“We believe it is a pristine area. We do not need to put heavily graveled or paved roads in that area,” Ken Emory of Western Slope Four Wheelers said.
“We believe it will reduce recreation in the area. Wanting to do this road would restrict ATV activities and hunting activities might be reduced.”
|
Advertisement |
“Roads are about the worst thing that can happen to wildlife,” Andrea Robinsong of Western Colorado Congress said.
Roads break up habitat and bring in traffic, with all the attendant dangers to wildlife.
“The bigger the roads are, the worse they are. That’s a very sensitive area,” she said. “What they would propose to do would disrupt a lot of creatures.”
Wildlife health depends on the ability to migrate.
“Roads are really the death knell for that,” Robinsong said. “If the Forest Service had a timber sale that entire length, it wouldn’t be as bad (as a road) because a timber sale won’t be permanent. The road will.”
Project planning is still in its infancy. The idea is to upgrade the Highway 90-Houser Road-25 Mesa Road route, cutting travel time between Montrose and the West End communities.
Though the county asserted ownership in 2007, much of the roadways are under United States Forest Service jurisdiction.
Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest Supervisor Charlie Richmond said counties have to prove such assertions in court.
Proponents say the road will enhance the area economy. Paradox resident Tim Walsh made a connecting road between east and west a central part of his campaign when he unsuccessfully ran against Commissioner David White.
Walsh believes a better road will draw West End residents to Montrose for their shopping needs, and also said the road would better open the West End to tourism in order to offset the boom-bust cycle of energy extraction.
“I’m glad to see David White is pursuing it,” Walsh said.
Costs for what the current slate of commissioners are considering are in the millions; the county hopes to receive federal stimulus dollars.
Commissioners already approved a $50,000 feasibility study, and, last week, voted to hire a lobbying firm at a cost of $8,500 per month.
The county recognizes the road project involves regional and federal jurisdictions. The lobbying firm’s duties include bringing project elements together.
Emory said Montrose County failed to address numerous concerns before spending the study and lobbying money.
“Our main beef is, why didn’t they go to the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Division of Wildlife and say, ‘Can we do this?’ and get everybody on board before spending the money. They’re spending the money and, to the best of my knowledge, none of these agencies want this road,” Emory said.
He also said he feared the county hadn’t considered maintenance costs. “Who’s going to pay for that? Well, Montrose County’s taxpayers,” he said.
“All of that land is Forest Service land,” Robinsong said. “I know the county thinks they can claim them as county roads, but I think the Forest Service will fight them all the way.”
Richmond said Montrose County is doing baseline studies for the road proposal and the USFS has no opinion at this time. “However, since they are Forest Service roads, the Forest Service will either have to accept that proposal or deny it,” he said.
If the USFS adopts a proposal, studies and an Environmental Impact Statement would follow, a process Richmond said could take a few years, given the controversy.
Robinsong said in her own opinion, the county was wasting resources on a flawed project, while Emory said the road project would only save about 32 minutes of travel time between the West End and Montrose.
“I’m sure there’s a difference of opinions. But we don’t drill in the wilderness for reasons, and this to me is kind of the same way,” Emory said.
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!