Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--1l.lJ III L) 'I <br /> <br /> <br />mFores <br /> <br />an <br /> <br /> <br />ocus~ <br /> <br />Issue 6 <br /> <br />White River National Forest <br /> <br />Dear Fn'ends, <br /> <br />As the planning team works to complete the final <br />Forest Plan, we continue to engage the public in the <br />revision process. /n February and March we held <br />~Stakeholder Meetings" throughout the Forest. <br />Stakeholders included representatives from focal <br />governments, the ranching community. the skiing <br />industry, motorized and non-motorized recreational <br />users, environmental organizations, and second. <br />home owners. The meetings were designed to list <br />stakeholder objectives and provide suggestions tor <br />measuring how the Forest Plan meets those <br />objectives. <br /> <br />From previous discussions and comments received <br />on the draft Forest Plan, we had identified values, <br />objectives, and priorities for various interest groups. <br />The meetings helped clarify our understanding of <br />those pn'onNes and objectives as welf as focus on <br />areas of common concern. <br /> <br />Currently, the planning team is working diligently to <br />incorporate standards and guidelines for Canada <br />Lynx management into the final Forest Plan and <br />Environmenta/lmpact Statement. Uncertainty <br />surrounding the future status of roadless area <br />conservation direction has limited our ability to move <br />forward on analysis of environmental consequences <br />for the lynx and other issues. As a resuft, the date of <br />release for the final Forest Plan, final EIS and <br />Record of Decision has been moved to September <br />2001. <br /> <br />I appreciate your continued interest in the White <br />River Nationa/ Forest. The level and volume of <br />public involvement continues to impress and gratify <br />me. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />MARTHA J. KETELLE <br />Forest Supervisor <br /> <br />May 2001 <br /> <br />Travel Comments Top Concern <br />More than 60 000 individual comments from 14,500 <br />pieces 01 maii were received in response to the draft <br />Forest Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. <br />The most frequently mentioned topic was travel <br />management (see chart below). Travel management <br />involves the identification of allowable uses for each <br />individual road and trail on the Forest. Many <br />respondents felt that making the Forest Plan and <br />Travel Management Plan decisions at the same time <br />was confusing and difficult to follow. For this reason, <br />site-specific comments regarding travel management <br />witt be considered once the final Forest Plan is <br />completed (see travel management article, page 2). <br /> <br />Recreation and biodiversity were also popular topics. <br />Reflecting shifting demographics within our society, <br />several respondents stated that they view public <br />lands as a recreational amenity rather than a crucial <br />Source of raw materials and extraction-related jobs. <br /> <br />Comments directly citing alternatives of the draft <br />Forest Plan were also common, with Alternatives C, <br /> <br />See Travel, page 3 <br /> <br /> <br />Percentage of Total Comments by Topic <br />