View Full Version : White River NF Travel Plan comments

12-31-2008, 04:45 PM

I've been waiting for COHVCO to pipe up about WRNF, here it is:

[URL="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nctr/message/2709;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGJpZnIxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzEwMDg1NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTcxMDAwBG1zZ0lkAzI3MDkEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIzMDc1ODE2Ng--"] (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nctr/message/2709;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGJpZnIxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzEwMDg1NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTcxMDAwBG1zZ0lkAzI3MDkEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIzMDc1ODE2Ng--)

**COHVCO ALERT** COMMENT ASSISTANCE FOR WHITE RIVER NATL FOREST SDEI (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nctr/message/2709;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGJpZnIxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzEwMDg1NjYEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MTcxMDAwBG1zZ0lkAzI3MDkEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTIzMDc1ODE2Ng--)

Posted by: "COREY CORBETT" corbettfam@msn.com (corbettfam@msn.com?Subject=%20Re%3A%2A%2ACOHVCO%20ALERT%2A%2A%20COMMENT%20ASSISTANCE%20FOR%20WHITE%20RIVER%20NATL%20FOREST%20SDEI) cohvcocorey (http://profiles.yahoo.com/cohvcocorey)

Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:06 pm (PST)


Your Comments Needed on the White River National Forest

Time is running out to comment on the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan (TMP). The Deadline for the USFS to receive comments is January 6th, 2009.

Here is the link to look the proposed TMPs - the USFS preferred alternative is alternative "G": http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/projects/travel_management/<http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/projects/travel_management/>

What's the Problem?

The White River National Forest has issued its Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement on White River National Forest Travel Management alternatives. Your comments are needed in response to this Statement that is heavily biased against summer and winter motorized recreation. For example, the Forest is comprised of 2.3 million acres yet there are only 67 miles of motorized single track. There are 750,000 acres of non-motorized Wilderness and another 640,000 acres of inventoried Roadless areas that are essentially non-motorized, too. ATV Routes are reduced by some 300 miles in their preferred alternative.

What can you do?

Send a comment letter to the following address or e-mail or post mark it by 11:59 PM (don't push it) January 6, 2008.

Mail comments to: WRNF Travel Management Plan and DEIS

c/o BW - CAG

172 E 500 S

Bountiful, UT 84010


E-mail comments to: wrtmp@contentanalysisgroup.com (wrtmp%40contentanalysisgroup.com)<mailto:wrtmp@contentanalysisgroup.com (wrtmp%40contentanalysisgroup.com)>

How you can do it:

Go to the COHVCO website http://cohvco.org/?p=198<http://cohvco.org/?p=198> and get some tips to writing the letter and detailed instructions and bullet points on how and what to comment on and to keep your comment letters personal.

It is extremely important that you send you comments now! The anti-motorized community is flooding the USFS with comments to close our trails! The USFS needs to hear our voice also!

If the trail you ride does not get included on the TMP Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) it will be closed and be illegal to ride! Once this plan is finalized, any trail not marked open and not on the MVUM will be closed!

The Colorado OHV Coalition, Trails Preservation Alliance, Colorado Snowmobile Association and Blue Ribbon Coalition are submitting extensive technical and site specific comments on the SDEIS but the Planning Team needs to hear from you, their visitors.

Corey Corbett
COHVCO Manager of Operations
12161 West Mt. Powell
Littleton, CO 80127

Cell Phone 303-809-6628
Home Phone 303-933-4011
Fax 303-932-8733

Notice: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.

01-06-2009, 11:40 AM
Response from the motorized community has been poor, folks. I know of at least two or three environmental action groups who have been extremely active in lobbying for closure of motorized routes in the WRNF in order to get more land qualified for future Wilderness designation.

Here is the letter I wrote in comment, modify as you wish to reflect your priorities:
Date: 1/6/2009

White River National Forest
White River Travel Planner
c/o BW-CAG
172 E 500 S
Bountiful, UT-84010

Re: White River SDEIS Travel Plan Comment

Dear White River Travel Planner,

OHV use and users are increasing in Colorado, in part due to increased population, and in part due to an aging populace. Recreationists increasingly rely on motorized access to public lands. This alarms some, inasmuch as some motorized users (just like nonmotorized users) are irresponsible. The solution for some is to restrict usage in our National Forests, but this actually increases the problems.

I believe the key to responsible motorized management is fourfold: user education, user group patrols, user group trail maintenance and funding for these projects, and actually increasing the number of trail miles to disperse impacts. Noise should be controlled, and user groups must be engaged to help - I can promise you that motorized user groups are keenly aware of the noise problem and are anxious to help abate it, in order to retain access to public lands.

I work hard to support these efforts in motorcycle and 4x4 user groups, and receive much encouragement in the response from them. There is great and increasing enthusiasm for supporting these efforts, for donating time and labor, for peer enforcement of travel compliance, and for reducing impacts by TreadLightly! ethics. For this reason, I am extremely dismayed to find that the preferred alternative for travel management would cut against my efforts to support responsible motorized recreation in our National Forests.

There are 246 miles of existing mixed use dual sport motorcycle routes available in the White River National Forest, however the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement has acknowledged only 132 miles. This 114 mile loss of important trails is actually much larger as these trails provide access to many loop opportunities that may not be considered by this current inventory or process. Please include all the 246 miles of trails for motorized use. If funding for trail maintenance is an issue driving the closing of trail miles, you will find user groups more than willing to step up with donations of money, time and labor to keep trails sustainable in the White River National Forest as they have in many other public lands in the state.

For that matter, I would volunteer my services in publicizing the specific needs and assisting in organizing the effort to keep these trails sustainable. Please contact me to follow up on this.

The preferred alternative will increase the number of users on designated routes by restricting OHV users to a limited system; increasing impacts and maintenance costs. The preferred alternative by the White River National Forest must be amended to reflect the need to minimize impact by dispersing use, not concentrating use, through more OHV routes and connecting routes.
It seems very apparent to the motorized community that the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan has not provided motorized recreation any resemblance of a balanced use of the White River National Forest for recreation purposes. The loss of roads and trails through wholesale closures by Alternative G does nothing but create an environment that does not meet the best use of the public lands in the White River National Forest.

Please reconsider the apparent bias toward nonmotorized and nonmechanized recreation at a time when these uses are actually decreasing. Please increase rather than decrease the miles of motorized trails and routes in White River NF.

In addition, new and existing public seeking to visit the Forest, combined with statewide proposed closures in other forests will quickly overwhelm the trail system. The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement takes the position of non-recognition of existing but closed trail systems. Given increasing demand on a shrinking motorized portion of public lands, White River National Forest must re-open and utilize the existing system to meet the need of a growing OHV population in order to dissipate impacts and provide for a varied and quality recreation experience for a growing user group.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I look forward to seeing my concerns reflected and accommodated in the final MVUM.

William Morgan
500 S. Somewhere Street
Littleton CO 80120

01-06-2009, 01:59 PM
Here's my letter:

To: White River National Forest Travel Planners

Dear White River Travel Planning folks,

I am writing to comment on the White River National Forest Travel Management Plan and SEIS. In my review of the proposed plan, it seems that there are a lot of primitive roads and trails that you are planning to decommision. At the present time, motorized recreation is increasing, so this seems to be counterintuitive. I'd like to voice my support for maintaining as many existing 4x4 trails as possible, and possibly create new ones. Decreasing the number and mileage of trails available for motorized recreation concentrates everyone in a smaller area, creating safety concerns as well as congestion, increasing the impact on the trails that do remain open and reducing the enjoyment for everyone.

My local 4WD club, Rising Sun, has worked hard to help maintain local 4WD trails and protect the surrounding areas. We wish to do everything we possibly can to retain access to public lands. We are willing to put money and time towards maintaining and improving both existing and new routes, and we will help protect the natural resources surrounding these routes.

Please reconsider closing routes that are used by 4WD users. Please increase rather than decrease the miles of motorized trails and routes in White River NF.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.


Matthew Farr
7337 S. Somewhere Street
Centennial, CO 80122

Feel free to use it as the basis for your own.

01-07-2009, 09:51 AM
Great letter, personalized, to the point. I hope others got their letters in prior to the deadline. Post up if you did.