Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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