Every ten to fifteen years, national forests must revise their Land and Resource Management Plan. A few years ago, the staff of the White River National Forest (WRNF) embarked on the plan revision process. After two years of intensive public interaction and feedback, the Forest Service developed a draft plan and accompanying Environmental Impact Statement.
The release of the draft plan last fall resulted in an unexpected and unprecedented uproar. The outcry focused on the Forest Service’s more rigorous attempts to manage recreation. Opponents accused the agency of being environmentally extreme, taking unconstitutional actions, and restricting access unreasonably.
In truth, the Forest Service’s preferred alternative proposes a number of reasonable, common-sense measures to insure that recreation continues without fundamentally impairing the survivability of species. Specifically, the Draft plan:
These measures hardly seem draconian. Indeed, this strategy simply requires that recreationists behave responsibly and appropriately.
The Forest Service preferred alternative is a modest step in the right direction. It recognizes that recreation has evolved to be the most significant impact to our mountain environments. It acknowledges that recreation, once thought to be not only benign but also beneficial, can, when mismanaged, degrade habitats and threaten the survivability of species. It proposes reasonable, common-sense measures to insure that recreation occurs within appropriate constraints.
However, in two important ways, the preferred alternative fails to protect the natural resources of the Forest adequately. It does not protect lower elevation habitats that are key to the continued survival of multiple species, and it allows logging on nearly sixty percent of the forest.
Similar to the Forest Service’s preferred alternative, the conservation alternative proposes reasonable measures to manage recreation, but it also insures that the landscape as a whole can support the wide variety of species that depend on it. The conservation alternative confers a high level of protection to a network of interconnecting land areas. This strategy insures that wildlife can migrate successfully between higher and lower elevation areas, and that habitat types currently underrepresented in the wilderness system receive protection.
Opponents of the draft plan have repeatedly criticized the Forest Service for “locking people out of the Forest” and “discriminating against the disabled.” Yet, despite these inflammatory claims, none of the alternatives in any way deny reasonable access to the Forest. In fact, the preferred alternative proposes that 1,500 miles of road remain open to motorized use (equivalent to the distance between Denver and Washington, D.C.) and that 2,700 miles remain open to mountain bikes. With such an extensive travel system and virtually unrestricted equestrian and pedestrian access, the Forest unquestionably will remain readily accessible to any and all.
Recently, the most common question that the Colorado Mountain Club (CMC) has been asked is: “How can the CMC support the conservation alternative that places ecological protection above people?” My answer is twofold.
First, high quality recreation depends on healthy and vibrant forests. Whether you hike, climb, bike, or motor, the experience is enhanced when the Forest is teeming with a diversity of wildlife and plants. (Conservation and recreation are not and should not be mutually exclusive.)
Second, as the privileged owners and denizens of such a majestic national forest, we have a responsibility to steward the land well. The writer Aldo Leopold, in Sand County Almanac, urged us to regard the land (the water, soil, plants, and wildlife) as an extension of community instead of as a commodity, and he suggested that the enjoyment that we derive from the land is commensurate to the care that we bestow on it.
Opponents to the Forest Service’s planning approach label the preferred alternative as uncompromising and accuse the agency of environmental extremism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that both the preferred alternative and the conservation alternative are compromises. They strike a reasonable balance between human uses—including recreation—and ecological protection, while the remaining alternatives stress a particular type of human use over all else (e.g., timber, skiing). Let’s not forget that six species already have been extirpated from the Forest, and an additional ten are classified as threatened or endangered; compromise is no longer an option for these creatures.
I have confidence that reason will prevail over fear mongering. Recreation is increasing at unprecedented rates, and if it is not managed adequately, this exploding recreation will degrade the health of the Forest. Neither the Forest Service’s preferred alternative or CMC’s preference, the conservation alternative, is excessively restrictive; they both propose reasonable, common-sense measures to balance the complex mix of human uses with the need to provide enduring habitat protection.
Write the Forest Service to express your point of view by May 9th, 2000. Feel free to contact CMC staff (smithv@cmc.org or (303) 279-3080 x106) to ask questions or express your ideas. Martha Ketelle, Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest; P.O. Box 948; Glenwood Springs, CO 81602; Phone: (970) 945-2521; Fax: (970) 945-3266; Email: fpc/r2_whiteriver@fs.fed.us. (Always include your mailing address with email comments.)
The Colorado Mountain Club supports alternative I, the conservation alternative. For more information on their position, visit www.cmc.org/cmc/conservation.