EXPLAIN WHAT THEY REALLY MEANT. FRANKLY, I AM GLAD THAT THE EXPLANATION IS SO DEFICIENT-- IF LITIGATION IS NECESSARY, THIS POOR NOTICE CAN REQUIRE A COURT TO SEND IT BACK TO THE AGENCY TO START OVER.


There was a huge multi year public process and all local motorized groups were invited to participate. NEVER SAW A WORD. WHAT THE PUBLIC PROCESS INVOLVED WAS THE LOCAL LODGING TAX DECISION GROUP GETTING INFO ONLY FROM THE NON-MOTORIZED GROUP THAT WANTED TO SPEND THE LODGING TAX MONEY. AS NOTED BELOW, THIS IS A NEW AND UNRELATED PROPOSAL FOR SPENDING OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY FOR CAPITAL ACQUISITION AND WALKING AWAY FROM THE MAINTENANCE COST. THIS HAS HAPPENED WITH OTHER'S PET PROJECTS, AND THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS LOST TO THE PUBLIC WHEN THE FEDERAL AGENCY INVOLVED ASSERTS IT CAN'T MAINTAIN THE AREA AND CLOSES THE USE. THIS WILL HAPPEN HERE.

Cut and pasted below is the official response (in red) from the Trails Alliance proposers that shows how incredibly incorrect the original email from Colorado Snowmobile Association is. I will never be a member of an organization that shoots itself in the foot by opposing other users access to the forest. A little education can go a long way. Please read.
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]The Mad Rabbit MTB Trails Proposal in Steamboat area needs your opposition!!!
[/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)][COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]This is an informational response from Routt County Riders. The Mad Rabbit MTB Trails Proposal needs your SUPPORT!!! [/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]1. Alternative B closes the Rabbit Ears pass area to summer motorized while constructing 79 miles of mountain bike only trail- Alternative A only provides 7 miles of multiple use on the Pass. There needs to be a lot more balance in any discussions on the future of Rabbit Ears . [/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]–Alternative B does NOT close any motorized use and adds only 6 miles of MTB only trails. It does add 75 miles of non-motorized, multi- use trails. We are in favor of adding the motorized trails from Proposal A to Proposal B. [/COLOR]1
SEE PG 3 OF THE USFS "MAD RABBIT TRAILS PROJECT" NEWSLETTER. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT PROPOSAL B ADDDS 66 (THAT IS SIXTY-SIX) MILES OF NONMOTORIZED TRAILS NOT LIMITED TO HIKERS ONLY.

[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]2. Steamboat basin area needs a real trail plan for all users – This type of landscape level planning is required by section 219.6 of the new USFS planning rule [/COLOR] CLEARLY, CART BEFORE THE HORSE-- SEE NEXT STATEMENT:
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]a. USFS has already committed to developing a master plan for the basin but there has been no movement on this project. This type of planning is critical to avoiding future conflict and providing the public with understanding of how all interests will be benefitting from expanded trails; [/COLOR]
JUST AS OTHER WORTHY PROJECTS, THIS SHOULD BE DELAYED UNTIL THE USFS GETS ITS ACT TOGETHER AND HAS THE UNDERLYING PLAN DEVELOPMENT COMPLETED AS ANTICIPATED IN BOTH CONGRESSIONAL ACTS AND THE AGENCY'S OWN RULES INDICATE. NO FUN WHEN YOUR OX IS THE OX BEING GORED, BUT IT IS THE RULES.

[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The money being used to fund the Mad Rabbit NEPA study has restrictions that align with the public votes regarding the 2013 2A language and the original 1986 accommodations tax ballot language. It is unlikely that the current money dedicated specifically to the projects outlined in the Steamboat Springs Trails Alliance proposal will fund other trails without a public vote, however, there are excess funds each year that could easily got to motorized trails if the motorized community makes a proposal to use excess [/COLOR] DOES THIS SAY THAT THE PROPOSED USE OF LODGING TAX MONEY ALIGNS WITH THE VOTER APPROVAL, OR DOES IT SAY IT DOESN'T? IS THERE ANY EASY VOTER APPROVAL? WHO PAYS THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AN ELECTION QUESTION COSTS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH SOME 17,000 COUNTY VOTERS?
[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]accommodations tax funds in that way. RCR and hopefully other trail using groups would likely support that. [/COLOR]
-[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]Actually, there have been dozens of public meetings held in years past and continue in multiple forms today: 2A Trails Committee, USFS, Routt County Riders, Steamboat Springs Trails Alliance, Parks & Rec Commission and City Council. Eric Meyer has sent many emails including Routt Powder Riders included and Timberland Trail Riders since we were made aware of their contact info in 2013. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]b. Just because there is a wish list from one user group does not create a master plan for the Steamboat area and outreach was terrible around both the use tax and planning efforts from the bike community; [/COLOR]
AGREED
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]c. Much of Mad Rabbit expansion is based out of roadside parking lots that USFS has already committed to closing and rehabilitating due to safety concerns with their usage in recent NEPA efforts. How are these basic safety issues to be addressed with massive expansion of usage of these lots? [/COLOR] I HAVE TO AGREE- THE LITTLE LOTS AND THE ACCESS/APPROACHES FROM PARKING TO THE HIGHWAY WERE EVALUATED AS REQUIRING CLOSURE WHEN THE FOREST SERVICE WAS TRYING TO ELIMINATE ACCESS. NOW AN ANNOINTED GROUP OF MOUNTAIN BIKERS WANT ACCESS, ITS ALL OK. RIGHT.
LOOK IN THE COMMENTS ON THE WEBSITE- ONE RELATES THE DANGEROUS SITUATION OF LARGE TRAILERS PRESENTED BY SNOWMOBILE TRAILERS IN (OF ALL PLACES) THE LARGE TRAILER PARKING LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE. I GUESS EVERYTHING ABOUT SNOWMOBILING LOOKS DANGEROUS TO NON-MOTORIZED RECREATIONISTS.

[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The projects in proposal B were voted on by 71% of the public WAS THIS THE APPROVAL OF THE LODGING TAX EXPENDITURE? THOSE VOTERS MAY HAVE CONTROL OF THE LODGING TAX MONEY BUT IT WAS NOT APPROVAL OF T THE PUBLIC OWNING THE FOREST and predated the parking lot changes. There was no opposition to the parking lot changes that Routt Powder Riders requested. NO, BECAUSE THE ROUTT POWDER RIDERS, COLORADO REGISTRATION FEES, GRAND COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND OTHER THAN MOUNTAINBIKERS PAID FOR THE MUDDY CREEK AND DUMONT LAKE SNOWMOBILE PARKING LOTS. There was a clear safety issue with the large trailers typically associated with snowmobiles at the east summit. If the USFS follows through and decommissions the west summit parking, the trail system will need adjustments and new parking lots will be constructed. AND, IT SHOULD BE AT USER (NONMOTORIZED) EXPENSE The existing parking lots have worked well for years without safety issues THIS CONFLICTS WITH THE REVIEW COMMENTS ABOVE ABOUT THE USFS DECISION TO CLOSE THESE DANGEROUS LOTS. and should be considered to continue as overflow parking for summer trail users. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]d. Increased bike usage in the Steamboat Area has negatively impacted many other activities in the Rabbit Ears/Buff Pass area including winter usage reviving conflicts long ago settled. Measures must be put in place to mitigate conflicts from any [/COLOR] THE COMPROMISE TO REDUCE CONFLICTS WAS SURRENDER OF TRADITIONAL MULTIPLE USE OF THE WEST SIDE OF RABBIT EARS PASS TO NONMOTORIZED USE. MAD RABBIT IS A PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE MECHANIZED BUT NON MOTORIZED USE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LIMITED AREA RETAINED BY MOTORIZED USERS. IN ADDITION, IT HAS A MAJOR FLAW OF INTRODUCING MECHANIZED USE INTO A ROADLESS AREA (LONG PARK ROADLESS AREA).
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]proposal and tolerance of other uses on USFS lands is not a strong point of the Mad Rabbit Proposal. [/COLOR] YEP.

[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The trails project proposal is a summer proposal and does not impact winter use. It does however allow a platform, and blueprint for the winter community to follow. [/COLOR]
THIS IS A BLUEPRINT FOR HEGEMONY AND COERCION. IT IS NOT A SUMMER ONLY ISSUE AS I NOTED ABOVE: IT WILL CREATE A SUMMERTIME PERCEPTION OF LIGHTLY USED, QUIET AREA. WHEN THAT MOUNTAIN BIKER ARRIVES AT DUMONT TO SKI, HE WILL BE GRAVELY DISAPPOINTED, AND WONDER WHY ALL THE SNOWMOBILES ARE THERE. HE WILL BELIEVE THAT HIS SUMMER USE ESTABLISHED HIS RIGHT TO QUIET NONMOTORIZED USE OF THE SAME AREA. REMEMBER THE WEST SIDE OF RABBIT EARS WAS ONCE MIXED USE, AND IS NO MORE.
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]3. How will these routes be maintained?
a. Motorized users have committed more than $100,000 per [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]year in priority funding to the maintenance of this area for decades and been told that was insufficient for new trail despite numerous requests; [/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-RCR has been maintaining trails on public lands for many years and the Yampa Valley Community Foundation has set up the Trail Maintenance Endowment Fund to address future maintenance. This again is a great example for the motorized community to follow. THE MOTORIZED COMMUNITY HAS BEEN LEADING BY EXAMPLE OF PAYING TO USE -- REGISTRATIONS, CLUB FUNDRAISERS, DONATIONS, FUEL TAX GIVEBACK, ETC.We would be happy to discuss the differences in the models that the non- motorized groups have used to move forward and help the motorized groups to partner with local land managers. It’s likely that even small changes could see immediate impacts and improve access for motorized users. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-This is a very good point. Different users could also benefit and even help each other. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]b. Maintenance requirements must be applied consistently across all user groups; [/COLOR] WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? SNOWMOBILE REGISTRATION AND CLUB EFFORTS ALREADY WORK, AND SNOWMOBILES DO NOT REQUIRE THE LEVEL OF TRAILS BEYOND MAINSTEMS THAT OTHER USERS EXPECT. MAINTENANCE NEEDS VARY WIDELY-- BIKE TRAILS LEAVE PERMANENT SCARS EVEN WHEN PROPERLY USED. THE TOTAL AREA (TRAIL LENGTH TIMES WIDTH) AND WHAT IS DONE TO MAINTAIN, AND HOW IT IS PAID FOR, IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO "APPLIED CONSISTENTLY ACROSS ALL USER GROUPS."

TAKEN ANOTHER WAY, HOWEVER, MAYBE THERE IS A GOOD IDEA HERE-- BIKE REGISTRATION AND SKIER AND HIKER REGISTRATIONS!!! AND, MANDATORY SEARCH AND RESCUE FEES LIKE HUNTERS AND ATV/OFF ROAD MOTORCYLES AND SNOWMOBILERS PAY.
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]c. Steamboat lodging taxes (which may only last 10 years) have provided ZERO funding to date for USFS maintenance but this tax has been the basis for explosive trail expansion for a small number of visitors. This simply makes no sense and sets the stage for significant failures of trail expansions in the long term; [/COLOR] AGREED- COMMENTED ABOVE ON LOSS OF TRAILS AND ACCESS WHEN AGENCY SAYS THERE IS NO MONEY FOR MAINTENANCE.

[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The accommodations tax can only be spent on capital improvements based on the voter approved ballot language from 1986. RCR, the [/COLOR] AGAIN, IS THE BIKERS' PROPOSED USE OF THE LODGING TAX A VALID USE UNDER THE BALLOT QUESTIONS?

[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]city and the public have voluntarily contributed about $230k in two years to the endowment fund that already has contributed to maintenance and will continue to do so indefinitely. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The verbiage of the accommodations tax does not allow funding for maintenance. CSSA ANSWERS THE QUESTION ABOUT AUTHORIZED USES There have been significant steps taken to set up the USFS and other land managers with long term trail maintenance funding. These funds have been successful locally and will likely be duplicated in other areas. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]d. A lack of maintenance funding for all existing trails has already been identified as a priority for the forest service, but has generated no funding from Steamboat lodging tax revenue; [/COLOR]

[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]e. The City of Steamboat has expanded municipal trails for mountain biking in their park system but has received no funding from lodging tax to support these routes. This is a very troubling message about maintenance in the long term and will create significant competition for any future maintenance funding that might become available; [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]- [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]Again, there have been significant steps taken to set up the USFS and other land managers with long term trail maintenance funding. These funds have been successful locally and will likely be duplicated in other areas. The city saw the bulk of the initial accommodations tax for its trail expansion projects. Morning Gloria was the first project to receive funds from the accommodations tax money. Other 2A funded projects in the city include the NPR (No Pedaling Required) trail, enhanced pedestrian crossings, the lower spring creek secondary trail improvements, a core trail type extension has been planned near hotels adjacent to hwy 40, and bathroom installation and parking lot improvements at the Cow creek trailhead. [/COLOR] THIS CONFIRMS THE POINT IS MADE ABOVE THAT THE LODGING TAX IS FOR CAPITAL ONLY.
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]- [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]f. City of Steamboat also has significant trail projects benefitting much larger portions of the community that again are not being funded such as the Fish Creek Trail Underpass in the center of Steamboat again increasing competition for any funding; [/COLOR]

<table style="border-collapse: collapse; background-color: rgb(100.000000%, 100.000000%, 100.000000%)"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border-style: solid; border-top-width: 0.000000pt; border-right-width: 0.000000pt; border-bottom-width: 1.440000pt; border-bottom-color: rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%); border-left-width: 0.000000pt"> [COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]g. Buffalo Pass Area has already developed more than 70 miles of routes and sustaining more than 150 miles of new route will place a significant burden on any funding source and this simply must be meaningfully addressed. [/COLOR] NOT JUST A FUNDING ISSUE-- THE NONMOTORIZED MECHANIZED COMMUNITY MUST REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT OF NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO OBJECT TO THE FACT OF A ROAD OR TRAIL JUST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT THAT PERSON'S IDEA OF A FOREST OR WILDLAND. SOME PEOPLE JUST GET MAD AT ANY HINT OF MAN OUT OF THE URBAN AREA. MOTORIZED USERS HAVE FACED (AND LOST OUT) TO THIS SORT OF CRITICISM ACROSS THE COUNTRY--"OMG! A SIGN MAN HAS BEEN HERE! GET RID OF IT!"
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]4. Mitigation of user conflicts must be addressed in the [/COLOR]


</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="border-style: solid; border-top-width: 1.440000pt; border-top-color: rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%); border-right-width: 0.000000pt; border-bottom-width: 0.000000pt; border-left-width: 0.000000pt"> [COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]Proposal;
a. This is an area where there was minimal user conflicts [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]previously. User conflicts have already expanded with expanded mtb usages on Emerald Mountain and Buffalo Pass and this project continues a troubling direction of management of the Steamboat Area. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]5. Roadless area issues– the motorized community has fought for years to allow trails in Roadless Areas in a dispersed/low intensity manner however:
- Mad Rabbit is anything but low intensity or dispersed as it adds 79 miles of trails to these areas; and [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(13.725490%, 12.156860%, 12.549020%)]- Even if this proposal is moved forward the intensity of trail development will preclude any expansion of usage in the area in the future which is a major reason that all uses must be addressed in a comprehensive planning effort. [/COLOR] YEP.


</td> </tr> </tbody></table> [COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]-The current amount of developed trail on Buffalo pass is 40 miles. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgb(100.000000%, 0.000000%, 0.000000%)]Route County Riders truly feels the Colorado Snowmobile Association has missed the mark with this publication, although the Mad-Rabbit is not a winter plan, motorized users should support it. We recommend working with the Mad Rabbit Trails Proposal to achieve your goals, there is a path for us all to reach these goals together. Lets get all the positives from both Proposal A and B approved, together we can get an awesome playground built. [/COLOR]

MAYBE THE AUTHOR SHOULD LET US KNOW IF S/HE IS REALLY AFFILIATED WITH THE ROUTT BIKERS, AND WHAT HIS AUTHORITY IS TO SPEAK, BEFORE WE PAINT THE ENTIRE GROUP THE ABOVE COMMENTS. "SNOWROOSTER" DOESN'T SHOW UP IN THE CORPORATE DOCUMENTS.

 

[idareyou]

Can you provide one example were a motorized group helping a non motorized group gain area ever provided any benefit to the motorized group? Can you provide any example were an area became non motorized use then was later returned to motorized use? Any examples of non motorized groups helping motorized gain area, helping with trail maintenance in motorized areas, or capital improvements in motorized areas? The pedal biking community and the city of steamboat were both requested to help with the expense of the new parking lots on rabbit ears and both chose not to contribute anything (money, labor, or equipment).

Sorry about the extra #'s and %'s at each line start. Not sure why it posted like that. The words are correct but did not post in red. It's pretty obvious which are responses though.