FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Conservation Groups Appeal White River Forest Plan

Argue Aspects of the Final Plan Violate the Law and Forest Service Regulations

Eight Colorado conservation organizations have filed an appeal over the White River National Forest Plan Revision, saying that certain portions of the final plan are based on deficient analyses and illegal interpretations of laws and regulations pertaining to forest planning.

"The final plan is such an important document. It sets the stage for the long-term management of the Forest, and it is imperative that the Plan complies with all laws and regulations related to forest management," said Jamey Fidel, Conservation Director of the Aspen Wilderness Workshop and coordinator of the appeal effort. "We believe there are certain portions of the Plan that are based on faulty analyses that will lead to bad management decisions if not corrected."

The groups appealing the forest plan listed four basic areas in which it is either illegally written or needs significant clarification — 1) an inherently biased and deficient ski areas analysis, 2) an inadequate and illegal roadless and wilderness area analysis, 3) improper timber suitability analysis, 4) deficient analyses and decisions regarding wildlife protection and management indicator species.

"The plan uses inadequate and biased analyses and statistics in approving additional acres for ski area development," said Jeff Berman, executive director and ski areas specialist for Colorado Wild, one of the appellant groups. "The Forest Service assumes overblown projections of ski areas use over the next fifteen years and fails to protect watersheds and sensitive wildlife habitat in the face of proposed development."

In addition, the appealing groups assert that the Plan's inventory of roadless and future wilderness areas is inadequate and inaccurate.

Richard Compton of the White River Conservation Project (an affiliate of Colorado Environmental Coalition) found many instances in which the Forest Service used arbitrary and varying standards in deciding which portions of the forest are roadless or are suitable for wilderness protection.

"They excluded close to 400,000 acres of genuinely roadless lands from their inventory by misapplying their own regulations and ignoring clear directions from Congress on what lands qualify for wilderness," Compton said. "The whole 4,000 acres of Canyon Creek roaless area north of Glenwood Springs, for example, disappeared from the inventory because some people are driving off road into it."

"Although this plan does a better job than most in identifying and protecting wilderness, it failed to recognize important and fully qualified areas," said Suzanne Jones, Assistant Regional Director for The Wilderness Society. "Those errors need to be fixed."

The forest plan's calculations of suitable timber cutting opportunities contain arithmetic errors and excessive projections of markets for timber. "Areas shown for timber cutting include slopes much too steep for safe logging, threatening soil stability and ecological health," contended Rocky Smith, forests specialist for Colorado Wild. "The plan includes too much timber cutting at levels and in places that are not economically possible, let alone sustainable."

The Plan doesn't do enough to protect wildlife, according to Jacob Smith of the Center for Native Ecosystems. "Unless the Forest Service improves the Forest Plan," he said, "at-risk and endangered plants and wildlife like the Canada lynx and the pine marten will continue their slide toward extinction." "The Forest Service decided to ignore entire forest habitats, including aspen and mature conifer forest, when selecting 'indicator species,' which are used to assess the health of different habitat types across the forest."

"In the name of short term recreation opportunities and minimal economic gains, key parts of this plan fall short of enduring protection for the forest," said Steve Smith, Associate Southwest Regional Representative for Sierra Club. "Without the plan changes we recommend, the Forest Service will have a harder time supporting ecological values that people have come to expect from their national forests. Everybody loses if the forest cannot survive the pressures we put on it."

Environmental groups joining the appeal of the White River Forest Plan are American Lands Alliance, Aspen Wilderness Workshop, Center for Native Ecosystems, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Colorado Wild, Sierra Club, Sinapu, and The Wilderness Society. The groups are represented by the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies.

In a separate appeal, the Backcountry Skiers Alliance challenged basic planning guidelines that could negatively affect non-motorized backcountry recreation.

The appeals that the groups have submitted will now be considered by the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service for its legal merit and for possible changes in the forest plan. "The goal of our appeal is not to throw the whole Plan out," Fidel explained. "We crafted our appeal to pinpoint the most problematic aspects of the Plan. We want the Forest Service to move forward with its newly revised Plan, but we hope our appeal will lead to important refinements to ensure resource protection on the Forest."

###