Your role in forest reduced?

SUMMIT COUNTY - When the 2.3 million-acre White River National Forest updated its management plan in 2002, then-forest supervisor Martha Ketelle touted the high level of public involvement as a highlight of the process.

The agency held scores of public meetings and even included a citizens' version as one of the options in the plan. Input from grassroots organizations, including regional groups like Friends of the Eagles Nest Wilderness , helped shape the final document that was characterized by many involved as a successful compromise between competing interests, and a balance between recreation and natural resource conservation.

But next time around, the process could look quite different. Last month, the Forest Service decided that, from now on, the White River forest can revise its management plan with no formal public involvement, and without studying a range of alternatives as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

As justification, the agency is using a U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggests no formal environmental scrutiny is needed for forest plans because they don't result in any direct impacts on resources.

Staying current

Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Rick Cables said he thinks the public will come to appreciate the new rule if it survives legal challenges.

"I think it's one of the most progressive policy changes we've seen in a long time," Cables said. "The public is tired of planning efforts that take 10 years and cost $10 to $15 million.

"The process has become onerous and expensive," he said. "The only people that are able to stick with it are the special interest groups and the people who are paid to be there."

Cables said under the new rule, a plan could be revised in less than two years.

"You can get the real public involved," he said. "I believe this is a dramatic enhancement of public participation. We'd sit down with different collections of people, looking at social pockets and cultural enclaves, and set desired future conditions."

White River forest planner Wendy Haskins compared forest plans (under the new rule) to county planning policies that offers guidance, but very little in the way of enforceable standards.

"I think it would go a lot quicker than when we did the plan the last time. It would be easier to update and stay current," Haskins said.

That could help the agency better deal with emerging management challenges that aren't big on the radar screen at the start of a planning cycle, she said.

A forest plan generally has a lifespan of about 10 to 15 years. And since the White River plan was last updated, there have already been some significant changes, including a surge in natural gas drilling, as well as the forest-wide infestation of mountain pine beetles.

'Don't worry?'

It's some of those very same issues that are of concern to Claire Bastable, the Colorado Mountain Club's acting conservation director.

"What's particularly worrisome is, they're saying they won't make decisions (without public input) that affect the forest on the ground," Bastable said. "But they are. The forest plan determines which lands are available for leasing for gas drilling.

"The Forest Service is saying, 'Don't worry, we'll have public involvement at every level,' but we're not seeing that. And we are really concerned.

Colorado Wild's Rocky Smith said the same concerns apply in Summit County, where the Forest Service has recently approved a variety of ski area activities and expansions - A-Basin's Montezuma Bowl, snowcat skiing in the upper reaches of Jones Gulch at Keystone - under the premise that those areas are already zoned for skiing under the White River forest plan.

When the Forest Service reviewed those projects, the agency never asked the question of whether those actions meet a public need or whether they are in the public interest, Smith said.

"You can get the real public involved," he said. "I believe this is a dramatic enhancement of public participation. We'd sit down with different collections of people, looking at social pockets and cultural enclaves, and set desired future conditions."

White River forest planner Wendy Haskins compared forest plans (under the new rule) to county planning policies that offers guidance, but very little in the way of enforceable standards.

"I think it would go a lot quicker than when we did the plan the last time. It would be easier to update and stay current," Haskins said.

That could help the agency better deal with emerging management challenges that aren't big on the radar screen at the start of a planning cycle, she said.

A forest plan generally has a lifespan of about 10 to 15 years. And since the White River plan was last updated, there have already been some significant changes, including a surge in natural gas drilling, as well as the forest-wide infestation of mountain pine beetles.