Critics Target New Forestry Plan

For some it is a place to work. Others find it an unparalleled place to play.

Martha Ketelle’s task is to make the White River National Forest the best of all possible worlds for both, as well as the wildlife that roams its vast expanse of wilderness.

“With the increasing population and number of people who want to recreate in the forest, finding the balance is becoming more difficult,” said Ketelle, the forest’s supervisor.

Ketelle and a team of planners are trying to map the future of White River, a 2.3-million-acre forest that stretches along the western side of the Colorado Rockies, from Keystone south to Aspen and as far west as Rifle.

Their proposal, designed to emphasize biological and wilderness resources over humans, has drawn heated opposition. Developers and some outdoor enthusiasts think it is too restrictive. Environmentalists claim it would not do enough to protect the lynx. A congressman has proposed his own plan, which would be more favorable to development.

In all, the Forest Service has received more than 14,000 comments.

Sonny Lasalle, White River supervisor from 1992 to 1997, said development groups must realize that preservation of wildlife habitat is the law, while environmentalists must accept that the preservation effort will include felling trees.

“There’s not a lot of sentimentality in nature. Nature deals a lot in black and white,” said Lasalle, of Hamilton, Mont.

Established in 1891 as the White River Timber Reserve, the forest has become a magnet for those seeking the solitude of the Maroon Bells or the excitement of skiing on some of America’s most popular slopes.

The wilderness draws 9 million visitors a year, contains most of Colorado’s major ski resorts and supports 34,000 jobs for an estimated economic benefit of $720 million a year.

Three years ago, Forest Service officials decided to update the current management plan, which was adopted in 1984, because they believe it will not protect the wilderness amid an explosion of visitors.

The proposal would allow off-road vehicles on 4,800 acres, 43,000 acres for potential and existing ski areas and an additional 47,100 acres for wilderness.

In some cases, wildlife and environmental concerns would be given more weight than recreation, logging and livestock grazing.

Critics, including area businesspeople, residents and recreational users, fear the proposal would hurt the economy.

“Whereas land management is best done by compromise and consensus, this plan takes a radical anti-recreation stance,” said Mel Wolf, president of the Colorado Snowmobile Assn. Inc.

“Not one credible scientific study shows public land cannot be preserved and still visited by human beings. This includes travel via automobile, snowmobile, bicycle and motorcycle.”

Meanwhile, Vail Resorts has mailed fliers that claim the plan would freeze ski development. The company endorsed an alternate plan drafted by Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.).

His plan would provide off-road vehicle access on 30,357 acres, designate 58,000 acres for existing and potential ski areas and mark 16,022 additional acres for wilderness.

Environmental group Colorado Wild also is lobbying against the Forest Service plan because “it promotes logging--not habitat protection.”

Several major environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Trout Unlimited, have joined an alliance urging the Forest Service to adopt a management plan with even more restrictions on recreation, logging and development.

“There is no doubt the forest needs a new plan,” Lasalle said. “The demand in the White River is really starting to exceed the supply. The supply is recreation. The forest is overrun during hunting season. There are ATVs going where they shouldn’t go.”