USDA Forest Service, Region 2

Rocky Mountain Region

Attn: Objection Reviewing Officer
740 Simms Street
Golden, CO 80401-4720
Via e-mail: r02admin_review@fs.fed.us
July 1, 2016
Dear Reviewing Officer,
Pursuant to 36 CFR 218, the parties described below present this objection to the proposed
decision by Hahns Peak-Bears Ears (Routt National Forest) District Ranger Chad Stewart to
approve the decision notice for the Buffalo Pass Trails Project.
The legal notice for the opportunity to object was published in the Steamboat Pilot on May 23,
2016; therefore, this objection is timely.
Rocky Smith, Lead Objector
1030 Pearl St. #9
Denver, CO 80203
303 839-5900
2rockwsmith@gmail.com
John Spezia
POB 772255
Steamboat Springs, CO 80477
870 879-1289
jspezia@yahoo.com
Leslie Lovejoy
Friends of the Routt Backcountry
PO Box 713
Clark, CO 80428
970-879-8710
leslie@lovejoygraphics.com

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION

I. INTRODUCTION. Objectors are not opposed to a designated and sustainable trail system
in the Buffalo Pass area. (EA at 3, from Purpose and Need section.) Bringing some trails up to
Forest Service standards, closing unneeded or resource-damaging trails, and issuing a closure
order which prohibits wheeled vehicle use off designated routes are favorable actions. However,
the proposed trail system has many problems. It would reward illegal trail building by approving
several trails, including one in the heart of the Mad Creek Roadless Area, that are inappropriately
located and resource-damaging.
Various trails will likely adversely affect non-motorized winter recreation, the effects of which
are not disclosed. The availability of steep downhill trails will likely lead to increased use of the
Buffalo Pass Road (drive up, bike down), the impacts of which are not disclosed. And finally,
there is no assurance that money will be available to enforce the closure order.
II. THE PROPOSED TRAIL SYSTEM WOULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOREST PLAN.
A. UNDER VARIOUS MEASURES, WETLAND PROTECTION IS REQUIRED.
Under the Routt Forest Plan, wetlands must be protected:
Maintain long-term ground cover, soil structure, water budgets, and flow patterns in
wetlands to sustain their ecological function
Plan at 1-7, Water and Aquatic Standard 7.
This corresponds to Management Measure 6 in the agencys Watershed Conservation Practices
Handbook, FSH 2509.25, section 12.4.
Design criteria under this WCPH measure include the following:
Keep ground vehicles out of wetlands unless protected by at least 1 foot of packed
snow or 2 inches of frozen soil. Do not disrupt water supply or drainage patterns
into wetlands.
Keep roads and trails out of wetlands unless there is no other practicable alternative.
If roads or trails must enter wetlands, use bridges or raised prisms with diffuse
drainage to sustain flow patterns.

Avoid long-term reduction in organic ground cover and organic soil layers in any
wetland (including peat in fens).
Avoid any loss of rare wetlands such as fens and springs.
Ibid.
The agencys policy on fens notes their irreplaceable value:
Fens are relict wetlands from the last glaciation, and as a result have very unique
characteristics found nowhere else on the landscape. Although they occupy only a
small percentage of the landscape in the southern Rocky Mountains and the
Nebraska sandhills, fens are an important element of biological diversity, and often
support globally rare plant and invertebrate species and unique species assemblages.

This means that the goal is no loss of existing habitat value, and that every
reasonable effort should be made to avoid impacting these habitats. Mitigation for
loss of fens is problematic, as there are no known methods to create new functional
fens.
Forest Service Fen Policy memo to Forest Supervisors, March 19, 2002.

B. SOME PROPOSED TRAILS WOULD HARM WETLANDS. Objectors raised the issue of
soil erosion and water quality in scoping comments. See the comments of Rocky Smith and John
Spezia, dated May 17, 2015 (hereafter Smith-Spezia letter), at 7-8.
The proposed trail system would adversely affect wetlands, including irreplaceable fens:
The greatest impacts from the existing trails are from the Soda Mountain non-system
trail. This trail is impacting several wetlands including fens with the greatest impact
being in the headwaters of the South Fork Soda Creek. This trail also has multiple
steep sections with inadequate drainage resulting in trail erosion. Other non-system
trails are having similar effects, but to a lesser degree.
Watershed Specialist Report at 6. See also EA at 66.
The Watershed Report further states that:

Th[e proposed action] would be consistent with Forest Plan direction assuming3)
site specific refinements of the Soda Mountain Trail, as well as other non-system
trails are made to minimize impacts to wetlands and the number of trail-stream
crossings
Watershed Report at 10. See also EA at 65-66.
However, there is no indication that the necessary relocations of trails to avoid wetlands, and to
reduce stream crossings and soil erosion have been done. Indeed, all relevant information in the
EA indicates that necessary relocations have not been done. See, e. g., EA at 65. There is thus
been no assurance that wetlands will be avoided, and compliance with Forest Service Water and
Aquatic Standard 7 will be achieved. Indeed, the current trail alignment would not meet the
standard. Thus the proposed decision on the project violates the Forest Plan.

C. THE PROPOSED TRAIL ALIGNMENTS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH DESIGN

CRITERIA. The proposal would not be consistent with the following design criteria:
4. Do not allow new trail construction in fens.
5. New trail construction through other wetlands would not be allowed unless
approved by the Forest Service hydrologist. All trails in wetlands should have an
elevated structure, such as a boardwalk, to minimize wetland disturbance and
alteration of wetland hydrology. No mechanical equipment should be used for trail
construction in wetlands. Any fill or structures in wetlands must comply with 404
permit requirements.
Draft Decision Notice (DDN) at 10, under Watershed.
As of the writing of the Watershed Report, the hydrologist had not approved the location of some
trails. See id. at 6, 10. No elevated structures have been proposed for the trails that traverse
wetlands.

II. THE POSSIBLE IMPACTS TO WINTER RECREATION ARE NOT DISCLOSED.

The Smith-Spezia letter addressed this issue at pp. 3-4.

The proposed project would approve existing trails and new trails in an area that is heavily used
for winter motorized and non-motorized recreation. It is certainly possible that some of these
routes could also be used by snowmobiles operating over snow.
Under the proposed action, approximately 35 miles of new trail would be constructed. EA Table
4, p. 8. Trails would be constructed or reconstructed to various widths, by trail class:
Class 1 trails are 6-12 inches wide, temporary area of disturbance/buffer 10 feet;
Class 2 trails are 12-24 inches wide, disturbance buffer 15 feet;
Class 3 trails are 18-36 inches wide, disturbance buffer 15 feet; and
Class 4 trails are 24-48 inches wide, disturbance buffer 15 feet.
Wildlife Report at 24.
Class 3 and 4 trails should easily be wide enough for snowmobile operation. Depending on
regrowth of ground vegetation and snow depth, classes 1 and 2 trails might be wide enough for
this use. The presence of such trails in winter makes them likely to be used by motor vehicles.
The map in Figure 1 in the Wildlife Report (p. 33) shows the location of proposed trails by class.
Note that the area just east to northeast of the Dry Lake parking lot shows trails in class 3 or 4.
Under the Routt Winter Recreation Management for Rabbit Ears Pass and Buffalo Pass decision,
these trails would be in the non-motorized area. See Exhibit 1, which is a map of selected
alternative 5 for Winter Recreation Management. The RTC states that [g]enerally, trails near the
Dry Lake campground and trailhead will be more beginner level (wider and smoother). RTC
at 25, response to comment 95.
In the area to the east and southeast of the Dry Lake parking lot, trails would be class 2 and class
3. Again, see Wildlife Report at Figure 1. In this area, winter motorized us is restricted to
designated routes. See Exhibit 1. Any new or widened trails in this area would become new
routes for snowmobile use.
With many miles of new trails, and some existing non-system routes being brought up to Forest
Service standard, snowmobile use would likely expand into places it does not now occur. This is
especially a concern in the winter non-motorized area just east and northeast of the Dry Lake
parking lot. The winter non-motorized area is only a small portion of the Buffalo Pass area. With
the proposed new trails, it could become even smaller, as snowmobiles would be able to access
new or widened trails in the winter non-motorized area.
We are also concerned about the effects on lynx from the additional snow compaction that
would likely occur as a result of new, or newly designated, trails. The Wildlife Specialist Report
5

analyzes on the compaction on the 1.07 miles of trail that the project would supposedly designate
as a ski and snowshoe route.1 See id. at 8. There is no disclosure of additional compaction from
other new routes.
But in spite of objectors raising the issue of effects on winter recreation and other resources, and
asking for an analysis of the issue, the Forest Service chooses to ignore it:
Over the snow mechanized use in the project area is determined by the Forest Plan
and the Winter Recreation EA and is outside of the scope of the project. Please refer
to the Forest Plan and Winter Recreation EA for more information.
Response to Comments (RTC) at 43, response to comment 117. There is a similar response at
RTC at 71, response to comment 202.
This violates the National Environmental Policy Act. The Acts implementing regulations
require that both direct and indirect effects of a proposed action and any alternatives be
disclosed. 40 CFR 1502.16. Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the action
and are later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 40 CFR
1508.8.

III. POSSIBLE IMPACTS TO THE BUFFALO PASS ROAD ARE NOT ADDRESSED.
John Spezia, in his individual comments (undated), raised the issue of impacts to the Buffalo
Pass Road from the project. He noted the poor current condition of the Buffalo Pass road, and
asked that it be repaired. Spezia comments at 1, 3. The Buffalo Pass Road through the project
area is said to be a maintenance level 3 road, which is suitable for passenger cars. EA at 23.
According to the Recreation Resource Report, this road barely meets the standards for level 3
roads. Recreation Report at 1. The road is also said to have heavy use by highway vehicles and
other uses, which are all expected to increase. EA at 23, 24; Recreation Report at 1, 5.
Mr. Spezia also described the likelihood that the project would cause increased use of this road
because people would drive to the Pass or areas part way up the road, and then bicycle down the
steep trails that the proposed action would approve. Spezia comments at 1. The Forest Service
acknowledges that some of the proposed trails due to their nature will be used primarily for
downhill biking. RTC at 32, response to comment 68. See also RTC at 41, response to
comment 111. That ensures that motor vehicle use on the Buffalo Pass Road will increase,
1

The designation of a ski and snowshoe route is not mentioned in the EA, nor in other project documents. Also, the
cited passage of the Wildlife Report refers to the route as trail segments 4, 37, and 38, which are not shown in Figure
1 of the Report.

necessitating additional or more frequent maintenance to ensure that the road can be maintained
at maintenance level 3.
Since impacts to the Buffalo Pass road are a likely consequence of the proposed project, these
impacts must be disclosed in the NEPA documentation for the project, similar to effects on
winter recreation, discussed above. In response to this issue, the RTC states:
Making changes to the road is outside of the scope of this project and will be
analyzed in a separate NEPA analysis, if needed.
RTC at 16, response to comment 31. The reader is then directed to EA pp. 23 and 24 for a
discussion of [p]otential impacts to travel infrastructure and the Buffalo Pass Road. But the
text there merely describes the existing situation; it does not disclose possible impacts. The text
under alternative 2 in this section of the EA (p. 26) discusses the impact from the proposed
action on recreation in the area along the Buffalo Pass, but does not describe impacts to the road
itself.
Therefore, potential impacts of the project on the Buffalo Pass Road have not been discussed,
which violates NEPA.

IV. THE PROJECT DOES NOT ENSURE THAT MONEY WILL BE AVAILABLE TO
ENFORCE TRAIL CLOSURES.
Mr. Spezia raised this issue throughout his comment letter, and requested that money be
specifically allocated for patrolling.
Commendably, the Forest Service proposes to issue a closure order as part of the decision to
approve the trails. Under this order, use by any wheeled vehicles off of designated roads and
trails would be prohibited. See DDN at 6. Enforcement of this closure would obviously be
essential o ensure that additional routes were not created, continuing the problems that made the
project desirable in the first place. Under the Purpose and Need for Action, the EA states that, if
left unmanaged,resource damage will likely continue to occur, and likely increase, as more
unauthorized trails are constructed. EA at 3.
Indeed, a trail system has already been constructed by users over time, and the agency apparently
did nothing to stop it, or whatever efforts it did make were unsuccessful. If the agency does not
take specific actions to prevent additional illegal trail building, there is every reason to believe
that it would continue after the proposed action was implemented.

While designating and improving trails would reduce the existing damage and perhaps reduce
the temptation of users to create additional trails, enforcement is needed to ensure that additional
non-system routes are not created and that the concomitant resource damage does not occur.
The project documents describe in some detail how trail construction and maintenance would be
funded. Se, DDN at 4. See also RTC response to comment 8, which, after describing the
construction and maintenance funding, concludes with:
The combination of these options are designed to allow development of the Buffalo
Pass Trails with no or minimal costs to the Forest Service.
RTC at 6; emphasis added. In other words, it is unlikely the agency could implement the project
if it had to fund it solely out of its own appropriations. But in any case, money would still be
needed for enforcement, and there is no indication of where it would come from. It is no secret
that Forest Service budgets are quite lean.
RTC at 29, 30, response to comment 71, states that the Forest Service will seek additional money
if needed for maintenance and enforcement, and that Recreation design criteria 5 addresses the
possible money shortfall. That criterion states:
If long term funding/maintenance guarantees do not get implemented, re-assess
decision to complete project and consider closing and rehabilitation of trails.
DDN at 9.
Note that this addresses funding for only maintenance, not enforcement.
In short, the Forest Service has proposed a project that might reduce future illegal activities, but
will require enforcement to ensure it achieves this objective. But in spite of appearing to have
secured adequate money for construction and maybe also maintenance, it has not at all
demonstrated that money will be available for enforcement.

V. THE PROJECT DOCUMENTS FAIL TO DISCLOSE IMPACTS TO ELK.

The Smith-Spezia letter expressed concern about the projects possible effect on elk at p. 3.
The Wildlife Report reports the results of cameras placed to record wildlife presence in various
parts of the project area. It notes that elk were recorded much more frequently away from trails
than near them. Wildlife Report at 12 (see text and Table 3.) With 35 miles of new trails, there
8

could be a considerable impact to elk under the proposed action if they are present during the
snow-free season.
To protect elk, the elk production area and elk winter range in Management Area 7.1 will be
protected from recreational use during sensitive time periods. Id. at 12. This would protect elk
on calving areas and winter range, but not in other areas.
The Wildlife Report summarizes the literature on the reaction of wildlife to recreation generally
(id, at 12-14), but does not disclose the possible impacts to elk. This lack of disclosure violates
NEPA.

SUGGESTED REMEDIES
We believe there can be a sustainable trail system in the Buffalo Pass area while minimizing the
damage
1. Eliminate the Soda Mountain Trail from the proposal, then close, completely obliterate, and
rehabilitate this trial.
If this trail remains in the proposal, the following must occur before it is approved:
--relocate trail segments completely out of wetlands
--reduce stream crossings and eliminate and/or re-design steep sections as needed to reduce soil
erosion and ensure compliance with all applicable forest plan standards and guidelines.
--present the changes to the public and allow comment and objection prior to approval.
2. Eliminate trails in the winter non-motorized area to the maximum extent possible. Close and
obliterate all existing non-system trails in this area.
3. Disclose the potential impacts of the new trail system on winter recreation.
4. Disclose impacts of the use of the proposed trail system and related motor vehicle use on the
condition and maintenance level of the Buffalo Pass Road.
5. Do not approve the project until adequate money for enforcement can be reasonably assured.
6. Disclose the possible impacts to elk.

7. For points 3 through 6 above, allow public review, comment and objection prior to approval of
the project. These additional analyses could be done together and issued in a draft supplement to
the EA.

EXHIBIT 1
Routt Winter Recreation Management, Alternative 5 Rabbit Ears Pass/Buffalo Pass
(attached separately)

10