Decision on Forest Travel Plan will impact Whetstone area

“What we’re doing is consistent with the ‘83 plan”

The travel management plan for the Gunnison National Forest won’t get filed away quietly. Nor quickly, as a Record of Decision due at the end of May will be delayed for at least a few more weeks.

The plan’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was released to the public on Friday, April 30 and identifies the Preferred Alternative plan. The travel plan essentially identifies what type of travel is allowed where, and there were some changes that affected motorized and non-motorized users on multiple levels. A Record of Decision on the plan was expected in 30 days; however, Travel Management Project planner Gary Shellhorn said it is currently being prepared for internal review, and he hopes to release a decision this month.
Locally, the Whetstone area, which has been proposed as Wilderness by the non-profit Hidden Gems campaign, continues to stir passions on both the motorized and non-motorized sides of the track. In the preferred alternative, the Carbon Creek Trail, which passes through the Whetstone area, remains open to motorized travel.
Hidden Gems, with the backing of local non-profit High Country Citizens’ Alliance (HCCA), has proposed a Whetstone Wilderness area that would encompass more than 16,000 acres of land. However, it would not aid those organizations’ efforts at Wilderness designation if the Carbon Creek Trail remains open to motorized traffic.
And outside of the travel plan, another factor that could influence the outcome is the presence of active mining claims in the Whetstone area. Active claims guarantee a certain level of access, which likely would not be in line with Wilderness criteria.
Upon the release of the plan’s FEIS on April 30, Travel Management Project planner Gary Shellhorn said, “We can’t predict how the public will respond to these designations.” Since then, Shellhorn says he’s received several public comments on the Whetstone area, reiterating select groups’ and individuals’ desires for the area to allow hikers and horses only.
HCCA recently submitted formal comments to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on the travel plan. HCCA feels that allowing motorized travel on the Carbon Creek Trail is inconsistent with the findings of a 2005 Roadless and Wilderness Inventory completed on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG).
According to Dan Morse, executive director of HCCA, “In that inventory they found that it [Whetstone] remained roadless. The inventory went on to say that the area was capable of wilderness and available for designation. That’s important because the Forest Service didn’t come to that conclusion for every roadless area on the GMUG.”
In addition, a draft 2007 Forest Plan also recommended the Whetstone area for Wilderness consideration. However, that document was only in circulation for 15 days before it was pulled due to litigation of the regulations that govern the Forest Plan.
The Bush administration’s revised rules for management of the country’s 155 national forests were overturned by a federal judge in March 2007, because the federal Forest Service violated the basic laws ensuring that forest ecosystems have environmental safeguards. The litigants in that case were the Citizens for Better Forestry; they claimed the rules, issued in early 2005, cut back on requirements for environmental reviews and safeguards for wildlife, and limited public participation in the development of management plans for individual forests. Also, the new rules broadened the power of forest managers to decide whether mines, logging operations, cell phone towers or other development would be appropriate uses of forest land.
Shellhorn said he’s revisited the prescription for the Whetstone area from the previous draft plan, and has spoken with HCCA extensively.
“HCCA is saying that we should be following the 2005 planning rule; we’re not legally able to do that. They are correct, that 2007 draft Forest Plan had language about [Wilderness] eligibility and capability for that area, and that was on the street for 15 days before it was pulled. That whole planning process was vacated and remanded. Everything we did in 2005 and that draft plan released in 2007 basically is gone.”
The Forest Service is operating under a 1983 Forest Plan that was amended in 1991 and 1993. “We understand [HCCA’s] preference, but legally we are still bound to our 1983 Forest Plan, and under that plan there is very little planning direction that would restrict or control travel,” said Shellhorn. “There is an area in the Whetstone complex where the objective is semi-primitive motorized travel. Not only was it allowed, it was the objective. It affords that kind of primitive recreational experience.”
Shellhorn continued, “What we’re doing is consistent with that ‘83 plan. Typically we don’t make Wilderness recommendations in travel planning. That’s something that’s done in the Forest Plan. It was done in the 2007 plan; it just didn’t get off the ground.”
Regarding the pending travel management plan for the Gunnison National Forest, Morse said, “In the draft EIS, the action alternatives for the Carbon Creek Trail were horse and hiker for all but alternative 4, and in that alternative it allowed mountain biking [but not motorized use]. In alternative 5, they’ve [USFS] gone all in. They went from what was in the range of alternatives and created something else. They created these alternatives to address an identified issue and now they’ve set aside the alternatives and the analysis from the draft EIS and gone in a different direction without saying why.”
Morse continued, “The preferred alternative 5 puts the plan at odds with what was found in the 2005 inventory and sets the Forest Service up to ignore current information.” And Morse says that the Forest Service is explicitly required in its regulations to consider all available information.
According to Shellhorn there are a number of things to consider when looking at Whetstone as potential Wilderness. “Are there things that would hinder it, like existing motorized use, mountain biking, and active mining claims? If we were dusting off that [2007] plan it might have come out with a little different determination. We may have overlooked some stuff at that time, but that’s one of the reasons you go to the public. But we didn’t get that feedback.
“Those active mining claims would be problematic—that’s a whole other layer which would come into play if we were doing this under the Forest Plan,” Shellhorn continued. “With the claim they have a certain amount of right to access.”
When asked if having the Whetstone area designated Wilderness and/or managed for non-motorized travel would help fight against the proposed mine on Mt. Emmons, Morse responded, “Wilderness Designation always comes with a mineral withdrawal, meaning that the area inside the Wilderness Boundary is withdrawn from future mineral entry—meaning new mining claims. For any pre-existing mining claim the withdrawal automatically prompts a process known as ‘validity examination,’ which is a test of whether or not a valuable mineral discovery exists underneath a given mining claim. If a claim is found valid, the owner/operator will continue to have a right to mine that claim subject to very specific regulations controlling mining activities in Wilderness. If a claim is found invalid, the claim is void.”
Until a Record of Decision for the travel plan is finalized, none of these designations are written in stone. The travel plan is one significant segment that exists under the umbrella of a larger National Forest Plan, which is slated for revision.
That plan, according to Shellhorn, “is down the road. We put in two to three years’ worth of work that’s kind of just sitting there. They’re having public meetings on a new 2010 rule for forests like the GMUG. If 2010 becomes a rule, we would look at revising our 1983 Forest Plan.”