Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
ENLARGE
Ellen Hollinshead
This has been a long time coming. The Travel Management Plan came out two days ago, and although I've only had time to give it an initial overview, I'm sure we'll be hearing about it in more detail over the next few weeks. All of us trail users now have three months (until Oct. 26) to respond.
After a few hours devoted to just trying to decipher this plan, I can only say that the good news is also the bad news: from what I can tell, not too much has changed in Summit County, at least from my selfish perspective through the eyes of a mountain biker, hiker and Nordic skier.
And yet so much HAS changed since 1984, the last time the White River National Forest went through this process. Those were the good-old days when we all had the place to ourselves, and that meant few, if any, conflicts with other user groups. It was paradise. But bring on millions of new people on skis, snowmobiles, bikes, ATVs, foot or horse, and wow, our roads and trails are seeing a lot of impact. I still love it here, but our forest was desperate for a facelift.
Every 15 years or so, the Forest Service goes through this tedious process of re-addressing how the forest is managed. The already completed first phase was the Forest Plan, which is more of a general overview. The Travel Management Plan (TMP) gets into the nitty gritty and looks at every trail which they've inventoried, then decides whether it should be open or closed, along with decisions as to how certain sections of our forest should be managed.
Of course, to make it more complicated they offer four different scenarios, or "alternatives" as they call them. Each alternative has a different theme ranging from little change (Alternative B, C) to more changes (D, E).
The White River National Forest folks chose Alternative D as their preferred alternative, which considers the experience of the recreational user, emphasizing the reduction of recreation conflict among users. A trail or road might be open under Alternative D but closed under E - although from the little I've seen so far, I couldn't see much difference between D and E.
From what I've read, mountain bikers can heave a deep sigh of relief because it doesn't seem yet like we have lost too much. So far, just within Alternative D, trails possibly closed to mountain bikes are the "Secret Trail," that eroded trail between the bottom of Indiana Creek and Boreas Pass, above the Tank; a few trails from the Homestead that head east, paralleling the Keystone Ranch neighborhood; a couple trails in Ryan Gulch; and, sadly, the Lenawee Trail.
Nordic skiers gained very little; other than Mayflower and Humbug Gulch off Highway 91 - which is now winter non-motorized - most roads and trails that were heavily snowmobiled, will remain as such.
Our only hope is that with enough letters written, we can sway the Forest Service to offer some regulation to winter roads. If not enough of us write, you might as well just say goodbye to some of our favorite ski routes (Indiana Creek, Pennsylvania, Baldy ...) Here are some steps you need to take:
First: get educated. Come to the Open House on Aug. 8 at the Dillon Ranger District in Silverthorne from 3-7 p.m. There won't be a formal discussion, probably a bunch of maps posted, and lots of guys in uniforms to answer your questions. If they have the CD available for you to take home, make sure you grab one.
Second: After this meeting, jot down some of your thoughts. Take some time to go through this CD. Concentrate on Alternative D, and go straight for the maps which show how they've designated the use of that area. Donate at least an afternoon to get through this thing, because you have to go back and forth between maps and tables. It is imperative, though, that before you write a comment, you know where the Forest Service is coming from, you understand why they think your favorite trail should be shut down or why they haven't changed anything. They don't want general comments to the plan, but more importantly you need to present good rationale to dispute their conclusions.
Third: Check some local/regional webpages that should give an initial overview of the Travel Management Plan. For instance, regarding Nordic skiing issues, Backcountry Snowsports Alliance out of Boulder and Summit County will have something on its webpage (http://backcountryalliance.org).
I'm assuming that the Summit Fat Tire Society will do the same (www.sfts.us).
I'm feeling optimistic for some reason. I know we're all going to have to sacrifice something, and I hope our comments might make the changes necessary that weren't seen from this plan.
But please, try to send in a comment. We're stuck with this plan for at least 12 more years.
Breckenridge resident Ellen Hollinshead writes a biweekly column on the outdoors. She can be reached at ellenonsnow@yahoo.com.
After a few hours devoted to just trying to decipher this plan, I can only say that the good news is also the bad news: from what I can tell, not too much has changed in Summit County, at least from my selfish perspective through the eyes of a mountain biker, hiker and Nordic skier.
And yet so much HAS changed since 1984, the last time the White River National Forest went through this process. Those were the good-old days when we all had the place to ourselves, and that meant few, if any, conflicts with other user groups. It was paradise. But bring on millions of new people on skis, snowmobiles, bikes, ATVs, foot or horse, and wow, our roads and trails are seeing a lot of impact. I still love it here, but our forest was desperate for a facelift.
Every 15 years or so, the Forest Service goes through this tedious process of re-addressing how the forest is managed. The already completed first phase was the Forest Plan, which is more of a general overview. The Travel Management Plan (TMP) gets into the nitty gritty and looks at every trail which they've inventoried, then decides whether it should be open or closed, along with decisions as to how certain sections of our forest should be managed.
Of course, to make it more complicated they offer four different scenarios, or "alternatives" as they call them. Each alternative has a different theme ranging from little change (Alternative B, C) to more changes (D, E).
The White River National Forest folks chose Alternative D as their preferred alternative, which considers the experience of the recreational user, emphasizing the reduction of recreation conflict among users. A trail or road might be open under Alternative D but closed under E - although from the little I've seen so far, I couldn't see much difference between D and E.
From what I've read, mountain bikers can heave a deep sigh of relief because it doesn't seem yet like we have lost too much. So far, just within Alternative D, trails possibly closed to mountain bikes are the "Secret Trail," that eroded trail between the bottom of Indiana Creek and Boreas Pass, above the Tank; a few trails from the Homestead that head east, paralleling the Keystone Ranch neighborhood; a couple trails in Ryan Gulch; and, sadly, the Lenawee Trail.
Nordic skiers gained very little; other than Mayflower and Humbug Gulch off Highway 91 - which is now winter non-motorized - most roads and trails that were heavily snowmobiled, will remain as such.
Our only hope is that with enough letters written, we can sway the Forest Service to offer some regulation to winter roads. If not enough of us write, you might as well just say goodbye to some of our favorite ski routes (Indiana Creek, Pennsylvania, Baldy ...) Here are some steps you need to take:
First: get educated. Come to the Open House on Aug. 8 at the Dillon Ranger District in Silverthorne from 3-7 p.m. There won't be a formal discussion, probably a bunch of maps posted, and lots of guys in uniforms to answer your questions. If they have the CD available for you to take home, make sure you grab one.
Second: After this meeting, jot down some of your thoughts. Take some time to go through this CD. Concentrate on Alternative D, and go straight for the maps which show how they've designated the use of that area. Donate at least an afternoon to get through this thing, because you have to go back and forth between maps and tables. It is imperative, though, that before you write a comment, you know where the Forest Service is coming from, you understand why they think your favorite trail should be shut down or why they haven't changed anything. They don't want general comments to the plan, but more importantly you need to present good rationale to dispute their conclusions.
Third: Check some local/regional webpages that should give an initial overview of the Travel Management Plan. For instance, regarding Nordic skiing issues, Backcountry Snowsports Alliance out of Boulder and Summit County will have something on its webpage (http://backcountryalliance.org).
I'm assuming that the Summit Fat Tire Society will do the same (www.sfts.us).
I'm feeling optimistic for some reason. I know we're all going to have to sacrifice something, and I hope our comments might make the changes necessary that weren't seen from this plan.
But please, try to send in a comment. We're stuck with this plan for at least 12 more years.
Breckenridge resident Ellen Hollinshead writes a biweekly column on the outdoors. She can be reached at ellenonsnow@yahoo.com.
