FForest Plan Focus Forest Plan Focu orest Plan Focuss

Dear Friends,

With the Forest Plan Revision process in 

full swing, my first year on the White 

River certainly has been a busy one! 

With all that is going on it’s time to 

update everyone on where we are in the 

process, share what we have heard from 

you and where we are going.

Out last update was in March when the 

workgroups completed their task of 

identifying management options. Since 

then, we have completed inventory work, 

started writing chapters of the Forest 

Plan Revision and Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS), and started 

developing and analyzing alternatives. 

The intent of each alternative is described 

in this newsletter via a theme statement. 

I am pleased with the public interest and 

involvement in the revision of the Forest 

Plan--I believe we have heard most of the 

issues that need to be addressed. There 

will be opportunities for the public to be 

involved and comment on the draft 

revision documents following their 

release in the Spring of 1999.

I encourage everyone to continue to be 

involved in the process--it’s your Forest! 

My staff and I are available to make 

presentations and visit with anyone 

interested in the revision process. 

/s/ Martha J. Ketelle

MARTHA J. KETELLE

Forest Supervisor

Revision Process Moving Along

The initial scoping for the revision of the White River Forest 

Plan began in Fall 1997 and continued through March 1998 

(during scoping we ask you for your comments and input on 

what you think needs to be addressed in the planning 

documents). Since March, we have read all the letters, 

identified issues and concerns, and developed a summary of 

the comments. The comments were reviewed to identify 

substantive issues to be addressed in the revision process.

Alternative themes have been developed and the alternatives 

are currently being analyzed. Writing of the revision 

documents (DEIS, Proposed Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan), and Summary) has also 

started. They should be ready for internal review by January 

1999, to the printer by February, and released by March or 

April. The documents will also be available for you to 

review on the Internet. 

We are tentatively planning to have open houses in May or 

June 1999. The open houses will be held in Dillon, Avon, 

Eagle, Rifle, Meeker, Carbondale, Aspen, Glenwood 

Springs, Denver and Grand Junction. During the 90-day 

comment period, we will be available to make presentations 

to various groups and organizations.

In January’s issue of Forest Plan Focus, we will update you 

on where we are in the process, as well as provide you with 

dates we expect the documents to be released and a schedule 

of open houses. We will also ask you what format you would 

like to receive the Forest Plan documents in (e.g. hardcopy or 

CD-ROM)--remember, the documents will also be available 

on the Internet!

Hey...I have a question!!

If you have questions regarding the revision process, the 

following people may be contacted at the Supervisor’s Office 

by calling (970)945-2521:

Dan Hormaechea, Planning Staff Officer

Carolyn Upton, Forest Planner

Betty Schmitt, Public Affairs Officer

If you would like to be added to our Forest Plan mailing list or 

need to change your address, please contact Bridget Eisfeldt 

at (970)945-2521. 

White River National Forest

Issue 3 November 1998
What You Told Us

During scoping, we contacted the public through our newsletter, open houses, work groups, and one-on-one 

contacts with various organizations. During this same time, we received over 500 comment letters. Through 

these contacts and comment letters, we identified many issues. Following are some (but not all!) of your 

concerns. These are broad topic areas--not specific issues.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, 

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington DC 20250-9410 or call (202)720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.

Receipt of this newsletter is an indication that you are on our mailing list. If you do not wish to receive future mailings, please let us know. 

Government mailing lists are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may be released to the public under certain conditions. If 

you do not want your name released, you should not be on this mailing list.

Forest Plan Focus Page 2

Allowable Sale Quantity

• Below cost

• Reduced or no harvest

• Maintain or increase harvest

• Timber harvest methods

• Forest health

• Timber harvest impacts

• Roadless areas

Biological Diversity

• Aggressive noxious weed program

• Evaluate grazing for suitability

• Natural fires/fire mitigation

• Management of old growth

• Protect soil/air

• Wildlife habitat

• Riparian area protection

Recreation

• Limit and monitor outfitter permits

• Developed recreation

• Four season resorts

• Snowmobiles

• Mountain bikes

• Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

• Motorized/non-motorized recreation

• Recreation capacity

• Potential hut sites

• Mountain bikes/mechanized travel

Roadless

• Additional wilderness

• No more wilderness

• Roadless area management

Special Areas

• Protection/special designations

• Wild and Scenic Rivers

• Research Natural Areas

• Wilderness management

• Scenic trails

• Scenery/view corridors

• Cave management

Travel Management

• Policy issues

• Non-system roads and trails/social routes

• Access to public land

• Utility corridors

• Access by physically challenged

• Motorized/non-motorized

• Closures

• Timber sale roads

• Snowmobile use

• Cross country skier/snowmobile conflicts

• Dispersed recreation

• ATVs/ORVs/dirt bikes

• Backcountry use

• Commercial use in wetlands 

• Recreation use impacts

Travel Management and Biological Diversity

• Road density standards

• Ecological impacts of snowmobiling

• Road closures

• Mountain bike impacts on wildlife

• Restrictions to reduce impacts on wildlife

• Evaluate land exchanges for critical habitat
Page 3 Forest Plan Focus

Forest Develops Six Management Alternatives

Six alternatives are being developed and analyzed using significant issues identified by the public during 

scoping; input from the four Forest Plan workgroups; resource specialist experience, expertise and professional 

knowledge; Forest Plan monitoring; and information from two internal planning documents--Purpose and 

Need/Development of Planning Criteria (8/98) and the Analysis of the Management Situation (7/97). Following 

are general theme statements for each alternative--expanded discussion of how each alternative addresses the 

revision topics (biological diversity, travel management, etc.) will be in the DEIS. (Note: Alternative A is the 

existing Forest Plan without updates for new standards and guidelines, etc. Alternatives G and H were 

consolidated into other alternatives.)

Alternative B emphasizes production of goods and services such as developed recreation, ski-based resorts, and 

livestock grazing to meet expected levels of demand. Vegetation management is applied to improve wildlife 

habitat, maintain and improve visual quality in travel corridors and recreation areas, treat overmature and 

diseased tree stands, and provide firewood and other wood products. Ecological conditions will not drive 

management activities; however, the ecological condition will remain above baseline.

Alternative C provides a range of recreation opportunities while providing for biological diversity through 

consideration of Historic Range of Variability (HRV) conditions. The range of recreation is determined by 

recreation demand and trend analyses. This alternative provides more motorized recreation opportunities in the 

summer and more designated non-motorized recreation opportunities in the winter than are currently available. 

Ecological conditions may limit recreation activities in some locations of the Forest. Vegetation management 

activities is focused on a more diverse, healthy vegetative condition. This alternative also provides for resource 

production only in areas that have been previously managed. No new roads are constructed in areas not 

previously developed. Limited resource production occurs as a result of this alternative.

Active management (e.g. timber harvest, prescribed fire and structural improvements) of all habitat types is 

emphasized in Alternative D. This alternative represents an aggressive approach to habitat management. It 

places low emphasis on letting natural processes run their course. Through active management, this alternative 

makes the most progress toward a diverse, healthy ecosystem condition and has the most change in successional 

stage of vegetation Forestwide. This alternative has the most restrictions on recreational activities. It places low 

emphasis on developments for human uses. 

Alternative E emphasizes recreation activities that provide economic benefits to local economies. These 

activities vary across the forest. For this alternative, tourism is defined as activities that attract people to the area 

for recreational visits. Land is allocated to provide opportunities for private-sector recreation providers, 

recreational infrastructure developments and improvements, and consumptive recreation activities. The 

commercial use of ski-based resorts, outfitter and guide activities, tour operators, non-ski-based resorts and 

developed recreation infrastructure is increased. Non-commercial recreation that provides significant economic 

benefits is also emphasized, while baseline or better ecological conditions are maintained Forestwide. There is 

limited resource production in this alternative.

Resource production activities such as vegetation management, mineral development and livestock grazing, 

while continuing to provide a range of recreational activities, are maximized in Alternative F. Utilization of 

resources on the Forest is maximized. In areas intensively managed for resource production, minimum 

population viability is an ecological constraint. In other areas, natural processes are allowed to dominate the 

landscape. Dispersed and developed recreation opportunities are at current levels or higher. Roaded recreation 

opportunities expand; semi-primitive recreation opportunities may decrease.

Specific concepts of Conservation Biology are emphasized in Alternative I. These concepts purpose that for 

these systems to function unimpaired and unimpeded, forest health and biological diversity, natural dirturbance 

regimes, and other ecological and evolutionary processes are allowed to perpetuate. Commodity production, 

including recreation, is accommodated to the extent that it does not fundamentally impair these natural 

processes, the Forest’s native plant and animal communities, or restoration of the full ecological functioning of 

these features. Emphasis is on retaining, to the highest degree possible, the wildness of the land. 
Forest Plan Focus

White River National Forest

900 Grand Avenue

PO Box 948

Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0948

Inside This Issue

Revision Process Moves Along

Your Comments

Alternatives Being Developed Address Correction Requested

Forest Plan Focus Page 4

Site-Specific Decisions

When the Forest published its Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS in conjunction with the Forest Plan Revision, it identified 

two site-specific decisions--travel management and vacant range allotments. These two decisions will be made by the 

Forest Supervisor (the Forest Plan decision will be made by the Regional Forester).

Travel Management There will be a site-specific travel management plan for each alternative (there are currently six 

alternatives--see page 3). The Forest held open houses and made presentations to organizations to specifically address 

travel management. Many of the comments received during scoping were site-specific travel management comments. 

District teams mapped and identified alternative strategies for each travel plan. The travel management plan will contain 

individual road and trail information:

• addressing each road and trail

• identifying road closures and obliterations

• identifying road and trail uses, seasons of use, and use restrictions

• addressing motorized and non-motorized uses

• addressing mountain bike use

Unlike the site-specific travel management plan, the Forest Plan will contain programmatic travel strategies:

• similar to what is on the Forest visitor map

• addressing on- and off-road uses

• that are presented separately for summer and winter

• pertaining to large areas, not to individual roads and trails

Vacant Allotments There are about 50 vacant allotments on the Forest. Some are not suitable for grazing because of 

rangeland resource conditions; others are not suitable due to factors such as access, resource conflicts and location. 

Closing a range of these vacant allotments will be analyzed and presented in the Forest Plan. Three open houses, one-oneone contacts, a mailing to the Forest Plan mailing list, and a presentation to livestock groups will be made to explain the 

decision to be made on vacant allotments.