Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mad Rabbit Forestservice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners say Forest Service removed agreed adaptive‑management elements for Mad Rabbit project; county seeks clarity
Summary
Routt County commissioners discussed a letter from Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Dan Gibbs describing concerns with changes the U.S. Forest Service made to the Mad Rabbit project; commissioners and staff said they have been in conversations with federal and state officials and will monitor related city funding processes.
Routt County commissioners spent a portion of the April 28 work session discussing a formal letter they received from Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Dan Gibbs about the Mad Rabbit project. Commissioners said they were disappointed that the U.S. Forest Service removed provisions they understood had been agreed to, particularly elements tied to an adaptive‑management plan intended to protect wildlife.
Commissioners said the district ranger and federal and state staff have expressed frustration and that multiple offices — district ranger, U.S. Forest Service public information, CPW leadership and federal senators’ offices — have been informed. "There appears to be a good bit of difference in understanding what was agreed to and what actually happened," a commissioner said.
County staff also noted a related municipal budget item: the city had previously indicated funding for Mad Rabbit relied on an understanding about agency commitments. Commissioners said they had received a city council notification acknowledging the county’s letter and that the city may now revisit its funding decisions. The county discussed whether to pursue additional fact‑finding with the city to determine whether the city’s allocation was contingent on the earlier interagency understandings.
Commissioners reviewed possible next steps, including a request for the district ranger to brief the board. The ranger has expressed reluctance to speak in a public forum because of information‑sensitivity, the board said. County leaders also reported they had briefed congressional staffers and state agency leaders to relay local concerns.
Why it matters: Commissioners framed the issue as one of interagency trust and project implementation. The adaptive‑management commitments were described in public correspondence as a condition that shaped local expectations about habitat protections; removing those items prompted local officials to ask for clarification of both the Forest Service’s approach and whether municipal funding decisions were contingent on the prior understanding.
No formal action: The board did not vote or issue new direction beyond asking staff to continue fact‑finding and to keep the board apprised. Commissioners also said they would rely on CPW and federal dialogues for technical details.
What’s next: County staff said they will continue bilateral conversations with the Forest Service and CPW and report back; commissioners said they will monitor city council follow‑up on funding requests tied to the project.
