The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-08-31 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session PUBLIC NOTICE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETINGS Tuesdav, August 31, 1999 Work session NO MEETING DUE TO 5.. TUESDAY OF MONTH Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. RECEIVED AUG ? vAU,vAU" FOUNDATION - Providing leadership in athletic, educational and cultural endeavors to enhance and sustain the quality of life in the Vail Valley August 19, 1999 Board of Directors Ms. Pam Brandmeyer ['rc,i,irr.r Grrtl.i F,r Adam Aron Town of Vail I+,dtd~ 6erk,nen, i_e,tn Black 75 South Fronatge Road - C:tr,drn t h,nitr titarlene r,,:u Vail, CO 81657 Bi„rn Erik F-r, rn tamer Kmm r,,,U,,ik Jack Cr„it An;lrcu nah Dear Pam: Harm Fnmij ,,m. III Gemld Gatiec•. - _ The 1999 Vail International Dance Festival made us all proud to be GiIbv-c G i,rrdan,, Pepi Grata,,hammer part of such a beautiful and creative event. This was a year of Mart` Hci•r excellence. The >`.,.,rrha t-Iea,l spirit of international cooperation coupled with the Elaine Kcl:.m n talent of so many fine artists was a rare gift. We sincerely thank `a!lie H` J:'ck K: wr you for your generous part in making the dance festival happen. Peter ntav Pairrna Pceple, George Sinetier Michael Sh.inn„n The educational programs, the choreographers' project, and the fine Srartle% Shuman - t:,xincc Sliter performances would not be possible without the vision and financial Oscr Tan Jame, wear support of our donors and patrons. Icahn Garnet Preci,lcn:' On behalf of the Board of Directors and the entire staff of the Vail 2C1,11 W'ririi k,,:: International Dance Festival, thank you for your, contribution to Bike ('h.nnpc,m.h:ps 1991)+C,rLiA!pnt: this unique success story. Ski Champi.mthlp, 1994 "sh,t., pirnshq,,, Bike Ch.un We look forward to working with you in the new millennium as we 1989 VCn1d Alpm_ continue to develop this important enhancement to the cultural Ski Championship, landscape of the Vail Valley. AD if`nru Fvnwi Amen`°n'ki CLiiw With appreciation, FIS Atrnrt: 1G,-i:! C; u,• ,~l CA.1~ r Fnen? Frvtd; r;:e Fw,n_ JLa cki ntosh ident rlmphtrnct:_r .1 Hombil,tucr Au,,-,4, LJM:rhi P.O. Box 309 Vail, Colorado 81658 970-949-1999 Fax 970-949-9265 e-mail vvfops@vail.net www.vait.net/vvf A Colorado 501 (c) (3) Nonprofit Corporation are usually rules of engagement. We won't bomb your women and children as long as you don't use them as a weapon against us. I will only cam- paign on the issues if you do. What we have seen lately"has been a great deal CtrrsC•t, rte 't... of focus on the personal lives of our politicians. This focus is not connected to the issues or ideas what path are"( ,•t of campaigns but for the simple pleasure of pl ;w,a appealing to society's most base instincts. Not we taking? that these issues should disqualify those who are This letter was addressed to the Vail running for office from doing a good job. : While, I will not be voting for George W. next Town Council. year because of his political stances and ideas, I Is there something your constituents applaud his stance on keeping his personal life don t know? As a business person in the private and not a campaign issue. When you look Vail community I am shaking my head at j•; George W. the politician, you have to give it to the path some of the council decisions seem to taking. him according to his voting public he performed Why would we sell the TOV owner- the Governing part of the Art of Politics well ship interest in the Berry Creek 5th enough to get re-elected. Filing for the amount left on the loan? Second, there is politics the Governing. The Are we throwing away the down pay- 4 INE FUP object of this part is to get the things done that ment we made? What about some return you promised in the first part. While, many on that money? Hasn't the value of the 'q^ would think that after the election and once land appreciated since the property was someone is elected that the Game is over and purchased in the early 1990's? I find it will be allowed to et on with the job the people g Y hard to believe that each of you, as indi- • were elected to do. This in not always the case. viduals, would chart the same course for Many times what politicians were elected to your own real estate portfolio. Why do by the majority is inhibited by the minority. make such a careless decision for your range parking lot for $2 or $3. business decisions. Financially, the TOV The tactics used to stall or kill programs are constituents? And lastly, to repeat an often-men- needs every penny it can raise!. many. First flood the meetings with as many of We also have a continuing problem tioned question, why is the TOV spend- Thank you the few as you can. If that is not enough to weak- with paying back the debt on the parking ing money on planning for/building Ginny Culp en a politician's resolve, you can harass them at structure. I can easily understand why employee/affordable housing for private Vail every turn both in the public venue and on the the merchants want free parking after 3 sector employees? Residential real streets, in the grocery store, at a concert, any- p.m.. Perhaps free coffee/tea from the estate development is not the business of where you can find them. After awhile they may local coffee shops might bring more cus- a municipal government. I believe there OUR LETTERS POLICY even give in or quit fighting for the issue or pro- tomers into town. How about free glass- are many things that can be done by the The Daily Trail welcomes letters to the gram. es of wine for late afternoon and evening private sector to ease the affordable editor. We request that letters be typed More and more recently the line between a visitors? I understand the need to keep housing shortage, which, by the way, and double-spaced; we reserve the right public official's private life and their public sales tax revenues up, for both the TOV exists in almost every part of the world to edit letters for style, grammar and responsibility has become blurred. So much so and the merchants., however, I think giv- these days. I applaud those corporations length. Letters conccrning Daily Trail that many have taken that there is no line. Once ing away debt-laden amenities masks and individual business owners who are articles receive top priority. All letters someone holds themselves up for election to any some of the deeper problems faced by taking responsibility for finding solu- must include name, address and tele- office they, their lives and their families are fair Vail merchants. Such largess from the tions to their employee problems. The phone number. We will withhold the game. We need r put some civility back into our TOV and its citizens continues to feed free market system does work and I author's name on request. Deadline for a those underlying problems. If we contin- believe those who have done/do the right particular issue is the previous day at civilization before the only people who are will- ue to give away parking in the winter, thing for their employees will be reward- noon. Write letters to the Editor, The ing to serve are those who are willing to serve up doesn't it make sense to charge $2 or $3 ed. Daily Trail, P.O. Drawer 6200, Vail, CO their communities to special interest or self a car in the summer? It is my impression So, Council members, what are we 81658; or E-mail us at dtrail@vail.net. interest. that the parking structure is often full, missing here? Is there a piece of infor- The opinions expressed on this page are James Johnson is an Eagle County both weekends and weekdays, in the mation that I am over-looking? If not, I not necessarily the opinions of the own. Commissioner. summer. I'd love to get out of a front urge you follow a path of making good ers or management of this newspaper. F t CA9`1~ tdl ya. it CTP Sunday, August 22, 1999 SECTION H ° . :A---. re transportation issues on the road to ndhere I;.. By Joseph S. Szyliowicz t'is. o"Iv ous to everyone, that; Qolora lie do* nand the lh'tlverrmetro- ' poliy tally confront se- , rious anspoon problems that are.severely damaging our quality of life The population has grown rapidly to 2.3 million persons and is expected to reach S. million in less than 25 years. At -the same time,. the number of vehicle miles traveled has grown even more rapidly as old communities like Parker have expan- ° ded dramatically . -,-and new suburban Joseph. S.:Szpifow . 1cz is director of *,*,,-.and exurban devel- Intermodal.zrana, Qpments and emerge portation.••,IAstitute-,:-,FW~gI We. are all a to sod feti ng thg copse- oot~int~e ~ ~ ences of ?ong°de. 1. ies ~at .the a ys=.and 'frustra- gt Deriver. ; bons hi=.attempting r , to reach our great natural resource, the beau . of the -mountains,. longer com- mutesto work, shops sporting events, in ; creased air pollution and more road rage, aoci4ent Ap4,cagy It es. . rz:. , Numerous" fans and proposals have" been adv t ced.',to" "fix"-. the'.probiem: Y'hese'irangt,from building a.Iponorail along Interstate :70, using forces ? by charging tolls, expanded light more lanes along Interstate 25,`atiain to ,.DXA and'so.forFh M' But we have no,consensns; on the con- tra y we are engaged'in a vociferous de- ' bate often based more on ideological pre- 4 dispositions than on any, understanding of : r the fundamental principles that -are. A& cepted by practic 1 transportation eEpei as fol- lows:, 1. A "off re~~sfay. , They`"Y fide advantages to their oc~~fort, flexibility, ftee- dorn an t 'and dare =an ndis•~ pensable tem. At the` same time;.tl1e:Yat' heavy.e:terna1 ca4ts,- ecoaoiriic, social. and environmental - upon communities. Farther, not everyone'can own or drive.a, can for exampple~; -the issue of hold toy pro- vide semoorleitizens with mobility is;@ne I. contin VV etra our population r -Ac ~Op ~p < A m .S er C -m ~.A Od a 0 0- -CL gg±, w 8_1 . o A a A A M 9.i W;e J- - A 'OOq ?.,A o.~ ~'A p; Q,0•m5 A G O'o °y o p y ~ao d.a n r- 'A CL 2 e Fr rA -4 6-0 M Go !AD u ~''"'m m m5d~"~ Oa~'~m w ~ p ~,~A• Err I MM .r mAA =910 °°,0yC~mp°yo5b m a•~S;b~' cto 5 . ~O0 o°pr'?-,C+GAp.~O~o~ prra0ts'. $ d0. eaeye~o-o~~-3M'IS q~55lo~0 03 on i 84 1 M e, eo p -0 CD CL i • °rp 'yp A.m. O w . m R fyD R. ldD ° f<D 6';~ e°.. w C ¢ ew-m n w 'I •i O:0'r.~ A O r?O mw.O pmQ•p- ""a 3 w o- as~ m 0 CL (D 0 c ~ m -.ego o ca . r m m 7 A <:w - w o r j -x d~0. O l°wDOp' F ;a °Z p, E s' ° w vCi ~a.G''`.y" p ~C impp dv'=° O.mi p' pb w yA•M-e~D•y.'vfp9i° a, C, csv ' ,A. p p p~ p p W ~m A O AAA p' fl a BOG etS C^ C - Oi . _ A f~D d. wy 04 e.? - m A C7. _ Z 'rA to M) M A C O CA 5~-M-J i =yr worn-eAD A m a 03 - p m n~^~D.rr'.~ A .`a tSA A- CL m 1,0 - i y w •v v .+i.v Transport Ventures e m 6A w w N 5 m A Pao op~ Computer-enhanced photo shows a proposed monorail that would connect the m o ° o 5 • m w A V' -1 0. 1cmvr Denver area to various stops in the mountains, such as Vail and other resorts. 6 9 0 6 4 A m I A r,- Transportation an endless A- d° p p~ m 0 a d a o o .14 fi maze AM y 3 .0 40 Q -4 C M EA 0,10 e: wpAp-3= 09 = . SZYLIOWICZ from Page 1 H the state Legislature ° p p M " m • - S ° m 5 ~ `%4 rA is inaccessible except by bus and car. Such though supportive, did eD :3. n aq ~ ti ° Pr 's g, p European airports as Heathrow and not provide adequate iv m 'b o` M m g p b p' r o OO y 7 p" n, epA financial resources. o w tid a> C an d er o Frankfurt, on the other hand, provide the > A p A m m p p A m° _ ~N •o~ traveler with an-array of choices -sub- there is a ray of hope, m ° N~ p ~ C• = e m ways and intercity trains as well as taxis A K F° m and buses. as there seems to be' A C. n .'0.°. a < aq C rw A A movement at the state c A - o m w • m ~ ° en r S .4 What is required, therefore, is a new a - eo o, r„ oo A ; 'a c g m 17 u . } P level toward a more proach to solving our transportation prob- inclusive -approach, lems, one that recognizes the importance of and local govern- ~-01 c :;Cp Ir°; e o °m o •°o M Z 0310 o the automobile and highways but that has Sz liowicz joined o• 5 m a M ° eb ; as its goal an integrated system that r- ments have d 0 O = b _ =cwcs 2. a. cr ts 03 Pe A - one mode to with the private sec- y p mits people to shift easily from . w m w A • 5' m m . for and environmental groups in the a a c c C. C m fl 5ft m : • - .o°, CS 00 ` another. "Transit Alliance to promote and imple- A o o ..m w 0 o` o g-- o w A Cr $ _ Yet that is not the way in which trans- ment rapid transit. 0w portation projects have historically been Furthermore a project ect such as Union A e implemented in this region or are being Station's transformation into a hub for ! e y ° A y m c e u - g 5° a oa m debated today. We continue to be faced buses, HOV lanes, Amtrak, the light rail ! ; .k,. c o' m A m M ° with a barrage of projects, each of which spur in the Platte Valley and hopefully, ° Q A MI 1510 p w t is being sold on its own merits with little Greyhound bus lines, reprsents a fine ex- ~ 5° n Cr o A B ° A A A M m ~ is attention to how they will be linked. ° craw n A e 6' ~ y N 'd C ° c A . ample of intermodalism in action. w A p 1A A 5`4 - 3 A One of the most pressing issues is obvi• RID ° p m d f° m o a d 5', C c a' ` m ously how to connect a light-rail system to These developments, though very signif- o c o ° c o, o A A o eD icant, are only the beginning. An overall p A o•O p f D $ a• ; 3 , n. p an I-70 monorail, to a DIA train and to the M plan.that enjoys widespread public support -ft = O = A n. m a d highway and roadlystem. Such connectivi- is required. Such a plan should inco orate e y m M m E = a o 5 a e6 e a d ty involves thinking about how a passenger' highway improvements (includin A - = P 'A 8 who rides public transit can reach a final g perhaps :destination. some highway expansion), the use of mar- = ket mechanisms such as tolls traffic de- °o 5' c. - to :3 o S o There are many reasons why such plan- mand management programs an ex an- = fD rn ~ v = c q rA w < ° $ ning has not taken place, even though ded rapid transit s stem that reaches to m A w A S a~ o M m -*A CDOT, in 1996, developed the first state- DIA and the mountains, and _ m m d 6 m p ea Mr Q possible rail $ C M I m_ 9.~ A ° ab o" wide plan and DRCOG has produced Me- connections to Boulder, Fort Collins and - my ao ~ tic, trovision 2020. At the root is the fact that Pueblo. ° t m o pt it is necessary to get several different a ~_A m ° This vision is one to which the Universi- ~ m 'o' 0 0° ° m w transportation organizations to agree, p• $ A m ,o ° C2 m m << o. rr each with its own culture, agenda ancli ty of Denver's Intermodal Transportation 0i ~ ° ~ ~ m m g$ °°-~13 S "I L LUM g 1< ~ ~ F - ~ p~ 'D A ~ ~ ,p a ° R a ents, and to do so when Political power is i5 coerititted. Our goai workln favorably disposed. This has proven to be with an advisory council of local experts r' ° S m no easy task. and other stakeholders is to help develop 0 is << r _ m an intermodal system for passengers and 8 C.. p oft 1° o Until recently the RTD board was in dis- freight that promotes the quality of life in C? M.:...m .o=~'?' ° array, and CDOT and DRCOG were unable our community. The challenge is clear <e. to implement such an approach, because Where do we o from here? °p A W + RECEIVED AUG 2 5 1999 ~S alas Connie Knight, President 385 Gore Creek Drive, Suite 201 1 Vail, CO 81657 Telephone & FAX: (970) 476-3615 ? e-mail: cknight@vail.net u , Town of Vail Council Members 75 S Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Town Council Members: It greatly concerns me that you seriously are considering approving a carte blanche variance to all Public Accommodations in Vail for I doubt it will eliminate future variance requests. Have you actually visualized what a GRFA increase from 80% to 150% will look like? Have you considered the impact of site coverage increase from 55% to 65%? Having grown up in South Florida and witnessing first hand what growth and high rises can do to a community, I know that bigger does not make for better. Quite the contrary. To add vitality and business to Vail, perhaps we should consider reserving some open space for more pocket parks, niches for benches, grass for picnics and any means to allow visitors to enjoy our natural beauty without necessarily spending money. By increasing their enjoyment and their desire to linger, _we might just be surprised to see they are willing to spend money here rather than elsewhere. Our existing means of monitoring and controlling growth lies in our Planning & Environmental Commission, your review and public input. All serve as an excellent way to stay on top of what happens to our town. Please give serious consideration to the long-term affect of your carte blanche decision. Thank you and thank you for the time and effort you devote to our Town. Cordially, i Real Eslate Broker MEMORANDUM August 25, 1999 To: Vail Town Council Bob McLaurin Pam Brandmeyer Steve Thompson From: Sally Lorton Re: July sales tax collections Attached please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $59,178.00 in July sales tax to bring July collections to $1,106,024.00. If so, we will be down $1,858.00 or. 17% from July 1998 and down $40,132.00 or 3.5% from budget. Year to date collections would total $9,620,223.00 and we would be down $247,668.00 or 2.51 % from 1998 and down $590,401.00 or 5.78% from budget. Jul Events Included 1998 1999 Vail America Days Vail America Days Vail Hill Climb 201Annual Vail Hill Climb Vail Arts Festival Vail Dail Hill Climb Rock Mountain Regional Soccer Shootout Vail Arts Festival Bravo! Bravo! Budli ht Mountain Challenge Hi hline Sports Mountain Challenge Ford Cu Invitational Friday Afternoon Club in Vail Village Vail International Dance Festival Rock Mountain Soccer Cam Vail Lacrosse Shootout Vail Lacrosse Shootout Pine Lake Half Marathon Pine Lake Half Marathon Second Annual Altitude Club Co-ed Third Annual Altitude Club Co-ed Softball Softball Tournament Tournament Courage Classic -Courage Classic Hot Summer Nights Hot Summer Nights Vail Invitational Figure Skating Championships Summer Hockey School Lionshead Hoedown & Kid'Rific Vail Invitational 27` Annual Soccer Tournament Rock Mountain Volleyball Cam World Masters Ballet Academy at Vail Vail Summer Sports Festival Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 8/25/99 % Change % Change 1999 Budget from from Month 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Budget Collections Variance 1998 Budget January 1,126,496 1,465,870 1,599,123 1,713,091 1,709,654 1,855,364 1,805,707 1,894,597 1,935,782 2,052,569 2,115,359 2,188,943 2,065,834 (123,109) -2.34% -5.62% February 1,205,101 1,561,286 1,695,850 1,737,343 1,780,568 1,828,766 1,814,495 1,816,107 1,993,389 2,089,673 2,153,121 2,228,041 2,020,771 (207,270) -6.15% -9.30% March 1,591,705 1,939,758 1,897,718 2,051,820 1,977,995 1,988,090 2,250,656 2,139,298 2,240,865 2,580,992 2,368,077 2,450,164 2,413,549 (36,615) 1.92% -1.49% Apell 550,205 567,684 634,174 616,648 691,163 864,303 794,668 791,092 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 1,145,861 951,951 (193,910) -14.03% -16.92% May 170,567 215,548 236,359 250,809 268,000 257,248 287,315 324,681 318,920 329,783 382,718 396,027 370,134 (25,893) -3.29% -6.54% June 329,039 393,470 448,227 468,948 468,598 475,161 548,820 590,685 594,907 630,366 633,400 655,430 691,960 36,530 9.25% 5.57% July 559,683 649,139 665,094 737,288 742,750 811,538 892,830 893,483 963,717 1,043,637 1,107,882 1,146,156 1,046,846 (99,310) -5.51% -8.66% Total 5,532,796 6,792,755 7,176,545 7,575,947 7,638,728 8,080,470 8,394,491 8,449,943 9,014,573 9,601,447 9,867,891 10,210,624 9,561,045 -649,579 -3.11% -6.36% August 575,887 668,119 678,071 761,992 767,257 825,954 891,566 867,125 990,650 1,073,430 1,183,926 1,224,834 September 422,502 469,032 482,328 491,684 485,954 560,535 725,205 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 760,913 October 291,204 335,740 364,002 324,802 367,578 400,525 408,405 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 532,652 November 376,235 430,820 438,731 428,086 497,907 553,681 594,491 611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 678,336 December 1,455,948 1,615,278 1,625,219 1,691,775 1,846,223 1,974,553 1,992,855 1,994,540 2,068,851 2,254,709 2,070,834 2,132,272 Total 8,654,572 10,311,744 10,764,896 11,274,286 11,603,647 12,395,718 13,007,013 13,030,448 13,719,308 14,747,419 15,030,386 15,539,629 9,561,045 -AUG. 25. 1999 3:18PM i NO. 7511 P. 1/3 N E W S . ,RELEASE VAIL RESORTS- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contacts: Vail: Kristin Yantis, (97(j) 479-3001, laistin@vailresorts.com Beaver Creek: Kelly Ladyga, (970) 845-5292, kladyga@vailresorts.com Breckenridge: Jim Felton, (970) 4.i3-3210, jimf@vailresorts.com Keystone: Cara Herron, (970)1496-4253, earah@vailresorts.com COLORADO CARD OFFERS SAVINGS FOR MMAIK AND SNOWBOARDERS AT VAIL BEAVER CREEK, BRECKENRIDGE AND KE'YSTDNE Up to 67 percent off ticket window rates with the Col grado Card ? Adults ski or ride for as low as $15 in the spring and kids ski free during early and late season with the Colorado Card. VAIL, Colo. - Aug_ 25, 1999 - Once again, the Coloradc' Card is the only major discount card to offer five resorts for skiers and snowboarders in Colorado. This popular free card for shiers and snowboarders provides up to 67 percent off lift ticket window prices at'fail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Keystone and Arapahoe Basin throughout the season. Adults ski or nidti, for example, for as low as $15 in the spring compared to a window rate of $45. Kids ski free at all five resorts during early and late season at Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone and for $19 or: less per day during the majority of the season. "The Colorado Card offers skiers and snowboarders some; of the best deals on lift ticket prices in North America and access to more than 10,000 acres of terrain ~tross five resorts," said Bruce W. Mainzer, senior vice president of sales and marketing for Vail Resorts. Colorado Card holders are entitled to a host of other bene ;its, including direct-to-lift privileges and the ability to use the card to charge food, rentals, and ski and ~nowboard school lessons. Cardholders automatically receive PEAKS points, which provide rewards such as free lift tickets, discounts on food and lodging, and more. And anyone who uses their Colorado Card to ski or aide one of the five resorts before Dec. 25 will earn 4,000 bonus points. -more- Wit l;Psorlc Management Company - Poul Office, Rnx 7 o Vnil, Colorado 13 6.5a ¦ 137 Bvnchmtrk Road - Avon. Colurodo 81620 VAi L BEAVER CREEK" BRECF;EN RI DGE - KEY5TON E0 AUG. 25. 1999 3:19PM NO. 7511 P. 2/3 COLORADO CARD 2-2-2 "For many of our guests, the Colorado Card is the best deal going, since it offers a less expensive, pay-as- you-go alternative at our four resorts, plus Arapahoe Bas n," explained Mainzer. "It's a free card so there's no upfront cost, and it offers a convenient way to pay for nearly everything during a ski day." 1999-2000 COLORADO CARD PME,SA7 VAUIVEAVER CREEK Adult Window Child Window Season CC Price Rates CC Price Rates Open-11/24 $25 $39 FREE $19 11/25 -11/27 $36 $59 $19 $37 11/28 -12/17 $29 $59 $19 $37 12/18-1 2/25 $45 $61 $19 $39 12126/99- $57 $61 $19 $39 1/l/00 1/2 - 2/18 $39 $59 $19 $37 2/19-4/1 $42 $61 $19 $39 4/2-4/15 $29 $59 to $45* 519 $59 to $45* 4/16 - Close $15 $45 FREE $19 * Window rates drop to $45 for adults and $19 fo,- children on April 9. 1999-2000 COLORADO CARD ,PRICES AT SEYST ONEMRECSENRIDGE Adult Window 2hild Window Season CC Price Rate CC Price Rate Open -11/24 $25 $29 FREE $17 11/25 -11/27 $36 $53 614 $21 11/28-: $29 $53 :514 $21 12/18-12/25 $29 $55 314 $21 12/26/99 $37 $55 314 $21 1/l/00 1/2-2718 $35 $53 ')14 $21 2/19 -4/1 $37 $53 to $S5* ;N14 $21 4/2 - 4/15 $27 $53 to $29* LX14 $21 to $17* 4./16-Close $15 $29 1ZREE $17 *Seasons for the Colorado Card and window rate; are not identical; window rates increase during the 2119-411 Colorado Card season and decrease r luring the 412-4115 season. -more- • AUG, 25. 1999 3:19PM NO. 7511 P. 3/3 COLORADO CARD 3-3-3 1999-2000 COLORADO CARD PI ICES AT ARAPAHoE BASIN Adult Child Season CC Price CC Price Open -11 /24 $15 FREE 11/25 -12/25 $15 $9 12/26/99 - $28 $9 4/15/00 4/16 - 5/29 $24 $9 5/30 - Close $22 $9 Colorado Card holders have access to their own Web site, www.colorado-card.com, which features information on events, snow conditions and savings on fc od, lodging and activities. Current Colorado Card holders can renew their cards online for the coming season at this members-only web site. They also can register for the SteepSavers program and receive weekly :-mail messages on last-minute lodging deals. Skiers and snowboarders can renew or enroll for a Colorado Card in person at select Front Range locations (REY stores; Colorado Ski and Golf stores in Aurora, Arv;tda and Littleton; Grand West Outfitters in Colorado Springs; and Boulder Ski Deals) each Friday, S;'iturday and Sunday during store hours, Sept. 3-12 and Sept. 24 to Nov. 21. They also can register for the Colorado Card at the Vail Resorts booth in one of two upcoming events: Sniagrab at Gart Sports in Denver, Sept. 3-6 and Sept. 11-12, or the Taste of Colorado in Denver's Civic Center Park, Sept. 3-6. Finn ly, new and existing cardholders can enroll or renew at Breckenridge and Keystone pass offices beginnii xg Oct. 6 or at Vail and Beaver Creek pass offices starting Nov. 6. New card holders must be present to enroll. For more information about the Colorado Card and where to enroll or renew, call (303) 504-5870. Skiers and snowboarders check out the latest information m discounts and deals, snow conditions, events and more on Vail Resorts' award-winning Web site, www; snow.com. This season, skiers and snowboarders will find additional on-mountain cameras at Vail, Beaver (,'reek, Breckenridge and Keystone. To make lodging reservations, call (800) 404-3535 or book them or,-line at www.snow.com. u iy TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY August 25, 1999 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR AUGUST 24 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Arnett, Foley, Ford, Kurz, Navas --Berry Creek Fifth Filing The Council heard a plea from former councilmember Merv Lapin to maintain its 60 percent ownership of the 105-acre Berry Creek Fifth property. The Town of Vail and its 6 governmental partners are currently evaluating a $2 million bid from Eagle County for the property. Lapin said he was compelled to offer his own bid of $3 million in an attempt to preserve affordable housing opportunities for Vail. His involvement with the Vail Valley Exchange program demonstrates the need for additional employer-controlled housing, he said. Such housing could be used to fill ski season jobs by as many as 200 trainees from Australia and another 200 from South America, he said. But without the associated housing, the Vail Valley Exchange program will likely go untapped. Lapin said his buy-out offer would abide by development provisions of the current intergovernmental agreement and would allow the Town of Vail to control 60 percent of the housing. Another approach, Lapin said, is for the Town of Vail to offer to buy-out its other partners. Either way, Lapin urged the council not to walk away from its 60 percent ownership investment and the opportunity to build and control additional employee housing units. Later in the afternoon, the Council held an executive session to discuss the issue in greater detail. -=Public Accommodation Zone District Amendments Following three previous sessions, the Council completed its review of a draft ordinance amending the Public Accommodation zone district. The ordinance codifies development standards that were approved through recent Special Development Districts and would impact 17 lodge properties, mostly in the Vail Village area. Proposed by Johannes Faessler of the Sonnenalp, the updated development standards are intended to reduce an applicant's reliance on the Special Development District process, thereby eliminating uncertainties and last-minute negotiations. The ordinance will be considered for first reading by Council at the Sept. 21 evening meeting. For more information, contact senior planner George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Vail Plaza Hotel Joined by members of the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission, the Council got its first look at a new redevelopment proposal for the Vail Village Inn site. The revised proposal for the Vail Plaza Hotel addresses criticisms expressed by the Town Council last winter when the proposal was characterized as too tall, too big, and too difficult to access. (more) ~ow RECYCLEDPAPER Add 1 /TOV Council Highlights/8-24-99 This time, the Council and the review boards viewed preliminary architectural sketches that showed a building with a maximum height of 6 stories, down from 8 stories previously. A new entry off Vail Road rather than South Frontage Rd. also was touted as an improvement from the previous design. The project proposes 97 hotel rooms (down from 276 previously), 44 fractional fee club units (up from 15 previously), 1 condominium, 214 parking spaces (394 previously), a full service spa and health club facility and conference space. During the preliminary review, reaction from the Council and boards was favorable, with most suggesting "tweaking" rather than "amputation." Also yesterday, the Council and boards were presented with an independent analysis of the proposal by urban designer Jeff Winston of Winston Associates. Winston, who was hired by the town to review the proposal in context with the Vail Village Master Plan, showed computer-generated images of how the building would look next to the adjacent buildings. Winston suggested additional modifications to the Vail Plaza Hotel roof line for added compatibility, as well as added pedestrian enhancements. In summarizing the afternoon's comments, Mayor Rob Ford said that while he didn't detect any major problems, he looked forward to additional tweaking of the plan. Mayor Pro-Tem Ludwig Kurz thanked the applicant for making significant changes to the design. Kurz said he had been offended by the previous proposal. Next steps include a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission on Sept. 27. This will be the first opportunity for public comment. For more information, contact senior planner George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Community Facilities Update Russell Forrest of the Community Development Department presented an update on the community facilities planning process. Following a design charette which was held in June, Forrest said a staff/community team has been networking with various stakeholders to identify which of the "wish list" community uses could be explored in more detail. Forrest said the stakeholders will be encouraged to share their thoughts at a Sept. 21 evening Council meeting. Eventually, the Town Council and the Vail Recreation District Board of Directors will need to hone in on specific uses, he said. Several concerns were raised during yesterday's discussion. Councilman Bob Armour said he was worried about the possible domination by special interest groups, while Mayor Rob Ford wondered what elements would help the effort succeed given Vail's poor track record in approving community facilities (last approval was in 1983). For more information, contact Russell Forrest at 479-2146. --Second Quarter Financial Report The Council reviewed the town's second quarter financial report with Steve Thompson, finance director. The report shows an estimated revenue shortfall of $1 million, most of which comes from losses in sales tax and lift tax revenues. A one-time $1 million reimbursement from the Colorado Department of Transportation for the West Vail roundabouts will make up the deficit, but won't solve the town's long-term financial shortfalls, Thompson said. In the future, additional revenues and/or service cuts will be needed to maintain a balanced budget, he said. For more information, contact Thompson at 479-2116. --Information Update Ann Kjerulf was introduced as the town's newest employee in the Community'Development Department. Kjerulf is the new planning liason officer. She has a master's degree in city planning from the University of Manitoba in Canada. Announcements included: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan has been recognized by the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association as an outstanding project and process; (more) E Add 2/TOV Council Highlights/8-24-99 the Robert Tully temporary art display at Ford Park will be removed Aug. 26 to make way for WestFest activities; closings for 14 of the 18 Red Sandstone employee housing units have been completed with the remainder to occur soon; a certification process is underway now that a 1.4 percent lodging tax petition has been submitted to the town for placement on the Nov. 2 election ballot. --Council Reports Ludwig Kurz, who represents the Council on the Channel 5 Board of Directors, noted the new station manager is continuing to make improvements to the station. Sybil[ Navas, who represents the Council on the Arts In Public Places board, said the Robert Tully sculptures at Ford Park have been well-received. She said the board is exploring the possibility of a outdoor display project similar to the cow displays in Chicago in which 300 life- size cows have been painted and placed throughout the city. In this case, she said the AIPP project would place bears--rather than cows--throughout town. Also yesterday, Navas presented the town with a copy of Deletite Shire's application for a national award for innovation in local government. Deletite Shire, the Vail Valley's Sister City in Australia, has worked with the Vail Valley Exchange in initiating an employee trainee exchange program. Michael Arnett, who represents the Council on the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau board of directors, said he had received a copy of a business plan for the organization and would share it with anyone who was interested. He also reported on his attendance at a Donovan Park neighborhood meeting, an open house at Riverview Apartments and his pending attendance at a reception for Bill Jensen, Vail Resorts' new chief operating officer for Vail. --Other Bob Armour inquired about the status of Eric Baumann's request for code modifications that would enable him to establish an outdoor vending business. The Council voted informally 3 to 2 (with Navas and Arnett voting against) to leave the code unchanged. Sybill Navas asked for clarification regarding the appeals process proposed for the newspaper box legislation. Rob Ford asked Councilmembers to share their reaction to Merv Lapin's presentation on the Berry Creek Fifth proposal. The Council then moved into executive session to continue discussions on the Berry Creek Fifth negotiations. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS August 31 No Work Session (5th Tuesday) September 7 Work Session DRB Report Development Standards Handbook Site Visit and Appeal of DRB Decision re: McKibben residence Lodging Tax Petition to Town Council Community Facilities (more) A Add 3/TOV Council Highlights/8-24-99 September 7 Evening Meeting Presentation of County-wide Housing Needs Assessment 1 st reading, Proposed Lodging Tax Adoption of Model Traffic Code 2nd reading, Newsracks Development Standards Capital Projects Budget September 14 Work Session PEC Report Bike Path Tour (on bikes) 2000 Budget Contributions AUG. 26. 1999 2:30PM ! NO. 7530 P. 1/4 NEWS :RE LEASE VAIL RESORTS" FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contacts: Vail: Kristin Yantis, (970) 479-3001,ikristin@vailresorts.com Beaver Creek: Kelly Ladyga, (970)11145-5292, kladyga@vailresorts.com Breckenridge: Jim Felton, (970) 453 X3210, jimf@vailresorts.com Keystone: Cara Herron, (970) 496-453, carah@vailresorts.com BUDDY PASS AND NEW SEASON PASSES OM) t FLURRY OF SAVINGS FOR VAIL, BEAVER CREEK, BRECKENRIDGE, KEYSTOMI AND ARAPAHOE BASIN t The Buddy Pass allows individual renewals or new € roups of four people to ski or ride Breckenridge, Keystone and Arapahoe Basin for jusi $299 per person. ? Each adult can purchase passes for up to three children on the Buddy Pass for just $99 each. ? Special season passes for teens and young adults arE valid at Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Keystone and Arapahoe Basin. ? New 10- and 20-day passes are introduced at Vail ard Beaver Creek VAIL, Colo. - Aug. 25, 1999 -Skiers and snowboarders,can reap extraordinary savings this coming season through a variety of discounted pass programs at Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone, Bruce W. Mainzer, senior vice president of sales and marketing, announced today. "Our foux resorts lead the industry in providing tremen6us value in the skiing and snowboarding experience, and this season will be no different. We've inade capital improvements at our four resorts totaling $60 million. Even so, we are still keeping slding;affordable by offering savings on everything from lift tickets to lodging," explained Mainzer• "We ha ve fine-tuned our popular pass programs and have added new ones to meet the needs of every skier anI snlowboarder." The Budd Pass Back by popular demand, the Buddy Pass offers unlimited skiing and snowboarding at Keystone, Breckenridge and Arapahoe Basin for $299 per person fcr a group of four adults. The group can also register up to three children per adult on the Buddy Pass ages 5-12, proof of age required) for just $99 each, The Buddy Pass provides nine months of skiing and snowboarding, from October through June, and up to 12'/Z hours a day with night skiing at Keystone. -more- c~ Vail ne.sorts Mansgrmrat Comptmy • Posl 01fit•r Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 1 1658 • 137 neni lunark Rnarl - Avon, Colorado 111620 V A I L B E A V E R C R E E KQ° B R E C K E N R I D G E K E Y S T 0 N CO AUG.26.1999 2:30PM NO. 7530 P. 2/4 BUDDY PASS 2-2-2 New Buddy Passes will only be offered for groups of fo it people from Sept. 3-12 at select locations including Boulder Ski Deals, Colorado Ski and Golf (Aurora, Arvada and Littleton), Grand West Outfitters (Colorado Springs) and at the ticket/season pass offices at Keystone and Breckenridge. Skiers and snowboarders can also purchase the pass at one of tgvo upcoming events: Sniagrab at Gart Sports in Denver, Sept. 3-6 and Sept. 11-12, or the Taste of Color ado in Denver's Civic Center Park, Sept. 3-6. Buddy Pass holders from the 1998-99 ski season can renew their passes individually at any of the outlets above, but they will probably find it much more convenient to renew by returning the renewal applications that are now in the mail, or by going on line at www.buddypass.com. Buddy Pass holders can take advantage of savings on food and lodging at Keystone and Breckenridge. They also can link the credit card of their choice to the p Iss to automatically receive low Colorado Card lift ticket prices and enjoy the convenience of going dire ply to the lilts at Vail and Beaver Creek. Buddy Pass holders also have access to an exclusive, members-only Web site, www.buddypass.com, where they can check out everything from last-minute to aging deals to current snow conditions. New l0- and 20-Day Passes at Vail and Beaver Creek New for this season, Vail Resorts also is launching a nevi, 10- and 20-day pass valid at Vail and Beaver Creek, "We have had many discussions with fans of Vail and Beaver Creek on the Front Range, Vail Valley skiers and snowboarders, merchants and community grot.ps over the summer," said Mainzer. "So, we have developed some innovative season pass options that give a Vail and Beaver Creek skier extraordinary skiing value." -more- AUG. 26. 1999 2:31PM NO. 7530 P. 3/4 BUDDY PASS 3-3-3 The new 10- and 20-day passes, offered only at Vail anc. Beaver Creek, provide significant savings to skiers and snowboarders. The 10-day pass for adults costs just $269 (equaling $26.90 per day), and the 20-day pass is $499 (equaling $24.95 per day). Limited restricted dates apply. "On a per-day ticket price, this is a fantastic deal to ski Irail and Beaver Creek," said Mainzer. These passes can be purchased at all season pass sales locations in the Front Range, but only through Nov. 20. They also will be available through Nov. 20 at Vail and Beaver Creek ticket/season pass offices, which open Nov. 6. Other Season Pass Program Values Designed especially for the younger generation, the resorts' young adult and teen passes make it easier for kids and students to have fun on the slopes. Both pa; ses are valid at all five resorts of Vail, Beaver Creek, Keystone, Breckenridge and Arapahoe Basin. Some restricted dates apply at Vail and Beaver Creek. The young adult pass (ages 18-22) costs $499 an-i the teen pass (ages 13-17), $399, when purchased prior to Nov. 20. After that date, the teen pass price increases to $499 and the young adult pass is no longer available. Proof of age is required for both pass purchases. For those who want skiing and snowboarding at all five r.-sorts, Vail Resorts offers either a value season or lull season pass. The value season pass, priced at $1,149 per adult, is restricted Nov. 26-27 at Vail and Dec. 26-31 at both Vail and Beaver Creek. There art: no restrictions at Breckenridge, Keystone, or Arapahoe Basin. The full season pass costs $1,449 per adult and provides unlimited access with no restrictions at any of the five resorts. -more- AUG. 26. 1999 2:31PM NO. 7530 P. 4/4 BUDD'Y' PASS 4-4-4 These five-resort passes can be purchased at a variety oi'locations. They will be available Sept. 3-12 at Boulder Ski Deals, Colorado Ski and Golf (Aurora, An'ada and Littleton), and Grand West Outfitters (Colorado Springs). They also will be available at Snial:rab at Dart Sports in Denver, Sept. 3-6 and Sept. 11-12, and at the Taste of Colorado in Denver's Civic Center Park, Sept. 3-6, or they can be purchased at Keystone and Breckenridge ticket/season pass offices, which will be open Monday through Friday from Oct. 6 until the resorts' opening day and daily after that, and at Vail and Deaver Creek tickettseason pass offices, which will be open daily begi ming Nov. 6. Call 303-504-5870 for additional dates and locations. An unrestricted adult season pass valid at Keystone, Bre-Aenridge and Arapahoe Basin will be available for $349 from Sept. 3 to Oct. 3 only. This pass can be purchased at Buddy Pass sales locations, and at the resorts' Front Range Colorado Card locations (REI stores; Colorado Ski and Golf stores in Aurora, Arvada and Littleton; Grand West Outfitters in Colorado t Springs; and Boulder Ski Deals) each Friday, Saturday and Sunday during store hours. Skiers and snowboarders check out the latest information, on discounts and deals, snow conditions, events and more on Vail Resorts' award-winning Web si :e, www.snow.com. This season, skiers and snowboarders will find additional on-mountain cameras <<t Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone. To make lodging reservations, call (800) 4043535 or book them on-line at www.snow.com. At TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road • Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 • ' . FAX 970-479-2157 August 26, 1999 fiA Tim Losa Zehren & Associates 48 East beaver Creek Boulevard Avon, Colorado 81658 Re: Vail Plaza Hotel Dear Tim, Thank you for meeting with me this morning to discuss the next steps in the development review process of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The purpose of my letter is to summarize our discussion and provide you with written documentation of the proceedings of the joint worksession meeting held on Tuesday, August 24d'. As we discussed, the proposed development review process for the Vail Plaza Hotel will include the following meetings: PEC - September 27d' (worksession) . DRB - October 6`h (conceptual review) PEC - October 11 h (worksession) TOWN COUNCIL. - October 12`h (update) DRB - October 201h (conceptual review) PEC - October 25`h (final review) TOWN COUNCIL - October 26'h (update) TOWN COUNCIL-November 2nd (worksession/1'reading) TOWN COUNCIL -November 16`h (worksession/2?d reading) These dates are tentative and subject to change depending upon your ability to meet submittal deadlines and the magnitude of the issues to be addressed. Please mark your calendar accordingly. In addition to the development review schedule, we also discussed the issues raised during the joint worksession meeting. According to my notes, the following issues or concerns were expressed by the various board members during the joint worksession discussion: • How will left turns out of the loading/delivery area be handled? • What portion of the loading/delivery improvements is in the South Frontage Road right-of-way? • How will the deficit parking requirement for the entire special development district be handled? • How does the current proposal compare/contrast to the original proposal and the previous SDD approval? • The pedestrian walkways in and around the hotel need to be addressed. As proposed they are too narrow and fail to function properly. How will pedestrian circulation be addressed? • How will access to the hotel from East Meadow Drive be provided? RECYCLED PAPER • What steps are being taken to ensure that the Gateway Building is isolated from the pedestrian traffic on East Meadow Drive? • The long, linear fagade of the north elevation, along the South Frontage Road, needs to be articulated. What can be done to this elevation to increase the articulation? The canyons between the buildings are unattractive. What solutions are there to eliminating the unattractiveness of the canyons? • What exactly is being proposed to improve the streetscape along Vail Road? • What are the traffic impacts of the proposed hotel? • How is the "sense of arrival" to the hotel being addressed? • The height of the building should vary along the South Frontage Road. What solutions are there to varying the roof height? • How would you propose to incorporate the comments of Jeff Winston into the proposed plans? • What solutions have you developed to respond to the issues raised by Greg Hall in his letter to me of August 19, 1999? Each of these issues needs to be addressed in writing by September 7ffi and discussed with the Planning & Environmental Commission on September 27d. Again, thank you for meeting with me to continue the discussions on the Vail Plaza Hotel. Should you have any questions or concerns with regard to the information addressed in my letter, please do not hesitate to call. You can reach me by telephone at 479-2145. Sincerely, Georg:=CP Senior Planner Town of Vail Xc: Vail Town Council Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail Design Review Board Russell Forrest, Community Development Director Waldir Pratto AUG. 26. 1999 6:44PM NO. 7531 P. 1/3 RELEASE N . W S ,-'I TIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contacts: Kelly Ladyga, Beaver Creek, (970).845-5292 Gerry Flynn, Corum Real Estate a oup, (970) 926-8686 Cindy Cohagen, Vail Valley Medical Center, (970) 926-7485 NEW SEASONAL EMPLOYEE HOUSJ NG PRO:fECT A BEAVER CREEK TO BE READ FOR COMING SKI SEASON BEAVER CREEK, Colo. - Aug. 26,1999 In a cone nued effort to alleviate the problem of affordable housing in moantain resort communities, Vail Resorts, the Vail Valley Medical Center and Corum Real Estate Group of Edwards are developing a 351-bed employee housing project in Beaver Creek. Construc-ion is currently underway on the Tames, anew 76-unit building located adjacent to an -xisting 60-unit employee housing project that will also undergo substantial renovation to accommodate more beds, officials from the three companies announced today. "The people of this valley have expressed a desire that Vail Resorts take a leadership role in helping to alleviate the problem of affordable housing, and this project represents another step in that direction," said Jack Lewis, direct 3r of housing for Vail Resorts Development Company. "We now provide more than: 90 percent of all of the affordable housing beds offered by ski resorts in the State of Col :)rado." In the past three years, Vail Resorts has developed more than 900 new beds for its, employees in both Summit and Eagle counties, The Tarnes project represents a unique partnership with two of the valley's largest employers, Vail Resorts and the Vail Valley Medical Center, and affordable housing developer Corum Real Estate Group. Comm has dev,Hoped and now manages more than 1,000 employee housing units in Routt, Summit and Eagle counties. -more- Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 ? 137 Benchmark Roac • Avon, Co 81620 VA I L R E S O R T S - AUG. 26. 1999 6:44PM NO. 7531 P. 2/3 EMPLOYEE HOUSING 2-2-2 "As our medical center continues to expand, now encc'impassing six sites in two counties, we need to continue to seek innovative solutions to af;"ordable housing for both our seasonal and year-round workforce," said Clifford M. Eldredge, president and CEO of the Vail Valley Medical Center. "Our participation in: this project facilitates our commitment to the community to provide continuously expanding health care services. It is a `win' for everyone involved and demonstrates thei synergy that is possible through collaboration and good business sense." Vail Resorts and the Medical Center will master lease the Tames 351 beds to their employees from November through April. Vail Resorts employees will become primary tenants of the building, while Medical Center employ !-es will use 42 of the beds. Units will be available for lease by the general public from May to November. Situated between the east and west entrances of Beavi:r Creek, the Tames project has been designed with seasonal employees in mind. The new buildings will consist of a mix of studios and two-, three- and four bedroom units - ill with bedrooms intended for single occupancy. Tenants share common areas, suet as a living room and kitchen, while maintaining privacy with their own lock-off bedroom;. i The Tames project design evolved from extensive research conducted among employees living in Vail Resort's River Edge housing project in Avon during the 1997-98 season. River Edge, developed by Vail Resorts and the Conwi Real Estate Group in 1997, has become a model for other resorts in the ski industry tc follow. -more- AUG. 26. 1999 6:44PM NO. 7531 P. 3/3 EMPLOYEE HOUSING 3-3-3 The initial rent structure for the Tames units will be 100 per month for private bedrooms, including all utilities. Rent will be slightly less for shared bedrooms in the and more for premium studio units. "It is critical to our business that we attract the best erployees who will provide the high service levels that our guests expect. Across our four resorts, we will be able to make 3,000 beds available to seasonal employees this winter," said Lewis. Tames @BC, LLC, a new entity formed by Vail Resorts, the Vail Valley Medical Center and Corum Real Estate Group, will develop the project. Financing for the project has come from the issuance of $10.4 million in Eagle Col my Taxable Housing Facilities Revenue Bonds, which were undem rittten by Kirkpata ick Pettis in Denver and secured by letters of credit from Nations Bank, N.A. and Norwes : Bank. Vail Resorts contributed the land for the new building, the existing units, a cas] i shortfall guaranty and debt guaranties. "Seasonal projects are the most difficult to finance be.ause of the potential negative impact of off-season vacancy. This project would not be economically feasible without the financial assistance of Vail Resorts and the Vail N; alley Medical Center," explained Gerry Flynn, senior vice president of the Corum Real Estate Group. Construction on the Tames project will be completed in November or December 1999. Abndgin'' " the freedom of speech or of the press" By Michael Cacioppo, CV Int. for more freedom. Vail councils Enterprise Contributor Vail council Violates First Amendment have never been known to let a By a 5-0 vote, with Councilmen constitutional amendment get in Mike Jewett and Luddy Kurz the way of their attempts to control absent, the Town of Vail recently with meddlin new newsr~ack ordinance everything! passed the first of 'two readings -of ' Imagine if all publishers refused an ordinance designed to "provide. What if Mintum or Avon decide to assess became a monopoly and no other publics- to deliver their publication to Vail ' for the regulation of newsracks 'located on similar fees? The costs to publishers could tion could afford to "buy in." Village or Lionshead. The town's business- public-property'and-design 'review guide- grow to $6,000 to_distribute their publica- Western Slope Publishing Group's es would not have their advertising mes- lines for newsracks located on private prop= ' tions in the upper valley. Add in Red Cliff, Group Publisher Don Smith, has the right sages available to those residing or visiting erty within certain designated areas of Vail Eagle, Gypsum, Glenwood, etc. and the attitude when he said, "We are sympathetic in the community to read. That is not likely Village and Lionshead." - costs could exceed $14,000 annually. That's to the clutter (of newsstands), its a concern to happen, but wouldn't it be nice to see sol- The Vail ordinance would require any a chunk of change for any publisher, but to us. We're glad to work in a reasonable idarity in the publication community? publication to pay an annual permit fee of might not be a problem for a monopolist. fashion to eliminate or improve that prob- The so called "clutter" of news boxes is $65 per location, with 32 locations antici- 'Vail Daily -publisher Bob Brown's state- lem." But Vail's ordinance goes too far. An the "sweet vision of freedom." I would pated in Vail .Village and Lionshead. The , ment that the Vail ordinance fees would annual fee is intolerable and should not be rather have this clutter than the eventual total cost for any publication to distribute'to. "not be a significant expense" to his publi- allowed. elimination of publications because of the all of these Vail locations is $2,080 annually.. cation, -might be true, -if his publication If Vail is so concerned about clutter, it cost of doing business. It is not beyond the could provide similar style boxes at its own realm of belief that in a few years Vail could YC: expense, or ask publishers to voluntarily only have one newspaper and one maga- work with the town to purchase similar zine. God forbid that the few remaining style boxes, a one-time expense. publications be owned by one owner. But one must ask the question, where is Already, most radio stations in the area are the public demand for such a requirement? owned by one company! Never have I seen a letter to any editor We live in a day and age when the so requesting this be done. called "silent majority" is all too silent as Tom Moorehead, Vail's town attorney, liberal judges rule against the literal state- says that this ordinance is "appropriate" and ments of our constitution, thereby resulting is a "safety and health issue.", Have you in more loss of rights and freedoms. ever heard of a news rack lashing out and Government control of publications by hurting someone? Since when have news adding serious expenses could control them racks been known to cause AIDS, mad cow right out of business. disease, or any other disease for that mat- Mayor Rob Ford and council members ter? . Bob Armour, Sybil Navas, Mike Arnett and Moorehead's comments fail to pass the ,Kevin Foley ought to reconsider their posi- common sense test! Vail councils have . tion. They have violated their oath of office always danced to their own tune, often with to "protect and defend" the constitution of constituents that have followed like sheep 'the United States. to a slaughter. In Vail's case, the so-called Does the publication "Pravda" come to slaughter has turned to mass exodus by anyone's mind? many locals who have moved down valley Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Introduction This is a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that accompanies the White River National Forest Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). This summary presents the major findings of the analysis that went into building the DEIS. In addition to the DEIS, the revised Forest Plan also includes the following: • a packet of maps that illustrate much of the data and results found in the revised Forest Plan and the DEIS • a book of appendices that supports the material presented in the DEIS. All of this information is available to you at your local Forest Service office or public library. We realize, however, that this amount of information can be overwhelming. It is our hope that this summary will help you see what we did, why we did it, and where we go from here. Our goal is to provide you with information that will help generate written comments on the draft documents. These comments will help us focus and improve the final version of the documents. This summary contains the following information: • an overview of the White River National Forest and Forest Plan • public involvement process • brief descriptions of the revision topics • themes of the forest management alternatives • land allocations for each forest management alternative • probable effects that each alternative will have on the Forest • how you can comment on the draft documents. Return to Welcome The White River National Forest is... Global / Intercontinental / National Scope • a leading destination for skiing, tourism and backcountry recreation • the setting for approximately 750,000 acres of Wilderness, including all or parts of the following areas: Collegiate Peaks, Eagles Nest, Flat Tops, Holy Cross, Hunter- Fryingpan, Maroon Bells-Snowmass, Ptarmigan Peak and Raggeds • the setting for several world-famous resort communities that host 13 percent of the nation's downhill skiing • the domain of the Nation's largest elk herd. Multi-State / Regional Scope • site of the most recreation use of any national forest in the Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service • the location of eight of Colorado's 54 "fourteeners"-mountain peaks taller than 14,000 feet • host to 30 percent of Colorado's recreation on National Forest System (NFS) lands • host to 64 percent of the downhill skiing in Colorado. Forest Scope • the centerpiece of a growing western Colorado economy and population base • the scenic backdrop for communities near the Forest • a source of support for local industries and businesses. JAMW Apr- -2- Overview The White River National Forest and the Forest Plan The White River National Forest is one of the Nation's largest and oldest national forests. Established in 1891 as the White River Plateau Timber Reserve, the Forest later incorporated several other reserves to reach its current 2,270,000 acres. The Forest is located in north-central Colorado, west of the Continental Divide (Figure 1). The Divide marks most of the Forest's eastern boundary, which is about 60 miles from Denver. Ready access to the Forest by residents of Denver and other Front Range communities is provided by Interstate 70, which enters the Forest at the Eisenhower Memorial Tunnel. Figure 1 Location of the White River National Forest White River National Forost _Other Region 2 NFS lands + Denver I _ 1 } j C C? 1_ 0 R r~ t? The Forest boundary encompasses National Forest System (NFS) lands within nine different Colorado counties: Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt and Summit. Table 1 provides the official acreages of NFS lands within each of these counties: Table 1 Acres of NFS lands, by county, within the White River National Forest as of Sept. 1997 Eagle County - 595,542 Mesa County - 83,069 Rio Blanco County - 247,318 Garfield County - 478,628 Moffat County - 3,679 Routt County - 6,128 Gunnison County - 60,880 Pitkin County - 490,911 Summit County - 309,671 -3- The Forest has seven ranger districts: Aspen, Blanco, Dillon, Eagle, Holy Cross, Rifle and Sopris. Each of these districts has a district office located, respectively, in the towns of Aspen, Meeker, Silverthorne, Eagle, Minturn, Rifle and Carbondale. The Forest has ranked fifth in the Nation in recreation use. Best known for the world- famous ski areas of Aspen and Vail, the Forest also features the beauty and solitude found in some 750,000 acres of Wilderness; outstanding scenic vistas such as Trappers Lake, Hanging Lake and the Maroon Bells; and the nation's largest herd of elk. Another key Forest attraction is the Colorado River, a boon to rafters, kayakers and anglers. Physical Environment Few places in the United States feature as much topographic relief as the land within the White River National Forest. Its majestic mountain ranges attract visitors from all over the world for sightseeing, skiing and backcountry recreation. The Forest rises from an elevation of about 5,800 feet in Glenwood Canyon to the summits of eight peaks higher than 14,000 feet. This wide range in elevation provides the Forest with climate, soils, and plant and animal communities that are more diverse than those found in many other parts of the country. Measured annual precipitation ranges from less than 12 inches on the Forest's western margin to more than 40 inches at higher elevations. Mountain ranges include the Gore Range in the northeastern portion of the Forest, the Elk Mountains along its southern margin, and the towering Sawatch Range in the southeast. The northwestern portion of the Forest includes the Flat Tops-a series of high-elevation plateaus. The headwaters of the Eagle, Roaring Fork, Fryingpan, Crystal, Blue and White Rivers originate entirely on the Forest. The Forest provides habitat for about 300 wildlife and fish species, including common species such as elk, mule deer, rainbow trout, and less-common species such as the peregrine falcon and the Colorado River cutthroat trout. Social Environment Communities adjacent to or surrounded by the White River National Forest include Aspen, Avon, Basalt, Breckenridge, Carbondale, Dillon, Eagle, Edwards, Frisco, Glenwood Springs, Gypsum, Meeker, Minturn, New Castle, Rifle, Silt, Silverthorne, Snowmass Village and Vail. In recent years, parts of the Forest's five-county planning area have seen some of the highest growth rates in Colorado. Most of this growth has occurred near the Forest's ski areas. In the 1990s, these ski areas evolved into four- season resorts that attract visitors throughout the year. This change has boosted employment in the tourism and commercial sectors of local economies, and has led to population growth throughout the area. Urbanization has posed some new problems for Forest managers. Development of private lands and the increased number of visitors to the Forest have combined to: • reduce traditional points of access • reduce or restrict wildlife habitat, migration corridors and winter range • increase the risk to human safety (from wildfire) • increase the impacts that visitors have on trails, recreation sites and other Forest resources. -4- Forest Planning A land and resource management plan guides management activities on NFS lands. It contains directions on how and where different types of activities can occur. It also provides guidance on how to implement and monitor the effectiveness of the Plan. The DEIS contains an analysis of a number of different ways to implement the Forest Plan. These different ways to implement the Plan are called alternatives. The DEIS contains six alternatives. Each of these alternatives can be considered to be a separate and complete forest plan. Alternative D, the Preferred Alternative, represents the Forest's choice of the most appropriate way to manage the White River National Forest. We have been implementing the existing Forest Plan since it was approved in 1984. Monitoring of the existing Plan showed that there were several reasons to update or revise it. These reasons include new laws and policies, better data and information systems, changing uses, and new issues and public concerns. We began work on revising the existing Forest Plan several years ago. Many laws and policies guide national forest management. Some of the more familiar ones include the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NFMA requires that NFS lands be managed for a variety of uses on a sustained basis to ensure a continued supply of goods and services to the American people. NEPA ensures that environmental information is made available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The DEIS was prepared according to NEPA regulations. It displays the alternatives considered for implementing the Forest Plan and the environmental consequences each alternative will have. In addition to existing guidance, new policies and laws needed to be incorporated into the revised Forest Plan. In 1993, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which strives to increase the accountability of federal agencies by measuring progress toward achievement of agency goals and objectives. This legislation, applicable to all federal agencies, requires the preparation of periodic strategic and annual performance plans that are focused on outcomes and results. To implement GPRA, the Forest Service issued a strategic plan in 1997. It centers on three main goals that apply to the management of all NFS lands: • ensure sustainable ecosystems • provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosystems • ensure organizational effectiveness. The revised Forest Plan will focus on these goals. In addition, the Forest Service has been directed to manage the Forest using an ecological approach. Together, these laws and policies helped shape the draft planning documents. -5- Public Involvement and Cooperation The overall goal for public participation was to identify and have all potentially affected interests (PAls) informed and participating in the revision effort. Bringing individuals with different interests and federal, state and local governments together to discuss the issues being addressed in the Plan Revision was an opportunity that was pursued. External Participation More than 1,500 individuals, groups, organizations and agencies were contacted and/or have participated in the planning process through the Forest's public involvement efforts. Contacts have been through newsletters, one-on-one contacts, news releases, advertisements (newspaper and radio), open houses, informational meetings and the efforts of the White River National Forest Association. The Association is a non-profit citizen's organization that offered to help the Forest throughout the planning process. Another aspect of public involvement included the creation of four work groups. These groups (biological diversity, travel management, recreation and special areas) were designed to bring individuals with similar interests together to develop management options. These options were considered by the Forest throughout the alternative development process. Internal Participation White River National Forest employees manage the Forest's resources on a daily basis and continually interact with the public. Employees know what the issues are and what concerns the public has. Two all-employee meetings were held to inform employees of the revision process, issues that were being identified, and public participation opportunities. The Forest Plan Revision was a topic of discussion at all employee briefings. The interdisciplinary team (ID Team) that leads the analysis process for the revision is made up of Forest employees. Employees from all over the Forest assisted with the inventory and analysis, visited with the public and helped develop alternatives. Site-Specific Decisions A notice of intent (NOI) was issued in August 1997 that stated the Forest Plan was being revised and an EIS was going to be prepared. In addition to the Forest Plan decisions, the NOI identified two site-specific decisions that would be tiered to the EIS-a travel management plan and closures of vacant range allotments. These two decisions will be made by the Forest Supervisor. Both of these decisions, and the public involvement activities that have been done specifically for them, are described as follows: Travel management. For each of the six alternatives there is a site-specific travel management plan that identifies uses allowed on each individual road and trail on the Forest. Each alternative in the Forest Plan, therefore, will identify a different set of road and trail restrictions. -6- The Forest sent a letter to everyone on the Forest Plan mailing list (about 1,500 people) asking for comments on travel management and informing them of open houses to discuss this issue. Open houses were held at each White River National Forest district office to answer questions and receive comments. About 150 people attended these open houses; many more were contacted through presentations on travel management to groups and organizations. Many of the comments received during scoping for the Forest Plan Revision addressed site-specific travel management concerns. Vacant allotments. There are 51 vacant range allotments on the Forest. The Forest is evaluating whether to retain these allotments in their present vacant status (until a more comprehensive site-specific analysis can be conducted), to close the vacant allotments to livestock grazing, or to partially close them. A letter sent to individuals on the Forest Plan mailing list asked for comments on the vacant allotments and informed them of three open houses to discuss them. Forty-one people attended these open houses. Public involvement to discuss the vacant allotments also included one-on-one contacts and presentations to livestock groups. How Public Comment Was Used in the DEIS All written comments the Forest received were read and categorized by subject matter; then the issues were identified. All comments were considered in the formulation of themes for the six forest management alternatives analyzed for the Forest Plan Revision. The six alternatives were developed using significant issues raised by the public and from input from the four work groups. Also incorporated into the alternative development were resource specialist experience, expertise and professional knowledge; Forest Plan monitoring; and two internal planning documents-Purpose and Need/Development of Planning Criteria (August 1996) and Analysis of the Management Situation (July 1997). -7- A Brief History of the Revision Topics Six major areas were identified as the main topics to include in the revision of the Forest Plan. These topics were based on what was found while monitoring the current Plan, on comments from our employees, on new Forest Service direction, and on concerns from individuals and public groups. These six areas are biological diversity, recreation, travel management, roadless area management, special areas and timber harvest. The DEIS also examines the social and economic aspects of the counties and communities linked to the White River National Forest. Although important, this social and economic profile does not vary significantly by alternative, thus it is not considered to be a revision topic upon which the themes of the alternatives are based. The six revision topics, described below, are the focus of the forest plan revision process. They address the central issues to which future management of the Forest must respond. Each of the six alternatives described later in this document represents a different set of answers to questions raised by the revision topics. Biodiversity Biological diversity (biodiversity) refers to "the full variety of life in an area, including the ecosystems, plant and animal communities, species and genes, and the processes through which individual organisms interact with one another and their environments" (1992 Rocky Mountain Regional Guide). Maintaining biodiversity is a key part of ecosystem management. Major land-use decisions can change the biodiversity of the Forest. Conserving biodiversity while managing the land for multiple uses is a balancing act. Goals for each action must be carefully assessed, and trade-offs between resource needs and human needs must be made. Recent policy and precedent have provided guidance to maintain biodiversity. Sensitive species have been identified, and Forest managers have been directed to help ensure viable populations of species. In 1992, the Chief of the Forest Service committed the agency to ecosystem management to produce diverse, healthy, productive and sustainable ecosystems under an operating philosophy based on environmental sensitivity, social responsibility, economic feasibility and scientific principles. Most concepts of biodiversity are relatively new and were not addressed in the 1984 Forest Plan. That plan did not consider ecosystems as a whole-it focused mainly on species that were economically important. Nor did it have available the current base of information about Forest vegetation, wildlife and physical features. Although various goals, objectives, general direction, and standards and guidelines in the existing Plan considered some elements of biodiversity, this revised plan attempts to consider many more of its key elements. The 1984 Forest Plan made every effort to comply with laws and regulations of its time, but some standards and guidelines were too broad or general to ensure compliance. In contrast, the specific methods for maintaining biodiversity and monitoring management activities contained in this revised plan represent both a scientific and practical advance over the 1984 Forest Plan. -8- Travel Management Travel management, which plays an important role in every Forest resource program, remains one of the most controversial elements in forest management. Since the 1984 Plan was developed, motorized and non-motorized forms of travel have increased and become more diversified. The advent of mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), the growing popularity of four-wheel-drive vehicles and snowmobiles, and increasing non-motorized uses such as hiking, backcountry skiing, and snowshoeing, all are competing for the same land base. As travel on the Forest increases, the impacts to resources become more pronounced and conflicts between users occur more frequently. The Forest needs to determine the proper balance in the type, extent and levels of Forest transportation facilities and use in order to resolve user conflicts and adequately protect resources. Other concerns in this revised plan include evaluation of utility sites and corridors and improved monitoring of transportation facilities. Traditional travel management issues remain the same in this revision of the Forest Plan. The Forest must continue to: • maintain road and trail facilities to meet land management objectives and resource program needs • acquire needed rights-of-way for management purposes and public access to NFS lands • implement seasonal and permanent restrictions to protect wildlife and/or limit degradation of roads and trails • provide a full range of trail opportunities in coordination with other jurisdictions and private landowners, both on and off NFS lands. Recreation Management Recreation has become the predominant use of the Forest. As the number of visitors to the Forest has increased, so have the type and extent of uses. Mountain biking, snowshoeing, rafting and kayaking, rock climbing, caving, and the use of ATVs are among recreation uses that have grown dramatically since development of the 1984 Forest Plan. Traditional pastimes such as hunting, fishing, and four-wheel-drive travel have also grown, with a parallel increase in the number of outfitters and guides that serve these activities. In addition, the Forest's popular downhill ski areas have evolved into internationally known four-season resorts that attract visitors throughout the year for a variety of pursuits. In the backcountry, the Forest's 19 mountain huts are frequented by more visitors each year; additional huts have been proposed to accommodate increased demand in both winter and summer. Based on recreation use reported by all national forests, the White River National Forest has ranked fifth in the Nation. The Forest manages 16 percent of the NFS lands in Colorado, but hosts 31 percent of the State's recreation use on these lands. Since the 1984 Forest Plan was prepared, overall recreation use on the Forest has more than doubled. Visitors are coming from farther away, they visit more frequently, and their -9- outdoor equipment has become more sophisticated. The aging of the population, meanwhile, has altered the types of recreational experiences being sought. In the same period, local communities near the Forest have seen rapid growth in their populations, and more residences are being built along the Forest boundary. This urbanization near the Forest does more than add to the total recreation use-it also closes customary points of access and makes it harder to preserve scenic vistas. Larger numbers of recreation users, the broader range of their activities, and increasing penetration of the backcountry have resulted in greater impacts to the environment, overuse of some recreational facilities, and an increase in user conflicts. The challenge facing Forest managers is to optimize the recreation experience while balancing it with the need to protect wildlife and other environmental values. Recommended Wilderness/Roadless Area Management About one-third of the White River National Forest is part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Portions of the remaining two-thirds of the Forest meet the definition of being roadless areas. During the revision process, the Forest was inventoried to identify its roadless areas and assess whether they met criteria to be designated as Wilderness by Congress. Federal regulations direct national forests to consider such areas for Wilderness recommendation during the forest planning process. Under the 1964 Wilderness Act, a Wilderness must appear to be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with little evidence of human impact; to have outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation; and to be 5,000 or more acres in size or at least be large enough, in practical terms, to preserve its wilderness values. The Forest's inventory of roadless areas used a minimum size of 5,000 acres for areas that stand alone and a minimum of 500 acres for areas that border an existing Wilderness. Further evaluation of the initial roadless inventory applied several other criteria to determine eligibility of areas for Wilderness recommendation. Each of the forest management alternatives described in the DEIS features different proposals for recommending eligible roadless areas as Wilderness. That is, some alternatives recommend more areas than others. This determination was made based on the overall theme of each alternative. Special Areas Some areas of the White River National Forest have been given formal recognition as special areas based on their unique or outstanding physical features, environmental values, or social significance. This designation affects how these areas are managed. Potential designations available include Wilderness; wild, scenic and recreational rivers; scenic byways; significant caves; research natural areas (RNAs); segments of the national scenic trails system; heritage resources; and special interest areas. RNAs are part of a national network of ecological areas. Heritage resources are historic or cultural sites that are afforded special protection. In the revised Forest Plan, changes were made to accommodate the following developments: -10- • the finding that Deep Creek was eligible for designation as a Wild and Scenic River • a study indicating that the use of prescribed fire within Wilderness might benefit ecosystem health • the new designation of RNAs and significant caves that were not part of the 1984 Forest Plan • establishment of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail across the Forest • a comprehensive analysis that has identified several historic sites for designation as heritage resources. Timber Suitability and Allowable Sale Quantity Tree species found on the White River National Forest include pinyon and juniper in the lower elevations, cottonwoods along riparian zones, mixed conifer and aspen stands at middle elevations, and extensive stands of spruce and fir that dominate the higher elevations. These forest communities are important both as the habitat of other plants and animals and for the production of wood products - from lumber, wood fiber and fuelwood to transplants, posts and poles, and Christmas trees. From 1984 to 1995, an average of 24.7 million board feet (MMBF) was cut and removed annually, with harvests ranging from 10.8 MMBF to 46.2 MMBF. The peak harvest, in 1988, reflects the salvage of lodgepole pine killed by a mountain pine beetle epidemic, as well as an increased demand for dead spruce logs for home construction. The allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is the quantity of live timber that may be offered from the area of suitable land covered by the Forest Plan. From 1984 to 1995, the projected ASQ was about 308 MMBF. The Forest also projected a volume of about 250 MMBF in dead timber sales during this period, for a combined total of 558 MMBF. The actual total sale of 226.2 MMBF from 1984 to 1985 is only 40 percent of this projection. The Forest's live conifer sale program reflects national and regional trends of declining sale volumes, declining volumes under contract, and higher prices. Although the Forest has been a key supplier of dead spruce for house logs, the availability of this resource is declining. Since 1984, less than two percent of the Forest has been accessed for timber harvesting (about 28,000 acres of its total expanse of 2.3 million acres). Records show that since 1909, less than five percent of total Forest lands have been harvested. This relatively low level of timber management, combined with 60 years of fire suppression, has caused large portions of the Forest to be in older age classes, with few openings in the forest canopy and a high load of downed, dead or step-ladder fuels. Thus, these forest stands are susceptible to extensive wildfires or to major outbreaks of insects and disease. - 11 - Themes of the Alternatives Six alternatives were analyzed in the DEIS. Each of these represents a complete forest plan that meets legal and administrative requirements and can be implemented if selected. Alternative D has been chosen as the preferred alternative. After some additional work, and after considering all comments, a decision will be made on what will be the selected alternative (documented in the Final EIS (FEIS)) that will guide future management of the White River National Forest for the next ten to 15 years. All alternatives adhere to the concepts of multiple use and ecosystem management. They share a set of basic Forestwide goals and objectives and a set of standards and guidelines that are found in the Forest Plan. This guidance ensures protection of Forest resources and compliance with applicable laws. In all alternatives, ecological conditions will be managed to maintain minimum viable or higher populations of existing native and desirable non-native species, and watershed conditions will remain stable or improve. In addition, certain elements are retained in all alternatives, including: • existing ski-based resort permit areas • current designated Wilderness • current active grazing allotments • existing developed recreation sites, utility corridors and electronic sites • current designated national scenic and recreational trails • current designated scenic byways. A brief summary statement- a theme- describes each alternative. Each theme has two main components- human uses and ecological conditions. In this way, we explain how each alternative will address human uses of the Forest, as well as biological and ecological conditions that are expected to result from each alternative. Each theme statement is accompanied by a pie chart that shows how land within the Forest boundary has been allocated to management areas, which define where different management activities may be carried out and where different kinds of public uses may occur. Each of these management areas is defined by a primary emphasis -or management area prescription-that guides the activities taking place within it. All NFS lands administered by the Forest are managed according to these prescriptions. When two management areas overlap, the one with the more restrictive guidance applies. Eight management area categories (Category 6 (grasslands) is not found on the Forest) contain management area prescriptions that share a related management emphasis. • Category 1: Wilderness, recommended Wilderness, non-motorized or limited motorized recreation • Category 2: RNAs, minimal-use special interest areas • Category 3: motorized recreation, interpretive special interest areas • Category 4: dispersed recreation, scenic areas • Category 5: wildlife habitats, forest products • Category 7: urban/wildland intermix • Category 8: developed recreation sites, utility corridors. -12- How each alternative differs from the other five is expressed as its management area allocation-the management areas it contains, their size, and their distribution across the Forest. The management area maps in the accompanying map packet show that, in a given alternative, particular management areas can occur more than once and can appear in many different locations on the Forest. The theme of each alternative was used to guide the allocation process. Depending on this theme, an alternative can include some management areas while excluding others and can vary significantly from other alternatives in the size, location and frequency of management areas it contains. See Table 2 following the alternative descriptions for the total acreage, by alternative, of each management area on the Forest. Alternative B Alternative B, an updated version of the existing Forest Plan that reflects current Forestwide direction, represents the "No Action" alternative. It meets the NEPA requirement (36 CFR 219.12(f)(7)) that a No Action alternative be considered. No Action means that current management allocations, activities and management direction found in the existing Forest Plan, as amended, would continue. All alternatives contain some modifications to direction provided by the 1984 Plan. These include new definitions, new technologies and inventories, and updated standards and guidelines. Output levels have been recalculated for this alternative to comply with new information. Theme. Alternative B emphasizes production of goods and services such as developed recreation, downhill skiing and range, which all would be increased to meet expected levels of demand. Vegetation management would be applied to improving wildlife habitat, maintaining and improving visual quality in travel corridors and recreation areas, treating of overmature and diseased tree stands, and providing firewood and other wood products. (Source: 1984 Forest Plan, FE/S, Summary, page 6) Figure 2 Alternative B management area allocations, by category (see page 11) 7 8 r a Category 1 - 36% Category 2 - 0% 5 ® Category 3 - 12% - - , ? Category 4 - 11 % °u rs' `s r Category 5 - 36% Category 7 - 0% \ j' Category8 - 5% 2 3 4 -13- Alternative C This alternative responds to a diverse range of comments on recreation issues. It acknowledges the need to provide a range of recreational opportunities to serve Forest customers and local communities while maintaining Forest ecosystems. It represents a balance of recreational uses with ecological considerations. Theme. The emphasis is to provide a range of recreation opportunities in balance with biological diversity. The range of recreation that is provided will be determined by projected demand and analysis of trends. The quantity of recreation that is available will be determined by measures of recreation capacity. Ecological constraints may limit recreation activities in some locations of the Forest. Vegetation management activities will focus on producing healthier and more diverse vegetation conditions. Alternative C concentrates resource production only in areas that have been previously managed. No new roads will be built in areas that have not been previously developed. As a result, limited resource production will occur. Figure 3 Alternative C management area allocations, by category (see page 11) 7 8 ~IA < _ Category 1 - 43% 5 w Category 2 - 3% f~ `1 s~ ® Category 3 - 10% ? Category 4 - 10% Category 5 - 29% I, Category 7 - 0% Category 8 - 5% 4 3 2 -14- Alternative D This alternative was developed in response to concerns that wildlife habitat for a wide variety of species, as well as biological diversity as a whole, needs to be given special emphasis. It addresses the idea that a higher priority be given to physical and biological resources than to human uses of the Forest. Theme. Alternative D emphasizes active management of all habitat types, including the use of such tools as timber harvesting, prescribed fire and structural improvements. It represents an aggressive approach to habitat management and places a low emphasis on letting natural processes run their course. It will use active management to make the most rapid progress, compared to other alternatives, toward a diverse, healthy ecosystem condition. Alternative D places a low emphasis on new developments for human uses or recreation while maintaining existing developments. Figure 4 Alternative D management area allocations, by category (see page 11) 78 `WI .L Category 1 - 38% 1 ~ Category 2 - 5% Category 3 - 3% I 511 6 ? Category 4 - 4% Category 5 - 47% Category 7 - 0% • Category 8 - 3% 4 3 -15- Alternative E Alternative E responds to the growing demand for a broad spectrum of recreation opportunities, particularly those that are of economic importance to local communities. Additional emphasis is given to tourism, four-season resorts, hunting and fishing, and recreation services. These activities will vary in emphasis by community, based on local support and investment. Theme. Alternative E emphasizes recreation activities and amenities that provide economic benefits to local communities. Land allocations help provide opportunities to recreation-based businesses, support the improvement of developed recreation infrastructure, and provide for consumptive recreation activities. The following commercial uses are favored: • ski-based resorts • outfitting and guide services • tour operators • non-ski-based resorts • developed recreation infrastructure. Non-commercial recreation that provides significant economic benefits is also emphasized in this alternative. Examples include consumptive wildlife activities such as hunting and fishing, as well as other activities such as hiking and bicycling. Economically important recreation will be emphasized while maintaining or improving the health of forest ecosystems. A limited degree of resource production will occur in this alternative. Figure 5 Alternative E management area allocations, by category (see page 11) 7 8 5' f 0 Category 1 - 42% Category 2 - 2% Category 3 - 12% ? Category 4 - 23% Category 5 - 16% Category 7 - 0% 4 Category 8 - 6% 2 3 -16- Alternative F This alternative was developed in response to the idea that the Forest should be managed for the maximum use of natural resources on a sustained-yield basis. Alternative F seeks to produce the highest output levels of commodity resources among alternatives, and will consider management activities in all areas of the Forest that are legally and technologically available for resource production. Theme. The emphasis in Alternative F is on resource production activities, such as timber harvesting and domestic livestock grazing, while continuing to provide a range of recreational activities. In areas that are intensively managed for resource production, minimum population viability for wildlife species will be an ecological constraint. In other areas, natural processes will be allowed to dominate the landscape. Dispersed and developed recreation opportunities will be at current levels or higher. Roaded recreation opportunities will expand. Semi-primitive recreation opportunities may decrease. Figure 6 Alternative F management area allocations, by category (see page 11) 7 8 ~ '4 31 q 1 Category 1 - 34% Category 2 - 3% Category 3 - 2% ? Category 4 - 3% Category 5 - 53% Category 7 - 0% Category 8 - 4% 4 -17- Alternative I This alternative responds to views expressed by a coalition of environmental groups that a specific set of principles of conservation biology be used to guide management of the Forest. These principles are somewhat different than the set of ecological principles incorporated in other alternatives. Alternative I relies more on natural disturbance processes for the maintenance of ecosystems. In all other alternatives, active management is used to improve ecosystem conditions. In the analysis of this alternative, the effects of managing the Forest according to these conservation biology principles has been compared to the effects of managing the Forest according to the principles used in the other alternatives. Theme. Alternative I emphasizes the idea that the best way to perpetuate ecosystems, forest health, and biological diversity is to allow natural disturbance regimes and other ecological and evolutionary processes to occur without human intervention. Commodity production, including recreation, is accommodated only to the extent that it does not fundamentally impair these natural processes, the restoration of ecological functions, or the health of native plant and animal communities. To the highest degree possible, the essential wildness of the land is maintained. Figure 7 Alternative I management area allocations, by category (see page 11) 78 5/Category 1 - 56% Category 2 - 5% f` ® Category 3 - 7% ? Category 4 - 8% 4 1 Category 5 - 20% Category 7 - 0% 3 Category 8 - 3% 2 -18- Table 2 Comparison of acres allocated to management areas in each alternative Note: all amounts have been rounded to the nearest hundred. Because of rounding, columns do not add up to the exact totals shown for each management area. In addition, areas that overlap other areas are "double-counted" because they appear under multiple headings. ALTERNATIVES Management area B C D E F I 1.11 1.11 (pristine wilderness) only 82,000 84,800 90,700 61,100 58,500 73,000 1.11+2.2 0 16,600 25,000 8,800 16,900 34,000 1.11 +5.42 0 300 400 500 0 4,300 Pristine wilderness (tota6 82,000 101,700 116,100 70,400 75,400 111,300 1.12 1.12 (primitive wilderness) only 646,200 643,200 504,100 516,300 605,100 503,700 1.12+1.5 13,400 13,300 13,300 14,000 13,400 13,400 1.12 + 1.5 + 5.42 0 1,900 1,900 1,100 1,800 1,700 1.12+2.2 0 17,800 26,700 19,600 28,000 38,100 1.12 + 2.2 + 5.42 0 10,500 10,500 10,600 0 10,700 1.12+3.4 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 1.12+4.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.12+5.42 0 72,200 70,000 68,900 3,700 64,400 Primitive wilderness (tota4 661,800 643,200 628,600 632,700 654,100 634,300 1.13 1.13 (semi-primitive wilderness) only 4,000 3,100 3,200 43,600 18,500 2,400 1.13+5.42 0 0 0 1,300 0 0 Semi-primitive wilderness (total) 4,000 3,100 3,200 44,900 18,500 2,400 1.2 1.2 (recommended Wilderness) only 0 93,900 43,100 106,400 0 200,300 1.2+2.2 0 4,000 0 0 0 1.2+5.42 0 2,500 0 0 0 14,300 Recommended Wilderness (totag 0 96,400 47,100 106,400 0 214,600 1.31 Backcountry recreation - non-motorized 80,700 163,200 89,700 82,000 37,400 381,400 1.32 Backcountry recreation - limited winter motorized 0 44,600 7,900 49,300 0 1,400 1.41 Core areas 0 0 8,200 0 0 36,800 1.5 1.5 (Wild Rivers) only 600 2,500 2,500 6,700 2,500 2,500 -19- ALTERNATIVES Management area B C D E F 1 15+1.12 13,400 13,300 13,300 14,000 13,400 13,400 1.5 + 1.12 + 5.42 0 1,900 1,900 1,100 1,800 1,700 1.5+2.2 0 4,600 4,600 0 4,600 4,600 1.5 Wild Rivers - designated and eligible (total) 14,000 22,200 22,200 21,900 22,200 22,200 2.1 Special interest areas - minimal use and interpretation 0 9,000 30,600 4,500 2,600 16,900 2.2 2.2 (research natural areas) only 300 26,700 23,300 14,000 18,000 26,500 2.2+1.11 0 16,600 25,000 8,800 16,900 34,000 2.2+1.12 0 17,800 26,700 19,600 28,000 38,100 2.2 + 1.12 + 5.42 0 10,500 10,500 10,600 0 10,700 2.2+1.2 0 0 4,000 0 0 0 2.2+11.5 4,600 4,600 0 4,600 4,600 2.2+4.4 0 0 0 0 900 2.2+5.42 0 0 0 0 2,800 Research natural areas (total) 300 76,200 94,100 52,900 67,500 117,600 3.1 Special interest areas - emphasis on use or interpretation 0 1,800 0 15,500 0 1,800 3.21 Limited use areas 300 25,000 37,700 0 0 23,600 3.31 Backcountry recreation - year-round motorized 170,100 168,300 4,800 198,400 25,800 94,700 3.32 Backcountry recreation - non-motorized with winter motorized 100,100 46,300 31,000 67,000 18,100 4,900 3.4 3.4 (Scenic Rivers) only 2,400 2,700 2,900 2,900 2,900 3,200 3.4+1.12 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 Scenic Rivers - designated and eligible (total) 4,500 4,800 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,200 3.55 Corridors connecting core areas 0 0 0 0 0 35,300 4.2 Scenery 0 2,200 2,300 2,000 0 0 4.23 Scenic byways, scenic areas, vistas, or travel corridors 0 15,800 13,500 8,700 12,800 30,900 4.3 Dispersed recreation 199,000 150,800 61,800 477,500 43,000 163,900 4.32 Dispersed recreation - high use 44,800 16,600 22,200 48,500 13,000 1,400 4.4 4.4 (Recreation Rivers) only 2,700 9,700 9,300 9,700 9,700 8,600 4.4+1.12 100 100 100 100 100 100 4.4+2.2 0 0 0 0 0 900 Recreation Rivers - designated and eligible (total) 2,700 9,800 9,400 9,800 9,800 9,500 -20- ALTERNATIVES Management area B C D E F 1 5.12 General forest and rangelands - range vegetation emphasis 309,100 99,900 82,100 5,300 562,800 48,000 5.13 Resource production - forest products 190,000 52,400 32,800 35,800 332,600 51,500 5.4 Forested flora and fauna habitats 150,100 202,700 416,600 63,200 164,800 700 5.41 Deer and elk winter range 134,900 136,200 196,400 97,000 69,000 179,400 5.42 5.42 (bighorn sheep habitat) only 7,700 5,100 33,200 8,500 16,800 35,700 5.42+1.11 0 300 400 500 0 4,300 5.42+11.12 0 72,200 70,000 68,900 3,700 64,400 5.42 + 1.12 + 1.5 0 1,900 1,900 1,100 1,800 1,700 5.42 + 1.12 + 2.2 0 10,500 10,500 10,600 0 10,700 5.42+1.13 0 0 0 1,300 0 0 5.42+11.2 0 2,500 0 0 0 14,300 5.42+2.2 0 0 0 0 0 2,800 Bighorn sheep habitat (total) 7,700 92,200 115,900 91,000 22,300 134,000 5.43 Elk habitat 16,000 112,800 186,000 84,000 53,100 36,600 5.45 Forest carnivores 5,300 41,200 116,800 13,000 40,400 50,900 7.1 Intermix 0 7,700 0 900 5,800 4,200 8.21 Developed recreation complexes 10,700 13,100 9,300 28,300 10,400 9,400 8.25 Ski-based resorts - existing and potential 91,300 57,600 43,000 84,000 68,100 43,300 8.31 Aerial transportation corridors 0 400 0 2,700 1,400 0 8.32 Designated utility corridors - existing and potential 18,600 18,600 18,600 18,400 18,600 18,100 -21 - Alternatives Not Considered in Detail Several alternatives were considered and eliminated from further study during the planning process. All alternatives that were eliminated were reviewed and compared with the alternatives analyzed in detail to make sure that all important issues and concepts were included in the alternatives analyzed in detail. The ID Team originally considered nine alternatives-A through I. After reviewing these alternatives, six of them- B, C, D, E, F and I- were deemed suitable for further analysis. Three alternatives-A, G and H- were found to be inappropriate for further analysis, thus were not considered in detail. Alternative A. NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219.12(f)(7) state that "at least one alternative shall reflect the current levels of goods and services provided by the unit and the most likely goods and services expected to be provided in the future if the current management direction continues. Pursuant to NEPA procedures this alternative shall be deemed the No Action Alternative." As the 1984 Forest Plan was analyzed, it became clear that significant changes had occurred, primarily in the timber management area, but also in several other resource areas. Alternative B, the No Action alternative, was designed to serve as an updated form of the 1984 Forest Plan that is responsive to current technology, conditions, public issues and management concerns. Alternative G. Alternative G was developed to respond to preliminary, short-term internal direction regarding road building and maintenance. This alternative was dropped because it did not address existing long-term policy direction. Forest Plan alternatives are not designed to speculate on internal or external future policy; rather, they are designed to work within current knowledge and direction. Alternative H. Alternative H was developed to respond to concerns about urbanization. Opinions vary widely regarding the role the Forest should, or can, play in the urbanization of areas adjacent to NFS lands. This alternative was dropped after extensive discussion because urbanization is not directly controlled by Forest Service management activities. Instead of serving as the theme of a Forest Plan alternative, social impacts and effects (including urbanization) are considered to be environmental consequences of the alternatives considered in detail. -22- Probable Effects that Each Alternative Will Have on the White River National Forest Biodiversity Biodiversity is not static - it fluctuates in response to ever-changing human and environmental influences. The environment of the Forest today is not the same as it was before western Colorado was settled by people of European origin. Nor is it the same as it was during the early settlement period from 1870 to about 1900, when unregulated resource exploitation was common. One way to understand how the biodiversity of the White River National Forest has changed is to examine the Forest's historic range of variability, or HRV. Revision of the Forest Plan included a study of this range, which shows what ecological conditions were present in the area before large-scale settlement began, as well as how these conditions have changed since then. Some conditions are essentially unchanged, while others have departed from earlier norms. Some conditions have changed because such variability is natural for them. These conditions can be said to be within their HRV. Other conditions have changed due to human intervention to a point that they are not within the range of long-term fluctuation (over the 200-400 year period before settlement) that is natural for them. These conditions are considered to be outside their HRV. In short, the HRV represents the Forest's baseline ecological conditions, to which we can compare current conditions and better understand the effects of forest management activities. Analysis of these conditions revealed that most components of biodiversity on the Forest are within their HRV, but some are not: • Rangelands have been affected by the spread of noxious weeds and reseeding with non-native species. These impacts are expected to continue in all alternatives. • Some forest stands are outside of the HRV conditions because of management activities, such as fire suppression and ski area development. Alternatives F, E and B allocate the most acres to ski-based resorts; therefore, they will have the most impact to HRV conditions within permit boundaries. Other management activities are not expected to change HRV conditions significantly in any alternative. Fire suppression is expected to remain at a comparable level in all alternatives. • Alternatives D and C both stress the need to manage within HRV parameters, while Alternatives B and F do not emphasize managing within the HRV. Impacts to HRV conditions will be the most significant under Alternatives B and F. Another way to assess the biodiversity of the Forest is to determine how wildlife habitats have been affected by changes in forest and rangeland vegetation. Two key aspects of how these habitats have changed are fragmentation and perforation. • Fragmentation of wildlife habitat is defined as the breaking up of contiguous blocks of habitat into progressively smaller patches that are increasingly isolated from one another. It may also be viewed as the process of interspersing blocks of suitable habitat within areas that are hostile to plant or animal life, such as highways or -23- urban development. Fragmentation is expected to remain relatively constant in all alternatives and be most pronounced as the result of management activities on private lands adjacent to NFS lands. • Perforation refers to holes within otherwise contiguous blocks of habitat. An example would be a clearcut (or group of clearcuts) surrounded by forest. Perforation will result from road construction, timber management and ski-based resorts. Alternatives B and F have the most potential to increase perforation of forest stands. Alternatives I, E and C, in that order, have the least amount of land allocated to management areas that would increase perforation. Under the biodiversity topic, the DEIS also reviewed the status of the Forest's various physical and biological resources: Soils. Standards and guidelines will maintain or improve the existing soil resource conditions in all alternatives. Watersheds. Standards and guidelines will maintain or improve the existing condition of watershed resources in all alternatives. Air resources. Management activities will not significantly affect the quality of air resources in any alternative. Mineral and energy resources. Adequate opportunities for the private development of mineral and energy resources will be maintained in all alternatives. Forested vegetation. Management activities are not expected to significantly change the percentage or distribution of different tree species in any alternative. Changes to structural stages (the developmental stages of tree stands in terms of tree size, age and canopy closure) will be the most significant in Alternatives F and B, which allocate the most acres to timber sales, expansion of ski resorts, and road building. Alternatives I, E and C have the least amount of lands allocated to these uses and are expected to undergo the least change. • The average size and shape of forest patches are expected to change the most in alternatives that do not stress managing within HRV conditions. Alternatives D and C both stress the HRV, while Alternatives F and B do not require HRV to be a management consideration. • Inventoried old growth is protected in all alternatives and is not expected to be affected. More existing stands will age and acquire old-growth characteristics under Alternatives I, E and C, which contain less timber management, road construction, and ski-based resort allocations than Alternatives B and F. The acreage and distribution of late-successional forest (mature and old-growth forest) are expected to follow trends similar to old growth. Late-successional forest acreage and distribution, including old growth, are expected to increase significantly across the Forest in all alternatives. Rangeland vegetation. About 95 percent of the non-forested vegetation on the Forest is considered to be within or moving towards desired conditions. This is expected to remain fairly constant in all alternatives. No significant changes to the distribution or composition of rangeland vegetation are expected. -24- Noxious weeds currently infest at least 90,000 acres of the Forest. Alternatives B and E have the most potential for the spread of weeds; Alternatives D and I have the least. Domestic livestock grazing. The level of grazing by domestic livestock is not expected to change dramatically from the current situation in any alternative. Fire management. Prescribed fire projects in forested areas are expected to make up a majority of the fuels management portion of the annual planned program. More acres are burned using prescribed fire in Alternatives D and B than in other alternatives. The most acres of fuels treatment will occur in Alternatives F and I, with Alternative I having the least annual treatment. Alternatives that limit the amount of resource production, such as C, E and I, may lead to a trend in larger and longer-duration fires. Wildlife. Grassland habitat management through prescribed burning will be greatest in Alternatives C and D. Aspen management through prescribed burning will be greatest under Alternatives I, D and C. Mixed shrublands will be managed by prescribed burning the most in Alternatives B, D and E. Late-successional forest habitats are expected to increase in all alternatives. Alpine habitats (areas above timberline) will change the most under Alternatives E and F, which allocate the most acres to ski-based resorts and aerial transportation corridors. Sagebrush, cottonwood riparian, and pinyon-juniper habitats are not expected to change significantly in any alternative. Special habitats such as cliffs, caves and waterfalls may be affected the most by alternatives that promote dispersed recreation such as I, C and E, or from increased trail access in Alternatives E, B and C. These impacts are not expected to significantly change viability conditions for any management indicator species on the Forest. Mule deer and bighorn sheep will benefit from management areas that favor the specific habitat needs of each species. Deer will benefit from Alternatives D, I and B, which have the most acres dedicated to mule deer habitat management; the most acres dedicated to bighorn sheep prescriptions are in Alternatives I and D. Interior forest habitats (forest stands that are large enough that the middle portions of the stands are not affected by the ecological changes that occur at the boundaries of these stands) are important for a wide range of wildlife species. Alternative F, followed by Alternatives B and D, will have the most impact on interior forest patch sizes in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir stands as a result of timber management and road building. Alternatives C and E will have the least impact on interior forests.. The connectivity of habitats across the landscape provides for the movement of species to suitable habitats or to escape predation. Alternatives C, D and I maintain the best conditions for unimpeded animal movement on the Forest; Alternatives B, E and F all result in conditions that impede dispersal or movement of some species. Elk habitat quality is maintained above the minimum level of concern in all alternatives. Alternative I provides the greatest amount of elk security habitat of all the alternatives. The largest number of recreational visitor days for big game hunting is expected in Alternative F, followed by Alternatives E, B, C and D. Overall, the wildlife resources and associated habitats on the Forest are in good condition. Forest management actions are not expected to significantly affect species -25- viability in any alternative. Most of the activities with the potential to negatively affect wildlife resources are occurring on private lands adjacent to the Forest. Aquatic resources. Aquatic resources will be adequately protected by standards and guidelines in all alternatives. All alternatives maintain habitat with potential for viable Colorado River cutthroat trout populations; Alternative D provides the most. Recreational fishing opportunities are highest in Alternative C due to its emphasis on amenities. Vacant Grazing Allotments About 248,000 acres are rated as capable of supporting livestock within 51 vacant allotments on the White River National Forest. These acres were analyzed to determine which allotments or portions of allotments have value for domestic livestock grazing and should be retained as vacant (until further site-specific analysis can be conducted) and which ones have little or no value and can be closed to future grazing use. Information gathered on each allotment included acres capable of supporting livestock, last grazing period, access, adjacent active allotments, value to aid in future management flexibility, and demand for grazing in the past ten years. Other information gathered included levels of recreation use; potential conflicts with adjacent landowners; special wildlife concerns, such as presence of threatened and endangered species or bighorn sheep; and whether the allotments were located within research natural areas, wild and scenic rivers, special interest areas, Wilderness, or areas recommended as Wilderness. Closing vacant allotments eliminates the use of these areas for domestic livestock production in the future and removes them from the suitable land base. While closing vacant allotments does not reduce current permitted animal unit months, it does reduce future management flexibility by eliminating the possibility of using these areas to resolve future conflicts between livestock grazing and other resources or provide forage in drought years. See the Vacant Allotment Alternatives map in the map package for the location of these areas. The acres that would be removed from the suitable land base by the closing or partial closing of vacant allotments is shown in Table 3. Table 3 Acres removed from the suitable land base for domestic livestock grazing ALTERNATIVE IS C D E F I 0 160,000 136,000 197,000 81,000 173,000 -26- Table 4 displays how the allotments vary by alternative in terms of whether they should be retained, closed, or partially closed. Table 4 Summary of vacant allotments ALTERNATIVE Recommended status B C D E F I Cattle allotments recommended for retention 23 5 6 4 10 11 Cattle allotments recommended for partial retained 0 3 4 0 2 3 Cattle allotments recommended for closure 0 15 13 19 11 9 Sheep allotments recommended for retention 28 8 6 4 18 5 Sheep allotments recommended for partial retention 0 4 8 0 4 0 Sheep allotments recommended for closure 0 16 14 24 6 23 Total vacant allotments 51 51 51 51 51 51 Decisions to retain or close vacant allotments will be made on an allotment-by-allotment basis and will be separate from the record of decision for the FEIS. Recreation Management This topic includes recreation, ski-based resorts, aerial transportation corridors and scenic resources. Maps in the map packet related to recreation management are Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, Scenic Integrity Levels and Management Areas. Recreation. The White River National Forest is capable of providing a variety of recreation settings for non-motorized and motorized opportunities in summer and winter. The quantity, quality and distribution of recreation opportunities depends on the mix of recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes available and the theme of each alternative. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the mix of ROS settings, by alternative, in summer and winter. Budget levels will continue to affect the quality of services in developed facilities in all alternatives. Under the experienced budget level (the average Forest budget from 1995 to 1997), the number of developed units that could be rehabilitated or reconstructed ranges from 59 units in Alternative E to 41 units in Alternative F. On the Forest, one family campground may have between four and 108 units. The Forest's current backlog in facility maintenance makes reconstruction of existing facilities a higher priority than the building of new ones. Consequently, developed capacity would be exceeded within the planning period in all alternatives because of the increased developed recreation use that is expected to occur. A large share of the recreation budget would be allocated to recreation special uses in all alternatives, especially in Alternatives C and E, because of commitments authorized by existing permits. Under the experienced budget level, only 14 permits could be administered annually to standard in Alternatives B, C, D, F and I, as defined in Meaningful Measures (a Forest Service process that helps improve services to -27- recreation visitors by setting quality standards, prioritizing work by visitor preference, and making better use of available funding). These 14 permits are for concessionaires and ski-based resort operators. Alternative E provides for the annual administration of 134 permits to standard, or 39 percent of the Forest's existing recreation permits. Dispersed recreation includes motorized and non-motorized activities outside of developed areas. Alternative F provides the most summer and winter motorized opportunities; Alternative I provides the most summer and winter non-motorized opportunities. Because dispersed capacity depends on the ROS classes available and the transportation system, Alternative I has the lowest capacity outside of Wilderness, followed by Alternatives D, C, E, F and B. Because dispersed use is projected to increase in all alternatives, summer capacity outside of Wilderness may be reached within the planning period in all alternatives. Alternative C provides for more dispersed campsites, approximately three percent of known campsites, to be rehabilitated or reconstructed annually, followed by Alternatives E, D, B, I and F. Wilderness capacity depends on the ROS classes and trail systems provided under each alternative. Alternative I provides the most capacity, followed by Alternatives C and F, B, E and D. Current use projections indicate that Wilderness capacity would not be reached within the planning period in any alternative. Trails provide the opportunity to experience backcountry settings, get away from traffic and crowding, find solitude, and test survival skills. Under the experienced budget level, the amount of annual trail maintenance conducted outside of Wilderness ranges from 466 miles in Alternative E to 187 miles in Alternative F. Inside Wilderness, Alternative C provides the most annual trail maintenance at 742 miles, and Alternative F provides the least annual trail maintenance at 171 miles. Alternative E provides the most trail miles reconstructed or constructed inside (10 miles) and outside (12 miles) Wilderness. 4~ ILw t rtsi ':L Aj -28- Figure 8 Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) in summer, by alternative (ROS classes: P = primitive; SPNM = semi primitive non-motorized, SPM = semi primitive motorized, RN = roaded natural; RM = roaded modified; R = rural; U = urban) Alternative B - Summer Alternative E - Summer 1,000 1,000- U) SPM CU 750 P cri 750 P j SPM 0 -C 500 SPNM t 500 c ~ c SPNtiI n F-M m 250 RM 250 Q RN f R Q RN R 0 U 0RM U ROS Class ROS Class Alternative C - Summer Alternative F - Summer 1,000 1,000 c~u 750 P' SPM ~ 750 P SPM 500- w 1 X- SPN500- I SP RM ai 250 G (D 250 NM , i Q RN RM R RN R Q 0 U U 0 ROS Class ROS Class Alternative D - Summer Alternative I - Summer 1,000 SPM 1,000 P -0 P ~ -o 750 CIS 750- SPNM (n Cn 0 o SPM 500 SPNM 500 250 250 ~ RN Q 0 RM R U Q 0 RN RM R U L -LA-At m ROS Class ROS Class -29- Figure 9 Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) in winter, by alternative (ROS classes: P = primitive; SPNM = semi primitive non-motorized,- SPM = semi primitive motorized; RN = roaded natural; RM = roaded modified; R = rural; U = urban) Alternative B - Winter Alternative E - Winter 1,000 SPM 1,000 SrPM 'a _0 P Ca 750 P cz 750 j o 0 500 500 SPNM I SPNM En U) 250 t RM 250 Q RN R U Q.' RN RM R U 0 0 6A mm ROS Class ROS Class Alternative C - Winter Alternative F - Winter 1,000 1,000 Cl) P SPM SPiM (z 750 1 750 P ~ =3 0 ~ 500 " SPNM 500 H c ' RM 250 SP NM r,4 7-7 N 250 Q RN RM R U Q RN R U OL ROS Class ROS Class Alternative D - Winter Alternative l - Winter 1,000 1,000 P Cn U) 1 ~ P SPM ° SPNM (z 750 4 ccu 750 o r SPNM 0 500 500 . SPM 0 250 250 U 0 0 Q _ RN RM R U Q RN RM R U ROS Class ROS Class -30- Ski-based resorts. Twelve ski-based resorts operate on NFS lands administered by the Forest. Eleven of these areas are administered by the White River National Forest, and one (Ski Cooper) is administered by the Pike-San Isabel National Forests. Skiing is the most popular recreation activity on the Forest - winter sports are the foundation of a strong and growing tourist economy in Colorado. The combined daily capacity of the ski-based resorts administered by the Forest is about 94,000 skiers per day, or about 7.8 million skier visits per year. Collectively, ski-based resorts on the Forest have an annual capacity of about 9.1 million skiers. The 7.6 million annual skier visits experienced in 1997 is 82 percent of the available annual capacity. If the same ratio of available capacity to annual skier use is projected to 2010, the Forest would need to provide an annual capacity of about 10.3 million skier visits to accommodate an expected 8.7 million skiers. Between 1984 and 1997, the total number of acres permitted for skiing was reduced 14 percent from 48,501 acres to 41,744 acres. Rapid population growth in Colorado in recent years is contributing to an increase in demand for skiing in Colorado. In the past 10 years, skier visits increased about 2.6 percent annually. Table 5 Summary of ski area changes between 1987 and 1996 1987 1997 Notes Acres under permit 48,501 41,744 15% decrease; Adam's Rib, Aspen Highlands, Snowmass and Arapahoe Basin reduced Skiable acres 9,546 16,883 The majority of new ski trails were cleared within existing permit boundaries Percent of skiable acres 19.8% 40.7% 77% increase in skiable acres Daily capacity 74,976 93,709 24% increase in daily capacity Annual capacity 6,900,000 9,200,000 Daily capacity is fixed. Annual capacity may vary due to changes in length of the ski season. Annual skier visits 5,900,000 7,600,000 24% increase in annual skier visits. Each of the six forest management alternatives allows continued operation of the 11 ski- based resorts currently operating on NFS lands, according to the terms of special use permits authorized by the Forest. Each alternative provides a different level of potential annual skier capacity based on a variety of potential expansion sites. Alternatives B, E and F attempt to meet skier demand and provide the highest levels of service. Alternatives D and I do not allocate any additional NFS lands for skiing beyond current levels. Opportunities for skiing in these alternatives would remain stagnant at approved capacity levels. Table 6 Annual ski area capacity* made available by alternative ALTERNATIVE B C D E F 1 Total (millions) 11.57 10.36 9.22 12.34 11.15 9.19 annual capacity is the number of skier visits in one year. - 31 - Recreation use during the summer season has grown dramatically at most ski-based resorts since 1984, creating the need to manage summer recreation use on NFS lands both within and adjacent to permitted sites. Use of existing skiing facilities to provide outdoor recreation opportunities during the summer season is encouraged by the Forest Service. Gondola and chairlift rides, hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking are popular activities at most ski-based resorts. Interpretive programs and visitor information services that provide information about national forests are also popular. Aerial transportation corridors. With the rapid growth of regional populations and increased tourism, transportation has emerged as one of the primary issues faced by resort communities adjacent to the Forest. Alternative transportation opportunities that have the potential to directly affect NFS lands include the use of gondolas, trams, or chairlifts to move pedestrians to, from, or between key locations at resort communities. Such aerial transportation systems may be used as "people movers" to provide an alternative to ground-based transportation systems. In some cases, the annual number of miles driven could be substantially reduced. Aerial tramways have the potential to lower air pollution from auto emissions, improve automobile and pedestrian circulation, and provide a convenient transportation service. Aerial transportation systems can also provide a source of recreation in the form of scenic rides and access to NFS lands. Table 7 Acres allocated for aerial transportation corridors, by county and alternative ALTERNATIVE County B C D E F I Eagle 0 0 0 1,672 956 0 Garfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pitkin 0 75 0 0 75 0 Summit 0 346 0 1,076 366 0 Forest total 0 421 0 2,748 1,397 0 Alternatives C, E and F allow aerial transportation systems on NFS lands. In particular, Alternatives E and F make the highest allocations to this management area, while Alternatives B, D and I do not allocate any lands for this purpose. Scenic resources. Scenery is an integral component of all forest settings that contributes to the quality of the user's experience. The most obvious and significant effects on scenic resources are from vegetation and landform alterations from road construction, vegetation management, powerline clearing, recreation facility, development, and mineral exploration and development. The scenic integrity levels (SILs) of very high, high and moderate will result in a relatively natural-appearing landscape, which research has shown to be preferred by the public. Therefore, it is important for the Forest to manage scenery at this level. Table 8 displays the amount of natural-appearing landscapes for each alternative. -32- Table 8 Acres of natural-appearing landscapes by alternative ALTERNATIVE B C D E F 1 1,710,000 1,834,000 1,686,000 1,971,000 1,580,000 2,008,000 Each management area has a range of SILs. The SILs vary by alternative based on the management areas assigned to it. The result is a range of SIL maps depicting very high SIL (unaltered landscapes) to very low SIL (heavily altered andscapes). When the final Forest Plan is approved, these SILs will become scenic integrity objectives that will serve as a guide for design and implementation of management activities. Infrastructure and Travel Management Infrastructure. Most revision alternatives propose a reduction in the size of the Forest Road Development Transportation System. Alternative I reduces the road system the most from its current level of 2,356 miles to 1,676. The extent of the road system increases from this level in Alternatives C, D, E and B. Alternative F proposes the largest road system at 2,409 miles and is also the only alternative that will have a road system greater than the current level. New road construction levels are anticipated to be lower than 1984 Forest Plan projections for all alternatives. Most new construction is expected from timber management activities, with Alternative F producing the most new miles in the planning period. Road reconstruction varies by alternative and may actually increase above current levels to bring roads into compliance with new standards and guidelines. Obliteration and recontouring of roads identified for decommissioning will occur in all alternatives-Alternative I obliterates the most roads at 996 miles, and Alternative F obliterates the fewest roads at 269 miles. Depending on funding, the actual completion of this work will take from 18 to 31 years. Travel Management. Summer and winter issues vary significantly across the Forest - the travel management topic was developed to address both. The analysis for travel management has gone into greater detail than many previous forest plans in order to create a site-specific travel management plan for the entire Forest for each alternative. One portion of the travel management decision will determine which, if any, areas will be available for off-road motorized and/or mechanized travel. Figure 10 displays the extent of the Forest where off-road vehicle travel will be available by alternative. Every inventoried road and trail has been mapped and travel management strategies for each proposed alternative are listed in Appendix O of the DEIS. The miles of roads and trails open to motorized travel, which varies considerably by alternative, is of great interest to the public and a significant travel management issue. Figure 11 displays the total miles of roads and trails on which motorized travel will be designated. -33- Figure 10 Acres of NFS land open to off-road motorized or mechanized travel 1600- Off-road Motorized 1245 Off-road Mechanized 1200- 800- C 623 0 H 400 301 t14~ 169 164 205 84 0 0 0 9 -11 B C D E F I Figure 11 Miles of roads and trails open to motorized travel 2500 Trails 2000 Roads 1500 - d 1000 500 i 0 - -J - B c D E F I In winter, the primary issue for travel management and recreation use was the perceived lack of non-motorized recreation areas. Wilderness is considered by many to be inaccessible to non-motorized uses such as cross-country skiing and snowshoeing due to the steepness of the terrain, avalanche hazards, southern aspects or remoteness from trailheads. To address this issue, some alternatives attempted to allocate more land outside of Wilderness to non-motorized travel only. -34- Another issue influencing winter travel management is the effect of motorized travel on wildlife habitat. Some alternatives reduce the acres of motorized areas to avoid conflicts occurring in wildlife winter ranges. Figure 12 displays the acreage of Forest land proposed for non-motorized travel only. Figure 12 Acres of NFS land where motorized travel is restricted Motorized Use on Designated Routes Only 1200 Closed to Motorized Use y d V Q 800 N C t0 7 O ~ 400 0 B C D E F I Roadless Areas Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System are made only by Congress. During the forest planning process, national forests are required to inventory their roadless areas, evaluate the wilderness values of these areas, and recommend to Congress those areas that meet the criteria for Wilderness designation. Roadless areas can be managed as RNAs or special interest areas; they can be used for resource production or to provide non-motorized recreation; or, if suitable, they can be recommended as Wilderness. A full inventory of roadless areas on the White River National Forest included all areas that are undeveloped and that do not have any permanent evidence of human use. Each inventoried area was evaluated for potential Wilderness recommendation, focusing on three primary criteria--capability, availability and need. These are measures of the area's wilderness characteristics, its value relative to other uses, and its value as an additional wilderness resource at its location. The 1984 Forest Plan does not contain a roadless area inventory. Although the second roadless area review and evaluation (RARE II) had just been completed when the Plan was prepared, it was found to be of limited accuracy and utility. For the revised Plan, a new and more complete inventory was needed to address ongoing roadless area management issues. Each undeveloped area on the Forest was identified during the inventory according to the following measures: -35- • it contained 5,000 acres or more, or • it contained fewer than 5,000 acres but (a) was manageable in its natural condition, or (b) was a self-contained ecosystem, or (c) was adjacent to an existing Wilderness, and • it did not contain facilities for purposes of travel by vehicles greater than 50 inches in width. Areas were excluded if they contained reservoirs, utility corridors, electronic sites, developed recreation sites, or current mining activity. However, some improvements were deemed acceptable-if motorized trails, fences, outfitter camps, or historical mining and timber activities were present, the area was still regarded as physically undeveloped. During the evaluation, all physically undeveloped areas were evaluated for capability. Only those found to be capable of Wilderness recommendation were evaluated for availability. Only those found to be available were evaluated to determine the need to recommend them for Wilderness designation. Using these criteria, 37 areas were found to be capable of and available for Wilderness recommendation on the Forest. Collectively, these areas comprise about 298,000 acres. Table 9 summarizes capable and available roadless acres recommended for Wilderness (Management Area 1.2) by alternative. It also shows whether they are adjacent to existing Wilderness. Table 9 Areas of Management Area 1.2, by alternative ALTERNATIVE B C D E F I Acres of Management Area 1.2 0 94,300 47,200 103,000 0 205,000 Percent of capable and available roadless areas recommended for 0 32 16 35 0 69 Wilderness Number of adjacent areas 0 9 3 0 0 22 Number of non-adjacent areas 0 1 2 6 0 4 Alternative I recommends both the largest number of roadless areas for Wilderness designation and the largest number of acres. Alternative E recommends the next highest acreage, but fewer areas. There are fewer, but larger roadless areas recommended in Alternative E than there are in Alternative C. Alternative C recommends 10 areas, with less acreage than E or I and more acres than D. Of the alternatives that do recommend Wilderness, D has the fewest areas and the fewest acres. Alternatives B and F make no recommendations. Capable and available roadless areas were assigned either Management Area 1.2 or allocated to one of the other available management areas. Table 10 summarizes how roadless areas have been assigned to different management areas. -36- The seven management area categories (see page 11) have been aggregated into three groups to show what types of management will occur on these lands. Management Area Categories 1 and 2 were combined into Group 1; Categories 3 and 4 into Group 2; and Categories 5, 7 and 8 into Group 3. This table also shows what acreage and percent of roadless areas in each alternative have been assigned Management Area 1.2 (recommended for Wilderness). Table 10 Summary of capable and available roadless acres in different management area categories, by alternative ALTERNATIVE B C D E F I Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % MA 1.2 0 0 94,300 32 47,200 16 103,000 35 0 0 205,000 69 Group 1 21,900 7 105,200 35 77,100 26 34,000 11 33,500 11 53,100 18 Group 2 126,600 42 44,200 15 15,000 5 131,800 44 25,700 9 25,500 8 Group 3 149,400, 50, 54,400, 18 158,900 53, 29,200 10 238,800 80, 14,200 5 Total 298,000 100 298,000 100 298,000 100 298,000 100 298,000 100 298,000 100 Roadless areas allocated to Categories 1 and 2 (Group 1) are most likely to retain their undeveloped character. These categories are basically non-motorized with backcountry emphases. This includes roadless areas that will be managed as RNAs and some special interest areas. Alternative C manages the highest percentage of roadless areas in Categories 1 and 2. Alternative D has the next highest percentage, followed by I, E, F and B. Categories 3 and 4 (Group 2) emphasize various types of recreation. With an emphasis on human uses, the roadless areas that are assigned to management areas in these categories are likely to retain some undeveloped characteristics but also to include some motorized opportunities. Development in these management areas, however, does not include intensive land management activities such as commercial timber harvest or ski- based resorts. Alternatives E and B allocate the largest percentage to Categories 3 and 4, with 44 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Categories 5, 7 and 8 (Group 3) will have the most intensive development and have the potential to have the most significant impact on the undeveloped character of roadless areas. Roadless areas in these management areas may have timber harvest, road construction, motorized uses, utility corridors and wildlife habitat developments. Alternative F has 80 percent of the roadless areas managed with these management areas. Alternatives D and B manage about half of the roadless areas this way, while Alternatives C, E and I contain a low percentage of roadless areas assigned to Group 3. Special Areas Heritage Resources. The White River National Forest contains a rich fabric of historic and prehistoric resources known as heritage resources. Only 5 to 10 percent of the Forest has been intensively inventoried to locate these resources. However, each time a ground-disturbing activity is planned the law requires that an inventory be conducted to -37- mitigate any impacts to heritage resources. In addition to these actions, at least 125 sites are monitored annually for any adverse effects or vandalism. Because of the protections afforded under various laws, adverse effects to heritage resources are minimal. Research natural areas (RNAs). RNAs are established to maintain areas of natural ecosystems and areas of special ecological significance. The Forest currently shares one RNA (Hoosier Ridge) with the Pike National Forest. Fifteen potential RNAs have been identified for possible inclusion into the system. These range in size from 1,420 to 24,450 acres. The number and vegetation representation of proposed RNAs varies depending on the theme of each alternative. Alternative B proposes no additional RNAs; Alternative E proposes four additional RNAs, totalling 60,000 acres; Alternative F proposes seven additional RNAs, 69,300 acres; Alternative C proposes nine additional RNAs, 87,300 acres; Alternative D proposes 12 additional RNAs, 106,100 acres; and Alternative I proposes 15 additional RNAs, 129,600 acres. Scenic byways. Parts of three scenic and historic byways pass through the Forest. These byways promote scenic and historic values along their routes. Forest lands along the byways can be allocated with an emphasis on the same values as the byways. Alternatives B and F offer the least support to this emphasis while Alternatives E and C offer the most. Caves. Within the boundaries of the Forest is a significant concentration of caves with resources that are essentially non-renewable. The Forest Plan Revision will integrate protections, under the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act, for at least some of these valuable resources. Alternatives C, D, F and I will recognize 42 "significant" caves. Alternative E recognizes three "significant" caves. Alternative B does not recognize any "significant" caves. National trails. The Forest manages a segment of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and three National Recreation Trails. Other trails of national or regional significance either cross or are proposed to cross the Forest. All of these trails play a role in providing trail-related recreation in systems that reach beyond Forest boundaries. Effects on national trails will be minimal and do not vary significantly among alternatives. Special interest areas. The Forest has some special and unique resources. Planning procedures and regulations allow for the recognition and protection of these resources. Six special interest areas have been variously proposed among the alternatives to emphasize recreation use and interpretation of the environment. Alternative E proposes the most areas allocated to this purpose, followed by Alternatives C and I. Alternatives B, D and F propose no allocations for this purpose. Thirteen special interest areas have been proposed among the alternatives to minimize recreation and other uses in order to protect their special biological values. Alternative D would allocate the most land for this purpose, followed by Alternatives I, C, E and F. Alternative B would allocate no lands for this purpose. Wild and Scenic Rivers. Forests are directed to evaluate their rivers during the planning process for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). The Forest evaluated all of its rivers, including 77 in detail, and found five rivers totalling 103 miles to be eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS: the South Fork of the White River, the Crystal River, Deep Creek, the Colorado River in Glenwood Canyon, and Cross Creek. The South Fork of the White River, Deep Creek and the Crystal River are recognized in -38- Alternative B, while all of the eligible rivers are recognized in Alternatives C through I. These rivers will be managed to maintain their eligibility until a detailed suitability study is completed. The second phase of river evaluation, suitability study, will be considered when: • strong local interest or support is demonstrated for wild and scenic designation, and • Congress expresses interest in a specific river for Wild and Scenic designation, or • a proposed project would alter the free-flowing character of a stream, such as impoundment, or would affect the resources that made the stream eligible. Wilderness. The Forest manages three areas as Wilderness and shares management of five additional areas with adjacent national forests. About one-third of the Forest has been designated by Congress as Wilderness. In addition to providing a resource for recreation, these areas are also important for maintaining species diversity, protecting threatened and endangered species, protecting watersheds, and providing for scientific research and various social values. Alternatives analyzed in this forest plan revision vary wilderness management by allocating different acreages to be managed as pristine (Management Area 1.11), primitive (1.12) or semi-primitive (1.13). Pristine allocations range from nine percent of the total area of Wilderness on the Forest in Alternative E, to 15 percent of the total area in Alternative I. Primitive allocations range from 84 percent of the total area of Wilderness on the Forest in Alternative E, to 91 percent of the total area in Alternative D. Semi-primitive allocations range from 0.3 percent of the total area of Wilderness on the Forest in Alternative I, to six percent of the total area in Alternative E. Timber Suitability/Allowable Sale Quantity The identification of areas suitable and available for timber harvest is required in the forest planning process (36 CFR 219.14). The allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is determined from the analysis of suitable timber lands. There is a high level of public interest in designation of land suitable for timber production and the resulting ASQ. With increased public scrutiny of below-cost timber sales, the financial efficiency of the timber program is also a key issue. Figure 13 displays the lands that are suitable, including scheduled and unscheduled, for timber production for each alternative. Alternatives F, B and D have the largest amounts of suitable timber lands. Figure 14 displays the ASQ (full implementation level) and volume offer (constrained to the experienced budget level) for sawtimber for the first decade of the Plan's imple- mentation for each alternative. The full implementation level represents the funding of all programs at a level one and one-half times as much as the experienced budget level (the amount of funding that the Forest actually receives each year, shown here as the average annual budget between 1995 and 1997). Alternative F provides the highest ASQ and volume offered under the experienced budget level. Figure 15 displays the net returns for the timber program for the first decade of the Plan's implementation for each alternative. No alternative is below cost for timber management. Alternative F generates the highest net returns. -39- Figure 13 Acres suitable for timber harvest (scheduled and unscheduled) 700,000- 560,000 m 420,000- 280,000-- 140,000-T 0 B C D E F I Alternative Figure 14 Sawtimber ASQ and volume offer 45,000 ASQ 36,000-- (D 1 Volume offer w 27,000 18,000 co 9,000 0t B C D E F I Alternative Figure 15 Net returns from the timber program 1,500,000 Full budget level 1,200,000 Experienced budget level L 900,000 ea p 600,000-- 300,000-1- 0- B C D E F I Alternative -40- Social and Economic Environment The relationship between the White River National Forest and local lifestyles and economies is highly interdependent and complex. Skiing, Wilderness, exceptional scenery, and headwaters vital to various municipal water sources all provide a stunning backdrop to mountain communities that are growing at alarming rates. The DEIS looked at current conditions and made population projections in the vicinity of the Forest. Socio-economic planning area. The Forest is located in portions of nine counties; however, only five of these counties have important social and economic ties locally. These five counties are Eagle, Garfield, Pitkin, Rio Blanco and Summit. The robust tourism-based economy and high cost of living in some of these counties has caused a direct spillover to two adjacent counties, Lake and Grand, which provide public services and affordable housing for service and retail workers employed in Summit and Eagle Counties. These counties are the focus of the social and economic analyses in the Plan. Population. In the first half of the 1990s, weak economies on both coasts of the United States, technological advances in communications, and changing preferences of "baby boomers" were some of the factors that prompted a migration to the central Rocky Mountains. High-growth rates in mountain communities continue today, and are expected to continue in the foreseeable future. Since 1990, population in the seven- county area has increased 30 percent, and is expected to nearly double by 2010. These numbers account only for permanent residents-seasonal fluctuations from skiing and winter tourism employment is important in all of these counties. Table 11 Populations in the seven-county area County 1990 1995 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020 Eagle 24,330 31,746 35,309 39,955 46,762 52,611 62,336 Garfield 31,658 37,780 40,165 43,900 50,485 58,058 74,132 Grand 8,807 10,140 10,844 11,966 13,923 16,075 20,740 Lake 6,639 8,172 9,132 10,570 12,857 15,428 20,402 Pitkin 13,960 15,811 15,840 16,597 18,645 20,671 24,343 Rio Blanco 6,182 7,106 7,259 7,705 8,470 9,247 10,656 Summit 14,235 18,972 20,810 23,783 28,659 33,458 41,591 Total 105,811 129,727 139,359 154,476 179,801 205,548 254,200 Source: Colorado State Demographers Office, March 1999 Garfield, Eagle and Summit Counties account for 70 percent of the area population today, and are projected to account for the same in 2010. These counties, along the I-70 corridor, are projected to grow 2.5 percent annually in the next two decades. From 1990 to 1997, Eagle and Summit Counties ranked as the ninth and tenth fastest growing counties in Colorado. Of the remaining counties, Lake and Pitkin are at the extremes. Lake is projected to double in size by 2020 with an average annual growth rate of 3.3 percent. In contrast, Pitkin County exercises a policy of controlled growth and should experience a 1.9-percent growth rate. Rio Blanco is quite different from the resort/tourism-oriented counties, and is projected to grow at a modest 1.6-percent average rate out to 2020. - 41 - Table 12 Population annual growth rates in the seven-county area County 1990 1995 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020 Eagle - 5.47 5.46 4.21 3.20 2.39 1.71 Garfield - 3.58 3.11 3.01 2.83 2.83 2.47 Grand - 2.86 3.41 3.34 3.08 2.92 2.58 Lake - 4.24 5.71 5.00 4.00 3.71 2.83 Pitkin - 2.52 0.06 1.57 2.35 2.08 1.65 Rio Blanco - 2.83 1.07 2.01 1.91 1.77 1.43 Summit - 5.91 4.73 4.55 3.80 3.14 2.20 Total - 4.16 3.64 3.49 3.08 2.71 2.15 Source: Colorado State Demographers Office, March 1999 Ethnic and minority populations are rapidly changing and growing in the area. Hispanics represent the largest and fastest growing ethnic group. A large portion of this group has been drawn by, and works in, the service industry. The State of Colorado estimates that, in 1995, 15 percent of the people in Eagle County, seven percent in Garfield County, five percent in Pitkin County and Rio Blanco County, and three percent in Summit County were of Hispanic origin. Employment. Economic data prepared by the State of Colorado in conjunction with county governments and the Forest Service includes economic conditions in 1997 as well as projections to 2020. It is clear that the economy around the Forest is dominated by tourism. More than 60 percent of all workers are employed in the trade and service industries. Also apparent is that real estate development, both commercial and residential, is contributing to this booming economy. Nearly 20 percent of all workers are employed in the construction, finance, insurance and real estate industries. That leaves about 10 percent of all jobs in government (primarily state and local) and less than 10 percent in all other industries combined. This pattern is displayed by most of the counties in the area. The exception is Rio Blanco County where government, agriculture, mining and manufacturing comprise more than 50 percent of all employment. The makeup of Rio Blanco County is characteristic of traditional rural western counties, a way of life once shared by other mountain communities in the planning area decades earlier when local economies depended on natural resource commodity production. Employment in the planning area is projected to increase nearly 80 percent between 1997 and 2020. Jobs will more than double in Eagle and Lake Counties, increase 80 percent in Summit, and increase between 45 and 65 percent in other counties. -42- Table 13 Employment by major industry and county, 1997 Industry Eagle Garfield Grand Lake Pitkin Rio Blanco Summit Total Agriculture 720 884 257 11 414 451 207 2,944 Mining and 465 719 112 230 315 647 248 2,735 manufacturing Construction 5,089 2,484 549 267 2,727 238 1,860 13,213 Transportation, communication 1,038 765 211 80 535 152 512 3,294 and utilities Wholesale and 7,689 6,153 1,743 698 5,253 544 6,266 28,346 retail trade Finance, insurance 2,350 1,254 748 110 1,680 91 1,491 7,723 and real estate Services 11,398 6,915 2,818 919 7,863 769 8,266 38,948 Government 2,310 3,101 1,025 670 1,611 1,025 1,632 11,373 Total 31,058 22,275 7,463 2,984 20,398 3,916 20,482 108,576 Table 14 Employment in the seven-county area County 1990 1995 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020 Eagle 18,367 26,417 31,058 36;648 44,894 52,751 69,763 Garfield 16,065 20,339 22,275 24,276 26,704 28,707 32,252 Grand 5,354 6,886 7,463 8,247 9,071 9,525 10,401 Lake 2,548 2,745 2,984 3,315 3,928 4,655 6,102 Pitkin 16,629 18,922 20,398 22,057 24,675 27,404 33,225 Rio Blanco 3,772 3,823 3,916 4,268 4,802 5,402 6,537 Summit 13,643 19,131 20,482 22,584 26,441 30,104 36,864 Total 76,379 98,264 108,576 121,396 140,516 158,547 195,145 Table 15 Employment annual growth rates in the seven-county area County 1990 1995 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020 Eagle - 7.54 8.43 5.67 4.14 3.28 2.83 Garfield - 4.83 4.65 2.91 1.92 1.46 1.17 Grand - 5.16 4.11 3.39 1.92 0.98 0.88 Lake - 1.50 4.26 3.57 3.45 3.45 2.74 Pitkin - 2.62 3.83 2.64 2.27 2.12 1.94 Rio Blanco - 0.27 1.21 2.91 2.39 2.38 1.93 Summit - 7.00 3.47 3.31 3.20 2.63 2.05 Total - 5.17 5.12 3.79 2.97 2.44 2.10 -43- Forest contributions to area economy. The Forest provides jobs and income to the planning area through a variety of resource programs. Table 16 shows that spending associated with downhill skiing on NFS lands dominates, providing 94 percent of all national forest-related jobs and 78 percent of all national forest-related income. The percentage of hunting and fishing-related jobs in the area is very small relative to other types of recreation. The smallest job provider is timber harvesting, primarily because no large processing facility is located in the area. In total, jobs associated with national forest management activities currently provide nearly a third of the planning area jobs and 27 percent of the area labor income. The Forest contributes more to its local economy than any other national forest in the Rocky Mountain Region. Table 16 White River National Forest contributions to the area economy by program, 1997 Resource programs Employment (jobs) Labor income Recreation use 33,444 721,816,770 Skiing 31,996 579,181,417 Other recreation 1,448 142,635,353 Fish and wildlife use 45 1,099,489 Grazing 98 1,682,370 Timber harvest 31 585,312 Payments to states/counties 50 1,434,020 Forest service expenditures 274 10,929,564 Total forest management 33,943 737,547,525 Forest total as a percent of total area 31.3 27.0 Mountain community economic growth. Community growth in the planning area is demonstrated by population growth, increased personal income, more jobs, and an expanded second-home industry. These trends are occurring throughout the planning area although at different rates in each county. There is much discussion and speculation regarding the link between four-season resorts and community growth in the area. Towns such as Vail were established around ski areas; others, like Aspen and Breckenridge, existed well before the development of the ski areas. As these towns grew, and recreation grew in terms of both number of visitors and types of recreation opportunities, more services were needed. Consequently, other towns-Basalt/El Jebel, Carbondale, Eagle, Frisco, Gypsum, Glenwood Springs, New Castle, Rifle and Silt-grew to house and supply workers and provide support services within commuting distance. Some of these towns are now large enough to provide an economic base and amenities needed to support economic ventures other than resort-based recreation. While ski resorts have been the historic engines of growth, they have given way to a "critical mass" of tourism diversity that now includes performing arts, business conferences, and outlet retail centers. Skier visits throughout the area have been growing much slower than growth indicators. What started decades ago as a traditional seasonal ski economy has now developed into a very diverse year-round tourism-based economy. -44- Other factors that have contributed to area growth include breathtaking scenery, small- town atmosphere, and international visitors. Telecommunication technology and improved transportation access have also played a role. These factors coupled with national demographics and a very robust national economy have drawn many permanent residents and second-home owners to the Forest area. Changes in recreational uses of the Forest, agency expenditures (salaries, equipment, contracts), and the use of timber and forage resources have direct and indirect effects on planning area jobs and income. An increase in recreation or timber production may mean an increase in jobs and income to local counties. In addition, if production is decreased in one resource and increased in another, there is a shifting of jobs from one industry to another. Table 17 displays the change in employment by resource for each alternative. Figures are displayed for both the desired condition and experienced budget levels. The base year of 1994 was used as a starting point for total jobs and income. The table reflects how jobs and income would decrease or increase from 1994 levels. Recreation-related jobs tend to be within the service industry and are low-paying. Since range-related jobs are often family oriented, these jobs are also low-paying. Timber-related jobs tend to be higher-paying. Thus, an increase in recreation or range jobs does not generate as high of an increase in income as would timber. Table 17 indicates that total jobs attributed to Forest use will increase in all alternatives. Increases range from 21 to 29 percent. Nearly all of the increases result from increased skiing and other recreation use. Jobs and labor income resulting from timber harvest are the only indicators that could drop, with employment changes ranging from a loss of 22 jobs to a gain of six jobs. Effects on economic efficiency. The main criterion used in assessing economic efficiency is present net value (PNV), which is defined as the value of discounted benefits minus discounted costs. A PNV analysis includes all outputs, including timber, grazing and recreation, to which monetary values are assigned. The monetary values include both market and non-market values received by the public. In addition, a financial efficiency analysis has been completed to determine the net financial returns of each alternative. A financial efficiency analysis is the PNV of Forest Service revenues and costs. Table 18 displays the economic and financial PNV for each alternative. All monetary values are expressed in constant dollars with no allowance for inflation. The reduction of PNV in any alternative as compared to the most financially or economically efficient solution is the economic trade-off, or opportunity cost, of achieving that alternative. -45- Table 17 Change to employment by program by alternative Total number of jobs contributed Resource Base year B C D E F 1 (1997) Experienced budget level Skiing 31,995 41,129 41,129 38,699 41,129 41,129 38,556 Other recreation 1,448 1,957 1,957 1,951 1,957 1,904 2,066 Fish and wildlife use 45 48 48 48 48 49 47 Grazing 98 98 98 98 98 105 98 Timber harvest 31 24 9 17 9 37 12 25% payments to 50 80 64 66 64 83 62 states/counties Forest Service 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 expenditures Total forest management 33,943 43,610 43,580 41,153 43,580 43,580 41,115 Percent change from 1997 - 28.5 28.4 21.2 28.4 28.4 21.1 Full budget level Skiing 31,995 41,129 41,129 38,699 41,129 41,129 38,556 Other recreation 1,448 1,957 1,957 1,951 1,957 1,904 2,066 Fish and wildlife use 45 48 48 48 48 49 47 Grazing 98 98 98 98 98 105 98 Timber harvest 31 32 11 23 12 51 13 25% payments to 50 80 66 70 66 93 64 states/counties Forest Service 274 411 411 411 411 411 411 expenditures Total forest management 33,943 43,756 43,720 41,300 43,721 43,742 41,256 Percent change from 1997 - 28.9 28.8 21.7 28.8 28.9 21.5 The economic PNV (public values less agency costs) is positive for all alternatives at both budget levels. There is only a seven percent difference between the lowest and highest PNV - a difference that falls well within the estimated accuracies for value and output estimates. The highest PNVs are realized under experienced budget levels. Alternatives B, C and E all exceed $20 billion. The lowest PNV is realized for Alternative I under the full budget level. -46- Table 18 Economic and financial efficiency (in millions of 1997 dollars) ALTERNATIVE Experienced budget level B C D E F I Present value $276 $239 $248 $239 $306 $232 Forest Service revenues Present value public benefits $19,798 $19,761 $19,049 $19,767 $19,376 $18,608 Present value costs $260 $260 $260 $260 $260 $260 Financial PNV $16 -$21 -$11 -$20 $46 -$28 Economic PNV $19,538 $19,501 $18,789 $19,507 $19,116 $18,348 Full budget level Present value $301 $249 $267 $250 $345 $241 Forest Service revenues Present value public benefits $19,568 $19,514 $18,811 $19,521 $19,159 $18,361 Present value costs $389 $389 $389 $389 $389 $389 Financial PNV -$88 -$140 -$122 -$139 -$44 -$148 Economic PNV $19,179 $19,125 $18,422 $19,132 $18,770 $17,972 Net public benefit is defined as the overall value to the Nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) less all the associated Forest Service inputs and negative effects (costs) for producing those primary benefits, whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. Thus, net public benefits conceptually are the sum of PNV plusthe net value of non- priced outputs. When evaluating trade-offs, the use of PNV and net public benefit is often misunder- stood. In each alternative, PNV was maximized in an attempt to ensure that the alternative would be efficient in its use of tax dollars and land. The economic and financial PNVs coupled with indicators for such goals and objectives as supporting the economies of local communities, maintaining biological diversity and providing pleasing visual qualities, can be used to estimate net public benefits, compare alternatives and assist in choosing a preferred alternative. .r -47- How to Comment on the Draft Documents Release of the Draft Revision Documents The Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan and DEIS will be released in August 1999. A news release will be issued to let the public know the documents are available and there is a 90-day public comment period. The news release will also include an address where written comments may be sent, as well as dates and locations of open houses. Printed sets of documents, a CD-ROM, or this summary will be mailed to those who have requested them. A map package will be sent to those who requested to review the documents, regardless of review format. Open Houses Open houses will be held in the towns of Aspen, Avon, Carbondale, Denver, Dillon, Eagle, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, Meeker and Rifle. The objective of these meetings will be to share what is in the draft documents; to provide an opportunity for the public to visit one-on-one with specialists, the planning staff, Forest Supervisor and District Rangers; and to receive written comments. Please contact your local Forest Service office for dates and locations of these open houses. Meeting with Groups The planning staff and specialists will be available to meet with groups, organizations and individuals upon request to discuss the draft documents. Comments All comments received will be read and significant issues identified through a content analysis that organizes the comments by their subject matter. These significant issues will be addressed in the FEIS, with many incorporated into the selected alternative. All comments and the Forest's responses to these comments will be published as an appendix to the FEIS. FEIS and Revised Land and Resource Management Plan The final documents (FEIS, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, and accompanying Record of Decision) will be released in the late fall or winter of 2000. For More Information For more information, please contact the White River National Forest office nearest you or call the Forest Supervisor's Office at (970) 945-2521. Return to welcome -48-