CHAFFEE COUNTY Development Services Department P.O. BOX 699 PHONE (719) SALIDA, CO FAX (719) WEBSITE

Transcription

1 Date: CHAFFEE COUNTY Development Services Department P.O. BOX 699 PHONE (719) SALIDA, CO FAX (719) WEBSITE MEMORANDUM To: Cc: From: Subject: OHV Discussion Group Chaffee County Commissioners and Administration Tom Eve, Facilitator Don Reimer, Development Director OHV County Roads Review Purpose and Background: Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use of County Roads has been a controversial subject for several years. OHV usage is an important recreational and mobility tool for many of our citizens and visitors. OHV usage also can have significant impacts on safety of the road system, as well as creating parking and maintenance issues on County maintained roads. Proponents generally desire more access for recreation and business purposes, while those opposed to increased OHV usage identify safety concerns and the potential for a negative impact to their property or experience and environmental considerations as reasons to not open roads for use. Under Colorado Statutes (CRS ), OHV use is prohibited on public roads, streets, or highways unless designated as open by the state or local jurisdiction. Following an extensive public input process in the summer of 2005, the County Commissioners opened certain short sections of County roads to OHV usage with Ordinance , and short sections of CR 162 with Ordinance Carl Bauer representing High Rocky Riders proposed opening additional segments of road at the June 1, 2009 work session, and Mike Simpson, also with High Rocky Riders made public comments at the August 11 and September 1 Board of County Commissioners meetings that same year. No action was taken by the County following those meetings. The County did request that the Friends of Fourmile and High Rocky Riders groups get together to clarify their understanding regarding the results of the BLM / USFS Fourmile Travel Management Plan discussions in 2001 and A summary was provided by Alan Robinson in May At the May 2011 Commissioners work session, Carl Bauer again submitted a list of County roads that he believes should be opened to OHV usage. At the December 2011 work session, the Commissioners directed staff to contact interested parties to identify the road segments which may be under consideration, interested parties that may be proponents of or be affected by opening roads for OHV usage, and a set of potential criteria in evaluating whether a road should be opened for OHV use. Attachment A includes the list of interested parties to date. Role of Discussion Group: The discussion group is designed to review each specific road segment that is being proposed, and identify specific reasons that a road should be opened or remain closed to OHV use. This will be compiled by staff into a report to the County Commissioners, who will determine if a public hearing will be held to open certain roads. If a public hearing is held, it will be noticed in the newspapers, and the public will be invited to

2 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 2 testify. The question that will be considered for each road is Why should or should not Road X be opened for OHV use, with supporting reasons for each position. Meeting Schedule: Three meetings are scheduled at this time, to discuss the various proposed road segments. The roads which may be considered for OHV use are generally located in three areas, with a couple of outlying segments. It is likely some group members may be interested in only certain areas. The schedule is as follows: o Meeting 1. Wednesday February 1, 2012, 1 pm at the Buena Vista Community Center. Focus on the Fourmile Area / Buena Vista area roads: portions of 187, 307, and 375 were previously opened; 304, 305, 309, 315, 371, and the remainder of 307 and 187 have been requested for consideration; also discuss CR 344 and CR 390. o Meeting 2. Wednesday February 8, 2012, 1 pm at the County Courthouse in Salida. Focus on Salida and Turret area roads: CR 175 was previously opened north of FSR 181; 184, 185, 173 and 176 have been requested for consideration. o Meeting 3. Wednesday February 15, 2012, 1 pm at Mt. Princeton Conference Center. Focus on St. Elmo and Alpine area: portions of CR 162 were previously opened; staff suggests that 267, 292, 295 and 296 should be reviewed for consideration. More detailed information on each road segment is included in Attachments B, C, and D. Suggested Criteria: Staff proposes the following criteria as part of the evaluation of whether or not a road should be opened for OHV usage. 1. Concurrence with existing or proposed travel management or other management plans. 2. Connection to existing USFS, BLM, State Parks, County, or other designated OHV routes. 3. Availability of adequate parking and unloading areas at start of and along road. 4. Other land uses served by the road, i.e. mining, timber, which may impact safety. 5. Review available traffic counts for the roads. 6. Since a number of these roads cross through (or are prescriptive over) or terminate on private lands, consider public comment from private landowners in the affected area. 7. Road suitability based on road surface, width and geometry, area topography, maintenance issues, sightlines, safety, and compatibility. 8. For roads near town limits or through townsites such as Turret, Alpine, or St Elmo, review should consider the likelihood of higher traffic and greater residential density. US Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Map: This map identifies roads that are open for certain types of use, and seasonal closures. The map groups County roads in with State and federal highways as not designated for motorized use by the Forest Service. USFS staff has indicated that the map may be updated in 2012 to reflect changes, including the recently approved County FRTA easement agreements. One potential source of confusion for citizens and visitors using roads is that signage on some roads does not match the Motor Vehicle Use Map. For example, Road 315 is shown on the map as a Forest Road, there is no Schedule A agreement, yet County Road signs are posted. OHV proponents point to the USFS Motor Vehicle Use map as evidence that a road is open, while opponents have suggested that the County signage means the County has jurisdiction. County and USFS staff have agreed that this needs resolution, with the most likely solution to remove County signs and replace with USFS signs.

3 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 3 Attachment A The following table summarizes the interested parties, and contact information for those who have contacted us requesting to be a part of any discussions. You will note that some groups have multiple persons requesting to be participants; my recommendation is that each group be required to designate a single participant to ensure a more fair process. 1. County, Local, State, and Federal Government and Land Management Agencies Name Organization Phone Joe Nelson Chaffee Road & Bridge jnelson@chaffeecounty.org Pete Palmer Chaffee Sheriff ppalmer@chaffeesheriff.org Jenny Davis Chaffee Attorney jdavis@chaffeecounty.org Don Reimer Chaffee Development dreimer@chaffeecounty.org Chris Welker US Forest Service cwelker@fs.us John Nahomenuk BLM John_nahomenuk@blm.gov Kalem Lenard BLM jlenard@blm.gov Rob White AHRA rob.white@state.co.us Dara MacDonald Salida dara.macdonald@cityofsalida.com Sue Boyd Buena Vista bvadmin@buenavistaco.gov 2. OHV Road Usage Proponents Carl Bauer Liars Lodge B&B innkeeper@liarslodge.com Mike Simpson High Rockies Riders pmpmrs@amigo.net Rick Ramsey Paula Bullington hcconnection@amigo.net Chuck Burton c.burton@acm.org 3. Interest Groups Tom Sobal Quiet Use Coalition info@quietuse.org Michael Kunkel Friends of Browns Canyon mkunk@bresnan.net Carl Koecher Chaffee Cty Running Club chaffeerunners@yahoo.com Shawn Gillis Absolute Bikes shawn@absolutebikes.com Rickie Redland Salida Mtn Trails redlandr@gmail.com Yvonne Barnes SPOT mtnmap@gmail.com Scott Braden Colorado Mountain Club scottbraden@cmc.org Reed Dils Trout Unlimited kdils@amigo.net

4 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 4 Dan Clegg Trout Unlimited clegg_22@msn.com David Lien Bill Sustrich Colo Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Jean Smith Wild Connections dlien2@yahoo.com bsustrich@wildblue.net Jeancsmith33@comcast.net Kathy McCoy Friends of Fourmile katherinemccoy@earthlink.net Alan Robinson Friends of Fourmile robinson@chaffee.net Dick Scar Friends of Fourmile scars@rockymountains.net Mike Sugaski msugaski@bresnan.net 4. Homeowners / Property Owners Associations Lyn Berry / Jeanne Younghaus CR jlarkriver@rockymountains.net Jay Gingrich CR jaymtb@amigo.net Jeannette and Bud Melton CR tidedoc68@gmail.com Don Breece CR donbreece@hotmail.com Bill Schwartzkopf Steve Wood Andy Grey Badger Creek POA CR 187 Badger Creek POA CR 187 Hartsel Fire / Badger Creek jansteveml80@yahoo.com cydo771@yahoo.com James Culbertson CR 307 / CR jvculbertson@lycos.com Andrew Rice CR 187 andrew.rice@dphe.state.co.us Brad Sherman CR 184 / CR bradsautomotive@yahoo.com Phil Rodriguez CR Melanie Roth St Elmo / Alpine mudd@chaffeeco.net Rob Abernathy CR rsa@chieftainroyalty.com Joe Greiner joe@inaraft.com Katie Ogurek Katie.ogurek@gmail.com

5 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 5 Attachment B Summary of Potential OHV Roads Fourmile Area Fourmile Travel Management Area: The Fourmile Travel Management Plan was adopted in August 2002 by USFS and BLM, following input from citizen groups, including Friends of Fourmile and High Rocky Riders. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the travel management plan considered County jurisdiction of some of the roads in the area, which has led to some of the misunderstandings on whether a road is open or not. The illustrative map brochure for the area may be the source of some confusion. This map identifies both County roads and USFS roads in the area as either major system roads or secondary system roads, and indicates that the roads are either open to all vehicles, or high clearance vehicles. While that is true for USFS roads, the brochure should be modified to reflect County roads that are not open for OHV use unless the County has opened them. A potential solution may be to include another line type on the map and legend similar to that on the USFS Motor Vehicle Use Map, and a disclaimer that road, trail and area users must comply with all Federal, State and local laws and regulations, and to contact the appropriate agency to ensure a road is open. Within the Fourmile Area, Chaffee County opened CR 375 and portions of CR 307 and CR 187 for OHV use in 2005 with Ordinance These segments should be evaluated to identify what is working, and if adjustments are needed to reduce user conflicts. Roads Requested for OHV Use: CR 187. County Road under FRTA 66 easement between CR 307 and Park County line. o Ordinance opened approximately 0.75 miles of CR 187 for OHV use between CR 307 and FS 300. o Request is to open the remainder of the road (approximately 6.5 miles) to the Park County line. o Should clarify with Park County whether or not the portion of this road in Park County is opened or closed to OHV, and post signage as appropriate. o Prior testimony from the public and other agencies has indicated concern for safety on the un-opened portion of the road if OHV usage is permitted.

6 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 6 CR 188. Shown on USFS map as Forest road. No FRTA easement is present. o CR 187 is not open for OHV use where it intersects CR 188. o Since it is FS Road 188 and not CR 188, the road should be open for OHV use and any conflicting signage removed. o USFS map shows portion in Park County to be FS road as well. CR 304. County Road over BLM and private lands for entire length. o Request is to open from highway to just beyond the kiosk. It is unclear which kiosk is referred to, or the length of road proposed, so a map is not presented here. o If the kiosk is the overlook, it would be less than 0.25 miles, but would not connect to any other OHV routes. OHV usage is not permitted at the south end (US 24/285) or anywhere else on CR 304. o Prior testimony from the public and private property owners in the area was significantly opposed to allowing any usage of CR 304. BLM should be consulted to ensure use is consistent with their travel management plans. CR 305. County Road between US 24/285 and FS 305 over private lands for approximately 0.4 miles. o Road is prescriptive easement o OHV usage is not permitted at the south end (US 24/285), but is allowed on FS 305 north of the County Road segment. o CR 305 provides access to one residence o Relatively straight, good sightlines o Need to find solution for highway crossing if OHV usage is allowed CR 307. In December 2011, County approved identifying the easterly portion of 307 as a Schedule A Road and returning jurisdiction to USFS. There was some testimony regarding the use of this section of road; the County and Forest Service will continue to study this road to determine whether a FRTA easement or Schedule A is more appropriate. o Ordinance opened approximately 0.3 miles of CR 307 for OHV use between FS 308 and CR 187. This portion of the road was designated by the County in 2011 as a Schedule A road. This will not affect the usage as it will be a USFS road and continue to be open for OHV use. o Request is to open the remainder of the road between the east and west connections to US 24/285; with the purpose of creating connections between the north and south sections of Fourmile. Either one of these connections would require an at-grade

7 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 7 crossing and use of US 24/285, which is not permitted by State of Colorado regulations. CR 309 is approximately 360 feet offset from the northeasterly end of CR 307, and has not been opened for OHV use. CR 305 is approximately 500 feet offset from the westerly end of CR 307, and has not been opened for OHV use. CR 309. County road north of US 24/285; however shown on USFS map as Forest road, subject to seasonal closures. o Request is to open the road to US 24/285 with the purpose of creating connections between the north and south sections of Fourmile. This would require an atgrade crossing and use of US 24/285, which is not permitted by State of Colorado regulations. o The USFS map should be updated to correctly identify the County and USFS sections of Road 309. CR 315. Shown on USFS map as Forest road. No FRTA easement is present. o Since it is FS Road 315 and not CR 315, the road should be open for OHV use and any conflicting signage removed. o US 24/285 is not open for OHV use where it intersects CR 315. CR 371. County Road over BLM and private lands, except under FRTA 66 easement from 1997, for approximately ½ mile where road crosses USFS lands near Elephant Rock. o Request is to open from CR 375 to Buena Vista town limits (approximately 2 miles). o All except the northerly 0.4 miles is hard surfaced; OHV usage on paved roads is generally discouraged in OHV operator manuals. o Prior testimony from the public was significantly opposed to allowing any OHV usage of CR 371. o Buena Vista has not opened any Town roads to OHV use.

8 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 8 CR 375. Opened in entirety between CR 371 and USFS boundary (Ordinance ). o CR 371 is not open for OHV use at the southwesterly end of CR 375. FS 375 and FS 376 are open for OHV use at the northeastern end of CR 376. o CR 375 is almost entirely on BLM lands; BLM should be consulted to ensure use is consistent with the BLM travel management plan. o A parking lot has been established on BLM land approximately 350 feet east of CR 371. IF CR 371 is not opened, it may be worthwhile to discuss closing the segment between the parking area and CR 371 to reduce concerns related to OHV use on CR 371. Other Roads near Buena Vista: CR 344. County Road under FRTA 66 easement between CR 306 and Cottonwood Lake Dam. o Request is unclear whether a portion or all of CR 344 is requested for opening. o CR 306 and CR 343 are not open for OHV use o FS 344 west of the Cottonwood Lake Dam is open for OHV use. CR 390. The first approximately 5 miles is a County road, through Clear Creek Ranch. The road crosses short stretches of USFS lands; a Schedule A Agreement is in place for those segments, with the County retaining jurisdiction. o Unclear which segment is requested. 390 extends from US 24 up to Winfield, with segments beyond Clear Creek Ranch being a FS road. o US 24 is not open for OHV use. There are no existing OHV routes connected to this road.

9 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 9 Roads Requested for OHV Use: Attachment C Summary of Potential OHV Roads Salida / Turret Area CR 173. An approximately two-mile section between CR 176 (Spiral Drive) and the USFS boundary. o This road is not currently included on the County Road maintenance list, and has not been maintained by the County in the recent past. o This portion of Road 173 is entirely on BLM and City of Salida lands; BLM and Salida should be consulted to ensure use is consistent with their travel management plans. o This portion of Road 173 is also used as part of the Salida Mountain Trails Arkansas Hills trail system; SMT should be consulted to determine whether OHV use is consistent with the trail system. o 173 does not connect to any existing OHV routes. CR 175. Opened by Ordinance from FS 181 to the Fremont County line. o Unclear whether or not road is open for OHV usage on the Fremont County side. o Additional signage may be required; some OHV usage has been observed south of FS 181 towards the City of Salida. CR 176. An approximately one-mile section between CR 175 and the top of S Mountain. o CR 175 is not open for OHV at this location. o CR 176 is primarily on BLM and City of Salida lands and partially within the Salida city limits; BLM and Salida should be consulted to ensure use is consistent with their travel management plans. o CR 176 does not connect to any existing OHV routes. CR 181. Shown on USFS map as Forest road. No FRTA easement is present. o CR 175 is open for OHV at this location (Ord ). o Since it is FS Road 181 and not CR 181, the road should be open for OHV use and any conflicting signage removed. CR 182. In December 2011, County approved terminating FRTA easement and returning jurisdiction to USFS, with a Schedule A maintenance agreement. o CR 175 is open for OHV at this location (Ord ). o The result of terminating the FRTA easement is the road will be FS Road 182 and not CR 182, so the road will be open for OHV use and any conflicting signage should be removed.

10 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 10 CR 184. County Road under FRTA 66-foot easement between CR 185 and Turret Townsite. o Request is to open entire length, approximately 1.75 miles, and would include roads in the Turret townsite. o This road is not currently connected to any OHV routes; connection is only possible if CR 185 is also opened. CR 185. County Road under FRTA easement between CR 175 to near the Pioneer Mine. o Request is to open entire length, approximately 3 miles. o CR 185 terminates on the south at CR 175 (opened near this location for OHV use with Ord ). o At the north end, FS 185 extends further north and terminates at CR 187, which at that location is not open for OHV use. CR 200. Opened south / west of the Shirley camp site by Ordinance o The portion of the road west of the Shirley site was approved by the County in 2011 to terminate the FRTA easement and replace with a Schedule A agreement. This will not affect the usage as it will become a USFS road and continue to be open for OHV use.

11 County OHV Roads Discussion Group Page 11 Attachment D Summary of Potential OHV Roads St Elmo / Alpine Area Other Segments to Consider: Based on the road segments previously opened, and the segments proposed, County staff reviewed other County road segments to determine whether there were additional segments which should be considered. Segments identified are: Alpine Area: Approximately ¼ mile of CR 162 was opened near Alpine at FS 277 by Ordinance o The area near Alpine was opened to facilitate OHV use on FS 277, as there is no parking area near FS 277. o There have been reports of inadequate parking at this location, and also of some OHV continuing all the way down CR 162 to Mt Princeton Resort. St Elmo Area: Approximately ¾ mile of CR 162 through St. Elmo was opened by Ordinance o Portions of 162, 292, 294, 295, 296, 267 are also within the St Elmo Townsite. These roads all are the beginning points for forest service roads open for OHV use, are commonly used by OHV, and opening them would reduce confusion for users in the St Elmo area. o St Elmo residents should be invited to participate in this discussion.