Download TROUT MOUNTAIN ROADLESS AREA

TROUT MOUNTAIN ROADLESS
AREA
P ROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
Location:
Southern
Colorado
Project size:
32,000 acres
Initiator:
U.S. Forest Service
The Trout Mountain roadless area in Colorado's Rio Grande National Forest is located in the south-central highlands of the
Rocky Mountains. Within this temperate
steppe region, the project area consists of
two watershed drainages, bordered to the
North by the Weminuche Wilderness area
and to the South by Highway 160 which
runs parallel to the South Fork of the Rio
Grande River. Despite historical timber
and mining in the area, the majority of
Trout Mountain has remained roadless
old growth forest. Present day use consists primarily of recreation. There are
presently no known threatened or endangered species in the area.
ECOSYSTEM STRESSES
Recent timber sales using shelterwood
harvest treatments which result in clearcuts are the most serious threats to the
region. Motorized vehicle use on a forest
system gravel road which lies between
Trout Mountain and Weminuche
Wilderness has increased threats to
wildlife. Finally, past mining and timber
use have left portions of the project area
fragmented.
P ROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project began as a traditional U.S.
Forest Service timber sale proposal.
Signed in 1985, the Rio Grande Forest Plan
proposed a set of timber sales which
would result in the removal of 9 million
board feet of timber from the Trout
Mountain roadless area. With growing
public concern for old growth and wildlife,
the 1985 Forest Plan became very controversial. The plan is currently under
revision to address is sues raised by the
public concerning the effects of timber
harvest and road construction on the
unroaded old growth character of the
Trout Mountain area.
The stated goal of the Forest Service is to
remove timber in a manner that does not
sacrifice the ecological and biological
needs of the project area; the amount of
timber removed from the area is secondary
to those needs. In other words, the Forest
Service feels that ecological concerns
have driven the planning process.
The project is attempting to look beyond
the two drainages and National Forest
boundaries to consider adjacent
ecological areas that encompass most of
southern Colorado and portions of northern New Mexico. Habitat capabilities
and relationships between adjacent areas
such as the Weminuche Wilderness area
are important considerations in the plan.
The planning team identified an area they
felt might function as a connective
corridor to meet the requirements for
species migration. However,
environmentalists have dubbed it the
“corridor to extinction,” as the proposed
area passes over a major highway. The
forest plan also proposes to build 12 miles
of temporary roads. Once the timber is
removed, some roads would be closed,
recontoured, and revegetated. Finally, the
plan calls for uneven-aged management
which would leave standing 70% or more
of the existing vegetation, including trees
in the old growth age class.
The project planning process has essentially remained an internal effort by a
Forest Service interdisciplinary planning
team. However, between 1990 and 1993,
the planning team worked closely with a
public working group made up
____________
261
Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience
TROUT MOUNTAIN ROADLESS AREA -- continued
of 12-14 people representing
various interests in the region.
This group participated in the
development of project alternatives
that were ultimately selected by the
planning team. Six members of the
working group are directly
employed by industry (sawmill or
loggers); another six members
represented multiple use interests
(recreation, hunting, outfitters,
etc.); and only one member from
the Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEC) represented
environmental interests. The
planning team actively solicited
other individuals with
environmental interests because of
this low representation. The planning team has also worked very
closely with Colorado's Division of
Wildlife in ongoing and extensive
monitoring of species.
P RESENT STATUS &
OUTLOOK
After the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) was
published in 1994, the project was
appealed by CEC to the Forest
Service Regional Forester who
upheld the decision. In mid-1995,
theproject was in federal district
court. Meanwhile, CEC is working
with the Forest Service on another
revision of the Forest Plan and has
submitted a management
alternative to be analyzed in the
FEIS for the revised plan.
Furthermore, species monitoring
has continued in the Trout
Mountain region.
Factors Facilitating Progress
The Forest Service feels very good
about the project's non-traditional
decision-making process (i.e.,
increased stakeholder participation,
level of communication with
public), about the level of analysis,
and about how they are proposing
to do the work. The Forest Service
feels that these elements are
significantly different than how
things have been done in the past.
____________
262
Obstacles to Progress
As evidenced by significant public
opposition and the Forest plan
being contested in court, much
controversy remains over the
Forest plan, especially the appropriateness of opening up a
roadless area to timber harvesting
and, more broadly, how the
concept of ecosystem management
applies to forest planning.
Contact information:
Mr. Ron Pen
Forest Planner
USDA Forest Service
Rio Grande National Forest
1803 West Highway 160
Monta Vista, CO 81144
(719) 852-5941