By Robinson Shaw, Environmental News Network, Sun Valley, Idaho
Jul. 7--The proposed land and resource management plan for Colorado's White River National Forest is based on a
non-traditional approach for forest management: Managing for people's affects on forest resources instead of resource
extraction like logging, mining and grazing. But the proposed revised forest plan is stirring controversy among
the forest's many user groups.
Two of the nation's largest and most popular ski resorts, Vail and Aspen are located in the WRNF, which spans both
sides of Interstate 70 and encompasses more than 2.2 million acres, nearly 4 percent of land in the state of Colorado.
Downhill skiers account for 7.5 million visits a year to WRNF, the nation's 11th largest national forest.
Ten other ski resorts are located within the forest. It also boasts eight wilderness areas, the backcountry retreats
of the 10th Mountain Division cross country skiing system, seven national trails, 70 developed sites like campgrounds
and picnic areas, and more than 1.5 million acres for general motorized and non-motorized backcountry recreation.
It's also home to 20,000 elk, one of the largest herds in North America, as well as black bear, bighorn sheep,
mountain goat and mountain lion. The last recorded spotting of a lynx, a rare Rocky Mountain feline predator, was
made in the WRNF.
No wonder the WRNF is ranked fifth in the nation for recreation use.
"We don't do a lot of traditional Forest Service activities like timber harvest (on the White River National
Forest)," said Carolyn Upton, the forest's planner. "We are a recreation forest, totally. That's the
big thing we do."
As mandated in the National Forest Management Act, forest management plans must be revised every 10 to 15 years.
The last WRNF management plan was drafted in 1984. Since then, mountain biking and off-road vehicle use have grown
exponentially -- recreation in the forest has doubled since the mid-1980s.
"The current WRNF plan is outdated," said Upton. "Things have changed and we need to reflect that."
The agency drafted an environmental impact statement and chose its preferred alternative of how to manage WRNF.
In response, 14,600 public comments poured in over the 9-month comment period, which was extended twice. The majority
of comments focused on recreation in the forest, reflecting how deeply people feel about their public land, said
Upton.
The agency is currently reviewing and responding to the letters, and plans to have the final EIS out by May or
June 2001.
Upton and her colleagues are also reviewing how to respond to an amendment on the 2001 Interior appropriations
bill sponsored by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colorado. If the bill were approved, the WRNF officials would
have to prepare an additional economic analysis of the forest plan, which could delay the final forest plan.
Most of the conflict over the agency's chosen alternative has come from those who have a stake in forest recreation,
like the ski industry and snowmobilers. They view the proposed forest plan as decreasing the amount of recreation
allowed on the forest. But Upton says there's nothing for them to worry about.
"We're not looking at cutting back recreation but looking at managing it into the future," said Upton.
"As tourism and recreation grow and expand, we have to really make a conscious decision of how to manage the
land."
Which is why the Forest Service would like to limit ski area expansion, for the first time, to current permit boundaries.
And new developments like a massive aerial tramway to connect resorts would be prohibited.
"The Forest Service is a multi-use agency," said Upton. "Our forest plan has all the uses in it
under the existing plan done in 1984."
But that's not how the executives at Vail Resorts, which own and operate three other nearby ski resorts in the
WRNF, interpret the forest plan.
"In general, we think that the philosophy of Alternative D is too restrictive in trying to find a balance
between human use of the forest and protection of the forest environment," said Paul Witt, communication director
for Vail Resorts. "On the extreme, Alternative D could be taken as no human use of the forest."
Aspen Skiing Company has endorsed the proposed forest plan.
Snowmobilers won't have it so lucky if the bureaucrats at the WRNF get their way: access to winter trails would
be reduced 56 percent, but would still allow them about 500,000 acres to roam.
"This plan takes a radical anti-recreation stance," said Mel Wolf, president of the Colorado Snowmobile
Association. "Under Plan D, a combination of inaccessible wilderness and mechanized restrictions create a
National Forest that's closed to the majority of the U.S. population."
The proposal features a closed-unless-posted-open policy that prohibits most motorized/mechanized travel off designated
routes. Such travel is currently permitted on about 107,000 acres and enjoyed by thousands of snowmobilers in a
sustainable non-destructive fashion, says Wolf.
"Not one credible scientific study shows public land cannot be preserved and still visited by human beings,"
said Wolf. "This includes travel via automobile, snowmobile, bicycle and motorcycle."
Both Vail Resorts and the Colorado Snowmobile Association support the modified version of Alternatives B, C, D
and I offered by Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Grand Junction.
McInnis' proposal alternative recommends targeted wilderness expansion, curbs potential ski-area growth, aggressively
manages wildlife habitat to protect the forest's biological diversity and would continue to allow a wide variety
of recreational opportunities in balance with protecting the environmental and biological integrity of the forest.
Part of the reason the revised proposal focuses so much on human use of the forest is to deal with the booming
population in central Colorado. There is only so much land for all the forest users.
"The land base is fixed while the population is exploding. In the future, we have to really decide to concentrate
use or disperse it," said Upton. "One thing I get asked a lot is, if there are more people, why don't
you just give us more land? What people need to keep in mind is that the land is fixed, there is no more."
-----
(c) 2000, Environmental News Network, Sun Valley, Idaho. All rights reserved. To see more of Environmental News
Network, go to http://www.enn.com