Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Uililil i 1 <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />Public Comments Reviewed <br /> <br />In October of 1999. the Medicine Bow <br />Forest formall~' began its revision <br />process with the publication of a Notice <br />of Intent (NOli in the Federal Register. <br />This notice described the need to revise <br />the 1985 Forest Plan based on issues <br />and conditions on the Forest which have <br />changed since the original plan was <br />completed. The NOI described a <br />proposed action fOT addressing the <br />major reVision topics which were <br />already identified during earlier public <br />involvement. <br /> <br />Comments on the NOI were received <br />until Mart:h of 2000. We received over <br />900 letters and emails. 3S well as <br />comments from six public meetings. <br />Comments were also received based on <br />review of draft standards, management <br />area prescriptions. and a revised <br />Purpose and Need statement issued in <br />199B. <br /> <br />We read each letter and highlighted the <br />key comments or issues. This resulted <br />in over 4,000 individual comments. <br />These comments .....ere coded based on a <br />subjl."ct category and entered into a <br />computer database. <br /> <br />The Revision team and resource <br />specialists rt'viewed the comments and <br />identified those that may contribute to; <br />1) an alternative to the proposed action, <br />2) changes or additions to draft <br />standards and guidelines, <br />31 changes or additions to draft <br />management areas, <br />4) new revision topics or issues, <br />5) special analysis or data, or <br />6) improved infonnation or explanation <br />of the revision process. <br /> <br />This review has identified a wide <br />variety of potential alternative themes <br />including: <br />. Reducing or eliminating commodity <br />uses on the Forest such as timber, <br />grazing and minerals management. <br />. Increasing or maintaining the level <br />of commodity uses on the Forest, <br />. Utilizing the principles of <br />consel'\'ation biology to designate a <br />set of con" protected areas and <br />connecting habitats for ..."Idlife, <br />. Reducing motorized and non- <br />motorized recreation conflicts. and <br />. Restoring ecological conditions which <br />are outside of the historic range of <br />variability <br /> <br />The comment review also identified many <br />changes to the draft standards and <br />Management Area prescriptions. <br /> <br />The revie..... did not however, identif}' any <br />new issues not already discussed in our <br />1993 or 1998 Purpose and Need for <br />Action. There is still an interest in all of <br />the previousl)' identified issues related to <br />timber harvesting, motorized and non- <br />motorized recreation user conflicts. <br />roadIess area management. travel <br />management. fire management, insect <br />and disease management. livestock <br />grazing management. wildlife habitat <br />management. soil and water protection <br />and many others. In addition, public <br />interest is widely divergent on most of <br />these issues. For example, some people <br />have expressed the need to reduce timber <br />harvest while others want to maintain or <br />increase current levels. <br /> <br />These issues will all be addn:-ssed in the <br />Forest Plan re\;sion. Some will be the <br />driving force for developing an <br />alternative. Some issues will help us <br />evaluate alternatives to estimate the <br />efft"Cts (such as expected vegetation <br />conditions, achievable outputs, or <br />recreation opportunities). Still others .....iII <br />be addressed through development of <br />standards/guidelines, <br /> <br />The comment revie..... also identified <br />sources of data we could use in our <br />analysis and suggestions for specific <br />resources to analyze. For example, some <br />people believed we should include non- <br />commodity values in our economic <br />analysis, and we should explain the long-- <br />tenn implications ofproject.ed structural <br />stage distributions of vegetation across <br />the forest. Resource specialists are still <br />strategizing specifics of the analyses. <br /> <br />We also received many suggestions for <br />improving our documents and <br />opportunities for us to better explain the <br />process. <br /> <br />A complete summary of the comments we <br />received. including a brief response <br />explaining how the issue was or will be <br />addressed. is available on request from <br />our Supervisor's office or on the internet <br />at httpJlwww.fsJed_uslmrnflrev/medrev/ <br />meclre\'.htm. <br /> <br />Poge3 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />...--- . . <br />I -The Revision Team is I <br />I always available to <br />answer questions or <br />listen to your <br />comments, just give us <br />a call.- <br />Dave Harris <br />Forest Planner <br />- - -, - <br />- <br />