My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01107
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01107
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:29:22 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:10:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8027
Description
Section D General Correspondence - Federal Agencies (Alpha, not Basin Related)
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
5/1/2001
Author
US Forest Service
Title
Forest Plan Focus - White River National Forest - Issue 6 - May 2001
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Ui/IJIJ,ii/ <br /> <br />Forest Plan Focus <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />Final Forest Plan Distribution; Freedom of Choice <br /> <br /> Place <br /> Stamp <br /> Here <br />Forest Plan <br />White River National Forest <br />PO Box 948 <br />Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0948 <br /> <br />...... -...... - Please cuI out this card along the darkened border....... - - - -.._ <br /> <br />You can review the <br />White River's final <br />Forest Plan and its <br />accompanying final <br />Environmental <br />Impact Statement in <br />various ways. Just <br />detach the postcard <br />to the left and fill in <br />your name and <br />address in the space <br />provided on the <br />back. Drop the card <br />in the mail, and once <br />the final Forest Plan <br />is available, it will be <br />sent to you in the <br />format you selected. <br /> <br />Travel, from page 1 <br /> <br />D. and I eliciting the majority of alternative-specific concerns. Of those that support the preferred <br />Alternative 0, several stated that It strikes a reasonable balance between resource protection and use. <br />However, others remarked that the preferred alternative does not provide adequate protection of the <br />forest's ecosystems. Many of these respondents support Alternative I. Conversely, Alternative C <br />supporters generally feel that the preferred alternative is too restrictive, especially in regards to motorized <br />and developed recreation. While most respondents appreciate many of the same natural characteristics <br />of the White River National Forest, they do hold very different assumptions and beliefs regarding the true <br />environmental effects of various uses and the proper mix of management activities. <br /> <br />It is important to note that although the number and category of comments are tracked for the <br />administrative record, the consideration of public comment is not a vote-counting process in which the <br />outcome is determined by the majority opinion. Public responses are tracked, documented, and analyzed I <br />using a process called content analysis. Individual responses are assigned unique tracking numbers, then <br />read and analyzed by a specialized team. Specific comments are identified and assigned a subject <br />category number, and all comments are entered verbatim into a database. This database is then used to <br />identify public concerns. Over 1,700 public concerns were extracted from the White River National <br />Forest's comment databases. A response to comments chapter will be included in the final environmental <br />impact statement for the Forest Plan revision. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.