White River Forest Plan a Delicate Balancing Act

By Bob Berwyn

SILVERTHORNE, Colorado, June 5, 2002 (ENS) - A new White River National Forest management plan was presented by U.S. Forest Service officials in Colorado Tuesday as a compromise that enables the agency to protect ecosystems while meeting recreational demand from Colorado’s exploding population. Judging by initial reactions from various sides, they have achieved that goal. Nobody seems completely happy, but no one feels shut out.

The new management plan calls for more wilderness, identifies forested linkage corridors for lynx and other animals, and limits motorized users to designated routes. It also gives some ski areas room to expand into undeveloped areas, and may allow logging in some roadless parcels after site specific approval.

Moose in the White River National Forest (Photo by Al Smith courtesy U.S. Forest Service)

Occupying a keystone spot in the Southern Rockies ecosystem, the forest encompasses diverse habitat. At higher elevations, old growth spruce and fir stands shelter lynx, pine marten, boreal owls and possibly, wolverines. Lower down, species adapted to drier and warmer climates thrive. The new forest plan zones the forest for different uses and establishes standards and guidelines to ensure protection for some areas.

The 15 year plan was five years in the making and cost about $5 million. Some of those funds went into databases and mapping information that will remain useful beyond the life of this plan, says White River National Forest planning guru Dan Hormaechea.

A 1999 draft version of the plan was applauded by the conservation community as precedent setting for its effort to balance environmental protection with human uses of the forest. But it was savaged by logging groups, motorized users and the ski industry for restricting human uses of the forest.

Release of the final plan was delayed after calls for more public comment and some political maneuvering by Colorado’s mostly Republican Congressional delegation.

Debate over the plan, with its proposals to better manage motorized uses like snowmobiling, garnered national attention. The Wilderness Society, a Washington based national environmental organization, placed the White River National Forest on its list of most threatened places at the height of the controversy.

But population growth along the Front Range of Colorado's Rocky Mountains near Denver, and in other communities near the forest means more skiers, hikers, birdwatchers, snowmobilers, four-wheelers and mountain bikers in the forest.

"We know they’re coming," said Forest Supervisor Martha Ketelle. "We need to balance all the different interests. That’s our mandate."

While the Forest Service emphasized its delicate balancing act, some environmentalists were less hopeful. Ted Zukoski, staff attorney with the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, said the Forest Service may have caved in to political realities and backed away from its previously stated intent to balance long term ecosystem sustainability with human uses.

Up near the Continental Divide, Boreas Pass Road follows the grade of an old railroad through the national forest. Now a backcountry ski hut, this house was once used by railroad workers. The new plan will determine how such facilities are managed. (Photo © Bob Berwyn)

"We realize the Forest Service was under extreme pressure from industry backed politicians and interest groups, but we are disappointed the Forest Service veered from its original game plan," Fidel said.

Ski areas in Summit County can check off many of the items on their wish list relating to potential terrain expansions, and the Forest Service also diluted some of the draft plan’s language on stream protection, according to conservation groups, leaving streams vulnerable to development.

Many decisions affecting day to day recreational use of the forest, such as mountain bike routes, will be determined by a pending travel management plan. In other cases, such as ski area expansions and new huts, site specific studies will be required. But the plan’s underlying language on stream protection sets a disappointing tone, according to Melinda Kassen of Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project.

The current dry spell makes clear how crucial water is for sustaining ecosystems and human development. Even in years when water is abundant, there is not enough water to go around. In Summit County, ski area snowmaking withdrawals sometimes deplete streams to levels that can barely sustain aquatic resources. Kassen says the Forest Service took a step backwards by giving up on the draft proposal to protect a set number of streams - 10 percent.

Supervisor Ketelle acknowledged that decisions regarding stream protection were made in a context beyond the White River National Forest. The water issue is under discussion at the agency’s highest levels, as well as in the political arena. "Water is one of those issues that transcends forest boundaries," she said.

Federal law mandates that forest plans protect aquatic resources, and Ketelle said, "We believe the language will enable us to protect aquatic ecosystems."

"The Forest Service went from a firm goal of protecting 10 percent of forest streams with all legal means, including by-pass flow authority, to an unenforceable objective that sounds nice but is less protective than allowed under current Colorado or federal law," Kassen said.

"Rivers and streams are the life blood of the White River National Forest. Eviscerating the modest measures in the draft plan is bad news for fish, other wildlife, and anglers," warned Kassen.

But Republican Congressman Scott McInnis, who chairs a key subcommittee on forests and forest health, took aim at the draft plan’s 10 percent water language from the beginning. McInnis said top Forest Service officials gave an "iron-clad" commitment to work collaboratively with water users.

"Colorado doesn't need a federal bully to protect the environmental health of our rivers and streams; we're looking for a good faith partner," McInnis said in a statement issued in response to the revised plan.

McInnis says the Forest Service should work within the framework of the existing state instream flow program to ensure adequate flows.

But the board administering instream flows is a political entity, and conservationists like the Sierra Club’s Steve Glazer caution that political considerations may affect the amount of water available in dry periods.

A gentian grows under a spruce tree at the edge of a wetland in the White River National Forest. (Photo © Bob Berwyn)

"I’m tickled they accepted our recommendations on Acorn Creek and Ute Pass for wilderness," said conservationist Currie Craven.

"Red Table, Gypsum Creek and Assignation Ridge are beautiful, important places for wildlife and non-motorized recreation, so we're glad the Forest Service has decided to provide some protection for them," said Richard Compton of the White River Conservation project. "But the plan leaves key roadless areas such as Dome Peak, Grizzly Creek, and Basalt Mountain wide open for logging. If the roadless rule were in effect, this plan would be flat out illegal."

The biggest question may be whether the agency has the money and staff it needs to live up to the new plan’s ambitious management goals. Impacts must be measured and user limits enforced.

"Monitoring is a big piece of this. That has the potential to be the most time consuming," said Dillon District Ranger Jamie Connell. "You need to monitor to make sure you’re in compliance. We’re trying to figure out efficient ways to do that."

Environmental groups are worried the agency will fall behind. "The biggest disappointment for wildlife management is that the Forest Service removed its requirement to monitor wildlife on an annual level," said Fidel. "Under the previous Plan, the Forest Service ignored its requirement to monitor wildlife annually, and now it will be another five years until the Forest Service even reports on the status of wildlife on the Forest."

Supervisor Ketelle acknowledged that the agency’s enforcement resources are stretched. The emphasis will be on education to let users know about new travel rules on designated routes. "We have the money to put up signs," she said.

Some favor a more forceful approach. "The conservation community should emphasize meaningful penalties for willful violations, up to confiscation of vehicles," Craven said. And environmentalists should also insist that the Forest Service be given the resources it needs to enforce the plan."