Project Focus

While I was in Crested Butte I did some preliminary research and began refining a thesis topic. I am preparing a thesis on the management of national forests, focusing specifically on public involvement in the process. I intend to address the issue from many perspectives. I am looking at the history of the Forest Service to determine what has made it what it is today. I am also addressing the public interest in national forests and the role of local communities in their management. I will investigate the current changes in the regulations regarding national forest management plans, and the shift in perspective for management objectives that is taking place within the Forest Service. While I plan to look at the process from a broad perspective, each national forest faces unique circumstances that influence its management plan. The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest (GMUG) is beginning the process of revising its management plan, and I plan to do a case study on it in order to illustrate the relationship between local communities and national forests, and to determine the community’s role in their management.

Summer 2000 Internship

I spent the summer in crested Butte as a volunteer intern with the High Country Citizens’ Alliance (HCCA). They are developing a collaborative group to be called the "Gunnison Stakeholders Group" in order to influence the revisions to the GMUG National Forest management plan. While I was working with HCCA the group was still very much on the drawing board. My task was to gather research on other collaborative efforts. After researching collaborative conservation in the West, I developed a questionnaire and mailed it to a number of people involved with successful collaborative efforts. The questionnaire was mailed to organizers as well as participants. I thought that the organizers would provide insight as to why the groups were designed as they were; and the participants would reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the various designs. I prepared a report for the High Country Citizens’ Alliance to summarize what the research revealed. The money I received was used in paying for my rent and food, buying phone cards to establish addresses and interest of former collaborative participants, and some travel within the valley.

Project Results

In my thesis I attempted to address the conflict that arises when conservation efforts restrict a local community’s access to resources upon which they have become dependent. This issue is certainly not unique to the national forests that I focused on. It can be found as the main source of conflict in virtually every conservation effort around the world. In order to address this issue I explored the history of the Forest Service and the economic and ecological theories that apply to the situation. Then I focused on two national forests in Colorado where this issue is surfacing today.

I chose to address this problem by focusing on the public response to the proposed revisions of the White River National Forest management plan. In doing so I identified problems specific to the recreational economy that has been developed in the forest. Mike Dombeck, the Chief Forester in Washington D.C., identified a new list of management objectives for the Forest Service that focused primarily on managing the forests for ecosystem health. The White River National Forest was the first national forest to have its management plan revised with these new objectives. As a result of the relatively new recreational economy that has developed there, unforeseen conflicts arose when the proposed revisions were made public. I saw this situation as an opportunity to investigate the complexities of this conflict. The next national forest to have its forest plan revised was the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre, and Gunnison national Forest. I looked into the demographics of the communities local to the forest and attempted to develop an idea of obstacles that a management plan focused on ecological health might face.

Below is a copy of the final chapter of my thesis, where I draw conclusions as to why and make suggestions as to how the Forest Service can effectively focus on protecting the ecological health of the national forest system.

Now that the history, the theory, and the reality have been discussed, what is to be made of them? There is no doubt that the management decisions made for the national forest system are of tremendous consequence concerning the longevity and well-being of our forests, our communities, and future generations. Certainly decisions made today will affect us as well as every generation to follow us.

This chapter will illustrate how the Forest Service should manage the national forest system, at both a national level and specific to the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre, and Gunnison National Forest. The issues that will create obstacles for the Forest Service in pursuing these objectives, as well as precautions that could be taken to trouble shoot for them will also be discussed. This is important.

The Forest Service needs to redefine its role as a public land manager. Today it acts as a producer of resources. Although the ecological demands of the forests are certainly considered in the required Environmental Impact Statements, they have been compromised historically to meet local and national demand for forest resources. The Forest Service needs to recognize that they are solely responsible for the health and quality of the national forest system.

In doing so they will certainly encounter tremendous resistance. Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell’s fear that the Forest Service was trying to turn the White River National Forest into a "tree museum with no visitors"¹ can be cited as an example of the typical contemporary American mindset regarding the national forest system. This displays the utilitarian view of the forests that has dominated public opinion to date.

Representative Scott McInnis stated a fear that the Forest service was departing from its "historic purpose, use, and mission."² His fear is well justified: it is time for change. Today is tremendously different from the times in which the Forest Service was forged. It is only logical that management of the national forest system today should be altered to reflect the changes in the society and circumstances under which the forests were first created.

Simply in terms of population the circumstances today are markedly different from the situation that Gifford Pinchot was facing in 1905. The global population doubled in the 45 years between 1930 and 1975.³ While population growth rates are higher in developing countries, the growth in the global population has been clearly reflected in the American population. The amount of national forest land per capita can only continue to decrease with time. Clearly this affects the demand for the national forest system, as is suggested by the tremendous growth in recreational use of the forests in the past few decades. This has serious management implications. With an increase in the magnitude of demands across the board, as well as an increase in the variety of demands being experienced, the Forest Service faces a very different situation than its historic purpose, use, and mission prepared it for. The management objectives clearly must change to respect that. It makes no sense from any perspective to maintain antiquated management goals simply because they were the first ones identified. The Forest Service faces one major obstacle when they attempt to alter their management objectives. This is the fact that the American public has become accustomed to the historical management objectives. Historically the national forest system has been managed for public access, with some ecological restraints, to the resources and opportunities that it provides. Accordingly, many people have become accustomed to this access. This has led to established public expectations regarding the Forest Service management decisions. The changes in the circumstances that influence management have accrued gradually over a long timeframe. On the other hand, forest plans are only created and revised every ten to fifteen years. Thus, there is clear potential for the circumstances to change significantly between planning sessions. This presents a problem. Like water building behind a dam, changes slowly accumulate under an active management plan until, with revision, the dam is broken and the public is forced to react to a dramatic change in management. With advancements in science, forest managers have come to realize the extreme complexity of the ecosystems upon which our forest resources depend. They have also reached a deeper understanding of the wide range of long-term effects that poor management can have on an ecosystem. This, coupled with the growth in demand for the forest resources, has created a dramatic gradient between what forests have been managed for in the past and what they should be managed for in the future. The Forest Service has recognized this, and taken steps toward embracing the needs of the ecosystems they are managing. However, the Forest Service is a government agency designed to manage public lands for the public. From one perspective, this supports their role as stewards, and encourages limits on access, as it is preserving the health of the public resource. However, the more common reaction is that the Forest Service is attempting to deny the public their god-given right to the use of the national forest system as they see fit.

This is the result of an American paradigm regarding the natural world. Since the days of European colonization Americans have been industrializing, aggregating, paving, and developing our land base with unchecked aggression. It has been assumed to be ours for the taking, and we have taken pride in our achievements as we shaped it to our liking. While the land base is all but exhausted today, the paradigm still exists. This mindset creates a serious dilemma for the Forest Service.

This dilemma is manifested in the difference between creating a management plan and implementing it on the ground. The most ecologically sound management plan will have no affect on the ecosystems it is managing if it cannot be enforced on the ground. It is unlikely that the Ford Tough public will respect a sign prohibiting access to a trail they have been driving for years. It is equally improbable that Nature Lovers Anonymous will be content to revel over the majestic images that artists such as Ansel Adams captured. People want to experience the natural inspiration first hand.

Short of merging the Forest Service and the Marine Corps, how can ecologically sound management, which inherently requires limitations on access, be successfully implemented with an access-hungry public? It is a difficult task, certainly, without a small army. However, while public demand cannot be fully fulfilled, it can be appeased without severely compromising ecological integrity. While the Forest Service designed public involvement into the planning process as a means of identifying management goals, it serves another purpose as well. Because the public is involved in the development of a management plan, they cannot say that the plan was simply imposed upon them. They are, to some degree, invested in the management of the national forest system. Furthermore, the process of developing a management plan as a community centered on the forest can lead to an enhanced sense of stewardship throughout the community. This, in turn, has a beneficial effect on the degree to which management decisions are respected.

While it involves a large degree of compromise, a collaborative approach to forest management does result in a forest plan that is satisfactory, or at least equally unsatisfactory, to all affected parties. There is danger, however, that through compromise the measures for ecological protection will become so watered down that they are no longer effective. This is one reason why clear legislation is needed to provide ecological priorities against which the various types of access can be compromised. If ecological preservation is not mandated, the quality of the resources to which access is granted will be severely compromised.

The changes above are made difficult as a result of the structure of the Forest Service as an agency. The first means by which changes towards management for ecological sustainability are impeded is the result of the Forest Service’s operating budget. Congress must approve the Forest Service’s itemized budget. This means that they are allocating money to specific Forest Service programs. Initially this may not seem like a significant factor. It is reasonable for the Forest Service to be expected to justify their requests for funding. However, when the situation is scrutinized more closely, it is clear that this structure of budgeting places an inappropriate amount of influence in the hands of congress.

Members of congress are elected to their positions as the result of successful campaigning. These campaigns are expensive endeavors. There are clearly incentives for the members of congress to cater to those who have the largest amount of money to offer their upcoming campaign funds. As the industries that depend upon the use of forest resources are the only forest users that generate revenue from the forests, they are also the only ones that can offer money for campaign funds. Unfortunately, senators are not generally elected because their state has the cleanest water or the widest array of wildlife habitat.

A cycle has been created that is difficult to break. As senators are elected because of their industry-inflated campaign funds, it is in their best interest to manipulate the budget to boost Forest Service programs that will benefit these industries. Reciprocally, the industries benefit from the Forest Service programs, are able to make more money, and can donate more money to the senators campaign funds. Thus, even in a situation where the majority of the public supports ecosystem management, congress can seriously hinder the degree to which the management is implemented as a result of manipulating the budget for Forest Service programs.

Another dilemma surfaces when the means by which the Forest Service determines its agency-wide management objectives is scrutinized. These decisions are almost entirely up to the professional discretion of the Chief Forester in Washington DC. Today Mike Dombeck is the Chief Forester, and he has an environmentally conscious agenda for the management of the national forest system. The president, however, appointed the Secretary of Agriculture, who in turn appointed Dombeck. His position is not protected. He will be the Chief Forester until the new president disagrees with his policies and appoints someone new. Thus, the ecosystems approach that the Forest Service has identified as its management objectives in the recent revisions to national forest planning process could be turned around one hundred and eighty degrees if a new Chief Forester is appointed with a management agenda focused on opening access to forest resources. Thus it is absolutely essential that management objectives for the protection of healthy ecosystems be mandated in clear legislation.

Management to protect the integrity of the ecological resources embodied within the national forest system is the only option that makes sense in the long-term. There is no way that the national forest system can accommodate all of the demands that are imposed upon it. By attempting to accommodate these demands, the forests will inevitably compromise their value as a forest resource, which is the one thing that they alone can provide.

The value of the national forests as forests is further magnified when the road-less and wilderness areas are considered. Today there is very little forested land left in our country, let alone the world, when compared to the levels recorded a mere two hundred years ago. We are one of the few developed countries in the world that still have wilderness, old-growth, and significant road-less areas. Most of the existing wilderness, old-growth, and road-less areas are in developing nations that are eager to exploit these resources to boost their economic development. When the countries that have identified the in situ value of these forest resources and manage them for those values are considered, our position is made even more unique. In terms of scarcity, our wilderness and forest heritage is priceless. There is an opportunity right now in the United States to develop a forest system that is unparalleled in the rest of the world and history.

However, the short-term gain that can be obtained by using the forest resources has the potential to ruin this opportunity. A road-less area will never again be a road-less area after the first road is constructed. Likewise, old-growth cannot be regenerated once it is harvested, and wilderness can no longer be wild once it is managed. These are irreversible decisions. It seems a tragic waste of this unique opportunity to squander our forest resources for the short-term appeasement of public demands.

The forest managers that are revising the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre, and Gunnison National Forest face a serious task. In 1980, when the active management plan was being developed, approximately 10,900 jobs, 14% of the total job opportunities, in the communities local to the forest depended upon activities in the forest.⁴ Most of these jobs were generated by recreational forest use. However, the area is historically agricultural, and the rural lifestyle seems to resonate more closely to most of the local community. Thus, if the Forest Service attempts to limit access for ecosystem protection, there is likely to be opposition from local businesses capitalizing on recreational forest use as well as social opposition generated by the area’s rural sentiment.

Through early and frequent public involvement the Forest Service can avoid much conflict and opposition. It is essential, however, that clear boundaries and ecological restraints are laid out early in the process and maintained throughout. There is danger, as mentioned above, that ecosystem health may be compromised in the process of compromising with local communities. This cannot be allowed to happen. Maintaining the ecological integrity of the forest system is the by far the most important aspect of managing the national forest system today. Therefore, necessary management for ecological protection must be well-defined early in the process so that there is no question regarding what aspects of management are able to be negotiated.

This presents a problem. One of the major benefits of public involvement in the management process is that it leaves the public more invested in the forest’s management plan, and therefore more likely to respect its regulations. This benefit of public involvement could be severely compromised by the suggestion above. It is likely that the community representatives would feel that they were left to create a management plan for the scraps of the forest. However, if law mandates the ecological restraints then it is a level playing field. Local sawmills, ski area owners, hunters, backpackers, and four-wheel drive enthusiasts will all be facing the same restrictions. In this sense the limitations on access are at least universal and therefore fair.

The major problem presented above arises when you consider local businesses that depend upon access to forest resources for their revenue. Limiting this access will doubtlessly affect their ability to generate a profit. In response to this two things must be considered. First, the laws of supply and demand illustrate that as supply decreases demand will increase, and with it the equilibrium price will rise. In other words, local businesses will likely find that, as their forest access shrinks, the value of the access that they retain will be increased. The prices may begin to reflect the real value of the services being provided. Second, there is a simple fact that must be present at all times when considering the issues above. This is that economies, both at local and larger scales, can rebound from a loss of forest access, but the forests will not necessarily be able to rebound from too much access. A forest has a definite, albeit difficult to define, carrying capacity. If this is exceeded, it is doubtful that the forest will be able to sustain the value upon which the local economies are based. It is also unlikely that this value will be able to be totally regained.

In the case of the Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre, and Gunnison National Forest it is likely that managing for this forest’s carrying capacity will generate some opposition. It is, however, unlikely, that the degree of opposition will match what was experienced in the revising of the White River National Forest management plan. This is largely the result of the communities local to the GMUG National Forest. They are not as wealthy as the communities found in the Eastern portion of the White River National Forest. As a result, it is unlikely that they will have the time and resources to devote to responding to the revisions of the management. Furthermore, the GMUG National Forest is not so well known as the White River National Forest. Thus it is not likely to generate the congressional attention that was experienced in the White River National Forest. In this sense the GMUG National Forest may present a more typical public response to the new Forest Service management objectives.

Time to Act

New legislation is needed to secure ecosystem management for the national forest system. It cannot remain a point that is negotiable in planning, influenced by congress, or changed by the political winds in Washington. The National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental mandates experienced great resistance when they were proposed. However, they made it through congress and have done much to improve the environmental situation in our country.

A new act would still allow the members of local communities to participate in national forest planning, but it would set a standard of ecological health that could not be compromised. Furthermore, this standard would apply to all forests throughout the national forest system, eliminating the potential for forest managers in some areas to succumb to local pressures. The goal of the act should not be to eliminate multiple use management within the national forest system, but to ensure that the ecological health of the forests would not be compromised to accommodate it.

The resources embodied within the national forest system are not as valuable as the forest resource itself. This is a simple function of scarcity. There is not much public forestland left in the continental United States. As a result, what there is is made more valuable every day with the growing demand for it. Therefore the forest resource should be managed in the way that will best preserve it as a healthy, functioning forest.

While the value of the individual resources for which the forests could be managed will be compromised, there are other sources for these resources. On the other hand, there is not an abundant alternative source for public forestland, wilderness, old-growth, or road-less areas. Thus, the Forest Service is facing a choice between preserving these forest resources, or squandering them for their individual resource values and potentially loosing the characteristics forever that make the forest so valuable as a whole.

This is not to say that there is no longer room for multiple-use management in the national forest system. It simply must be instituted in the shadow of sound ecosystem management. If this is not the order of management priorities, the ecosystem services that make the forests function healthily will be compromised. With compromised forest health the multiple-use value of the forest will decline. Thus, ecosystem maintenance must be the primary goal of management in order to retain the value of our forest heritage into the future.