The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-01-04 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session WHITE RIVER NF DRAFT MASTER PLAN EAGLE COUNTY REVIEW INTRODUCTION To sum up the major findings within this document. All the issues presented in this report may lead to recommendations to revise the USFS preferred alternative D. Today, it is highly unlikely that Alternative D can move to adoption intact for numerous reasons. These include: the President's Roadless Area initiative (200,000 acre impact on Eagle County for recommended wilderness alone), the New Forest Planning Rule (changes in plan framework, public participation, methodology and documentation), the new Forest Roadless Rule, the Urbanization Revision Topic (collaboration for boundaryless ecosystem management), the existing Forest Planning Rule Chapter 217 (local government Master Plan documentation and consistency requirements), Omissions and Inconsistencies identified within the Draft Forest Resource Management Plan (between goals, objectives and outcomes), the potential listing of the Lynx this month as a designated species (inter-forest conservation biology management prescriptions) , concerns over water rights issues (legality of holding instream water rights), concerns over adequate legal access amidst prescribed access closures (as mentioned in AMS), concerns over capable enforcement of the preferred transportation management alternative (budgetary limitations), concern over inadequate infrastructure maintenance for roads, trails and facilities, etcetera. These issues, and others yet to be uncovered, will be input to defining a revised alternative for the WRNF final plan recommendations that will be developed to respond within a public comment letter. The beginnings of defining an alternative are presented in the comparison of the alternatives report which displays the impacts of management alternatives on the six listed revision topics. The potentials for defining a new alternative are further elaborated in the report that addresses the relationship between goals, objectives, evaluation criteria and measurable outcomes. Making the plan more responsive to the proposed new Forest Planning Rule is a future report that will be rich in defining dimensions of the new alternative. COLLABORATIVE REVIEW PROCESS Eagle -County Planning staff have intentionally pursued a systematic review of the WRNF plan so that all local governments and relevant special interest groups may benefit from the findings. Consequently, our mapping analysis and . report generation are largely focused on the entire Forest with specific reference to Eagle County where data is available. Eagle County Planning staff will again sponsor collaborate local governmental meetings in January and February to attempt to define a common ground on which to comment on the Forest Plan. The NWCCOG has recently published a position paper on specific weaknesses of the Forest Plan, (Derived from Eagle County research efforts pertaining to the Urbanization Revision Topic and has received a grant to prepare a collaborative Local Governmental response to the plan that includes a longer term dialogue building component between local officials and Forest Service Policy level staff. We anticipate that this collaborative review with Forest Service Staff will commence soon. This effort will focus on the Urbanization Revision Topic, related intermix lands and local community social and economic sustainability. SIGNIFICANT OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE FOREST PLAN The following pages provide a brief on all the pertinent analysis that Eagle County has provided in support of a collaborative review of the WRNF Draft Plan. These analysis efforts are followed by certain plan background materials that may be helpful during a question and answer period. 1. PLAN REVIEW TIME FRAME Staff assessed the Code of Federal Regulations pertaining to Forest Planning (Title 36, Chapter 11, Subpart A, Part 219, Sec 219.10 (3) (b) general procedures - Public Review of Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. This section states in part - To comply 16 U.S.C. 1604 (d), the draft environmental impact statement and proposed plan shall be available for public comment for at least 3 months, at convenient locations in the vicinity of the lands covered by the plan, beginning on the date of the publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. Staff have attempted to verify the original date of publication in the Federal Register without success. Our recollection is that the date was August 9, 1999. Thus the initial public comment period would have expired by November 9, 1999. With hindsight, it is obvious. that a full review of the plan within this time-frame would not have been possible, particularly since we're still examining the plan documents & drafting recommendations in the beginning of year 2000. Commissioner Stone along with Congressman McGinnis obtained an extension for the plan review process by an additional three months. Recently, Senator Campbell's rider on the Appropriations Bill has extended the•review and public comment period until May 9, 2000. II. MASTER PLANS CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS Staff have identified that the draft Forest Plan does not effectively address local government planning documents. This led us to review the Code of Federal Regulations pertaining to Forest Planning (Title 36, Chapter II, Subpart A, Part 219, Sec 219.7 (c)) which states that the Line Officer shall review planning and land use policies of local governments. The results of this review shall be displayed in the EIS for the plan (40 CFR 1502.16(c), 1506.2). (It isn't.) The review shall include: (1) Consideration of the objectives of other local governments as expressed in their plans and policies; (2) An assessment of the interrelated impacts of these plans and policies; (3) A determination of how each Forest Service plan should deal with the impacts identified; and, (4) Where conflicts with the FS planning are identified, consideration of alternatives for their solution. We believe that this issue will be a central concern in the proposed collaboration between Forest Service Staff and Local Governments to define common ground in plan and alternative revisions. This issue is directly related to two additional concerns discussed below: the Urbanization Revision Topic and the Proposed Forest Planning Rule. III. URBANIZATION REVISION TOPIC Staff determined that Urbanization was unceremoniously dropped from the plan as a Revision Topic. The White River National Forest- Analvsis of the Management Situation, published in July of 1997, identified Urbanization as one of seven revision topics. The way the Forest Plan is written, each alternative management plan is to address the seven revision topics and identify management prescriptions that fit within the. general theme of the alternative. Only six of the original seven revision topics are listed within the Draft Forest Plan (biodiversity, recreation management, travel management, wilderness/ roadless areas, special areas, and timber harvest). The Urbanization Revision Topic was not addressed directly in the plan summary by any management alternative. We are in the process of researching the plan to document how the topic is "woven" into the plan & alternatives. The AMS states: There are no legal requirements related to this topic. However, Forest Service policy to cooperate with state and local governments, to engage in "boundarvless" planning. and to implement ecosvstem management clearly dictates the need for collaboration with others in developing management strategies for the forest. (AMS, page 3-38 emphasis added). Significant Local Governmental Dimensions of the Urbanization Revision Topic are identified below. A major effort to be performed during the next several months will be to define an agenda for these topic areas to be included within the collaboration process between the USFS and local governments. Access. The need for legal access to public lands and private in-holdings will increase and the potential to lose traditional access will also increase. There is a backlog of access requests. Trespass and adequate access are major public and local government issues. The AMS states that there are an additional 184 cases (land purchase, easement donations, etc.) have been identified as being needed to provide adequate legal access to the Forest. The subject is not adequately discussed within the DEIS. Landownership Adjustment. As urbanization occurs, some Forest lands can lose their character and could be considered for transfer from the National Forest system to other ownership. Property owners may resist "loss of their open space". Conversely, as development continues, trespass and the demand for use of public land for private and local government use will increase. (Connect to urban growth patterns) Recreation. Development adjacent to the Forest boundary often results in unplanned portals, trails and other t access points controlled and restricted by the property owner. At the same time, residents may oppose activities such as hunting and hiking on public lands near their property. People may oppose Forest management activities which may affect their scenic quality. (Examine the more intensive use of Forest lands near developed areas and economic dependence on the forest, impact upon second home market, comprehensive recreation plan prepared with interested parties). Fire. Adequate fire protection requires adequate access and modification of vegetation patterns on private and public lands. Many of these areas are susceptible to catastrophic fire. Development adjacent to the Forest may decrease management options and increase costs on public lands. Fire Management will require more local responsibility. This will require cooperation with state and county fire management officials and land use planners. Vegetation Management. Private property owners often oppose vegetation management practices on the Forest related to the spread of noxious weeds, insects and disease, and fire across property boundaries. Cooperative strategies with land owners and fire protection districts will be necessary. Cooperation not effectively addressed within the draft plan (See discussion below under noxious weeds) . Watersheds. Development of private lands may affect management of upper portions of the watersheds in the Forest. Inventories show that the I-70 and Hwy 82 corridor watersheds are at risk. Management may become more expensive with reduced management options. Trans-basin diversions and increasing demand for water makes this a regional issue. (See discussion of Water instream flow rights issues below, quantity and quality conservation issues conservation issues for urbanization include LDRs, Storm Water, Access) Wildlife. As private lands are developed more pressure is placed on wildlife. Human presence disturbs wildlife and development both destroys critical habitat and fragments habitat, particularly for big game. Domestic pets can harass and kill wildlife. Highways are barriers to wildlife corridors and lead to many road kills. (Collaboration on corridor conservation, LDRs, hunting and fishing access, etc.) Air Quality. As local populations increase air pollution emissions and air quality concerns will increase. The majority of highways and towns are located in mountain valleys which are prone to inversions that trap air pollutants. The Forest manages class I and II airsheds within Wilderness areas and other portions of the Forest. (Alt D has perhaps the worst overall air quality impacts due to limited road maintenance, no aerial transport corridors allocated and the second highest prescribed fire recommendations) Special uses. As private lands develop, there is an increasing demand for community and private facilities to be located on the Forest. (Many of the proposed Special Interest Areas associated with Eagle County are not recommended under alternative D such as Camp Hale, expansion of temporary SUPS is another topic). Safety. Increased use of the Forest may increase public safety issues (hunting and shooting ranges). (connect with the enforcement of forest rules) Education, Partnerships, Stewardship, Sustainable Social and Economic Community Development. These issues were not included within the original list of topics within the AMS. However, these are significant due to their presentation within the proposed new Forest Planning Rule. URBANIZATION: ESTABLISH/CHANGE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The need to establish or change Forest management direction is identified within the AMS (Analysis of the Management Situation, 1997) report, stating: In order to effectively manage the forest in the future, it is necessary to consider the impacts on both public and private lands. It is also necessary to consider the effects of development on private lands on the forest. This will include voals and objectives. and forest-wide direction. Development of a management area prescription. allocation of some lands to that prescription, and monitoring of how well actions are achieving established coals and objectives will also be necessary. The EIS Alternative H states that: "After extensive discussion, this alternative was not submitted to detailed analysis because urbanization is not directly controlled by Forest Service management activities". Forest Service personnel stated that alternative H (or boundaryless planning) was woven into the fabric of the other alternatives. Upon review ofthe topics listed above and Supplemental Table 1: Management Area Allocations, we realized that the urbanization issue was not effectively "woven into the fabric' ofthe remaining alternatives. The Land Allocations in Table I for intermix, (urban/wild land intermix), or more generally urbanization issues allocated zero acres to urban/wild land intermix or the urbanization question within the preferred alternative. Further research identified that the Forest Plan provides no goals, objectives, evaluation criteria or measurable outcomes to implement the urbanization revision topic. IV. WATER RIGHTS ISSUES Staff have begun a preliminary assessment of the situations under which the Forest Service may select to purchase water rights to achieve Forest Plan objectives. Legal case reports have been retrieved from CCI but as of yet no analysis of this has been performed. Discussions with USFS staff indicate that instream water rights were adjudicated after the 1984 plan, and rights were obtained in the Aspen Ranger District on Castle Creek in that year. While the 1999 Forest Plan has an objective to purchase instream water flow rights, we are under the impression that the USFS recognizes that only the Colorado Water Conservation Board can hold instream rights at this time. The following paragraphs indicate that given the management direction of the USFS it is likely that water rights will be purchased within the Upper Eagle River Watershed. (Perhaps rights will be purchased & dedicated to the CWCB). Management on the White River NF will provide protection of aquatic, riparian, and wetland resources by implementing the following measures: B) Perform site specific analyses of proposed management activities and assess overall impacts of past and proposed activities in terms of stream and riparian health. In watersheds in which the human or naturally caused risks are high, watershed improvements or extraordinary mitigation measures may be used to offset the impacts of the proposed project. See Appendix J for watershed risk ratings. D) Acauire and/or use water rights to protect instream flows where needed. Examples of instream flow needs include fish and wildlife habitats, threatened and endangered species, outdoor recreation uses such as rafting, and Wild and Scenic River designation. Also acquire water necessarv for administrative uses such as campgrounds, ranger stations, administrative sites, work centers, livestock and wildlife watering (Glasser 1996). The Watershed analysis composite human factor risk rating indicated that the majority of watersheds within the Eagle River Basin east of Wolcott are at high risk. The Watershed analysis composite natural factor risk rating indicated that the majority of watersheds not listed as human risks were high natural risks within the Eagle River Basin east of Wolcott. Further, nearly all watersheds associated with the Flat Tops area are listed with High Risks due to Natural Factors. The composite of the Human and natural factor ratings is summarized in the Management Situation Rating. There are 14 sixth- level watersheds in the County with a high risk rating. Generally 4 are located north and east of Vail, 3 are along the lower Piney River, 2 are north of Edwards-Avon, 3 are in the Flat Tops area, one in the Brush Creek area, one is Homestake Creek, and one is along Red Table at Frying Pan River. Staff have prepared a detailed watershed analysis prepared on rankings for all watersheds associated with Eagle County for the WRNF that is available for review. The Plan identifies several areas where the USFS may chose to purchase/exercise their rights to augment instream flows (see earlier paper for detailed areas) include Stream stretches where: Cutthroat Trout habitat and population restoration is desired, watersheds with presence of unhealthy riparian habitat or either a very low or very high percentage of water influenced vegetation; watersheds are considered "use impaired" (CDH1998a); watershed rankings are high risk due to transbasin diversions; watershed rankings are at moderate risk due to public water supply diversions; watershed rankings indicate threats based upon lack of existing USFS water rights within a watershed; watershed rankings indicate threats based upon the presence of significant impairments to the fishery within the watershed; Wild and Scenic Rivers are recommended for designation under all alternatives; wildlife watering is deemed an objective; and, water rights may be purchased to augment/dilute pollutants and protect aquatic ecosystems and to augment Snowmaking which currently uses 2,106 acre feet annually throughout the Forest. (Page 3-41); V. PRESIDENT CLINTON'S INITIATIVE AND WRNF ROADLESS AREAS The Forest Service is initiating a public rule making process to propose the protection of remaining roadless areas within the National Forest System. Staff have recognized that the President's initiative will have significant impacts upon Eagle County and may lead to a revision of the proposed alternative D in regards to wilderness recommendations, recreation opportunity spectrum delineation, hunting and fishing opportunities and in the resultant travel management prescriptions for large areas of the Forest. It is highly likely that the Roadless EIS will be included within the final WRNF Plan alternative recommendations. The packet of roadless areas inventory has been prepared and can be obtained from staff if desired. (The entire packet of roadless areas is larger than Alternative I recommendations while total "roadless" areas within the Forest reach about 600,000 acres). The vast majority of the WRNF inventoried `roadless' areas acreages for purposes of recommending wilderness additions are located within Eagle County in the Hardscrabble/Red Table/Basalt Mountain area, or are adjacent to the Holy Cross and Eagle's Nest Wildemess.(see map) Several large areas are adjacent to Eagle County in the eastern Flattops. Eagle County and adjacent lands in Eagle and Sopris Ranger Districts represent over 200,000 acres of the entire roadless inventory for recommending wilderness additions which is near 298,000 acres. The variation in recommendations between alternatives B, D, and I are provided in the table below. Note the apparent middle ground of Alt D in relation to B & I and how the implementation of Alt I will profoundly change wilderness acreages in the WRNF, and particularly within Eagle County. Further note should be given to MA allocations within roadless areas which show a dramatic reduction in recreation uses by over 100,000 acres. Note the increase in wilderness character from alt B to alt I for roadless areas is over 230,000 acres. Note the reductions in suitable timber lands under alt I from alt B by over 215,000 acres. No Action Alternative Preferred Alternative Conservation Bio Item B D I Area of Recommended Wilderness Acres of MA 1.2 0 47,200 205,000 Number of Adjacent Areas 0 3 22 Number of Independent Areas 0 2 4 Management Area Allocation of Capable and Available Roadless Areas I Roadless Areas acres percent acres percent acres percent Management Area 1.2 Recommended 0 0 47,200 16 205,000 69 wilderness undeveloped/non-motorized (MA1&2) 21,900 7 77,100 26 53,100 18 recreation use; some motorized use MA 3,4 126,600 42 15,000 5 25,500 8 timber; roads, utility, wildlife, MA 5,7,8) 149,400 50 158,900 53 14,200 5 Wilderness Character of Capable and Available Roadless Areas (CARA) Retains Wilderness Character 21,900 124,300 258,100 I Not of Wilderness Character 276,100 173,700 I 39,900 Acres Removed from Tentatively Suitable Timber Lands (TSTL) use of Wilderness designation Recommended wilderness 0 47,000 215,000 TSTL in Recommended Wilderness 0 22,000 133,000 Timber Road Construction 0.8 0 0.1 VI. VACANT ALLOTMENTS The final decision regarding the vacant grazing allotments are to be a separate decision made by the Forest Supervisor while the Plan is decided by the Regional Forester. All currently utilized grazing allotments are retained under every alternative. Domestic Livestock Grazing on active allotments was not an issue for plan revision; current management is applied to suitable acres in all alternatives. However, the opportunity costs associated with choosing to maintain all active allotments were not examined within the DEIS which may have inadvertently biased the perceived positive impacts of maintaining all active allotments. Financial Efficiency of the grazing program = -$5.15/acre, meaning that the Forest Service operates the grazing leases at a loss of more than $5/acre. Cost Efficiency = + $18.69/acre., indicating that the private sector has a net benefit of $5.15 + $18.69 = $23.84/acre. The Table below identifies how four of the alternatives address the vacant allotment question. Alternatives C and E are not included for space issues and to highlight the more extreme variations. There are several issues common within the DEIS to every alternative. The DEIS states no clear impacts from grazing for any of the alternatives. Rangelands typical vegetative community quality outcome has the same value under all alternatives though investments vary considerably. Forage utilization by wildlife is the same at 28% under all alternatives as are grazing headmonths for cattle/horse grazing = 77,600 headmonths and sheep/goat grazing=126,900 headmonths. Finally all alternatives will require active allotments to have an updated EIS (except alt B). The figures below were estimated with the WRNF Budget at experienced levels. As the table indicates, Alternative B retains 16 grazing allotments in Eagle County, Alt D retains five, Alt F retains 11, and Alt I retains eight allotments. It is of interest that Alternatives C and E which were focused on maintaining recreation opportunities in the Forest had higher closure recommendations than all alternatives except alternative I (160,000 and 197,000 acres respectively). Item B No Action D Preferred F NR Extraction I Consrv Biology Range Permit Admin Budget $297,000 $144,000 $204,000 $144,000 Rangeland Vegetation Budget $133,000 $336,000 $306,000 $336,000 Range Management Program $430,000 $480,000 $510,000 $480,000 Rangelands MA 5.12 range area 309,100 82,100 acres 562,800 acres 48,000 acres Vacant Allotment alternative B No Action D Preferred F NR Extraction I Consrv Biology Eagle-East Lake Creek I Retain Close Close Close part Eagle-North W Mountain I Retain Close Retain Close Eagle-South W Mountain I Retain Close I Retain Close Eagle-Squaw Creek I Retain Close Close Retain Eagle-Sweetwater Retain I Close part Retain , Retain Holy Cross-Homestake I Retain Close Retain Close Holy Cross-Spring Creek I Retain + Retain Retain Retain Holy Cross-Tennessee Pass I Retain I Close part I Close part I Close Holy Cross-Beaver Creek I Retain ( Close i Close ( Close Holy Cross-Bent' Creek I Retain Retain I Retain I Retain Holy Cross-Lake Creek I Retain . I Close I Retain Retain Holy Cross-Northside I Retain ( Retain I Retain I Retain Sopris-Ivanhoe I Retain Close part I Retain Close Sopris-Last Chance Retain ( Retain I Retain Close Sopris-Fryingpan Retain Retain I Retain Retain Sopris-Wheatlev Retain Close Close I Retain Summary of Vacant Retain (Eagle) 51; (16) 12; (5) 28; (11) 17; (8) Cattle 23 6 10 11 Sheep 28 6 18 5 Partial closure (Eagle) 0; (0) 12; (3) 6; .(1) 4; (1) Cattle I 0 I 4 2 3 Sheep I 0 I 8 I 4 0 Close (Eagle) I 0; (0) I 27; (8) I 34; (4) # problem ( 30; (7) Cattle 0 13 I 11 I 9 Sheep I 0 14 I 6 23 Acres Suitable for livestock I Recommended Closure 0 I 136,000 acres 81,000 acres I 173,000 acres Suitable Acres for erazine 830.796 acres 694.796 acres 749.796 acres 650.796 acres Note the significant expenditures being utilized to implement the grazing leaseholds with Alt D having the highest budget at $720,000. Furthermore alternative D allows for the greatest extent of grazing within bighorn sheep habitat which is identified as a species of special concern. Management Area 5.12 allocations does not appear to be consistent with range vegetation budgeting efforts by alternative. Range Outcome Measures (pages 2-58, 2-44) Alternative B C D E F I Range Permit Admin $445,000 $226,000 $216,00 $285,00 $306,00 $216,00 Budget ($297,000) ($150,000) ($144,000 ($190,000) ($204,000 ($144,000 Rangeland Vegetation $200,000 $419,000 $504,00 $285,00 $459,00 $504,00 Budget ($133,000) ($280,000) ($336,000 ($190,000) ($306,000 ($336,000 Range Managemen $645,000 $645,000 $720,00 $570,000 $765,00 $720,00 Program t$430,000) ($430,000) ($480,000 ($380,000 ($510,000 ($480,000 Rangelands MA 5.1 309,100 acres 99,900 acres 82,100 acre 5,300 acre 562,800 acre 48,000 acre range vegetation focus Bighorn Sheep Habitat 7,700 acres 92,200 acres 115,900 acre 91,000 acre 22,300 acre 134,000 acre with grazing (total) Rangeland Management Impacts and Issues R e c o m m e n d e d acres 96,000 acres 47,000 acre 106,000 acre 0 acre 215,000 acre 10 Wilderness and grazing potentials Research Natural Areas 0 acres 13,270 acres 18,326 acre 6,373 acre 10,239 acre 28,130 acre land grazing prohibition VII. NOXIOUS WEEDS Noxious weeds are defined as alien plants that aggressively invade or are detrimental to native plant communities. Exotic plants introduced from other parts of the world arrive without their natural enemies (insects and disease) to keep them in check. Approximately 89,000 acres of the WRNF are infested with noxious weeds. Noxious weeds reduce productivity, crowd out native plants, displace wildlife species that depend on these plants, disrupt watershed function and nutrient and energy flow. Many resource scientists and land managers consider noxious weeds to be the largest threat to ecological integrity facing wild lands. The following is a brief list of several of the more serious noxious weeds on the Forest accompanied by their annual rate of spread per year: Yellow toadflax 33,265 acres at 15%/yr = 4,990ac/yr; Canadian Thistle 17,220 acres at 25%/yr=4,305ae/yr; Hound's tongue 23,980 acres at 15%/yr=3600 ac/yr; leafy spurge 295 acres at 50%/yr=148 ac/yr; musk thistle 5,660 acres at 10%/yr=566 ac/yr; Russian thistle 1,785 acres at 30%/yr=536 ac/yr; and spotted knapweed 106 acres at 40%/yr-42 ac/yr. The sum of these more serious noxious weed spread rate per year yields over 14,000 acres per year. Note that none of the alternatives effectively addresses control of noxious weeds. prevention & control management directive. The Noxious weed budget and performance are not stated within the DEIS; Urbanization and its relationship to noxious weeds is not effectively stated here; Off Road Recreation use not stated. (See Page 3-146, 3-149) Iternative B C D E F I N o x i o u s W e e d 1,400 acres 1,400 acres 2,200 acres 1,050 acres 2,250 acres 2,100 acre (NW)Control annually annually annually annually annually annual) NW area treated in 1 21,000 ac 21,000 ac 33,000 ac 15,750 ac 33,750 ac 31,500 a ears treated treated treated treated treated treated timber Mgt Projected 1.00 acres 27 acres 73 acres 26 acres 153 acres 32 acre noxious weed ac/yr ravel Management Weed Generating Activity um of Measurable 309 acres 211.9 acres 261.2 acres 218.8 acres 373.4 acres 196.3 acre eed Potential t pread Impact eeds Spread b 0 acres 162,000 acres 139,000 acres 200,000 acres 84,000 acres 175,000 acre Livestock reduced reduced reduced reduced reduced reduced Prescribed f i r 5,700 acres 6,200 acres 6,000 acres 4,500 acres 3,750 acres 4,000 acre increases noxiou - .weeds spreading VIII. LAND USE AND TIMBER HARVESTING The majority of lands outside of Wilderness within Eagle County are category 5 lands. Category 5 lands represent 67% of all Forest Land uses within Eagle County. These lands are primarily forested ecosystems that are managed to meet a variety of human and ecological needs. Note that 233,782 acres under alternative B are lands (MAs 5.12, 5.13, 5.4, 5.43, 5.45) that contribute to Timber ASQ (Allowable Sales Quantity) while under. alternative D 283,918 acres contribute to the Timber ASQ. This is an increase of 50,000 acres or over 20%. In addition, MAs 5.41 and 5.42 Management Areas allow timber harvesting but not within the ASQ. The report states: "In some ecosystems intensive management is necessary to restore them to their Historic Range of Variability (HRV a biodiversity term what the forest was like before western civilization). The management is usually a combination of prescribed fire and timber harvest treatments". In these categories under alternative B there are 35,352 acres while under alternative D there will be 104,610 acres. Activities that are allowed in Category 5 include mining and oil and gas leasing. EAGLE EAGLE EAGLE EAGLE EAGLE EAGLE CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CODE MANAGEMENT AREA LEGEND B B D D B to D B to D 5.12 Resource Prod.- Range Vegetation 21,478 3.6% 17,617 2.9% (3,861) -18.0% 5.13 Resource Prod. - Forest Products 116,508 19.5% 5,874 1.0% (110,634) -95.0% 5.4 Forested Flora Fauna Habitats 90,529 15.1% 197,763 33.1% 107,233 118.5% 5.41 Deer & Elk Winter Range 35,352 5.9% 93,389 15.6% 58,037 164.2% 5.42 Bighorn Sheep Habitat (only) 0 0.0% 11,222 1.9% 11,222 NEW Bighorn Sheep Habitat total 0 0.0% 11,222 1.9% 11,222 NEW 5.43 Elk Habitat 0 0.0% 2,795 0.5% 2,795 NEW 5.45 Forest Carnivores 5,267 0.9% 59,869 10.0% 54,602 1036.8% Only the following prescriptions prohibit all timber cutting: 1.1 1, 1. 12, 1. l3, 1.2, 1.31, 1.32, 1.5, and 2.2. Lands assigned to these prescriptions under alternative D total 918,400 acres. Thus timber cutting, contributing to ASQ or not, is allowed on the 1,364,000 acre remainder of the 2,282,400 acre WRNF. In other words, timber cutting would be allowed on 59.8% of the WRNF under alternative D. Within Eagle County 175,473 acres are lands where timber harvesting is prohibited (598,171 acre total) or only 29%, thus 71 % of the Forest in Eagle County is open to timber harvest under alternative D. Staff believe that this is an excessive allocation of "habitat" lands for Eagle County and the WRNF Forest and recommend that the Forest Service staff revise the MA prescriptions and guidelines to more accurately reflect intended management objectives for each land use. The table below identifies that for alternative D suitable timber lands comprise a mere 52% of the lands associated with the ASQ. This is the highest allocation of category 5 lands other than alternative E and is 300,000 acres greater than alternative C (recreation with ecology). Alternative B I C I D E F I Suitable timber land acre 359,000 56,000 434,000 118,000 591,000 98,000 Acres of Suitable Timber Lands and Total Lands by Management Area Prescription 3-452 & 2-44 5.12 & 5.13/total are 285,000/ 29,000/ 62,000/ 27,000/ 467,000/ 60,000/ 499,100 152,300 114,900 41,100 895,400 99,500 s 5.4 & 5.45/total are 68,000/ 21,000/ 266,000/ 41,000/ 88,000/ 18,000/ 155,400 243,900 533,400 76,200 205,200 51,600 5.43/total area 6,000 6,000/ 106,000/ 50,0001 36,000/ 20,000/ /16,000 112,800 186,000 84,000 53,100 36,600 Total Suitable/Total Lands 359,000/ 56,000/ 434,000/ 118,000/ 591,000/ 98,000/ 670,500 509,000 834,300 201,300 1,153,700 187,700 /.age of Suitable/Total 0.54 0.11 0.52 0.59 0.51 0.52 Concern that the land use allocations may lead to significant timber harvests within the WRNF Forest and Eagle County are portrayed in the table below. Note that in alternative D the ASQ represents only 37 percent of the entire timber sale program quantity under experienced budgets. Under the preferred alternative D, the ASQ would allow 2,100 m cu ft/yr while the chargeable/non-chargeable would allow 5,660 m cu ft/yr or a variance of 3,560 m cu ft/yr or 170% timber harvest beyond the ASQ. The Plan thus contains potential for significant landscape alteration within Eagle County that may have adverse impacts upon the recreation industry and ecological processes. The table is drawn from page 3-462. IMBER SALE PROGRAM QUANTITY (TSPQ) FOR THE FIRST DECADE IN MCF BY BUDGET LEVEL (Decade 1 Chargeable volume B C D E F I offered (experienced) ASQ 2,800 1,100 2,100 1,000 4,300 1,300 ersonal use fuelwood 1,550 420 1,130 400 2,400 500 Other products (OP) 60 20 40 20 80 20 Other vegetation mgt 690 690 690 690 690 690 Salvage (sal) 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 SPQ total 6,800 3,930 5,660 3,810 9,170 4,210 SPQ total Full 8,590 4,340 7,010 4,330 13,110 4,770 * OP are non-sawtimber from suitable lands - mostly post/poles-, OVM = Volume from unsuitable lands to meet other resource objectives.; SAL = Dead and/or dying timber from suitable or unsuitable lands. In alternative C, harvesting will be dominated by the shelterwood and selection harvest methods. In alternatives, B, D, E, F, and I, harvesting will be dominated by the clearcut and coppice methods. In all alternatives, about 5% of the silvicultural method is composed of individual group selection. In all alternatives, the majority of all forest cover types move via natural succession to older stands and patch sizes are relatively stable. Landscape Pattern Environmental Consequences: Timber Management (3-97, 105, 107) Alternative B C D E F I even age cut for aspen & 610 acres no acres stated 450 acre 180 acre 920 acre no acres state odgepole pine Forested Vegetation Outcome Measures (page 2-48 and 2-63) Reforestation activity 40(30) 10(5) 30(20) 10(5) 70(45 10(10) acres/decade acres/decade acres/decade acres/decade acres/decade acres/decade i in b e r S t a n 1,000 (740) 230 (160) 760 (530 230 (160 1,620 (1,170 2,200 (210 Improvement activity acres/decade acres/decade acres/decade acres/decade acres/decade acres/decade imber Sales (Exp) 1,890,000/yr $680,000/yr $1,340,0001y $650,000/y $2,890,000/y $850,000/y The availability of other forest products is expected to be highest in Alternative F and lowest in alternative E. The cumulative effects of past, current and proposed harvesting over the next ten years will be "about 2.8% of the Forest under any alternative". The Forests proximity to I-70 transportation corridor makes many of its products accessible to wide range of purchasers and processing facilities. Wood fiber from the Forest is processed as far away as Saratoga, Wyoming, by Louisiana Pacific (LP). Most of the conifer sawtimber, aspen and products other than logs are processed by LP at Olathe. Staff are concerned that the preferred alternative is recommending too much clear cutting. Staff recommend that more sustainable methods for harvest are devised for the timber management section that includes an impact assessment upon scenic integrity levels and an assessment of the "timbershed" requirements and economic development opportunities for the WRNF Region. IX. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT Staff reviewed Appendix O of the WRNF plan document from computer files of these two large tables within two spreadsheets comprising some 75 pages that define the variation between alternatives B and D. GIS staff then provided support to map the findings of this spreadsheet using a download of the Forest Service travelways. The results are portrayed within the six travel management maps generated to date. Four defining changes within Eagle County, and two depicting changes across the entire Forest for alternatives B and D. The total implications of these additional travelway closures have yet to be determined for the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. However, at this time the maps do indicate that significant closures will occur for all motorized and mechanized vehicles on the Forest which will have a direct impact upon dispersed recreation opportunities especially when correlated with recreation maintenance budgets. (Discussed below in Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) Of particular significance is the closure of many ofthe travelways within the Holy Cross District to mechanized travel (mountain bikes). TRAVEL MANAGEMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE The Draft Plan states: In the management of travel on the WRNF there are two decisions to be made in the revised forest plan. The first is aprogrammatic decision that will provide new standards and guidelines related to travel management for forest wide application. The regional forester is the deciding officer. Levels of outputs for road and trail construction, maintenance and reconstruction will be analyzed for each alternative. The second decision is to select a site specific travel management plan. The forests supervisor is the deciding officer. This plan will identify travel opportunities and restrictions for each road and trail on the forest and the and the forest lands adjacent to these travelways. Appendix O. and the travelway maps depict the travel management alternatives. The Draft Plan states: Most of the Forest Road and trail needs for the current level of use are in place. Reconstruction, maintenance and decommissioning of existing facilities is emphasized in all forest plan alternatives. All Forest Plan alternatives place a greater emphasis on restricting motorized and mechanized travel to designated routes. New standards and guidelines have been developed to mitigate the impacts on natural resources resulting from increased traffic on forest roads and trails. A smaller more efficient transportation system is the expected outcome. The table below identifies the road network for each alternative. eneral Characteristics of Forest Plan Alternate Transport Systems Miles a e 3-245 and 2-60 Iternative B C D E F rterial Roads 133 145 142 142 133 11 ollector Roads 352 301 330 320 365 33, ocal Roads 1,752 1,481 1,52 0 1,618 1,911 1,23 oad Maintained to 470 617 558 562 578 58 A concern identified here is that Alternative D does not allocate an effective level of funds for road maintenance. Note that road maintenance in the Table above for alternative D, at levels 3-5, allocates less mileage than is allocated to arterial and collector roads. In addition, Note that over 75% of the road network is either closed or open to 4 wheel drive vehicles only. The total road system is 245 miles less than alternative B. Note also the variation between total system miles and open road by alternative with alt D 320 miles less than alt B. oadwa Maintenance Activity Iternative B C D E F I evel 1 closed to 457 371 532 220 475 29 SMV evel 2 Truck & 4WD 1,238 1,095 1,021 1,286 1,396 96 utos evel 3 low comfort 423 388 391 450 445 35 evel evel 4 dust-abated 106 64 39 102 77 5 evel 5 normally 13 9 9 22 16 aved otal open roads 1,780 1,556 1,460 1,86 0 1,94 3 1 38 otal s stem miles 2,2371 1,9271 1,9921 2 080 2,40 9 1 67 atio level 4 & 5 maintenance miles/Arterial miles Iternative B C D E F I proxy for air quality 0.89 0.5 0.34 0.87 0.7 0.1 ssues & comfort oads maintained at 100 mi/year 120 mi/yea 150 mi/yea 60 mi/yea 130 mi/yea 110 mi/yea vel -1 experienced experienced experienced experienced experienced experience oads maintained at 260 mi/year 350 mi/yea 290 mi/yea 350 mi/yea 340 mi/yea 340 mi/yea vel -2 ex erienced experienced experienced experienced experienced experience oads maintained a 110 mi/year 120 mi/yea 120 mi/yea 160 mi/yea 130 mi/yea 150 mi/yea vel 3-5 experienced experienced experienced experienced experienced experien_cee oad System $914,000/yr $1,084,000/y $748,000/yr $1,172,000/yr $896,000/yr $756,000/yr ud et (Exp.) The first line of the second table above identifies that only 34% of arterials are maintained at levels 4 and 5, a good proxy for air quality issues and access/comfort levels of recreationists. The table describes the level of maintenance per year. Note that alt D will close 150 miles of roads per year as a maintenance strategy. This is highest among the alternatives and represents slightly more than 10% of the open road network being closed each year in alt D. Staff has not as yet obtained an explanation as to the difference in road miles for maintenance in the preceding two tables (150 mi/yr and 532 miles/decade). The table below identifies Forest budget allocation to the road system and road construction and road decommissioning efforts. Note that Alternative D allocates the least funds to the road system budget, fully $425,000 less than in alt E that "maximizes" recreation opportunities and $336,000 less than Alt C which balances recreation with ecology. This issue becomes even more significant when one recognizes that alt D has the third highest road (re) construction budget (apparently almost entirely timber oriented) at 3.9 miles per year and has the fourth highest road obliteration and recontouring effort at 22.2 miles per year. These efforts conspire to constrain the meager road maintenance budget. oad Construction and Reconstruction Activity Iternative B C D E F I oad System $914,000/yr $1,084,000/yr $748,000/yr $1,172,000/yr $896,000/yr $756,0001yr udget (Exp.) ltemative B C D E F I nual new <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.8 0.2 <0. onstruction recreation) nnual new 17 1 2.6 0.9 6.2 1. onstruction (timber) oad Reconstruction 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.6 0. ex otal Road 5.4 2.5 3.9 3.3 8 2. onstruction/ ear xtended Accompli ments for Road Obliteration and Recontourin Based on Ex Budget Levels II obliterated 416 741 676 600 269 99 econtoured roads nnual miles road 14.6 29.5 22.2 34.3 14.5 4 bliteration & econtourin yrs complete plan 29 26 31 18 19 2 bliteration & One particular interesting topic is that the forest calls for establishing an enforceable travel management plan. However, the plan allocates a mere $46,000 to cooperative law enforcement for a 2.3 million acre forest and some 2,000 miles of Forest Development Roads. This section needs to be revisited in relation to the roadless area prescription and assessment of road closures, maintenance prescriptions, recreation facility and trail maintenance. X. RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS) & TRAVEL MANAGEMENT The Travel Management program will have a highly significant impact upon the recreation opportunity spectrum and access to the Forest generally. The table below identifies that all motorized and mechanized travel will be restricted to designated routes which constitutes a major change in management direction.from the existing alternative B. The impact upon mountain bikes is particularly revealing as 1.1 million acres will be removed from off-road travel. In fact summer travel restrictions under alternative D are the most restrictive of all the alternatives. Note that the "recreation" alternatives C and E allow for a significant higher level of access to various locations on the Forest. Iternative B C D E F I UMMER AREA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN ACRES -All motorized/mechanized travel re l 279,000 1,355,000 1,524,000 901,000 1,223,000 1,515,00 estricted to desi nated routes - Special travel management <1,000 3,000 0 0 0 as - Off-road travel permitted for all 34,000 81,000 0 164,000 182,000 otorized /mech. vehicles, but SMVs restricted to designated . outes from 9/1 throu h 6/15 - No restrictions to off-road 107,000 0 0 0 23,000 ravel - FSMVs restricted to designated 1,104,000 85,000 0 459,000 96,000 9,00 outes. Off-road mechanized veh. -z nc-rmitts-rf Winter travel management strategies will also have an impact upon access to and use of the Forest. The table below identifies that alternative D is the most restrictive strategy outside of the conservation biology alternative I. When compared with alt B one may note that 614,000 acres have been removed from no restrictions to motorized travel, that 480,000 acres have been added to designated route restrictions and that 132,000 additional acres prohibit motorized travel. Note the relatively lower travel restrictions under "recreation" alternatives C and E. f WINTER AREA TRAVEL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES N ACRES otorized travel is restricted 25,000 505,000 213,000 103,000 465,00 rnative B ;noo- D E F 1 esi nated routes - Motorized travel is prohibited 405 000 537 000 429 000 352 000 907 00 S ecial travel m t areas 2 000 4,0001 40-0_ 00 4,0001 4.001 N n1QtQri7P(j nqg nnnP_62s Travel management prescriptions for each type of vehicle for the six alternatives is provided below. The table also identifies those travel options in miles which have been segregated from other travel methods. Note the significant reduction for mechanized vehicle access to the Forest in alternative B versus D. In alt B 3,818 miles of roads and trails are open to mountain bikes, while under alternative. D 2,698 miles are open, yielding a reduction of 1,120 miles in mechanized vehicle access to the Forest. Alt D represents the most restrictive alternative for mountain bikes and second most restrictive alternative for motorized trail vehicles. Alt D has the lowest road density for winter travel options. OAD AND TRAVEL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN MILES ravelwa s open to motorized trail vehicles Iternative B C D E F I oads 1 792 1,614 1 517 1,9151 1,998 .142 rails include was 171 156 85 248 404 7 ravelwa so en to mechanized vehicles oads 2,4301 2,1451 1 955 213451 2,191 197 rails include ways) 1 1,3881 938 743 1 ,1061. 1 006 65 RAVEL ROUTES MANAGED IN SEPARATE USES IN MILES en to off-hi hwa vehicles closed to full-sized motor vehicles oads 15 58 50 59 64 3 rails 132 155 83 243 401 7 en to mechanized vehicles closed to motor vehicles oads 639 530 439 427 193 55 rails 1217 784 658 858 604 57 en to foot and horse travel only rails in Wilderness 824 827 812 821 830 82 rails outside 106 431 586 281 354 68 esi nated Winter Travel in miles Iternative B C D E F I otorized on1 0 6 6 10 4 7 on-motorized on[ 0 22 12 25 <1 otorized and 34 269 283 139 49 51 on-motorized otorized route 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0. XI. RECREATION MANAGEMENT Recreation Management consists of providing a range of recreation opportunities to meet the needs of users and local communities in balance with protection of forest resources. On the WRNF demand for recreation continues to grow. This rise in demand is linked to an increasing local and regional population as well as to higher numbers of visitors throughout the world. The WRNF is recognized throughout the world as a source of exceptional outdoor recreation opportunities. Recreation has grown to be become the predominant use of the Forest. Based on total recreation visitor days (RVDs) in the National Forest System, the WRNF ranked fourth in the nation in recreation use in 1992 and fifth in 1995. Although the Forest contains about 16% of the NFS lands in Colorado, it serves as host to about 30% of the state's NF recreation. Trends affecting recreation management on the WRNF are: 1) changing visitor profile stemming from aging of the population and reduced role of the family structure; 2) a trend toward taking numerous weekend outings throughout the year rather than the traditional two week, summer vacation; 3) the development of a new generation of machines such as mountain bikes and ATVs, and equipment and clothing increasing access to back country for dispersed recreation; 4) evolution of alpine ski resorts into four season resorts; 5) dramatic growth and diversification in dispersed winter recreation; 6) an increased role for partnerships between the USFS and business, non-profits and volunteer organizations. Key indicators: changes in recreation opportunities based on the Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS); changes in recreation carrying capacity. Staff identified that under all alternatives the backlog in recreation infrastructure whether trails or facilities will not be maintained and refurbished. Shortfalls include over $6,000,000 in trails maintenance and $65,000,000 in facilities. Note within the budget section of this report that alternative D is in a three way tie for the second lowest investment in recreation and wilderness resources. The "recreation" alternatives C and E invest $730,000 and $1,376,000 more in this sector than does the preferred alternative. RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM Alternative D Description: Gives special emphasis to biodiversity and wildlife habitat for a wide variety of species. It gives higher priority to physical and biological resources than human uses of the Forest. Maximum use & capacity levels for each recreation opportunity class from standards and guidelines page 2-25 ROS Class Location Capacity Range Very Lo Lo Moderate Hig Primitive on trails PAOT / mile 0.5 1 2 3 area wid 1 PAOT / 1,000 1 2 7 25 acres Semi Primitive Non on trails PAOT / mile 2 3 9 11 motorized area wide PAOT / 1,000 4 8 50 80 acres emi Primitive Motorized on trails PAOT / mile 2 3 9 11 area wide PAOT / 1,000 4 8 .50 80 acres Roaded Natural on trails PAOT / mile 2 3 9 11 area wide PAOT / 1,000 40 80 1200 2500 acres oaded Modified on trails PAOT / mile 2 3 9 11 area wide PAOT / 1,000 40 80 1200 2500 acres Rural on trails PAOT / mile 2 3 9 11 area wide PAOT / 1,000 500 800 5000 7500 acres Notes: very low and low apply to rock, mountain grass, and clear cuts one to twenty years old; Moderate applies to mountain grass, mature and pole size ponderosa pine, mature aspen, shelterwood cuts 90 to 120 years old, and clear cuts 80 to 120 years old High applies to mature and pole sized spruce, pole size aspen, and clear cuts 20 to 80 years old. (PAOT=persons at one time) Table does not apply to Urban ROS or ski resorts. For purposes of management, the range of possible combinations of activities, settings, and probable experience opportunities has been represented in terms of a spectrum or continuum. This continuum is called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), which provides a framework for stratifying and defining classes of outdoor recreation opportunity environments. The assigned desired condition ROS class is the maximum level of use, impact, development, and management that an area should experience over the life of the Forest Plan. Carrying capacity is a consequence of adopting specific ROS classes for which landscapes can be managed. The outcomes table provides a listing of the ROS by alternative in acres. However, the capacity for the ROS. spectrum is actually measured in carrying capacity for travelways;in miles. The summary MRVDs that result from estimating capacity by travelway miles and from acres is apparently quite different. This issues is doubly significant given the limited maintenance schedule provided for roads and trails on the Forest. DISPERSED RECREATIONAL USE Dispersed Recreation Use: for 1995 -1997, estimated dispersed recreation use (which occurs where there are no developed facilities present) averaged 4,010 MRVDs. About 83% of this use, or 3,328 MRVDs occurred in the summer months, and 17%, or 682 MRVDs in the winter. About 44% of total recreation use on the Forest was dispersed. Studies predicted increases of more than 200% from 1987 to 2020 in backpacking, day hiking, visiting prehistoric sites, rafting/tubing, sailing, cross country skiing, and downhill skiing in the Rocky Mountains (Cordell et al, 1993). The largest gaps, where projected demand exceeds supply are for backpacking, day hiking, and cross country skiing. Recreation activities that have shown the most growth since 1986 include: study of wildlife and viewing nature, guided/unguided walking tours, hiking, biking, picnicking, and rafting. About one third of the WRNF is in Wilderness. This is the largest:wilderness proportion of any national forest in Colorado and represents 24% of all NF wilderness in the state. Wilderness summer use averaged 467 MRVDs or 12% of all dispersed recreation use. No data has been collected on winter use. Dispersed use Projections and capacity i ddemess projected use and capacity in thousand thousands of RVDs (3-281) of RVDs (3-282) Use & Capacity Measure Summer Winter Theoretical Use & Capacity Summer Winter Capacity= T Measure Current use 3,328 682 urrent use 467 N/ Projected use in 2010 6,235 1,277 rojected use in 558 N/ 010 Projected use in 2020 8,332 1,707 rojected use in 626 N/ 020 Current Theoretical 6,147 4,684 urrentTC 835 731 Capacity /a of TC at Current Use 54 15 /o of TC at 56 N/ Current Use 0/o TC projected use i 101 27 /o TC project-ed 67 N/ 010 se in 2010 /o TC projected use i 136 36 /o TC project-ed 75 N/ 020 se in 2020 Dispersed Recreation PAOTs 1 MRVDs under Experienced Budget (2-52 Existing 56,031 \ 9,265 52,353 \ 8,65 46,447 \ 7,650 45,023 \ 7,40 48,136 \ 7,94 50,2631 8,30 42,937 \ 7,05 Dispersed Recreation 9.1/yr 10.8 /yr 10.0 /y 10.2 /y 5.5 /y 8.1 /y ites rehabilitated reconstructed total umber: 3,531 Non-Revenue based Rec 1,428,000 1,640,000 1,417,000 1,587,000 823,000 1,204,0001 eation Exp Budget The outcomes table provides a listing of the ROS by alternative in acres, see below. However, the capacity for the ROS spectrum is actually measured in carrying capacity for travelways in miles. The summary MRVDs that result from estimating capacity by travelway miles and from acres is apparently quite different. Staff are currently attempting to estimate appropriate capacity ROS by 1,000 acres. This issues is doubly significant given the limited maintenance schedule provided for roads and trails on the Forest. Lands in Each Summer ROS Class, by Experienced Budget in acres (2-51) and existing condition. Because dispersed use s projected to increase under all alternatives, summer capacity outside of wilderness may be reached in the planning period or all alternatives Alternative B C D E F I ROS class U 13,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 6,000 2,000 3,000 OS Class R 100,000 121,000 74,000 52,000 99,000 106,000 60,000 OS Class RM 265,000 195,000 58,000 33,000 44,000 334,000 46,000 OS Class RN 135,000 95,000 115,000 78,000 112,000 90,000 70,000 ROS SPM 266,000 631,000 722,000 900,000 839,000 746,000 520,000 OS SPNM 980,000 489,000 485,000 421,000 372,000 263,000 645,000 ROS Class P 523,000 748,000 825,000 797,0001 810,000 741,000 938,000 Lands in each Winter ROS Class, by Experienced Budget in acres and existing conditions ROS class U 8,000 0 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 8,000 ROS Class R 91,000 100,000 69,000 49,000 90,000 93,000 51,000 ROS Class RM 0 201,000 52,000 33,000 36,000 320,000 45,000 ROS Class RN 0 18,000 37,000 27,000 48,000 28,000 25,000 ROS SPM 1,098,000 949,000 842,000 780,000 986,000 852,000 457,000 ROS SPNM 323,000 268,000 445,000 585,000 282,000 234,0001 730,000 ROS Class P 762,000 746,000 837,000 807,000 839,000 754,000 966,000 Note that while alternative D develops the best habitat for fishing and hunting, access will be substantially limited, thus affecting the number of outdoors men who visit the region for hunting and fishing purposes. ROS Carrying Capacity General Effects Alternative B C D E F I Roads open t rd Most 3rd Fewest 2nd Fewes 2nd Mos Mos Fewes motorized use Hunting a n Greatest fishing more restrictions o higher wildlife Most Big Gam more restric fishing from recreation mg access bette viewing Hunters duet tions on access hunting from habita roads higher better hunting best native fishery wildlife viewing from habita i s p e r s e ondition unknown condition unknown condition unknown condition condition condition ampsites 3,500 a x 3 % max 3% max 3% unknown ma unknown m unknown ma D rehabilitation rehabilitation rehabilitation 3% rehabilitatio 3% reha 3% reha TRAILS AND TRAILHEADS The Forest trail inventory consists of four types of routes: Forest Development Trails (FDT), national recreation trails (NRT); national scenic trails (NST) and ways. The non-system trails known as ways were not inventoried in the 1984 Forest Plan. Current inventories are 1,834 miles of FDTs, 40 miles of NRTs, 276 miles of ways, and 60 miles of the Continental Divide NST with 7 miles planned for construction. There are 209 summer trail heads and motorized use is authorized on 163 miles of trails. In winter there are 521 miles of snowmobile trails, 517 miles of cross-country ski trails and 301 miles of mixed (x country & snowmobile) trails on the Forest. There are some 75 winter trailheads. The current backlog in trail maintenance is estimated to be $6,635,000. This backlog would continue to increase in all alternatives; it would increase at a faster rate in alternative F. The current inventory of non-motorized trails was not designed to accommodate mountain bikes or other wheeled uses. According to the 1992 SCORP, recreation access to public lands and recreation trails opportunities rank as top issues for the area around the WRNF. Access would be provided in all alternatives, but opportunities to disperse use once on the Forest may be limited in Alternative D in order to protect wildlife habitat. Higher use could be expected on fewer miles of trail in this alternative. (While the Outcomes table indicates that all alternatives provide 779 miles of trails outside of wilderness it is clear that the inventory is not the same for each alternative. This in turn will mean that practical capacity levels for all ROS categories will be reached sooner than under any other alternative). Note that only I % of the trail-head inventory is rehabilitated or reconstructed each year and less than 1 % of trails are (re) constructed each year under alternative D. rails Maintained Outside of Wilderness in miles: 779 miles with 163 for motorized use (2-53) Experienced budget Alternative B C D E F I Trails Maintained outside 375 mi/yr 368 mi/yr 374 mi/y 466 mi/y 187 mi/y 212 mi/y of Wilderness Trails Maintained for 97 mi/yr 95 mi/yr 97 mi/y 120 mi/y 48 mi/y 55 mi/y otorized use rails Maintained for non 278 mi/yr 273 mi/yr 277 mi/y 345 mi/y 139 mi/y 157 mi/y otorized use rails reconstructed/ constructed outside Wilderness (779 mi) Trails Constructed outside 10 mi/yr 10 mi/yr 5 mi/y 12 mi/y 9 mi/y 10 mi/y of Wilderness rails (re) Constructed for 3 mityr 3 mi/yr 1 miry 3 mi/y 2 miry 2 mi/y otorized use rails (Re) constructed for 7 mi/yr 7 mityr 4 mi/y 9 miry 7 mi/y 8 mi/y on-motorized use Summer Trail Heads: inventory total 209 (2-54) Trail heads rehabilitated o 2 mites/yr 2 miles/yr 2 milestyy 2 miles/y 1 miles/y 2 milesty econstructed o/ I I ilderness WILDERNESS RECREATION from Outcomes Table What is striking about wilderness values is that all PAOT measures and visitor satisfaction ratings are identical across all alternatives even though there is a significant variation in budgetary expenditures under each alternative, with alt D ranking among the lowest investments. The draft plan does not state investments in wilderness campsite maintenance and or (re) construction. Trails in Wilderness (2-54) Experienced Budget; total miles 1,055 Alternative B C D E F I Trails Maintained within 599 /yr 742 miles/yr 682 miles/y 611 miles /y 171 miles/ 451 miles /y Wilderness rails (Re) Const 9 /yr 9 miles/yr 4 miles/y 10 miles/y 8 miles/y 8 miles/y i emess ildemess Exp Budget 478,000 556,000 498,00 546,00 239,00 635,00 DEVELOPED RECREATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPACITIES (page 3-277 and 278) Each developed recreation site has a `theoretical capacity' based on its level of development and a `practical capacity' based on a 40% utilization rate. Studies indicate that when use levels are consistently above 40% of the theoretical capacity, long term resource damage is likely to occur. The combined theoretical capacity of all developed sites is 26,601 persons at one time or 2,388 MRVDs (thousands of recreation visitor days). Recreational use in 1995 -1997 (not including trail head and downhill skiing) averaged 1,205,000 RVDs, with'developed sites at 33% of theoretical capacity or 81% of practical capacity; privately developed sites currently use 100% of practical capacity (40% theoretical), campground use averaged 511,000 RVDs or 23% of theoretical (55% practical) capacity. Recently, the Forest granted permits to three concessionaires to operate and maintain 117 sites within campgrounds and picnic areas; the quality and condition of these facilities has become the responsibility of these permittees. Projected developed recreational use for the year 2010 and 2020 is 1,865 MRVDs and 2,184 MRVDs, respectively; therefore in 2010 developed use is projected to be at 50% of current theoretical capacity TC (125% of current practical capacity). The Forest has many outdated facilities, and "unfortunately any need for additional facilities is overshadowed by a shortfall in maintenance/rehabilitation funds for existing facilities" (3-278) In 1991 the Forest reported more than 100 partnerships in recreation and wilderness with partner contributions of more than $350,000. Outfitters and Guides: more than 200 are permitted to provide approximately 225,200 days of service to their customers including: x-country skiing, snowmobiling, hunting, fishing, rafting caving, jeep and mountain climbing trips; 12 Ski based resorts and 6 recreation resorts; Mountain but system (19 huts); 3 nordic ski centers, recreation residences and isolated cabins, and interpretation (i.e., CDOW, historic societies). Public Private ventures: This option, presently not used on the forest, provides opportunities for private investment in campgrounds or other appropriate facilities in the same manner as ski area development. The major facilities are provided here: ind of Recreation Site Publicly Number of Theoretical Theoretical Practical Developed Sites Sites Capacity Capacity Capacity MRVD Boating 8 871 PAO -133 MRVD 53 MRVD Family Campground 63 7,345 PAO 2,086 MRVD 835 MRVD Group Campground 7 840 PAO 221 MRVD 88 MRVD Observation Site 9 800 PAO 265 MRVD 106 MRVD Playground, park 3 670 PAO 95 MRVD 38 MRVD Trail head 209 12,835 PAO 2,252 MRVD 901 MRVD Subtotal Public 336 25,793 PAO 5,687MRVD 2,276 MRVD Measurable Outcome by Alternative for PAOT (2-52) Alternative C Develop Recreation TC available, 13,118 13,118 13,118 13,148 13,088 12,988 public sites/non-trail head Developed Recreation capacity 254/y 254/y 254/y 296/y 207/y 276/y rehabilitated or reconstructed Revenue Based Recreation $413,000/y $411,000/t $413,000/y $581,000/y $227,000/y $410,000ty experienced budget Recreation Special Use Permits and contracts, total number 347 (ski Resorts=12) alternative E achieves standard on only 39% of existing recreation permits # Contracts administered to standard (2-57, Exp. budget) I 14 I 14 I 14 I 1341 14 I 14 The PAOTs identified for reconstruction above equate to a maximum of 59 developed units under alternative E and a minimum of 41 developed units under alternative F. The current backlog in facility maintenance for developed sites is estimated to be $65,498,000. This maintenance deficit increases the priority for investing capital funds into reconstructing existing facilities as opposed to building new ones. Experienced capital investment program allocations would not resolve the backlog situation within 20 years. As a result the backlog situation will continue to increase under all alternatives, it would increases at a faster rate under alternative F. Beyond the capital investment program, facility construction would be contingent upon increased (beyond full implementation) funding levels & on use of private partnerships to assist in developing/managing facilities. Current theoretical capacity for the Forest's publicly developed sites is 12,958 PAOTs. Additional capacity would not be noticeably increased in any alternative providing that private partner assistance does not significantly change; thus, capacity would be exceeded within the planning period in all alternatives. Because alternatives D and I promote the concentration of use in development sites, capacity would be reached sooner in these alternatives. Opportunities to expand the back country but system may be limited in alternatives D and I. DOWNHILL SKI AREAS The Plan States: "Regional Growth and Development leads to increased demand for all forms of recreation. In the past decade regional populations have grown more rapidly than the amount of skier capacity provided by ski based resorts. The Forest Service suggests that "the USFS's ability to influence the pace or nature of local economic growth and development activity off-site of the Forest is very limited. Increasingly, it is the land use decisions made by local towns and counties that will determine the character and economy of the region. In all alternatives the core economic base of the White River NF region will continue to be influenced by a mixture of growth factors, all tied to the area's basic attractiveness." (The fact that the area grew by Forest Management Decisions indicates the fallacy of this statement.) The Plan states: "Higher Real Estate Values is an increase in operating costs, unless the resort has sufficient adjoining lands. Further, affordable housing will drive up resort operating costs. Higher Fees will increase local revenues and FS revenues and reduce cumulative impacts of visitation. The effect of higher recreation costs on ski based resorts is a reduction in the number of skiers who can afford to pay for the experience. In turn, the effect of limiting the amount of skiable terrain is a change in user profiles. The percentage of international skiers will increase as the cost of skiing becomes less affordable to regional populations. Restricted use will appeal to international guests willing to purchase package deals including lodging. This will result in fewer discounts being offered to local residents." Alternatives E and to some extent B and F, (Alt C not mentioned), recognize recreation and tourism as important regional and community values. Lower prices and higher competition are more likely under these alternatives. Alternative D and I do not allow any expansion of existing ski-based resorts because wilderness and wildlife values considered of higher value than recreation and skiing. This alternative allocates the fewest acres to skiing. No expansion of Vail or Beaver Creek allowed; more intensive use & development; high lift ticket prices due to excess demand and to limit use; Chicago Ridge not developed for skiing. Price increases would occur most rapidly in these two alternatives. Neither alternative D or I attempts to meet all of the public demand for managed recreation opportunities during the summer season at ski based resorts. In most cases D & I are incompatible with ski based development outside existing SUPs. Back Country skiers and snow boarders would be limited under alternatives D & I. Higher skier densities with lower skier experiences would lower visits. Regional traffic volumes and air pollution are reduced under transit oriented alternatives E & F. MA 8.25 Ski Area ac: BEAVER CREEK 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 McCoy Park 1,909 0 0 1,730 1,565 0 McCoy Peak 0 0 0 0 309 0 Meadow Mountain 0 0 0 2,235 0 0 Stone Creek 0 224 0 159 163 0 ubtotal 4,809 3,124 2,900 7,024 4,937 2,900 AIL 14,189 12,836 12,836 12,836 12,836 12,836 East Vail chutes 0 666 0 1,616 851 0 South Game Creek 0 442 0 369 247 0 Subtotal 14,189 13,944 12,836 14,821 13,934 12,836 KI COOPER 468 468 468 468 468,468 468 Chicago Ridge 1,283 1,561 0 1,491 1,750 0 Subtotal 1,751 2,029 468 1,959 2,218 468 DAM'S RIB 3,881 0 0 0 0 0 Total 24,630 19,097 16,204 23,804 21,089 16,204 nnual Skier Capacity made available by Alternative page 3-333 Adams Rib 391,205 0 0 0 0 0 Beaver Creek 1,036,818 836,373 836,373 1,018,023 1,033,143 836,373 Ski Cooper (Lake Co) 224,647 250,028 107,512 243,637 267,283 107,512 Vail 1,919,043 2,030,894 1,919,043 2,037,134 1,997,826 1,919,043 Eagle County total 3,347,066 2,867,267 2,755,416 3,055,157 3,030,969 2,755,416 Summit County total 5,331,210 5,489,333 4,554,741 6,595,367 6,243,928 4,554,741 Pitkin County Total 2,189,928 1,866,035 1,775,314 2,194,166 1,759,196 1,759,196 arfield County Total 706,427 135,492 135,492 494,572 117,607 117,607 otal White River NF 11,574,631 10,358,127 9,220,963 12,339,262 11,151,700 9,186,9601 AERIAL TRANSPORT CORRIDORS With the rapid growth of local populations and increased tourism near the White River NF, transportation has emerged as one of the primary issues faced by local resort communities. Gondolas and tramways that follow routes across NFS lands are alternative transportation systems that can enhance local transit infrastructures. As ski-based resorts have expanded, along with the resort communities surrounding them, the need for better access portals with adequate parking,' skier services and adequate lift capacity have also increased. Today most resorts, community planners and tourists recognize the advantages of `pedestrian oriented villages' with reduced automobile traffic. Beaver Creek Resort is two miles south of Avon with limited parking. Based on projected growth trends in skier visits, the bus system will be inadequate will become inadequate to transport the number of skiers anticipated. Its current capacity is 2,000 persons per hour and is costly to operate. Avon's 1996 transportation plan update discusses the need for a new 1,000 space parking lot with gondola access to Beaver Creek that would also serve as a multi-modal facility. Minturn is centrally located between Vail and Beaver Creek ski areas. Mintum re-adopted its community plan in 1998, and discussed potential connections to the Vail ski areas through Game Creek and Two Elk Creek. Mintum is also being looked to as a fourth ski to village within the Beaver Creek, bachelor Gulch and Arrowhead complex. Finally an aerial transportation corridor between Shrine Pass (with new parking facilities) and Vail was conceived by early planners Aerial Transportation Corridors acres I Eagle County 0 0 0 1,672 956 0 Garfield County 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pitkin County 0 75 0 0 75 0 Summit County 0 346 0 1,076 366 0 ~ otal White River NF 0 421 0 2,748 1,397 0 Alternative E: allocates transportation corr idors within Eagle County to improve pedestrian access to Vail in two locations via Game Creek and Two Elk Creek from Minturn. A third aerial transport corridor from Vail Pass would provide access to Vail Mountain, reducing traffic from Vail Pass to the Town of Vail. Another corridor at Eagle-Vail would link directly with Beaver Creek Alternative F: again includes the Game Creek corridor. Meadow Mountain would allow access from Minturn to Beaver Creek. North of Minturn, auto parking, lower aerial tram terminals, and a light rail station could be combined at one site as an inter-modal transportation center. The game creek, Meadow Mountain and Stone Creek aerial trams could move pedestrians between Vail, Mintum and Beaver Creek. Future site specific analysis would be needed to determine if use of these tramways would result in reductions in traffic congestion and improvements to air quality. Staff recommend that aerial corridors be considered within the final preferred alternative for Eagle County depending upon acceptance to the communities concerned and effective mitigation efforts are provided. XII. SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS HERITAGE RESOURCES The WRNF contains a rich fabric of historic and prehistoric resources known as heritage resources. Only about 5-10 percent of the Forest has been intensively inventoried to locate these resources. As of 1998, inventories totaling 140,323 acres have noted existence of some 1,519 sites (individual cultural properties). Of these sites only 895 have been officially field evaluated. Of these, 594 are considered "not eligible". Of the remaining 301 sites, 72 prehistoric have been evaluated as eligible (52 National Register). Another 60 prehistoric sites are listed as needing data (117 National Register). Most of these 132 sites are open lithic scatters, open campsites, or small lithic processing and/or procurement sites. As noted below, alternative D allocates the least funds and effort to protecting Heritage Resources. HERITAGE RESOURCES B C D E F I Heritage Sites Evaluated 5/yr 69/yr 29/y 69/y 36/y 34/y Heritage Sites Interpreted /decade 3/decade 1/decade 3/decade 1/decade 2/decade Heritage Resource Budget 0,000 98,000 40,000 98,000 56,000 47,000 pecially designated Sites 0 0 0 0 0 eological/Paleontological RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS (RNA) Page 3-397 Research Natural Areas are established to maintain areas of natural ecosystems and areas of special ecological significance. The WRNF currently has one RNA, Hoosier Ridge, which it shares with the Pike Forest. This plan identifies 15 potential RNAs (with 129,600 acres) for possible inclusion in the system. All proposed RNAs have been field reviewed and ecological evaluations are on file in the Supervisors Office describing a variety of ecological values for each area. RNAs serve three important functions: Reference Areas, Biological Diversity, and Research. The more acreage designated RNA by alternative - the more the goals of the national and regional RNA program will be met. The table below displays the potential RNAs under each alternative. The Draft Plan states that "the Forest Service Manual is quite specific regarding activities that are allowed within RNAs. Domestic Livestock grazing, motorized vehicle use, new road and trail construction, timber management, ski-based resorts, ground disturbing mineral development, and other intensive management activities generally are prohibited. In evaluating the potentials for RNAs all areas in which RNA designation was considered to have high potential for conflict with future management opportunities were dropped from additional consideration, thus having negligible impact upon commodity production." RNAs generally associated with greater Eagle County include: Deep Creek which contains 11 plant associations found only in this RNA and 12 plant associations found in at least one other proposed RNA; West Mountain has 3 plant associations found only in this RNA and 5 plant associations found in at least one other proposed RNA; Black Creek has 3 and 7 respectively, while E Lake Creek/Cross Creek has 10 plant associations found only in this RNA and 13 plant associations found in at least one other proposed RNA. The later three RNAs are not selected within alternative D. Given the significance of lake Creek and Cross Creek staff would recommend its inclusion within alternative D. Furthermore, Staff are concerned that commodity production objectives may have excluded significant sites with RNA potential yet these sites were removed from the inventory before public review. SCENIC BYWAYS Parts of three scenic and historic byways pass through the WRNF. 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 Band F offer the least support to this emphasis while alternatives C, D and E offer the most support. There appears to be a discrepancy between acres allocated to MA 4.23 & total acres listed by scenic byway in the table below. Iternative B C D E F I Management Area 4. 0 2,200 2,300 2,000 0 0 Scenery (acres) A 4.23 Scenic Byways, 0 15,800 13,500 8,700 12,800 30,900 vistas, areas, corridors Gres of Management Area 4.23 Related to. Scenic Byways West Elk Loop 0 700 1,200 700 500 400 Flat Tops Trail 0 5,200 3,400 4,600 0 0 op of the Rockies 0 3,200 0 1,700 0 2,100 otal 0 9,100 4,600 7,000 500 2,500 The Top of the Rockies scenic byway comprises about 76 miles of all-season, state maintained roads comprise this route. It includes the segment of US highway 24 that links Minturn to Leadville and Twin Lakes vial Tennessee Pass. The' byways name reflects its high elevation setting. The roadway seldom drops below 9,000 feet as it twice crosses the Continental Divide in view of four of Colorado's five highest peaks. This byway has at least some 4.23 allocation in alternatives C, E, and 1. There are no 4.23 acres allocated to this route in alternatives B, D, and F. This site is of significant importance and staff recommend that the final alternative include the Top of the Rockies as a scenic byway. SCENERY MANAGEMENT Scenic forest settings contribute to all recreational experiences. Benefits derived include identity, self image of communities and individuals, and enhanced quality of life. In addition, sight seeing, driving for pleasure and outdoor photography are among the nation's leading recreation activities. Management of multiple resources of the Forest can alter scenic resources. Activities such as mining, timber management, fire management, livestock grazing and ski areas can change the character of the landscape. The SMS involves identification and inventorying of scenic components as they relate to people. The existing scenic integrity level on the forest is as follows: very high 35% High 23% moderate 38% low 2% very low 2.4%. Direct and Indirect Effects Management area prescriptions 1. 11, 1. 12, 1.13, 1.2, 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3. 1, and 3.5 will maintain natural-appearing landscapes. Management Area Prescriptions with the greatest potential to affect scenic resources and existing natural appearing landscapes are 5.12, 5.13, 5.4, 5.41, 5.43, 5.45, 8.21, 8.25, 8.3 1, and 8.32. Eagle County land use recommendations under alternative D is comprised of some 60+% category 5 land uses. Thus the preferred alternative has among the greatest impacts upon the area's scenic integrity due to the great potential for timber harvests and mining activity. The tables below identifies that alternative D will have the second lowest area of natural appearing landscape on the WRNF. The tables also indicate that alternative D will have the second lowest acreage very high an high scenic integrity levels on the Forest. There are no acres allocated to scenery or scenic byways within Eagle County. Genic Integrity Levels Recommended by Alternative Alternative B C D E F I Integrity Level Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Very High 470,000 476,000 464,000 458,000 424,000 489,000 High 490,000 503,000 451,000 554,000 423,000 556,000 Moderate 750,000 855,000 771,000 959,000 733,000 963,000 Low 509,000 385,000 535,000 250,000 638,000 213,000 Very Low & Utility Corridor 64,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 64,000 62,000 Gres of Rehabilitation of unacceptably low scenic integrity levels Very High 0 0 0 0 0 0 High 0 0 0 0 0 0 Moderate 0 7,000 7,000. 5,000 0 7,000 Low 0 0 0 2,000 7,000 0 Very Low 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 Gres of Natural Appearing Landscape by Alternative Gres of `Natural' landscape 1 1,710,000 1,834,000 1,686,000 1,971,0001 1,580,000 2,008,000 SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS (3-437-439) The WRNF contains a number of special and unique resources. Six special areas have been.proposed for these alternatives to emphasize recreation use and interpretation of the environment. Thirteen special interest areas have been proposed to minimize recreation and other uses in order to protect their special values. SIAs are identified as botanical, geological, historical, paleontological, scenic, or zoological. They may be managed either to minimize public use (2.1 management areas) or emphasize recreation use and interpretation (3.1 management areas). More details can be found in Appendix H, The table below lists the SIAs by alternative The Leeman Creek area has been heavily affected by recent timber harvest activities. The area also provides opportunities for dispersed recreation including big game hunting. The area is proposed as an SIA to facilitate and accelerate its ecological restoration. This SIA is included only within alternative 1. Location: About 13 miles south of Eagle to Sylvan Lake then on FDR 413 about one mile. The Jakeman-East: area has been heavily affected by recent timber harvest activities. Designation as an SIA is proposed to facilitate/accelerate ecological restoration. Under this form of management, the area will add to the core of the Hardscrabble roadless area & will provide an expanded wildlife security area. This SIA is included only within alternative 1. Located some two miles north of Meredith/Thomasville The Upper Gypsum Creek: area which adjoins a proposed wilderness area in alternative 1, has been affected by recent timber harvest activities. Designation as an SIA is proposed to facilitate and accelerate ecological restoration. The area provides habitat for some management indicator species and also provides dispersed recreation opportunities including big game hunting. This SIA is included only within alternative I. About 15 miles south of Gypsum. pecial Interest Areas Proposed for Minimal Recreation Use and Interpretation (MA 2.1) Iternative B C D E F oal Basin 0 0 0 0 0 7,800 ontinental Divide Land Bridge 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 ead Horse Creek 0 1,100 1,100 0 0 1,100 ain Elk Creek 0 0 6,300 0 1,600 0 itchell Creek 0 4,700 4,600 0 0 0 uaker Mesa 0 0 4,700 0 0 0 Quandary Peak 0 2,000 8,700 1,900 0 2,100 terry Lake 0 0 3,600 0 0 0 Taylor Pass 0 900 500 0 0 0 Upper Gypsum Creek 0 0 0 0 0 700 Leeman Creek 0 0 0 0 0 1,100 akeman-East 0 0 0 0 0 3,200 Porcupine 1 0 0 0 1,600 0 0 Total 2.1 acres 01 9,700 30,500 4,500 2,600 17,000 Special Interest Areas Proposed to Emphasize Recreation Use and Interpretation (MA 3.1) astle Cr & Ashcroft 0 0 0 3,400 0 0 Camp Hale 0 1,500 0 0 0 1,500 Coal Basin 0 0 0 3,000 0 0 Colorado Midland RR 0 400 0 400 0 0 Holy Cross City 0 0 0 0 0 300 Independence Pass 0 0 0 8,700 0 0 Total 0 1,900 0 15,500 0 1,800 Total MA 21 & 3.1 ac 0 11,600 30,500 20,000 2,600 18,800 From the table above one may note that the Holy Cross City and Camp Hale exist within Eagle County. Camp Hale: was recommended as an SIA to enhance the historic values through implementing the management plan for the camp while answering public demands for recreation use in the area. The area is not included with the preferred alternative D. Holy Cross City is an historic mining camp erected at an elevation of 11,335 feet during a short lived early 1880s gold rush. Before the camp's decline the population reached about 300. The old stagecoach road to the town site currently is a very difficult but popular jeep road that challenges four-wheel drive enthusiasts. Emphasis historic and scenic. The boundaries of the SIA include some private in-holdings (mining claims). This SIA is only recommended for implementation under alternative 1. WILDERNESS The WRNF manages all or part of 8 wilderness areas. About one third of the Forest is designated wilderness, the largest portion of any national forest in Colorado. Totaling 754,344 acres, this represents 24% of the state's national forest Wilderness. The wilderness areas within Eagle County include a portion of the Flat Tops (235,230 acres, a portion of the Eagles Nest (acres not stated), and the majority of the Holy Cross (123,410 acres). Alternative D allocates an additional 20,938 acres to pristine wilderness in Eagle County. Back country recreation non- motorized increases from 4,438 acres to 13,623 acres. Wildlife Core areas increase from zero acres to 2,590 acres. Back countryrecreation non-motorized with winter motorized decreases from 18,730 acres to 317 acres. The limited use area designates emphasis on maintaining biological diversity and preservation of habitat for native species. No acres of this MA have been allocated to Eagle County in Alt D the biodiversity alternative. See table below for details. There has been an apparent error in the recommended wilderness MA so this has been removed from the table. EAGLE EAGLE EAGLE EAGLE EAGLE EAGLE CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CO. CODE MANAGEMENT AREA LEGEND B B D D B to D B to D 1.11 Pristine Wilderness (only) 5,988 1.0% 26,926 4.5% 20,938 349.7% Pristine wilderness total 5,988 1.0% 26,926 4.5% 20,938 349.7% 1.12 Primitive Wilderness (only) 149,654 25.0% 128,784 21.5% (20,870) -13.9% Primitive Wilderness total 149,654 25.0% 128,784 21.5% (20,870) -13.9% 1.13 Semi-Primitive Wilderness (only) 1,101 0.2% 1,037 0.2% (64) -5.8% Semi-Primitive Wilderness total 1,101 0.2% 1,037 0.2% (64) -5.8% 1.31 Back Country Rec - Non-Motorized 4,438 0.7% 18,061 3.0% 13,623 307.0% 1.32 Back Country Rec - Limit Winter Motor 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 1.41 Core Areas 0 0.0% 2,590 0.4% 2,590 NEW 1.5 Wild Rivers (only) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.21 Limited Use Area 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.31 Back Country Rec - Yr-Rnd Motorized 33,186 5.5% 3,473 0.6% (29,714) -89.5% 3.32 Back Country Rec - Non-Motorized 18,730 3.1% 317 0.1% (18,414) -98.3% w/Winter motorized 3.4 Scenic Rivers (only) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 3.55 Corridors Connecting Core Areas 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.2 Scenery 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 4.23 Scenic Byways, scenic areas, vistas 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 43 Dispersed Recreation 77,684 13.0% 7 0.0%. (77,677) -100.0% 4.32 ' Dispersed Recreation - High Use 4,385 0.7% 3,001 0.5% (1,384) -31.6% 4.4 Recreation Rivers (only) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 5.12 Resource Prod. - Range Vegetation 21,478 3.6% 17,617 2.9% (3,861) -18.0% 5.13 Resource Prod. - Forest Products 116,508 19.5% 5,874 1.0% (110,634) -95.0% 5.4 Forested Flora & Fauna Habitats 90,529 15.1% 197,763 33.1% 107,233 118.5% 5.41 Deer & Elk Winter Range 35,352 5.9% 93,389 15.6% 58,037 164.2% 5.42 Bighorn Sheep Habitat (only) 0 0.0% 11,222 1.9% 11,222 NEW Bighorn Sheep Habitat total 0 0.0% 11,222 1.9% 11,222 NEW 5.43 Elk Habitat 0 0.0% 2,795 0.5% 2,795 NEW 5.45 Forest Carnivores 5,267 0.9% 59,869 10.0% 54,602 1036.8% 7.1 Intermix 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 8.21 Developed Recreation Complexes 939 0.2% 0 0.0% (939) -100.0% 8.25 Ski Based Resorts - Existing/Potent 24,351 4.1% 16,201 2.7% (8,149) -33.5% 8.31 Aerial Transportation Corridors 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 8.32 Designated Utility Corridors - Existing 8,581 1.4% 8,581 1.4% (0) -0.0% & Potential 598,171 100.0% 598,171 100.0% The table here depicts land use for the WRNF within Eagle County under alternatives B and D. It is also of interest that no lands are allocated as scenery or scenic byways within Eagle County. It is also important to note certain land uses that are not prescribed for Eagle County. Neither alternatives B or I designate any Special Interest Area (SIAs) lands (category 2) within Eagle County, though other alternatives allocate lands in these categories for Eagle County. Special Interest Area (category 3) land allocations within Eagle County are reduced dramatically and exclude SIAs designations for Camp Hale, among others. Other omissions within Eagle County include, developed recreation complexes (alt D), aerial transportation corridors and intermix lands. Fire Suppression: presently conditions reflect 100 years of fire control. It is possible that the most serious adverse impact to wilderness has been fire suppression. The USFS will consider increasing its use of prescribed fire within all alternatives ilderness Acres Categories from Table S-1 for WRNF Iternative B C D E F I Pristine 1.11 82,000 101,700 116,100 70,400 75,400 111,300 Primitive 1.12 661,800 643,200 628,600 632,700 654,100 634,300 Semi-Primitive 1.13 4,000 3,100 3,200 44,900 18,500 2,400 total Wilderness 747,800 748,000 747,900 748,000 748,000 748,000 lRecommended Wilderness 0 96,400 47,100 106,400 .0 214,600 Back Country Rec Non Motorized 80,700 163,200 89,700 82,000 37,400 381,400 Back Country Rec Winter M. 0 44,600 7,900 49,300 0 1,400 Core Areas 0 0 8,200 0 0 36,800 ild Rivers 14,000 22,300 22,200 21,900 22,200 22,200 Total Supporting Wilderness 94,700 230,100 128,000 153,200 59,600 441,800 Total Wilderness Related 842,500 1,074,500 923,000 1,007,600 807,600 1,404,400 Supporting Wilderness Lands t 0.13 0.31 0.17 0.2 0.08 0.59 ilderness lands ratio XIII. BUDGET VARIATION Below is a brief examination of the WRNF budget. The budget has been organized to display those budget areas that tend to vary significantly by alternative. The purpose of which is to track variation in dollar allocations by alternative and line item. The first number column is the lowest line item investment across the six alternatives. This is followed by the investment within alternative B, then by the difference between the lowest possible investment and alt B (which in all cases is higher or equal to the baseline investment), and its percent variation from the lowest budget effort within all of the alternatives. This same progression is displayed for alternative D_ WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST BUDGET (in thousands of dollars) baseline ALTERNATIVES COST CENTER & COMPONENT budget B B B D D D COST CENTERS THAT VARY BY ALTERNATIVE (desired budget) 7,169 11,499 4,330 60.40 11,415 4,246 59.23% (experienced) 4,762 7,652 2,890 60.69 7,601 2,839 59.62% variance low budget variance % variance % Recreation and Wilderness 2,218 3,325 1,107 49.91 3,324 1,106 49.86 1. Revenue-based recreation 227 413 186 81.94 413 186 81.94 2. Heritage Resources 40 50 10 25.00 40 0 0.00 3. Non-revenue based resources 823 1,428 605 73.51 1,417 594 72.17 4. Recreation special uses 889 956 67 7.54 956 67 7.54 5. Wilderness 239 478 239 100.00 498 259 108.37 Wildlife and Fisheries 180 360 180 100.00 920 740 411.11 1. Wildlife Habitat 70 150 80 114.29 280 210 300.00 2. Inland Fisheries 70 150 80 114.29 280 210 300.00 3. Designated Species 40 60 20 50.00 360 320 800.00 Range Management Program 277 430 153 55.23 480 203 7329 1. Permit Administration 144 297 153 106.25 144 0 0.00 2. Rangeland Vegetation 133 133 0 0.00 336 203 152.63 Timber Sales 650 1,890 1,240 190.77 1,340 690 106.15 Water, Soil, and Air 197 197 0 0.00 247 50 25.38 Infrastructure Management 1,240 1,450 210 16.94 1,290 50 4.03 1. Basic Land Stewardship 402 420 18 4.48 452 50 12.44 2. Facilities 90 116 26 28.89 90 0 0.00 3. Road System 748 914 166 22.19 748 0 0.00 RELATIVELY CONSTANT COST 6,093 34.64% 6,168 35.08% COMPONENTS BY ALTERNATIVE 4,073 34.74% 4,123 35.17% Water, Soil, and Air (air resources) 33 0.81% 33 0.80% Minerals Management 150' 3.68% 150 3.64% Protection of Basic Resources 1,160 28.48% 1,210 29.35% 1. Real Estate & Special Uses 93 2.28% 97 2.35% 2. Fire Protection 1,021 25.07% 1,065 25.83% 3. Cooperative Law Enforcement 46 1.13% 48 1.16% General Administration 1,660 40.76% 1,660 1416% Ecosystem Management 1,070 26.27% 1,070 25.95% Note that the second line of the budget lists the variance between the alternatives within those budget items that vary across alternatives. The baseline budget for these line items is $4.76 million under the experienced budget level. This represents a level of spending across all alternatives that remains constant-for these line items. This represents about 40% The lower portion of the displayed budget identifies those line items that tend to be relatively constant across all alternatives. Note that alternatives B and D vary by about.5% on this $4.1+ million area of the budget under experienced levels. Thus about 35% of the budget is constant under all alternatives. Thus, combining the findings from the first and second parts of this budget analysis, close to 75% of the budget remains constant across all alternatives. The variance for alternatives B and D are quite similar at about $2.85 million. This represents the total variation by alternative and is about 25% of the $11.5 million budget. Variation may be significant by line item from the baseline budget effort. What is "of particular interest here is the similarity between alternatives B and D within the budget. Overall investment in recreation and wilderness is identical at $3.325 million. The main areas of variation between B .and D are the road system at $166,000 (alt D has lowest investment across alternatives), wildlife and fisheries at $560,000 ($300,000 within designated species), Range Management at $356,000, Timbersales program at $550,000 and Water, Soil and Air quality investments at $50,000. Thus the true program variation between alternatives B & D is near $1.68 million or about 15% of the total experienced budget. Staff have taken the trouble to describe the budget variation to illustrate the similarities between the alternatives and to begin to point to directions that will encourage the development of a sound plan alternative within the public review process. Staff hope to assess the budget in greater detail within the next two months with detailed budgetary materials provided by the WRNF staff. In another spreadsheet, staff compared the average budget during the 1995 through 1997 period for the WRNF. This table is included on the following page (and is perhaps less confusing than the variation budget). Of particular interest in this table is the change in non-revenue based recreation resource operations. None of the alternatives maintains the average funding level for this line item. In fact, alternative D ($1,830,000) is less than one half the expenditures in this category for FY95 ($3,697,000). The three year average for this category was $2,366,000 or fully $500,000 more than alt D and $200,000 more than the highest investment under alternative I. An additional interesting line item is Infrastructure Management. Alternative D is the only alternative that provides less funds than the FY95-97 average. Finally, alternative D provides substantially more resources to wildlife and fisheries than other alternatives and triple the FY95-97 average. XIV. MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS ON WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Question regarding the recommendation of utilizing focal species within the proposed Forest Planning Rule and the use of Management Indicator Species within the WRNF Draft Plan which the proposed rule recommends against. This is of particular importance to clear up since a major focus of alternative D is wildlife management. While alternative D provides the most substantial investment by far for management of designated species. The outcomes table indicates only two evaluation criteria for lynx and Colorado Cutthroat trout. The Forest contains numerous additional designated species as identified by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program. It is not clear what levels of protection are provided these additional designated species by alternative. In a related topic, discussions with several environmental groups suggest that the habitat development prescriptions for forest carnivores may be inappropriate, especially for the lynx. There is significant habitat allocated to mule deer, a species of special concern. However, the section identifies land conversion, coyotes and forest maturation as the leading population growth inhibitors for mule deer and the draft plan does not seem to address this management topic. Reforestation activity under all alternatives seems low given the level oftimber harvest in all alternatives, unless the USFS can more clearly historically document that this is a relevant value. WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST BUDGET (in thousands of dollars and Experienced Budget) ALTERNATIVES COST CENTER & COMPONENT FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 95-97 95-97% B B C C D D E E F F I I AVG APPROXIMATE FOREST TOTALS 12,862 11,146 10,644 11,550 100.00% 11,725 66.65% 11,710 66.68% 11,724 66.68% 11,707 66.63% 11,734 66.70% 11,399 66.75% Recreation and Wilderness 4,412 2,664 2,959 3,345 28.96% 3,325 28.36% 3,809 32.53% 3,324 28.35% 4,237 36.19% 2,234 19.04% 3,299 28.94% 1. Revenue-based recreation 413 3.52% 411 3.51% 413 3.52% 581 4.96% 227 1.93% 410 3.60% 2. Non-revenue based resources 1,428 12.18% 1,640 14.01% 1,417 12.09% 1,587 13.56% 823 7.01% 1,204 10.56% Recreation Resource Operations 3,697 1,610 1,790 2,366 20.48% 1,841 15.70% 2,051 17.51% 1,830 15.61% 2,168 18.52% 1,050 8.95% 1,614 14.16% 3. Heritage Resources 84 32 40 52 0.45% 50 0.43% 98 0.84% 40 0.34% 98 0.84% 56 0.48% 47 0.41% 4. Recreation special uses 397 678 639 571 4.95% 956 8.15% 1,104 9.43% 956 8.15% .1,425 12.17% 889 7.58% 1,003 8.80% 5. Wilderness 235 443 489 389 3.37% 478 4.08% 556 4.75% 498 4.25% 546 4.66% 239 2.04% 635 5.57% Wildlife and Fisheries 336 370 157 288 2.49% 360 3.07% 720 6.15% 920 7.85% 330 2.82% 210 1.79% 590 5.18% 1. Wildlife Habitat 207 201 0 136 1.18% 150 1.28% 280 2.39% 280 2.39% 160 1.37% 70 0.60% 220 1.93% 2. Inland Fisheries 129 152 142 141 1.22% 150 1.28% 280 2.39% 280 2.39% 130 1.11% 70 0.60% 150 1.32% 3. Designated Species 0 16 15 10 0.09% 60 0.51% 160 1.37% 360 3.07% 40 0.34% 70 0.60% 220 1.93% Range Management Program 609 368 297 425 3.68% 430 3.67% 430 3.67% 480 4.09% 380 3.25% 510 4.35% 480 4.21% 1. Permit Administration 517 63 296 292 2.53% 297 2.53% 150 1.28% 144 1.23% 190 1.62% 204 1.74% 144 1.26% 2. Rangeland Vegetation 91 305 1 132 1.15% 133 1.13% 280 2.39% 336 2.87% 190 1.62% 306 2.61% 336 2.95% Timber 1,434 1,980 2,264 1,893 16.39% 1,890 16.12% 680 5.81% 1,340 11.43% 650 5.55% 2,890 24.63% 850 7.46% 1. Timber Sales 1,304 1,927 2,183 1,805 15.63% 1,890 16.12% 680 5.81% 1,340 11.43% 650 5.55% 2,890 24.63% 850 7.46% 2. Forested Vegetation Management 130 53 81 88 0.76% . Water, Soil, and Air 285 220 190 232 2.01% 230 1.96% 260 222% 280 2.39% 260 2.22% 250 2.13% 690 6.05% 1. Water and Soils 265 197 182 215 1.86% 197 1.68% 227 1.94% 247 2.11% 227 1.94% 217 1.85% 657 5.76% 2. Air Resources 20 23 8 17 0.15% 33 0.28% 33 0.28% 33 0.28% 33 0.28% 33 0.28% 33 0.29% Minerals Management 1. Minerals 119 153 177 149 1.29% 150 1.28% 150 1.28% 150 1.28% 150 1.28% 150 1.28% 150 1.32% Infrastructure Management 1,662 1,397 941 1,333 11.54% 1,450 12.37% 1,721 14.70% 1,290 11.00% 1,749 14.94% 1,600 13.64% 1,400 12.28% 1. Basic Land Stewardship 468 407 391 422 3.65% 420 3.58% 499 4.26% 452 3.86% 402 3.43% 576 4.91% 546 4.79% 2. Facilities 140 106 87 111 0.96% 116 0.99% 138 1.18% 90 0.77% 175 1.49% 128 1.09% 98 0.86% 3. Road System 1,054 884 463 800 6.93% 914 7.80% 1,084 9.26% 748 6.38% 1,172 10.01% 896 7.64% 756 6.63% Protection of Basic Resources 1,100 1,410 979 1,163 10.07% 1,160 9.89% 1,210 10.33% 1,210 10.32% 1,221 10.43% 1,160 9.89% 1,210 10.61% 1. Real Estate & Special Uses 202 22 66 97 0.84% 93 0.79% 97 0.83% 97 0.83% 98 0.84% 93 0.79% 97 0.85% 2. Fire Protection 851 1,351 871 1,024 8.87% 1,021 8.71% 1,065 9.09% 1,065 9.08% 1,074 9.17% 1,021 8.70% 1,065 9.34% 3. Cooperative Law Enforcement 47 37 42 42 0.36% 46 0.39% 48 0.41% 48 0.41% 49 0.42% 46 0.39% 48 0.42% General Administration 1. General Administration 1,729 1,581 1,655 1,655 14.33% 1,660 14.16% 1,660 14.18% 1,660 14.16% 1,660 14.18% 1,660 14.15% 1,660 14.56% Ecosystem Management 1. Ecosystem management 1,153 1,006 1,024 1,061 9.19% 1,070 9.13% 1,070 9.14% 1,070 9.13% 1,070 9.14% 1,070 912% 1,070 9.39% APPROXIMATE FOREST TOTALS , 12,862 11,146 10,644 11,550 100.00% 11,725 100% 11,710 100% 11,724 100% 11,707 100% 11,734 100% 11,399 100% Source USFS WRNF, Prepared by Eagle County Planning Division December 1999 XV. WRNF LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Staff have reviewed the relationship between the plans goals, objectives, evaluation/monitoring criteria, and the summary output and activity measures table provided within the draft plan. It was believed that the juxtapositioning of these aspects of the plan would help in clarifying the overall direction of the Land and Resource Management Plan, which will be adopted regardless of which alternative is selected during this public review process. A further purpose of this assessment was to make the plan more accessible to residents of the WRNF region. A spreadsheet was distributed before the meeting which depicts this analysis for the entire Land and Resource Management Plan. Given limitations on time, this table has not yet been completely reviewed with a summary of the major findings. For now we will briefly identify some of the more important issues that arose during the assessment. Generally, in performing this assessment staff observed that there are a substantial number of inconsistencies in the relationship between the plans goals, objectives, evaluation/monitoring criteria, and the summary output and activity measures. In numerous cases, an objective will be stated without having a corresponding measurable outcome or activity. In certain cases, this may be easily resolved by drawing outcome measures from the DEIS that were inadvertently not included within the outcome table (i.e.,23a heritage sites). In other cases, no apparent activity measure is presented within the DEIS, (i.e.,23b heritage sites). In other cases, such as the ROS indicators of 1,000 acres by ROS Class, staff has learned that the indicator is not appropriate, given that the USFS staff measured carrying capacity by miles of trails rather than 1,000 acres to determine appropriate levels of PAOT. In other cases, staff note that the outcome measure may not clearly achieve the objective, (i.e., no baseline data to measure percent improvement), or may be inappropriate (objective value is below stated existing condition as in rangelands), or may miss an important measurable outcome (instream flow rights), in other cases the outcome measure clearly does not achieve the objective (i.e, several alternatives may be short of the objective), and in other cases the objective my be more appropriately connected with the standards and guidelines rather than alternative measures. (Mineral & energy resources). The plan in some cases should include additional goals and or objectives. For example the urbanization revision topic issues, a vacant allotment and vegetative cover quality objective, include an insect and disease management objective, an air quality objective associated with travel management, and the like. In other cases the objective may not be consistent with existing conditions as in the objective to rehabilitate 20% of dispersed recreation sites to agency standards during the plan period. In certain cases the measurable outcomes do not appear to have a goal and objective to connect with. This seems to be the case in many of the recreation "performance" standards listed in the outcomes table, particularly the ROS classes. In several cases there may need to be additional goals and objectives stated that more effectively address the complex issues being pursued, as in the wilderness evaluation criteria. In summary, this assessment will be of substantial assistance in making public comment on the Forest Plan and will be useful as a tool for a collaborative review of the plan to improve its impact on the region and the Forest itself. XVI. PROPOSED FOREST RULE (Chapter 219) CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Staff have retrieved and read the proposed revision of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Forest Planning Rule. In addition, staff attended a meeting on the matter in Montrose this past month. Staff believes that this issue is highly significant for any proposed modifications to the preferred alternative D of the WRNF Plan. We still require clarification as to whether the final selected alternative for the WRNF Master Plan intends to/ needs to be consistent with the new planning rule even though this new rule may be adopted before public comments are due in May on the draft WRNF Plan. The comment period on this new rule has been extended by one month to early February. There are two basic issues here: 1) If the plan is completed within one year of the effective date of the new planning rule, the responsible official is not required to use the amendment or revision process stated within the new rule. 2) However, if the final WRNF plan is delayed, then. it is highly likely that the final plan document will need to be consistent with the new rule. In any event, it would appear prudent for the responsible official to have the final WRNF plan recommendations to be as consistent as possible with the new rule, since substantial inconsistencies would likely be grounds to amend/revise the just adopted WRNF plan, leading to yet another round of planning. After discussing the issue with Forest Planner Carolyn Upton, we are a bit more clear on the topic. What we will recommend is that staff will send comments to WRNF staff on the areas of the new rule that we believe the WRNF Draft Plan does not effectively address at this time. In addition, staff will prepare a comment letter to the USFS regarding the proposed new planning rule in relation to the situation with the WRNF planning process and include observations on the proposed rule, in hopes to make the rule better. Within the next month staff will have completed the review of the relationship between the plan and the new rule and will prepare a summary public comment letter for BoCC review and endorsement. Observations on the Proposed New Forest Planning Rule After reading both the WRNF draft plan and the new rule we are certain that there are numerous inconsistencies between these two documents, even though there are many similarities between them also. The WRNF's responsible official is required to respond to the 1982 CFR However, this official is also making an attempt to be consistent with current scientific information and analysis methodology much of which is incorporated within the proposed rule. Staff anticipates that during the public review and revision period for the WRNF Plan (probably one year or more) local governmental staff will develop a collaborative relationship with the Forest Service to resolve issues identified within the draft plan and the proposed rule. The idea will be to work with the Forest Service to have the final recommended management plan be as consistent as possible with the proposed rule when a final WRNF plan is completed, so as to avoid an additional revision period. This cooperative effort will focus on inconsistencies between the new rule and the existing WRNF plan, particularly in the area of planning process and collaboration; suitable use methodology and decision processes; social and economic sustainability; boundaryless planning and the urbanization topic; development of stewardship capacity (education) and partnerships (management) between local entities and the USFS; final plan documentation (budget, monitoring, work program), and other related topics. after reading both the plan and the new rule we are certain that there are significant inconsistencies between these two documents, even though there are many similarities between them. Within the next two weeks staff will have completed the review of the relationship between the plan and the new rule and will prepare a public comment letter for BoCC review and endorsement. There are areas that the draft plan does not effectively meet the intent of the new rule. Several of these areas include, but are not limited to: • Development of the preferred plan for the WRNF within a collaborative process that includes local governments • Development of stewardship capacity (education) • Partnerships (management) between local entities and the USFS • Delineation of Socially and Economically sustainable Development Paths for local communities • Focal Species vs Management Indicator Species as a wildlife methodology (potential conflicts within the USFS) • Presentation of Detailed two year Budgets with all projects identified within the recommended plan. • Limited social analysis within the existing draft plan for the WRNF regions population vs new rule standards • Revised planning process where the plan becomes a `living document' XVII. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS Staff have not yet been able to document the methodology that the Forest Service utilized in preparing its socio-economic impact analysis as we have only just received the documentation on methodology with numerous assumptions requiring verification. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the methodology is flawed. For example, the plan projects that Alternative E (which maximizes recreation opportunities) will generate only 2,500 more jobs during the next 15 years than Alternative I (conservation biology). When comparing these alternatives staff observed that the Other Recreation (non-skiing) employment category is predicted to generate more than 100 fewer jobs for altern ative E (1,957) rather than alternative I (2,066) the conservation biology alternative. With the exception of Alternative I ($893.3 million in labor income and 41,115 total jobs) which largely is a preservation strategy, Alternative D generates the lowest labor income ($893.9 million) and employment (41,153 jobs) of any alternative. Further, alternative D generates the second lowest financial and economic net present value or cost /benefit of any alternative. Again, second lowest to alt I. CHANGE TO LABOR INCOME BY ALTERNATIVE (Millions of 1997 Dollars) Resource Base Year (1997) Experienced budget level J.Skiing 579.2 744.5 744.5 700.5 744.5 744.5 697.9 ther Recreation 142.6 185.7 185.7 177.4 185.7 184.4 179.7 Fish & Wildlife use 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 Grazing 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.71 1.7 1.8 1.7 Timber Harvest 0. 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.2 X25% pay to co.s 1. 2.3 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.4 1.8 IFS expenditures 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 otal Forest mgt 737. 946.7 946 893.9 946 945.8 893.3 /o change -from 1997 28.4 28.3 21.2 28.3 28.2 21.1 EMPLOYMENT CHANGE BY PROGRAM esource Base Yea B C D E F I 1997) Experienced budget level 3490 kiing 31,19 41,129 41,129 38,699 41,129 41,129 38,556 Other recreation 1,44 1,957 1,957 1,951 1,957 1,904 2,066 Fish & wildlife use 4 48 48 48 48 49 47 Grazing 9 98 98 98 98 105 98 Timber harvest 31 24 9 17 9 37 12 5% pay to Co.s 5 80 64 66 64 83 62 FS Expenditures 274 274 274 274 274 274 274 otal forest mgt 33,94 43,610 43,580 41,153 43,580 43,580 41,115 /o change -from 1997 28.5 28.4 21.2 28.4 28.4 21.1 Other issues will be included as time permits in a further iteration of this report. Other topics that are of concern include: • Many of the topics previously discussed within this report have bearing upon the overall socio-economic impact of the proposed plan under varying alternatives. These will be assessed in another report, including the RIMS II regional multipliers for the WRNF Region. • The plan lacks a discussion of Net Benefit. There is no discussion of the status of the natural capital stock related to the end of the plan horizon and the desired condition. While these values may be qualitative in nature, the sum picture of non-quantifiable ecological and social benefits should be portrayed for each alternative. • Measurement of indirect and induced effects of the plan alternatives. • Inadequate account of the impact of the service (vs basic) sector from Forest Plan decisions • Inadequate assessment of the Second Home Market as a driver of the local economy and its relationship with the Forest XVIII. SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES A significant concern regarding the draft WRNF plan is that it is generally inaccessible to the common citizen of the White River National Forest Region due to its 1,600 pages and the placement of related data in numerous different documents rather than in one place. Staff have attempted to `democratize' the plan review process by developing several reports that tend to summarize the most important findings of the plan with a focus on Eagle County when relevant and data was available. When the draft assessments are finalized they will be utilized to assist in developing a new or revised alternative for the WRNF. To this end, staff have completed a draft comparison of all the alternatives based upon their management impacts to the six revision topics. However, staff has not had the time available to summarize the most significant findings of this comparison. The reader will need to examine each major section to see the direct comparison of what each alternative proposes, including a small amount of staff comment. The revision topics include: Biodiversity, Recreation Management, Roadless Areas (Recommended Wilderness), Travel Management, Special Interest Areas (RNAs, Wild Rivers, etc.), Timber Management, and Socio-Economic Impacts of the plan alternatives. Furthermore, staff have completed a draft analysis of the Plan's Goals, Objectives, Evaluation Criteria (Monitoring Questions), Outcomes and Activity Measures and Budgetary investments. No summary statements have been prepared for these documents as of yet. However, we may note that staff have uncovered significant discrepancies and inconsistencies within this report. See the line item comments within this report. We are still working to obtain various data from the Forest Service to assist in our efforts here. XIX. FUTURE WORK EFFORTS PROPOSED Staffrecommends seven specific areas ofanalysis and collaboration be completed to inform Commissioners on the content and direction of the Plan and to prepare comments for US Forest Service review. In addition, staff includes questions regarding the direction of public presentation of the findings. Recommended staff tasks include: 1. Summarize the systematic comparison of alternatives and plan assessment work just completed for the alternatives and the plan. Identify issues of significance to Eagle County and draft comments for public review on these issues. 2. Conduct an examination of the plan's proposed response to the urbanization topic through use of the preceding revision topic analysis and development of maps that depict issue areas. Identify issues pertinent to the urbanization topic generally and within Eagle County for inclusion within a public comment letter to the USFS. 3. Assume that Alternative I (Conservation Biology) recommendations for `roadless areas' (recommended wilderness), will be, at minimum, incorporated within the Plan, (President Clinton Initiative), and assess the plans impacts-on Eagle County based on this likelihood. 4. Assess the proposed Forest Service's new planning rule in relation to the preferred Alternative D, the plans other elements (Objectives, Budget, Monitoring, etc.) and the Eagle County Master Plan for consistency purposes. (This rule will have significant implications for recommending changes within the existing draft plan). Prepare a public comment letter for the BOCC by the end of this year, ( January 4, 2000 is the comment deadline.) 5. Examine the Plan's potential socio-economic impact on Eagle County and the region, in cooperation with other entities, utilizing the draft economic report prepared by staff, eco-tourism literature and the RIMS II regional economic input-output model. Prepare an impact statement in collaboration with other groups. 6. Perform analysis on the Plan's land use methodology (watershed, wildlife, recreation opportunity spectrum, timber ASQ, etc.) in conjunction with research on concepts of multiple use optimization and highest and best use analysis techniques for the WRNF lands. Recommend land planning methodology revisions for the USFS to utilize within a new plan alternative based on the findings associated with the previous five assessments. 7. Continue to collaborate with other entities such as NWCCOG (urbanization topic) and other public and private interest groups in the Plan review process and the preparation ofa public comment letter forBoCC review. Utilize the findings from the previous assessments and collaboration to define a new locally preferred alternative and USFS comment letter for public review and endorsement. Staff anticipates that the majority of the above review efforts will generally be completed by February. Staff will be requesting direction on what form of public hearing and public review process, if any, does the Board desire to pursue outside of the NWCCOG intentions to carry out hearings on the urbanization topic. These presentations may be carried out during the months of January through March. This will leave ample time to draft comments and alternative recommendations to be submitted to the Board for review and endorsement by early April. The NWCCOG is seeking to obtain a collaborative response to the USFS plan before the May 9 deadline. XX. ANALYSIS OF THE MANAGEMENT SITUATION ISSUES: BACKGROUND ISSUES The following pages briefly summarize several issues (in phrase form) related to USFS management programs and its White River Master Plan update that have relevance to the long range planning function for Eagle County. These revision topic descriptions are drawn from the AMS not the Draft plan. (This report was produced during late June). TOPIC 1: BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY A comprehensive fire management strategy along with an integrated insect and disease management program will be part of a Vegetation Management Program. It is not clear where this program is defined within the Draft Plan. Resolution: how will ecosystem management and landscape ecology principles be utilized to establish management actions that will help maintain or restore ecosystems on the forest, how adjacent landowner management will be considered in a boundary less management philosophy, & how the intent of the Endangered Species Act will be met p27 TOPIC 2: TRAVEL MANAGEMENT: The population growth trend has led to a demand for an integrated, inter-modal transportation system. Total reported travel within the Forest has increased at an annual rate of about 25% with mountain biking increasing faster than any other form of travel (+200%). Alternative D allocates no funds or lands to meet this issue. Lack of legal Access is a significant issue. An additional 184 cases (land purchase, easement donations, etc.) have been identified as being needed to provide adequate legal access to the Forest. "Some County officials have indicated that most county roads and bridges are designed for `farm to market' use and not for sustained, heavy truck traffic." Average annual harvests from the Forest are 25 MMBF/year which equates to about 5,000 log trucks and 11,000 associated support vehicles entering and leaving the forest annually. Most of this traffic passes over county road systems to reach the Forest. A key to implementing an effective travel management plan is coordination with neighboring county governments and local communities. It is not clear how the USFS WRNF plan has resolved these issues. Topic resolution: Through the Forest planning process a complete, enforceable, (see budget allocations of $46,000/yr) year round travel management plan will be developed.... Intensive public involvement is essential in developing alternatives and gaining support for travel management decisions... Another key to implementation of an effective travel management plan is coordination with neighboring Forests, county governments, federal agencies, local communities, tribal governments and private landholders TOPIC 3: URBANIZATION: It is Forest Service policy to cooperate with state and local governments, to engage in "boundaryless" planning, and to implement ecosystem management clearly dictates the need for collaboration with others in developing management strategies for the Forest. (See the relationship of this statement to the proposed new Forest Planning Rule). Effects on Forest management from urbanization were not addressed in the 1984 Plan. Significant issues to be addressed include: access, wildlife, vegetation management, fire management and air quality; land acquisition, conveyance and land ownership adjustment; recreation, domestic grazing, mineral activity and ties between the Forest and local economies. Topic resolution: decisions to be made are: areas that should be allocated to the urbanization management area prescription and the Forest-wide management area direction necessary for addressing the issues in this topic. Most important will be the need to establish cooperative relationships with others to try to deal with issues beyond national Forest System lands. TOPIC 4: RECREATION MANAGEMENT: The White River ranked fourth nationwide in recreation use in 1992 and fifth in 1995. Recreation use has more than doubled since the 1984 Plan was prepared. Colorado is now the fourth most popular summer country vacation destination in the US. Expected recreation demand (total visitor days) in the FS document is 11.12 million in 2000 and 18.17 million by 2020. This value is significantly below the projected moving average which reaches 25 million by 2020. Winter corridors and connections between resort areas and new access and egress portals will be examined to address transportation within and between resort areas. Roles and allocations for commercial outfitting and guiding need refinement. Maintaining capacities will play a major role in protecting the desired mix of recreational experiences, reducing conflicts and managing within resource limitations. Projected demand for dispersed recreational opportunities is expected to grow by over 200% by 2020. Areas where projected demand will exceed supply were greatest for backpacking, day hiking, and cross country skiing. "Driving for pleasure and sight-seeing are expected to remain the top two activities in terms of the number of trips taken". It is not clear how the plan addresses these issues as travelway maintenance is lowest under alternative D.. Developed sites with water features and quality scenery are in the highest demand. Universally accessible accommodations will be required to respond to the ADA and an aging baby boom generation. One forest survey indicated that nearly 41 % of today's campers are using motor homes, fifth wheel trailers or other trailers. The plan does not appear to directly address these issues. TOPIC 5: ROADLESS AREA ALLOCATION AND MANAGEMENT: The 1984 plan did not address roadless area management. The evaluation will determine the degree to which an area contributes to the local and national distribution of Wilderness. The evaluation will be completed using vegetative data in the Common Vegetation Unit of the IRI. At this time, recreation use is not creating a need for additions to the Wilderness system. In addition to making Wilderness recommendation, each roadless area will be assigned a management area prescription (other multiple use management direction). TOPIC 6: SPECIAL AREAS ALLOCATION AND MANAGEMENT: "It is possible that the most serious adverse impact to wilderness has been the suppression of fire" during the past 100 years. Prescribed natural fire plans will be developed to seek appropriate restoration of fire to wilderness ecosystems. How do we better manage wilderness? A Management Plan has been developed for the Top of the Rockies Byway. How do we manage the scenic byways? There are efforts underway to identify and protect the Old Ute Trail from the confluence of the Eagle and Colorado Rivers. Agreements with the Ute Nation to protect sacred sites have been incorporated into the draft plan. There are many other Special Area designations, none of which presently exist on the White River National Forest. Listed below are some of then possibilities being considered during the Plan revision: National Recreation Area; Paleontological Area; National Scenic Area; National Management Emphasis Area; National Monument; American Heritage Rivers; Geologic Area; National Recreation Reservoirs TOPIC 7: ALLOWABLE SALES OUANTITY (ASOULEVEL OF TIMBER HARVEST: From 1984 to 1995 approximately 28,000 acres of forested lands were treated using different harvesting methods that have provided 296.4 MMBF of timber. Using 15,000 board feet for a medium size three bedroom house, this volume would be equivalent to around 19,800 homes. Since 1985, < 2 % of the Forest lands have been treated using timber harvesting. According to the `Market Assessment of the Timber Situation of the White River National Forest, the saw timber market for the forest is regional as opposed to consisting of a traditional timbershed. The Forest's proximity to the 1-70 corridor means that many of its products are accessible to a wide range of purchasers and processing facilities. Wood fiber is processed as far away as Saratoga, Wyoming and purchasers from New Mexico have expressed interest in timber sales. How do we develop a timbershed demand-supply relationship? Even aged management (clearcut & shelter-wood) are the predominant cutting methods used under the current Plan. A broader choice of even aged and uneven aged management to optimize multiple use values is needed. Multiple use goals and objectives are likely to change due to the application of ecosystem management and biodiversity. Of importance to the revision is the overall need to manage (harvest or burn) forested vegetation. The reasons for vegetation management include forest health, establishment and maintenance of biodiversity, achievement of scenery objectives. Initial indications show that treatment for these purposes could exceed the commercial program. There is a need to reduce fuel loadings using timber and fire management. A better balance of age classes is needed for aspen and lodgepole pine to enhance health and vigor for these species. Forest health is at risk form fire and insect and disease because large portions of the Forest are in mature and over mature age classes. To move toward biological diversity, the forest will have to treat more acres during the next planning period. Inventories have identified that 36 % of lodgepole pine on the forest is infested with dwarf mistletoe. Visual degradation (from beetle and mistletoe infestations) is occurring in the Vail Valley, the Piney Analysis Area, Derby Mesa, and the Upper Frying Pan River. Degradation of the visual quality of campgrounds, ski areas and view sheds is another concern. New direction needs. to be established that defines the desired conditions with standards and guidelines (for vegetation management/timber activities) for areas around wetlands, riparian areas, Wildernesses, high recreation use areas, trails and roads. A flat demand is now predicted for the Forest's timber. In order to move toward a more biologically diverse environment, significant amounts of forested vegetation will need to be treated. Much of the land needing treatment is expected to be outside the suited commercial base. The commercial program is further dependent on the need to have an above cost sales program. The key element will be the acreage needing to be treated for biological purposes. This will also vary by plan alternative. ~.aq p w' l~~t?c~ ~ 3 Forest Plan Ouestions and Rumors 1. Explain the travel management in Alternative D. Will trails be closed to foot and horse travel? What is the change for each user group? 2. What is the .proposed timber harvest in the Vail area in Alternative D? 3. What is recommended for wilderness in Alternative D? 4. How does the plan effect ski areas? Will I be allowed to mountain bike on the trail system? Will I be able to ski the East Vail chutes? 5. What about the Gilman and Minturn connections to Vail Mountain? Would they be allowed in Alternative D? 6. How will the listing of lynx effect the Forest Plan? 7. What happens to McCoy Park in Alternative D? Land and Resource Management Area Prescriptions 1.15 Wild River Cross Creek, HX Wilderness 1.31 Backcounry nonmotorized I-70 corridor east to Copper Mountain (north side) 3.31 Backcountry motorized Homestake Rd/HX City 3.32 Backcountry nonmotorized Above McCoy Park with limited winter motorized Note: All the 5 precriptions allow motorized and mechanized recreation. 5.12- General Forest and Range -Top of R&W, Camp Hale, Chicago Ridge, Piney Peak Recreation management activities are Allowed if compatible. 5.13 Resource Production Lime Creek/Shrine Pass 5.4 Forest Flora and Fauna Camp Hale, R&W, West Peak, Sheep Mountain Requires desig. routes motor/mech 5.41 Deer/Elk Winter Range North and West, of Vail Over snow travel desig. routes only. 5.42 Bighorn Sheep Spraddle Creek "Over snow travel desig. routes only. 5.45 Forest Carnivores Vail Pass, Camp Hale, E.V, Chutes Regacires desig. roactes motor/mech 8.25 Ski Base Resorts Mtn roads/trails sacbject to seasonal closures. General Trails a) All wilderness trails remain closed to mechanized and motorized use. b) Nonsystem trails not shown on the inventory are open to foot and horse traffic (unless specifically closed) and closed to mechanized and motorized use. c) Trails that currently have seasonal closures on them: North Trail, Two Elk, Whiskey/Stone Creek will more than likely have similar closures in place with the selected alternative. Further analysis on whether this should also apply to foot and horse travel needs to be completed. Bowman's Stcut 1851.1 Closed to mountain bikes. Open for foot and horse travel. Lost Lake 1893.1 Closed 12/1 to 6/20 to mtn bikes, m. cycles and ATVs. Open for foot and horse travel North Trail 1896.1 .2 Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Open to mtn bikes, foot and horse travel. 1896.3 Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Closed to mnt. bike travel 12/1-6/20. Open to foot and horse travel. 1896.5 Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Closed to mtn. bike travel 12/1- 6/20. .Open to foot and horse travel. Buff ehr Creek RD 787.1 Closed to full size motorized vehicles. Open to ATVs, motorcycles, mtn bikes, foot, and horse travel. Closed to snowmobile travel. Cortina Lane 781.1 Seasonal restriction 12/1 to 6/20 for motorized and mechanized uses. Closed to snowmobile travel. Buffehr Mtn 2110.1 Open to motorcycles, ATVs, mountain bikes, foot and horse travel. Buffehr Creek 2111:1 Open to motorcycles, ATVs, mtn. bikes, foot and horse travel. Two Elk Trail 2005.1 Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Open to mtn bike, foot, and horse travel. Buck Creek 2106.1 Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Open to mtn bike, toot. and horse travel. Nottingham Ridge 2107.1 Closed to motorcycles, ATVs, and mountain bikes. Open to foot and horse travel. Colorado Trail 2108.1 Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Open to mountain bikes, foot, and horse travel. Grouse Lake 2127.1 Closed to motorcycles, ATVs and mtn bikes. . Foot and horse travel permitted. Martin Creek 2128.1 Closed to motorcycles, ATVs and mtn bikes. Foot and horse travel permitted. West Grouse Ck 2129.1 Closed to motorcycles, ATVs, and mountain bikes. Foot and horse travel permitted. Meadow Mtn Tie 2129.1B Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Open to mountain bikes, foot, and horse travel. Game Creek 2130.1 Closed to motorcycles, ATVs, and mountain bikes. Open to foot and horse travel. Son of Middle Ck 2136.1 Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. 12/1 to 6/20 seasonal mountain bike closure. Open to foot and horse travel. Commando Run 2133W Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Open to mtn bike, foot, and horse travel. Pautie's Sister 2347W.1 Closed to motorcycles, ATVs, and mountain bikes. Foot and horse travel permitted. (Map #P-5-OW. 1) Eastern Hillside 2347W.1A Closed to motorcycles, ATVs, and mountain bikes. Foot and horse travel permitted. Whiskey Creek 2348W.1 Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Open to mtn bike, foot, and horse travel. Stone Ck/P. Plunge 2349W.1 Closed to motorcycles and ATVs. Open to mtnn bike, foot, and horse travel. Nonsvstem Trails Grand Traverse Within the ski area permit boundary, open for use as permitted. Matterhorn Portion of trail outside the ski area permit Boundary closed to motorized and mechanized use. Road System General Roads a) All roads on the Holy Cross district currently have a closure to motorized (except for over the snow) travel between April 1 and July 1 for soil and water concerns. Most likely the selected alternative will have a similar seasonal restriction. b) Seasonal restrictions for elk winter rancre and springy calvincr apply only to motorized and mechanized travel in Alternative D. Further analysis on whether this should also apply to foot and horse travel needs to be completed. Mill Creek Road 710 Closed to motorized travel. Open to mechanized, foot, and horse travel. Red Sandstone/ 700 Open to all summer uses. Muddy Pass Open for snowmobile travel. Piney 701 Open to all summer uses. Open for snowmobile travel. Lost Lake 786 Open to all summer uses. Closed to snowmobile travel. Middle Creek/Hut 719 Seasonal restriction 12/1 to 6/20 for motorized and mechanized uses. Closed to snowmobile travel. Shrine Pass 709.2 Seasonal restriction 12/1 to 6/26 for = motorized and mechanized uses. Open for snowmobile travel. Spraddle Creek 737 Seasonal restriction 12/1 to 6/20 for motorized and mechanized uses. Open for snowmobile travel. Cortina Lane 781.1 Seasonal restriction 12/1 to 6/20 for motorized and mechanized uses. Closed to snowmobile travel. Berry Creek 774 Seasonal restriction 12/1 to 6/20 for motorized and mechanized uses. Closed to snowmobile travel. June Creek 717.1 Seasonal restriction 12/1 to 6/20 for motorized and mechanized uses. Closed to snowmobile travel. Wildridae/ 779 Closed to motorized and mechanized uses. Metcalf Open for foot and horse travel. Closed to snowmobile travel. Homestake 703.1 Open to all summer uses. Open for snowmobile travel. Tiaiwon 707.1 Seasonal restriction for motorized and 1.2 Mechanized use 4/1-6/20. Open for foot and horse travel. Open for snowmobile travel. No Name 705.1 Open to all summer uses. Open for snowmobile travel. Meadow Mtn 748.1 Closed to motorized travel. Seasonal restriction for mtn bikes 12/1- 6/20. Open to foot and horse travel. Open for snowmobile travel. Holy Cross City 759.1 Seasonal restriction for motorized and Mechanized use 4/1-6/20. Open for foot and horse travel. Closed to snowmobile travel. Resolution Rd 702.1 Seasonal restriction for motorized and Mechanized use 4/1-6/20. Open for foot and horse travel. Open for snowmobile travel. Buffehr Creek 787.1 Closed to full size motorized vehicles. Open to ATVs, motorcycles, mountain bikes, foot, and horse travel. Closed to.snowmobile travel. Red and White 734. l Open to all summer uses. Open for snowmobile travel. Winter [Motorized Play Areas Camp Hale/Resolution Mountain Meadow Mountain Timber Harvest Current Forest Plan allows 43,000 board feet of timber to be harvest. Actual Harvest is approximately 27,000 board feet/yr or 1,000 acres yr. Forest Plan Proposal (3-139) Predicted Budget (3-441) Alt B 27 12.3 Alt C 7 5 Alt D 35 9 Alt E 12 5 Alt F 43 19 Alt I 8 6 Typically 25-33% of the timber harvested on the Forest comes from the Holy Cross Ranger District. Wilderness Recommendations Alternative C D E F I Total Acres (M) 94.3 47.2 103.0 0 20.0 Alternative D Recommends for Wilderness: Dome Peak Adjacent to the Flat Tops Sweetwater Adjacent to the Flat Tops Assignation Ridge Stands Alone _ Treasure Mountain Adjacent to the Raggeds North Woody Stands Alone McCoy Park Management Alternative B (existing condition): Additional NEPA analysis could occur which, if approved, would allow it to be incorporated into the 40-year permit. This could also allow further alpine development. Alternative C (5.43) and Alternative D (5.4).. Existing operation would be allowed to continue with the primary purpose of the area defined the respective management areas. No additional development/facilities would be permitted. Alternatives E and F. (8.25). The area would be within the ski area permit boundary and development could be permitted after site-specific analysis. Alternative I (1.2). Recommended for Wilderness. Facilities would have to be removed. No development/groomi o, would be allowed. MEMORANDUM TO: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST PLAN AMENDMENTS DATE: JANUARY 4T", 2000 The following pages include a brief summary and evaluation of the proposed White River National Forest Plan alternatives. Although six alternatives are proposed, this report's primary focus is on alternatives "B", "C" and "D". The other three plan alternatives are not being seriously considered by the USFS. The three plan alternatives addressed in this report are summarized below: Alternative B - an updated version of the existing Forest Plan that reflects current forestwide direction, represents the "No Action" alternative. "No Action means that current management allocations, activities and management direction found in the existing Forest Plan, as amended, would continue." 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." 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." The U.S. Forest Service announced publicly that its preferred plan for adoption next year is Alternative "D". This alternative represents a bit of a departure from management techniques used in the forest surrounding Vail for the past 30+ years. Many other agencies and interest groups (including Eagle County, Summit County and Vail Resorts) have denounced this alternative and expressed a desire for the USFS to pursue Alternative "C" (with some modifications). The plan that is adopted next year will determine management direction for the forest for the next 15 years. Bulleted below are some issues identified by staff as outlined in the plan alternatives: ¦ The topic of "urbanization" and compliance with local eovernment plans - Section 219.7 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires that the USFS assess (in the forest plan's environmental impact statement) the impacts of forest plan revisions on local government planning strategies. The plan does not address Vail or Eagle County policies or forest plan impacts on local government planning procedures. Topics such as housing, transportation and general urbanization are not directly addressed as a revision topic. ¦ East Vail Chutes / Two Elk Pass - a change in management direction from "Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized" to "Forest Carnivores" (lynx habitat) under Alternative "D" could potentially preclude many activities in the area. The management direction imposed under this designation places a high priority on habitat and a low priority on human recreation. The USFS admits in the plan (pages 3-66 and 3-67) they do not yet have the Quidance and direction necessary to develop a management plan for lynx habitat. However, the consequences of this designation could potentially involve the closure of the East Vail Chutes, the Commando Run, Two Elk Trail, Bowman's Shortcut and other areas to humans either seasonally or year-round. The lynx was proposed in June of 1998 for inclusion on the Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species list. The USFS can not establish a management plan for these areas until they receive direction from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding habitat management for forest carnivores and their prey. ¦ Vail North of I-70 - Under alternatives "C" and "D", management of forest lands north of Vail (from West Vail east to the Gore Range) would change from "Dispersed Recreation" to "Deer and Elk Winter Range" or "Bighorn Sheep Habitat." This could preclude certain human activities (especially in the winter and spring months) in these areas, although almost all significant trails in this area would remain accessible by the public during peak user periods. • Game Creek/Couaar Ridee Area - a change in management direction from "Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized" to "Deer and Elk Winter Range" could limit human recreation activity in the winter/spring seasons in the Game Creek/Mintum Mile" area outside the permitted ski area boundary. ¦ General Trail/Road Closures - Under Alternative "D", 62% of the existing roads and trails in the area adjacent to Vail would be closed to mountain bikes, while over 80% of the roads and trails in this area would be closed to motorized vehicles. Although staff supports many of the proposed road/trail closures, a number of routes that significantly affect tourism/recreation in our area are slated for closure under Alternatives "C" and "D". A detailed analysis of road/trail management proposed under each plan alternative is included in the "Road and Trail Management Strategies" section of this report. ¦ SinUletrack Trails on Vail Mountain - The plan's inventory of designated travel routes does not include the singletrack trails on Vail Mountain. Clarification of the status of existing trails and the potential for trail system expansion within the permitted ski area is necessary. 1 Staff believes the ski area is an ideal location for summer human recreation including hiking and mountain biking. ¦ Aerial Transportation Corridors - Like the existing forest plan, neither Alternative "C" nor "D" proposes any lift/gondola transportation connections in the Vail area. Staff supports this decision. EXISTING AND PROPOSED FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS - VAIL VICINITY The following five pages summarize the existing and proposed management strategies for specific areas within the forest surrounding Vail. Maps for descriptive purposes are on file in the Department of Community Development. DESIGNATED WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS VAIL. COLORADO VICINITY . Following is a brief summary of management area designations proposed for the areas of the forest surrounding Vail under each plan alternative. The current management area designation is listed above with the proposed designations under alternatives "C" and "D" listed below. AREA = EAST VAIL CHUTES /TWO ELK PASS Current USFS Management Area Designation Management Direction (3.32) Backcountry Recreation Primitive, non-motorized Non-Motorized recreation. Alternative "C" Management Area Designation Management Direction (3.32) Backcountry Recreation Primitive, non-motorized Non-Motorized recreation. Alternative "D" Management Area Desianation Management Direction (5.45) Forest Carnivores Recreation restricted to a level compatible with maintaining the effectiveness of the area for use by the target species (lynx and wolverine). AREA = BOOTH FALLS / PITKIN CREEK (NORTH OF 1-70) Current USFS Management Area Designation Management Direction (4.3) Dispersed Recreation Resource management activities are compatible with, and reduce impacts to, recreation sources and opportunities. Alternative "C" Management Area Designation Manaeement Direction (5.42) Bighorn Sheep Recreation activities that disturb Bighorn Sheep should be restricted. Alternative "D" Management Area Designation Management Direction (5.42) Bighorn Sheep Recreation activities that disturb Bighorn Sheep should be restricted. AREA = RED SANDSTONE / WEST VAIL (NORTH OF I-70) Current USFS Management Area Designation Management Direction (4.3) Dispersed Recreation Resource management activities are compatible with, and reduce impacts to, recreation sources and opportunities. (5.13) Resource Production - Forest Products Grazing of domestic livestock is coordinated with timber management activities to ensure adequate regeneration. Alternative "C" Management Area Designation Management Direction (5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would disturb deer and elk during winter and spring periods when the area is occupied by animals. Alternative "D" Management Area Designation Management Direction (5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would disturb deer and elk during winter and spring periods when the area is occupied by animals. AREA = VAIL MOUNTAIN / PERMITTED SKI AREA Current USFS Management Area Designation Management Direction (8.25) Ski- Based Resorts Existing & Potential Resource management activities minimize impacts to recreational resources within existing permitted sites and areas planned for future development. Alternative "C" Management Area Designation Management Direction (8.25) Ski- Based Resorts Existing & Potential Resource management activities minimize impacts to recreational resources within . existing permitted sites and areas planned for future development. Alternative "D" Management Area Designation Management Direction (8.25) Ski- Based Resorts Existing & Potential Resource management activities minimize impacts to recreational resources within existing permitted sites and areas planned for future development. Please note: Under Alternative "D Vail _klountain ski area operations would be restricted to the existinJ permit area boundary. I AREA = GAME CREEK / COUGAR RIDGE (WEST OF SKI AREA) Current USFS Management Area Designation Management Direction (3.32) Backcountry Recreation Primitive, non-motorized Non-Motorized recreation. (5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would disturb deer and elk during winter and spring periods when the area is occupied by animals. Alternative "C" Management Area Designation Management Direction (3.32) Backcountry Recreation Primitive, non-motorized Non-Motorized recreation. (5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would disturb deer and elk during winter and spring periods when the area is occupied by animals. Alternative "D" Management Area Desianation Management Direction (5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range Restrict recreation activities that would disturb deer and elk during winter and spring periods when the area is occupied by animals. (5.13) Resource Production - Forest Products Grazing of domestic livestock is coordinated with timber management activities to ensure adequate regeneration. i AREA = LIME CREEK / TURKEY CREEK (SOUTH OF CATEGORY III) Current USFS Manacement Area Desicnation Manacement Direction (5.45) Forest Carnivores Recreation restricted to a level compatible with maintaining the effectiveness of the area for use by the target species (lynx and wolverine). (5.13) Resource Production - Forest Products Grazing of domestic livestock is coordinated with timber management activities to ensure adequate regeneration. Alternative "C" Manacement Area Desicnation Manacement Direction (5.45) Forest Carnivores Recreation restricted to a level compatible with maintaining the effectiveness of the area for use by the target species (lynx and wolverine). (5.4) Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats Motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities (with seasonally restricted access). Human use high during fall hunting seasons. Alternative "D" Manacement Area Desicnation Manacement Direction (5.45) Forest Carnivores Recreation restricted to a level compatible with maintaining the effectiveness of the area for use by the target species (lynx and wolverine). The following page includes a table summarizing allowed activities in the forest management areas as proposed. GENERALLY ALLOWED ACTIVITIES AND ALLOCATIONS FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS SURROUNDING VAIL Non-Ski- Timber Motorized Mechanized Oil & Gas Locatable Developed Based Category Management Area Harvest Recreation Recreation Leasing Minerals Recreation Resorts Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized summer-no; _ 3.32 (with winter motorized) yes winter-yes yes yes yes yes no _ 4.3 Dispersed Recreation yes _ yes --yes yes yes _ yes yes 5.13 Resource Production - Forest Products yes _ yes_ - yes yes yes yes yes 5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range yes yes* yes* yes yes _ yes yes 5.42 Bighorn Sheep Habitat yes yes* yes* yes yes yes yes - summer-yes; - - 5.45 Fo-rest-Carnivores yes winter-nod yes* - yes--.-.--.-. yes yes yes - - decision by 8.25 Ski Based Resorts-Existing and Potential yes yes yes yes area yes no * designated routes only, additional restrictions may apply f i !i - I EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD AND TRAIL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES - VAIL VICINITY The following three pages summarize the existing and proposed management strategies for specific areas within the forest surrounding Vail. Road and trail closures are displayed for 139 routes surrounding Vail. Maps for descriptive purposes are on file in the Department of Community Development. - The following is a summary of proposed road/trail closures within the forest for the area surrounding Vail. An inventory of 139 routes surrounding Vail was compiled and closures or seasonal restrictions for each route are listed below. Comments from staff regarding specific trail or road closures are also listed. Alternative "C" - Trail/Road Closures and Seasonal Restrictions Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139 Use New Closures New Seasonal Restrictions Full-sized Motor Vehicles 15 7 Motorcycles 16 7 ATVs 16 7 Mechanized Vehicles 64 21 Horseback 0 0 Hiking 0 0 Staff believes the closure of the following trails to mechanized vehicles under Alternative "C" should be reconsidered due to user demands and potential impacts to tourism/recreation based establishments: FDT 1851.1 (Bowman's Shortcut), Way 2133W.1 (Commando Run), FDR 734.1/734. 1 A (Red and White Mountain Road), and Way 711 WA (Minturn to Game Peak). Staff supports all of the seasonal restrictions proposed for trails/roads in the Vail vicinity under this plan alternative. Alternative "D" - Trail/Road Closures and Seasonal Restrictions Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139 Use New Closures New Seasonal Restrictions Full-sized Motor Vehicles 16 8 Motorcycles 16 9 ATVs 16 9 Mechanized Vehicles 65 16 Horseback 1 0 Hiking 1 0 Staff believes the closure of the following trails to mechanized vehicles under Alternative "D" should be reconsidered due to user demands and potential impacts to tourism/recreation based establishments: FDT 1851.1 (Bowman's Shortcut), FDR 719.2E (Eiseman Hut Spur), FDR 751.1B (Fowler-Hilliard Hut), and Way 711 WA (Minturn to Game Peak). Staff supports all of the seasonal restrictions proposed for trails/roads in the Vail vicinity under this plan alternative. The following tables summarize the existing and proposed numbers of accessible routes for each type of user group. The percentages listed at the right of each table illustrate the percent of all trails within the forest a particular user group would have access to under each plan alternative. Existing WRNF Plan - Available Roads and Trails Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139 Use Accessible Routes Percent of Total Full-sized Motor Vehicles 32 23.0% Motorcycles 33 23.7% ATVs 33 23.7% Mechanized Vehicles 128 92.1% Horseback 139 100% Hiking 139 100% Alternative "C" - Available Roads and Trails Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139 Use Accessible Routes Percent of Total Full-sized Motor Vehicles 20 14.4% Motorcycles 20 14.4% ATVs 20 14.4% Mechanized Vehicles 62 44.6% Horseback 138 99.2% Hiking 138 99.2% ALTERNATIVE 13 ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor I Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking {FDR 709.2 Shrine Pass O O I O O O O {FDT 2136.01 Son of Middle Creek x X X O O O FDR 737.1 Spraddle Creek I O O O O O I O FDR 711.5E Sunup Bowl x X X O I O O FDR 707.1A Tigiwon Campground O O O O O O FDR 707.2A Tigiwon Sale Spur 2A X X X O O O FDR 7071B Tigiwon Sale Spur 2B X X X O O O FDR 707.2C Tigiwon Sale Spur 2C X X X O O O FDR 707.3A Tigiwon Sale Spur 3A X X X O O O FDR 707.313 Tigiwon Sale Spur 3B X X X O O O FDR 707.3C Tigiwon Sale Spur 3c x X I X. O O O {FDR 711.6A Top of Lift 10 X X X O O O FDR 711.7A Top of Lift 7 X X X O O O FDR 711.3E Top of Lift 9 X X X O O O FDR 736.1A Tourist Trap Spring x X X O O O FDR 710.1 B Town Water Tank O O O O O O FDT 2109.1 Turquoise Lake x { X X X O O NRT 2005.1 Two Elk x X X O O O FDR 762.2 Two Elk Trailhead O O O O O O {FDT 2109.1A Upper Turquoise Lake x X X X i O O FDR 711.56 Vail Mountain Spur x X X O I O O I NRT 49.1 Vail Pass - Ten Mile x X X O O O IFDR 752.1 Wearyman Spur 3 O O O O O O FDR 752.1A Wearyman Spur 3a X X X O O O FDR 752.1 B Wearyman Spur 3b x X X O O O FDR 752.1 C Wearyman Spur 3c x X X O O O FDR 751.4A Wearyman Spur 4a x X X O O O FDR 751.1 C Wearyman Spur C X X X O O O FDR 751.2A Wearyman Spur D X X X O O O Way 2348W.1 Whiskey Creek x I X X O O O Way 2348W.1A Whiskey Creek x I X X O O O FDR 770.1A Willow Creek x X X O O O FDR 770.1 B Willow Creek x X X O O O FDR 770.1 C Willow Creek x X X O O O "X" =CLOSED "O" = OPEN ALTERNATIVE "C" TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name I vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking IFDR 711.5D Back Bowls I X X X O O O IFDR 734.1D Bally Hoo Spur Rd I X X X X* O O i i IFDR 728.1A Big Spruce I X X X X* O O IFDT 2013.1 Bighorn I X X X X O O IF DT 2011.1 Booth Lake I X X X X O O FDR 710.1E Bottom of Lift 11 I X X X O O O FDT 1851.1 Bowman's Shortcut x X X X* O O FDR 734.1 B Buffehr ' O I O O O O O FDR 787.1 Buffehr S* I S* S* S* O O FDT 2111.1 Buffehr Creek x X X S* O O FDT 2110.1 Buffehr Mountain x I X X O O O Way 2133W.1 (Commando Run I X I X X I X* O O IFDR 709.1A (Communication Site I O I O O I O I O O IFDT 2006.1 (Cross Creek I X I X I X I X I O O FDR 781.1 (Davos Trail (Cortina Lane) I X I X I X S* I O I O FDT 2014.1 (Deluge Lake x I X I X X I O I O FDR 719.1A (East Red Sandstone I X I X I X I X* O I O FDR 719.2E Eiseman Hut Spur I O I O I O O O I O FDT 2128.1 Fall/Martin Creek I X X X X I O I O FDR 751.1B (Fowler-Hilliard Hut I X I X I X O I O I O FDR 734.1C Freeman Spur x X J X J X* I O I O FDR 711.36 Game Creek x I X X O I O I O FDT 2130.1 (Game Creek I X X X X I O I O FDR 711.3C Game Creek Spur I X I X I X O I O I O FDR 736.1 Gitalong Rd I X I X I X O O I O FDR 710.1A Golden Peak I X I X I X I O ' O I O FDT 2015.1 (Gore Creek I X I X I X I X I O I O FDT 2015.1A (Gore Lake I X I X I X X I O I O IFDT 2127.1 (Grouse Lake x I X I X I S* I O I O IFDR 713.1 IHanks Gulch X*. I X* I X* I X* I O I O IFDR 713.1B Hanks Gulch Spur B I X X I X I X* I O O IFDR 759.1 Holy Cross City I S* S* I S* ( S* O I O A'=CLOSED "O" = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative r ALTERNATIVE "C" TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking 1FDR 703.2B Homestake Reservoir X* X* X* X* O O FDR 703.2A Homestake Spur X* X* X* X* O O FDR 711.5C Lift 14 X X X O O O FDR 710.1 C Lift 6 X X X O O O FDR 728.1 Lime Creek S* S* S* S* O O JFDR 748.1 Line Shack x X X S* O O JFDR 791.1 Lionshead O O O O O O FDR 786.2B Lost Lake x X X X* O O FDR 786.2D Lost Lake x X X X* O O FDR 786.2E Lost Lake x X X X* O O FDR 786.21F Lost Lake x X X X* O O FDR 786.2G Lost Lake x X X X* O O FDR 786.2H Lost Lake x X I X X* O O FDT 1893.1 Lost Lake x X f x X* O O FDR 786.1 Lost Lake Road O O ? O O O O FDR 7861A Lost Lake Spur O O O O O O FDR 786.1 B Lost Lake Spur O O O O O O FDR 786.1 C Lost Lake Spur X* I X* X* X* O O FDR 786.1 D Lost Lake Spur x X X X* O O FDR 786.1H Lost Lake Spur x I X X X* O O FDR 786.2 Lost Lake Spur X* X* X* X* O O FDR 786.2A Lost Lake Spur x X X X* O O FDR 786.2C Lost Lake Spur x X X X* O O FDT 1894.1 Lost Lake to Piney x X X O O O FDR 711.1 Main Vail x i x X O O O FDR 749.1 Meadow Mountain x X X S* O O FDR 748.1A Meadow Mountain Spur x X X S* O O FDT 2129.1 B Meadow Mountain Tie Through x X X O O O FDR 719.1 Middle Creek O I O O O O O Way 2135.1 Middle Creek x 1 X X X* O O FDR 719.1 B Middle Creek Canyon x X X X* O O "X" = CLOSED "O" = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative ALTERNATIVE "C" TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT j i Full-sized motor I Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking FDR 719.1C Middle Creek Spur x 1 X X X* O O FDR 719.1.D Middle Creek Spur x , X X X* O O FDR 719.2A Middle Creek Spur x I X X X* O O FDR 719.213 Middle Creek Spur x I X X X* O O JFDR 719.2C Middle Creek Spur x X X X* O O IFDR 719.213 Middle Creek Spur I X X X X* O O IFDR 719.3 Middle Creek Spur I X* X* X* X* O O IFDR 719.3A Middle Creek Spur 1 X X X I X* O O IFDR 711.3D Mid-Vail Water Tank 1 X X X I O O O FDR 710.1 Mill Creek I O O O I O O O FDR 710.1 D Mill Creek Spur x X I X I O 1 O O FDR 710.1 F Mill Creek Spur 1 F X X 1 X I O 1 O O FDR 710.1G Mill Creek Spur 1 G X X 1 X I O 1 O O FDR 710.1 H I Mill Creek Spur 1 H X ( X 1 X 1 O 1 O O 1Way 711 W.4 IMinturn to Game Peak I X I X I X I X* I O O IFDR 405.1 (Muddy Pass I X* I X* 1 X. X* I X* X* I FDR 720.1 1 North Sandstone 1 X I X 1 X 1 X* I O O JFDR 720.1A INorth Sandstone Spur A 1 X* 1 X* 1 X* 1 X* 1 O O 'FDR 720.1B INorth Sandstone Spur B I X 1 X 1 X 1 X* 1 O O FDR 720.1C INorth Sandstone Spur C I X I X I X I X* I O O FDR 720.1H INorth Sandstone Spur H 1 X I X 1 X X* O O FDT 1896.1 INorth Trail 1 X 1 X I X S* O O FDT 1896.2 1North Trail 1 X I X I X S* O O FDT 1896.3 North Trail x X X S* O O FDT 1896.5 North Trail x X X S* O O FDT 2107.1 1Nottingham Ridge x 1 X 1 X I X* O O FDR 734.1E lOld FDR 734 1 O 1 O 1 O 1 O O O FDR 728.1 C 101d Sawmill Road 1 X ( X I X X* 1 O O Way 2349W.1 IPaulie's Plunge 1 X I X I X S* 1 O I O Way 2347W.1 IPaulie's Sister 1 X X I X X* O + O FDR 701.1 Piney 1 O I O I O O ' O I O FDT 2012.1 lPitkin I X 1 X 1 X X 1 O I O "X" = CLOSED "O" = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative Alternative "D" - Available Roads and Trails Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139 Use Accessible Routes Percent of Total Full-sized Motor Vehicles 20 14.3% Motorcycles 25 17.9% ATVs 25 17.9% Mechanized Vehicles 52) 37.4% Horseback 139 100% Hiking 139 100% The tables on the following pages are an inventory of 139 trails, roads, routes and ways within the portion of White River National Forest surrounding Vail. Routes to be impacted by changes proposed under each plan alternative are listed in bold type. Other symbols used in the tables are described in the legend at the bottom of each page. ALTERNATIVE B ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles lHorseback Hiking FDR 711.5D Back Bowls I X X X O O O 1FDR 734.1 D Bally Hoo Spur Rd I X X X O O O FDR 728.1A Big Spruce I X X X O O O FDT 2013.1 Bighorn I X X X X O O FDT 2011.1 Booth Lake I X X X X O O FDR 710.1 E Bottom of Lift 11 . I X X X O O O FDT 1851.1 Bowman's Shortcut I X X X O O ' O FDR 734.1 B Buffehr I X X X O O I O FDR 787.1 IBuffehr 1 O I O O O O 1 O FDT 2111.1 IBuffehr Creek I X I X I X O I O I O FDT 2110.1 IBuffehr Mountain I X X 1 X O 1 O 1 O Way 2133W.1 (Commando Run 1 X X 1 X O I O I O FDR 709.1A (Communication Site I X 1 X I X O 1 O 1 O FDT 2006.1 (Cross Creek I X I X I X I X I O 1 O FDR 781.1 (Davos Trail (Cortina Lane) I O I O I O I O I O 1 O IFDT 2014.1 (Deluge Lake 1 X 1 X I X 1 X I O 1 O (FDR 719.1A (East Red Sandstone I X I X I X I O I O 1 O (FDR 719.2E (Eiseman Hut Spur 1 X I X I X 1 O 1 O 1 O ! FDT 2128.1 Fall/Martin Creek 1. X I X I X I X I O I O (FDR 751.16 ,Fowler-Hilliard Hut I X I X I X 1 O I O O FDR 734.1C (Freeman Spur x I X I X 1 O I O O FDR 711.3B lGame Creek ' X I X 1 X 1 O O O FDT 2130.1 (Game Creek I X X I X I X O O FDR 711.3C (Game Creek Spur 1 X ' X I X ( O O O IFDR 736.1 1Gitalong Rd I X I X I X I O I O O JFDR 710.1A (Golden Peak 1 X I X I X I O I O O FDT 2015.1 (Gore Creek 1 X I X X I X O 1 O FDT 2015.1A IGore Lake 1 X 1 X X I X O I O FDT 2127.1 (Grouse Lake I X I X I X I O I O O FDR 713.1 1Hanks Gulch O I O I O 1 O I O O FDR 713.1B IHanks Gulch Spur B X I X 1 X 1 O I O O FDR 759.1 (Holy Cross City O 1 O O 1 O 1 O i O FDR 703.2B Homestake Reservoir 1 O I O O 1 O I O I O FDR 703.2A Homestake Spur O O O O 1 O 1 O FDR 711.5C Lift 14 X I X I X I O I O I O "X" = CLOSED "O" = OPEN ALTERNATIVE B ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name I vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking FDR 710.1C Lift 6 I X X X O O O (FDR 728.1 Lime Creek 1 O O O O O O JFDR 748.1 Line Shack x X X O O O IFDR 791.1 Lionshead I O I O O O O O FDR 786.28 Lost Lake I X 1 X X O O O JFDR 786.21D Lost Lake I X X X O O O FDR 786.2E Lost Lake I X X X O O O FDR 786.2F Lost Lake x X X O O O FDR 786.2G Lost Lake ' X X X O O O FDR 786.2H (Lost Lake j x X X I O O O FDT 1893.1 1 Lost Lake 1 X O O I O O O FDR 786.1 (Lost Lake Road I O I O I O O O O FDR 786.1A (Lost Lake Spur + X I X I X 1 O I O O FDR 786.1B 11-ost Lake Spur I O O I O I O J O O FDR 786.1C 1 Lost Lake Spur I O O I O I O I O I O FDR 786.1D (Lost Lake Spur I X I X I X I O I O 1 O FDR 786.1H 11-ost Lake Spur I X I X I X I O O I O FDR 786.2 [Lost Lake Spur 1 O 1 O I O I O O I O FDR 786.2A (Lost Lake Spur I X I X I X I O J O 1 O FDR 786.2C 11-ost Lake Spur I X I X [ X O J O O JFDT 1894.1 1Lost Lake to Piney I X I X X O I O 1 O FDR 711.1 1Main Vail 1 X 1 X X O 1 O I O FDR 749.1 (Meadow Mountain I X X I X I O I O I O FDR 748.1A IMeadow Mountain Spur + X X 1 X 1 O I O 1 O FDT 2129.16 IMeadow Mountain Tie Through x X J X I X 1 O I O FDR 719.1 (Middle Creek ' O O O 1 O 1 O 1 O Way 2135.1 1Middle Creek 1 X I X I X I O I O 1 O FDR 719.38 1Middle Creek 1 X [ X 1 X O 1 O J O FDR 719.1B (Middle Creek Canyon J O [ O I O O O 1 O FDR 719.1C IMiddle Creek Spur I X I X 1 X ' O 1 O [ O j FDR 719.1D IMiddle Creek Spur 1 X 1 X I X 1 O J O 1 O FDR 719.2A IMiddle Creek Spur I X I X I X I O O 1 O FDR 719.213 1Middle Creek Spur J X J X [ X 1 O O I O FDR 719.2C IMiddle Creek Spur I X X 1 X 1 O I O 1 O FDR 719.21D IMiddle Creek Spur I X 1 X I X 1 O O 1 O "X" = CLOSED "O" = OPEN ALTERNATIVE B ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized ' Number Road/Trail Name I vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking FDR 719.3 Middle Creek Spur O O O O O O FDR 719.3A Middle Creek Spur x X X O O O IFDR 711.3D Mid-Vail Water Tank x X X O O O IFDR 710.1 Mill Creek ' O O O O O O FDR 710.1 D Mill Creek Spur I X X X I O O O FDR 710.1 F Mill Creek Spur 1F ( X X X I O O O FDR 710.1 G Mill Creek Spur 1 G I X X X I O O O FDR 710.1 H Mill Creek Spur 1 H I X X X I O O O Way 711 W.4 IMinturn to Game Peak I X X X I O O O FDR 405.1 (Muddy Pass I O I O O I O O O j FDR 720.1 I North Sandstone I X I X X I O O O IFDR 720.1A (North Sandstone SpurA I O I O I O I O I O I O FDR 720.1B (North Sandstone Spur B X I X I X I O I O I O FDR 720.1C (North Sandstone Spur C X I X I X I O I O I O FDR 720.1H (North Sandstone Spur H I X I X I X I O I O I O FDT 1896.1 (North Trail I X I X I X I O I O I O FDT 1896.2 (North Trail I X I X X I O I O O FDT 1896.3 (North Trail I X I X I X I O I O ( O FDT 1896.5 (North Trail I X X X I O I O I O FDT 2107.1 (Nottingham Ridge x I X X O I. O I O FDR 734.1 E 101d FDR 734 I O I O O O I O I O FDR 728.1 C IOId Sawmill Road I X I X I X O O O Way 2349W.1 IPaulie's Plunge I X I X I X I O ' O ' O Way 2347W.1 (Paulie's Sister I X I X I X I O I O I O FDR 701.1 (Piney. I O I O I O I O I O I O FDT 2012.1 I Pitkin I X I X I X I X I O I O FDR 751.4B IPtarmigan Spur 4b I X I X I X I O I O I O FDR 751.213 IPtarmigan Spur E I X I X X I O I O O FDR 734.1 (Red & White Mountain I O I O O I O I O O I FDR 734.1A (Red & White Mountain I O I O O I O FDR 700.1 IRed Sandstone - Muddy Pass O I O I O I O I O I O IFDR 700.2 jRed Sandstone - Muddy Pass I O I O I O I O I O I O FDR 700.3 IRed Sandstone - Muddy Pass I O I O I O I O I O I O FDR 728.1 B 1 Ridge Road I O I O I O I O I O O IFDR 713.1A (Shrine Mountain I X I X I X I O I O I' O "X" = CLOSED "O" = OPEN w c- ALTERNATIVE "C" TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking FDR 751.48 Ptarmigan Spur 4b x X X X* O O FDR 751.213 Ptarmigan Spur E X X X X* O O FDR 734.1 Red & White Mountain X* X* X* X* O O FDR 734.1A Red & White Mountain I X* X* X* X* O O FDR 700.1 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass I S* S* S* S* O O FDR 700.2 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass I S* S* S* S* O O FDR 700.3 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass S* S* S* S* O O FDR 728.1 B Ridge Road X* X* X* X* O O FDR 713.1A Shrine Mountain x X X X* O O FDR 709.2 Shrine Pass I S* S* S* S* O O FDT 2136.01 'Son of Middle Creek I X X X S* O O IFDR 737.1 ISpraddle Creek I X* X* X* O O O IFDR 711.5E (Sunup Bowl x X X O O O I i IFDR 707.1A ITi won Campground X* I X* X* X* O O FDR 707.2A ITigiwon Sale Spur 2A X I X X X* O O FDR 707.28 ITigiwon Sale Spur 213 I X I X X I X* O O FDR 707.2C ITigiwon Sale Spur 2C X I X X I X* I O O FDR 707.3A ITigiwon Sale Spur 3A X I X X 1 X* O O FDR 707.313 ITigiwon Sale Spur 3B X I X X X* O O FDR 707.3C jTigiwon Sale Spur 3c I X I X ' X X* O O FDR 711.6A ITop of Lift 10 I X I X I X O ' O 1 O FDR 711.7A ITop of Lift 7 I X I _x I X O I O O FDR 711.3E Top of Lift 9 I X X I X O I O ' O FDR 736.1A Tourist Trap Spring I X ' X I X O I O I O I FDR 710.1B Town Water Tank I X* X* I X* O I O I O FDT 2109.1 Turquoise Lake I X X I X X I O I O NRT 2005.1 ITwo Elk I X X I X 1 O I O I O FDR 762.2 ITwo Elk Trailhead I O O I O I O I O I O FDT 2109.1A Upper Turquoise Lake I X X I X I X I O I O FDR 711.56 Vail Mountain Spur I X X I X O I O I O NRT 49.1 (Vail Pass - Ten Mile I X X I X I O I O I O IFDR 752.1 IWearyman Spur 3 I X* X* I X* I X* I O I O "X" = CLOSED "O" = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative ALTERNATIVE "C" TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking FDR 752.1A Wearyman Spur 3a I O O O O O O FDR 752.1B Wearyman Spur 3b I X X X X* O O FDR 752.1C Wearyman Spur 3c x X X X* O O IFDR 751.4A Wearyman Spur 4a I X X X X* IFDR 751.1C Wearyman SpurC I X I X X O I O O IFDR 751.2A Wearyman Spur D I X I X X X* I O O 1Way 2348W.1 Whiskey Creek I X I X X S* I O O Way 2348W.1A Whiskey Creek I X X X S* I O O IFDR 770.1A Willow Creek x I X I X X* I O O 1 FDR 770.1 B l Willow Creek I x I X 1 X X* I O O IFDR 770.1C (Willow Creek I x I x I x I X* I o I o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I I I f I I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I I ~ I I I ~ I I I I I I ~ "X" = CLOSED "O" = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative y 1' . ALTERNATIVE "D" TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles I ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking 1FDR 711.5D Back Bowls x X X O O O FDR 734.1D Bally Hoo Spur Rd x X X X* O O FDR 728.1A Big Spruce S S S S* O O FDT 2013.1 Bighorn I X X X X O O FDT 2011.1 Booth Lake x X X X O O FDR 710.1 E Bottom of Lift 11 X X X O O O FDT 1851.1 Bowman's Shortcut x X X X* O O FDR 734.1 B Buffehr x O O O O O FDR 787.1 Buffehr x O O O O O FDT 2111.1 Buffehr Creek x O O O O O FDT 2110.1 Buffehr Mountain x O O O O O Way 2133W.1 Commando Run x X X O O O FDR 709.1A Communication Site S S S S* O O FDT 2006.1 Cross Creek x X X X O O FDR 781.1 Davos Trail (Cortina Lane) S* S* S* S* O O FDT 2014.1 Deluge Lake x X X X O O FDR, 719.1A East Red Sandstone x X X X* O O FDR 719.2E Eiseman Hut Spur x X X X* O O FDT 2128.1 Fall/Martin Creek x X X X O O FDR 751.113 Fowler-Hilliard Hut x X X X* O O FDR 734.1C Freeman Spur x I X X X* O O FDR 711.313 Game Creek x X X O O O JFDT 2130.1 Game Creek x X X X O O FDR 711.3C Game Creek Spur x X X O O O FDR736.1 Gitalong Rd x X X O O O FDR 710.1 A Golden Peak I X X X O O O FDT 2015.1 Gore Creek x X X X O O FDT 2015,1A Gore Lake x X X X O O FDT 2127.1 Grouse Lake x I X X X* O O FDR 713.1 Hanks Gulch X* X* X* X* O O FDR 713.1 B Hanks Gulch Spur B X I X X X* I O O FDR 759.1 Holy Cross City I S* S* S* I S* O O "X" = CLOSED "O"' = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative ALTERNATIVE "D" TRAIUROAD MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name I vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking IFDR 703.2B Homestake Reservoir I O O O O O O FDR 703.2A Homestake Spur X* X* X* X* O O FDR 711.5C Lift 14 X X X O O O FDR 710.1 C Lift 6 I X X X O O O FDR 728.1 Lime Creek I S* S* S* S* O O FDR 748.1 Line Shack I X X X S* O O FDR 791.1 Lionshead I S* I S* S* S* O O FDR 786.213 Lost Lake I X ( X X I X* O O FDR 786.2D (Lost Lake x I X X I X* O O FDR 786.2E I Lost Lake x I X X I X* O O FDR 786.2F (Lost Lake I X I X X I X* O O IFDR 786.2G (Lost Lake I X I X I X I X* I O I O FDR 786.2H I Lost Lake 1 X I X I X I X* I O I O FDT 1893.1 I Lost Lake I X I S* I S* I S* I O I O IFDR 786.1 1Lost Lake Road I O + O I O I O I O I O FDR 786.1A ILost Lake Spur I X I X I X I X* I O I O FDR 786.1B ILost Lake Spur I X* I X* I X* I X* I O O FDR 786.1C (Lost Lake Spur I X* I X* X* I X* O O IFDR 786.1D ILost Lake Spur X* I X* X* I X* I O I O FDR 786.1H ILost Lake Spur I X* I X* X* I X* I O I O IFDR 786.2 (Lost Lake Spur X* X* X* I X* I O I O FDR 786.2A Lost Lake Spur I X X I X i X* I O I O I FDR 786.2C I Lost Lake Spur x X I X I X* I O I O FDT 1894.1 (Lost Lake to Piney x I X I X 1 S* I O I O FDR 711.1 (Main Vail I X I X I X 1 O I O I O FDR 749.1 (Meadow Mountain I X I X I X 1 O I O I O JFDR 748.1A (Meadow Mountain Spur I X I X I X S* I O I O FDT 2129.18 IMeadow Mountain Tie Through I X I X I X I O O I O FDR 719.1 1 Middle Creek I S* I S* 1 S* S* O I O Way 2135.1 (Middle Creek I X I X I X I X* O I O FDR 719.38 1 Middle Creek I X 1 X I X I X* I O I O IFDR 719.1B (Middle Creek Canyon I X* I X* 1 X* I X* I O I O IFDR 719.1C IMiddle Creek Spur I X „k„ = ricFn I X I X* I O I O "O"' = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative ALTERNATIVE "D" TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name I vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking FDR 719.1 D Middle Creek Spur I X X I X X* O O FDR 719.2A Middle Creek Spur I X X X X* O I. O I FDR 719.28 Middle Creek Spur x X X X* O O FDR 719.2C Middle Creek Spur x X X X* O ' O I ~ FDR 719.21) Middle Creek Spur I X X X X* O I O FDR 719.3 Middle Creek Spur , X* X* X* X* O O FDR 719.3A Middle Creek Spur I X X X X* O O FDR 711.3D Mid-Vail Water Tank x X X O O O FDR 710.1 Mill Creek X* X* X* O O O FDR 710.1 D Mill Creek Spur x X X O O O FDR 710.1 F Mill Creek Spur 1 F X X X O O O FDR 710.1G (Mill Creek Spur 1G j X I X X O O O FDR 710.1 H I Mill Creek Spur 1 H X X X O O O Way 711 W.4 IMinturn to Game Peak I X I X I X X* O O FDR 405.1 I Muddy Pass I X* I X* I X* X* O O FDR 720.1 North Sandstone I X I X I X ' X* O I O FDR 720.1A INorth Sandstone SpurA I X* I X* I X* I X* I O I O FDR 720.1B INorth Sandstone Spur B I X I X I X I X* I O O FDR 720.11C I North Sandstone Spur C I X I X I X I X* I O O FDR 720.1H INorth Sandstone Spur H I X I X I X I X* I O I O (FDT 1896.1 INorth Trail I X I X I X I O I O O FDT 1896.2 I North Trail I X ,X I X I O O O FDT 1896.3 INorth Trail I X ' X I X S* I O I O FDT 1896.5 INorth Trail j x I X I X I S* I O I O FDT 2107.1 (Nottingham Ridge I X I X I X I X* O I O FDR 734.1 E I Old FDR 734 I X* I X* I X* I X* O I O FDR 728.1C IOId Sawmill Road I X I X I X I X* I O I O Way 2349W.1 IPaulie's Plunge x I X I X ( O I O I O (Way 2347W.1 Paulie's Sister I X I X I X I X* O I O 1FDR 701.1 1Piney I O I O O I O O I O FDT 2012.1 I Pitkin I X I X I X I X O I O FDR 751.4B (Ptarmigan Spur 4b I X I X I X I X* I O I O "X" = CLOSED "O"' = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative ALTERNATIVE "D" TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking FDR 751.28 Ptarmigan Spur E X X X X* O O FDR 734.1 Red & White Mountain O O O O O O FDR 734.1A Red & White Mountain I O O O O O O FDR 700.1 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass I O O O O O O FDR 700.2 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass I O O O O O O +FDR 700.3 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass I O O O O O 1 O IF DR 728.1B Ridge Road * * * FDR 713.1A (Shrine Mountain I X 1 X X X* O O FDR 709.2 (Shrine Pass S* I S* S* I S* I O I O FDT 2136.01 ISon of Middle Creek + X I X X 1 O I O O FDR 737.1 ISpraddle Creek I S* S* 1 S* I S* O O FDR 711.5E (Sunup Bowl I X I X I X 1 O 1 O 1 O FDR 707.1A ITigiwon Campground I S* I S* S* I S* 1 O 1 O FDR 707.2A ITigiwon Sale Spur 2A I X I X I X I X* 1 O I O FDR 707.28 ITigiwon Sale Spur 26 I X I X I X I X* 1 O I O FDR 707.2C ITigiwon Sale Spur 2C I X I X I X I X* 1 O ( O FDR 707.3A ITigiwon Sale Spur 3A I X I X I X I X* 1 O 1 O FDR 707.38 ITigiwon Sale Spur 3B I X I X I X I X* I O I O IFDR 707.3C ITigiwon Sale Spur 3c I X I X 1 X 1 X* I O I O FDR 711.6A ITop of Lift 10 I X I X I X 1 O 1 O I O FDR 711.7A ITop of Lift 7 I X I X 1 X 1 O 1 O 1 O FDR 711.3E ITop of Lift 9 1 X I X X 1 O O I O FDR 736.1A (Tourist Trap Spring I X I X I X I O I O I O FDR 710.1B (Town Water Tank X* I X* I X* 1 O 1 O 1 O FDT 2109.1 Turquoise Lake x 1 X I X 1 X I O I O NRT 2005.1 (Two Elk x I X 1 X I O I O 1 O IFDR 762.2 ITwo Elk Trailhead 1 O O O O I O O 1FDT 2109.1A IUpper Turquoise Lake I X 1 X I X X I O O FDR 711.5B (Vail Mountain Spur I X i x I X 1 O O 1 O INRT 49.1 (Vail Pass - Ten Mile 1 X I X I X 1 O I O I O IFDR 752.1 IWearyman Spur 3 I X* I X* I X* 1 X* I O 1 O IFDR 752.1A 1Wearyman Spur 3a I X 1 X I X 1 X* I O 1 O "X" = CLOSED "O." = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative ALTERNATIVE "D" TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT Full-sized motor Mechanized Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking FDR 752.1 B Wearyman Spur 3b x X X X* O O FDR 752.1C Wearyman Spur 3c I X X X X* O O IFDR 751.4A Wearyman Spur 4a I X X X X* O O FDR 751.1C Wearyman Spur C O O O O O O FDR 751.2A Wearyman Spur D X X X X* O O Way 2348W.1 Whiskey Creek x X X O O O lWay 2348W.1A Whiskey Creek I X X X O O O IFDR 770.1A Willow Creek x X X X* O O FDR 770.1 B Willow Creek x X X X* O O FDR 770.1C Willow Creek x X X X* O O f _ i I ~ I I "X" = CLOSED "O"' = OPEN "S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative f r the raft 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. -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 Forest Ej Other Region 2 NFS lands • Denver y C O L O R A D O I '~7 ZN 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. Tabled 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 NO[ 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). %low. -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, FEIS, Summary, page 8) Figure 2 Alternative B management area allocations, by category (see page 11) 7 8 Category 1 - 36% Category 2 - 0/0 / Category 3 -12 /o 5/ Category 4 - 11 % i Category 5 - 36% f r /i Category 7 - 0% Category 8 - 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 f ff1~ f Category 1 -43% f.< fl~l~ ~l f5 Category 2 - 3% Category 3 - 10°/ !Ff f f'r/ f// O /'/ff!~~~ ff~l I . Category 4 -10% Category 5 - 29% Category 7 - 0% {f~f/ 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 /;l 0 Category 1 - 38% Category 2 - 5% Category 3 - 3% - - Category 4 - 4% Category 5 - 47% ir, , ~ ffiiFaFllls Category 7 - 0% Category 8 - 3% 4 -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 g 5 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 Category 1 - 34% Category 2 - 3% Category 3 - 2 / ° ° Category 4 - 3% Category 5 - 53% f~ 5 Category 7 - 0% ~ ff~f Category 8 - 4% 3 -17- Alternative I This alternative responds to views expressed bya 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 fif/"'1F 0 Category 1 - 56% Category 2 5% Category 3 - 7% ' Category 4 - 8% 4 1 Category 5 - 20% Category 7 - 0% 3 Category 8 - 3% 2 -18- i 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 (total 82,000 101,700 116,100 70,400 75,400 111,300 1.12 1.12 (primitive wilderness) only 646,200 643,200 504,100 616,300 605,100 503,700 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 1,7001 1.12+2.2 01 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 2,1001 1.12+4.4 100 100 100 100 100 1001 1.12+5.42 0 72,200 70,000 68,900 3,700 64,400 Primitive wilderness (total) 661,800 643,200 628,600 632,700 654,100 634,3001 1.13 1.13 (semi-primitive wilderness) only 4,000 3,100 3,200 43,600 18,500 2,4001 1.13+5.42 0 0 0 1,300 01~ 0 Semi-primitive wilderness (total) 4,000 3,100 3,200 1 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 01 4,000 0 0 0 1.2+5.42 0 2,500 0 0 0 14,300 Recommended Wilderness (totab 0 96,4001 47,100 106,400 0 214,6001 1.31 Backcountry recreation - non-motorized 80,700 163,200 1 89,700 82,000 37,400 381,400 1.32 Backcountry recreation - limited winter motorized 0 44,600 7,900 49,300 0 1,4001 1.41 Core areas 0 0 8,200 0 0 36,8001 1.5 1.5 (Wild Rivers) only 600 2,500 2,500 6,700 2,500 2,5001 i -19- ALTERNATIVES Management area B C D E IF I I 1.5+1.12 13,400 13,300 13,300 14,000 13,400 13,4001 1.5 + 1.12 + 5.42 01 1,900 1,900 1,100 1,800 1,700 1.5+2.2 0 4,600 4,600 0 4,600 4,6001 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 26,5001 2.2+11.111 0 16,600 25,000 8,800 16,900 34,0001 2.2+11.12 0 17,800 26,700 19,600 28,000 38,100 2.2 + 1.12 + 5.42 0 10,500 10,5001 10,600 0 10,700 2.2+ 1.2 0 0 4,0001 0 0 0 2.2+ 1.5 4,600 4,600 0 4,600 4,600 2.2+4.4 0 01 0 0 900 I 2.2+5.42 01 01 0 0 2,8001 Research natural areas (total) - 300 76,200 94,100 52,900 67,5001 117,600 3.1 Special interest areas - emphasis on use or interpretation 0 1,8001 0 15,500 0 1,800 3.21 Limited use areas 300 25;000 I 37,7001 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 100,1001 46,3001 31,0001 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 01 01 0 0 35,300 4.2 Scenery 0- 2,200 1 2,300 2,000 0 01 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 01 01 01 0 , 0 900 Recreation Rivers-designated and eligible (total) 1 2,7001 9,800 9,4001 9,800 9,800 9,500 -20- ALTERNATIVES Management area B' C D E F I 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 35,800 332,6001 51,5001 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 69,000 179,4001 5.42 5.42 (bighorn sheep habitat) only 7,700 5,100 33,200. 8,500 16,800 35,7001 5.42+1.11 0 300 I 400 500 0 4,300 5.42+1.12 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 01 01 5.42+11.2 01 2,500 0 0 01 14,3001 5.42+2.2 01 0 0 0 01 2,8001 Bighorn sheep habitat (total) 7,7001 92,200 115,900 91,000 22,3001 134,0001 5.43 Elk habitat 16,0001 112,8001 186,000 84,000 '53,100 36,6001 5.45 Forest carnivores 5,3001 41,200 1 116,800 13,000 40,400 50,900 7.1 Intermix 01 7,700 0 900 5,800 4,200 1 8.21 Developed recreation complexes 10,700 13,100 9,300 28,300 10,400 9,4001 8.25 Ski-based resorts - existing and potential 91,3001 57,600 43,000 84,000 68,100 43,300 8.31 Aerial transportation corridors 0 400 0 2,700 1,400 01 8.32 Designated utility corridors- existing and potential 18,600 18,6001 18,600 18,400 18,600 18,100 i I , I i -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 Fiver 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 B 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. r\ i ; C b f o c_ °C -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 P SPM m 750 P 750 SPM ti f 0 0 500 SP NM 500 c r c SPNM f 250 RM 250- R f RN ! RN R Q ¢ % RM ROS Class ROS Class Alternative C - Summer Alternative F Summer 1,000 1,000 P cca 750 SPM 750 P SPM cn ~ ~ .f 500 f SPNM 500 ,F I RM SPN250 P 250 F i f Q RN RM R Q i R U 0 U 0 ~ / U ROS Class ROS Class Alternative D - Summer Alternative I - Summer 1,000 SPM 1,000 P cn P -0 a -o c ~ c F c(n 750 f 750 ,f SPNM 0 % 0 ' SPM 50 0 SPNM 500 250 250 RN MA , RM R U ¢ RN RM R U Is IV/' M, 0 0 - s if 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 SPM P _0 _0 cz 750 P (Z 750- 500- 500- ' f SPNM SPNM m f RM 250 250 rr Q F RN u ¢ ~/i RN R~R u ROS Class ROS Class Alternative C - Winter Alternative F - Winter 1,000 1,000 P SPM N SPM CZ 750 CZ 750 P cn (n 0 500 SPNM 500 , l` RM SPNM j a) 250 ; a~ 250 / ~F ~ f R 0 1 f` ! f RN RM R Q RN u ROS Class ROS Class Alternative D - Winter I Alternative I - Winter 1,000 1,000 P P SPM r 750 c SPNM CZ 750 W (n SPNM f 500 f 500 / SPM F f 250 250 U ~ U i RN RM R u Q RN RM R u ¢ f FM 0 - O_ ' ' 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 .r existing permit boundaries Percent of skiable acres 19.8% 40.7% 77% increase in skiable acres Daily capacity 74,976 I 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 I 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 I D E I 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 a 0 800- C 623 0 i= 400 301 169 164 205 141 84 84 N 0 0 [9 [9 0 9 0 , B C D E F I Figure 11 ' Miles of roads and trails open to motorized travel 2500 Trails 2000 Roads 1500 a~ 1000, 500 0 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 E Closed to Motorized Use N y O Q y 800 L C A . N 7 O r 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 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 % I Acres % Acres I % Acres % Acres % Acres % MA 1.2 I 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 1126,600 42 44,200 15 15,0001 51131,800 44 25,700 91 25,5001 8 Group 3 1 149,400 50 54,400 18 158,9001 53 29,200 10 238,800 80 14,200 5 Total 298,000 100 298,000 1 100 298,000 100 298,000 100 298,000 100 298,000 100 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 b 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 1. 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-- 420,000-- 280,000-- 140,000. o 1 I; »I FA B C D E F I Alternative Figure 14 Sawtimber ASQ and volume offer 45,000 ASQ `36,000 Volume offer a 27,000 L L 18,000 ca a> a 9,000 00 B C D E F I Alternative Figure 15 Net returns from the timber program 1,500,000 1 [M Full budget level 1,200,000 ¦ Experienced budget level i 900,000 ca p° 600,000 300000-- 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 I 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 1-70 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 _ resorUtourism-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 11995 11997 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 I - 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 +I 414 451 207 2,944 Mining and 465 719 112 230 I 315 I 647 248 2,735 manufacturing Construction 5,089 2,484 549 267 2,727 I 238 1,860 13,213 Transportation, communication 1,038 765 211 80 535 152 512 3,294 and utilities Wholesale and 7,689 I 6,153 I 1,743 698 5,253 544 6,266 28,346 retail trade Finance, insurance 2,350 I 1,254 748 110 I 1,680 91 1,491 7,723 and real estate Services 11,398 6,915 I 2,818 919 7,863 I 769 8,266 38,948 Government 2,310 3,101 1,025 I 670 1,611 1,025 1,632 11,373 Total 31,058 I 22,275 7,463 2,984 I 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 I 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 11997 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 r 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 plus the 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. -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- i ' VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, January 4, 2000 6:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. (5 mins.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA (5mins.) Item A: Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1999, Second reading of an ordinance amending the official zoning map for the Town of Vail in accordance with Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Chapter 5, Zoning map; rezoning lot 34, Buffehr Creek subdivision from primary secondary (PS) district to outdoor recreation district. 3. ITEMITOPIC: A presentation by the U.S. Forest Service on the proposed US Forest Service amendments to the White River National Forest Plan. (2 hours) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: For information purposes only. No action requested. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The White River National Forest Plan (adopted in 1984) guides management activities for forestlands and resources within the White River Region. The National Forest Management Act requires that forest plans are updated every 15 years in order to ensure consistency with the results of monitoring and evaluation changes in public demand, new direction at the national level, public comment, and other new information. As required by federal codes, the U.S. Forest Service is currently in the process of revising the White River National Forest Plan. The U.S. Forest Service has developed six plan alternatives for the forest based on different themes and management philosophies. Their preferred plan alternative (Alternative D) "addresses the idea that a higher priority be give to physical and biological resources than to human uses of the forest." Representatives from the U.S. Forest Service will give an overview presentation of the planning process, the different plan alternatives, and potential impacts to the Town of Vail. Representatives from the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments and Eagle County have been invited as well to discuss their. concerns with the Town Council. The deadline for public comment on the proposed plan amendments in May 9, 2000. 4. ITEM/TOPIC First reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, an George Ruther ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1992, to provide for an amendment to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (45 Mins.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny Ordinance #1, Series of 2000, on first reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On November 23, 1999, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing for the final review and recommendation of a major SDD amendment and conditional use permit request to allow for the redevelopment of Phase IV, Vail Village Inn, Special Development District No. 6. Upon review and ~`P consideration of the request the Planning & Environmental Commission unanimously recommended approval of the redevelopment proposal to the Vail Town Council, with conditions. On December 7, 14, & 21, 1999, the Vail Town Council held worksessions to discuss the numerous aspects of the redevelopment proposal. Following discussions, which provided input to the applicant, the Vail Town Council directed staff to draft an ordinance for review and consideration on January 4, 2000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council approve Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2000, on first reading. 5. Town Manager's Report. (5 mins.) 6. Adjournment (9:00 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1111/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/18100, BEGINNING AT 7:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 1/18/00, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification.. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. C:kAGENDA.TC 1~~~t s ~r ' 1 y~ ~ t ' ~ ~ ~ so y t-p y- 1"" ID PUBLIC NOTICE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE (as of 12/28/99) JANUARY, 2000 In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated ordinance and charter requirements, Council meetings are scheduled at the following times: EVENING MEETINGS Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month, starting at 7:00 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation and public audience for conducting regular Council business. WORK SESSIONS Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues before the Council, will now be scheduled to begin at 2:00 P.M. (unless otherwise noted) on everv Tuesday afternoon. i im DECEMBER. 1999, VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS: Tuesdav, Januarv 4. 2000 Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda) Evening meeting......... 06:00 P.M. Tuesdav. Januarv 11. 2000 Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda) Tuesdav. January 18. 2000 Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda) Evening meeting......... 07:00 P.M. Tuesdav, Januarv 25, 2000 Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda) TOWN OF VAIL Pamela A. Brandmeyer Assistant Town Manager Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Tuesday, January 4, 2000, the Vail Town Council will be changing the Town Council Meeting from 7:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., due to the length of the agenda. TOWN OF VAIL Pamela A. Brandmeyer Assistant Town Manager ~ 19 tSO 4 X4-3 OU CIL OF 0VE4NM9T.1 y1 - To: NWCCOG Members and Interested Parties From: Gary Severson, Executive Director Date: 10/27/99 Re: NWCCOG Focus Regarding the White River National Forest Plan The mission of Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) is to build multi-jurisdictional, intergovernmental partnerships to address issues affecting the region and to advocate members' interests and needs with local, state, and federal entities. NWCCOG will remain focused on this mission in response to the White River National Forest (WRNF) Proposed Plan Revision and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Therefore, NWCCOG will respond to the WRNF in the following manner: 1. Multi-Jurisdictional Collaborative Planning, Implementation, And Monitoring For Intermixed Lands. The WRNF recognizes the need for multi-jurisdictional, intergovernmental planning and management given the intermix of lands of multiple jurisdictions and the National Forest. The WRNF stated, "7n order to effectively manage the Forest in the future, it is necessary to consider the impacts on both public and private lands ...Most important will be the need to establish cooperative relationships with others to try to deal with issues beyond National Forest System lands."' The WRNF went on to say that a goal should be to develop a system of "boundaryless"2 planning by actively involving adjacent jurisdictions in the process. The USDA Committee of Scientists recommended that a way to improve the management of National Forests is to "...develop more collaborative relationships with local communities... throughout the planning process."3 NWCCOG is in agreement with the WRNF and the USDA Committee of Scientists. The stated theme of the WRNF Intermix prescription is to, "...protect natural resources, provide compatible multiple uses, and maintain cooperative relationships between private landowners and other governments with jurisdiction. "4 However, the preferred alternative identified by the WRNF in the Proposed Plan Revision and DEIS identifies zero (0) acres of multi-jurisdictional intermix lands on which to apply intermix prescriptions. Therefore, NWCCOG will ask the WRNF to revisit the intermix issue. We will ask the WRNF to collaboratively work with adjacent governmental jurisdictions to identify intermix areas of concern, then to identify issues, establish goals and objectives, develop multi-jurisdictional management prescriptions, and initiate a management implementation and monitoring system for the intermix areas. 2. The Effects Of Urbanization On Multi-Jurisdictional Planning And Management. The WRNF stated, "The current Forest Plan does not address management of resources in the context of this topic [urbanization]. It is expected that growth in the planning area will continue throughout the period of 1 Analvsis of the Management Situation, White River National Forest, 1997. 2 Ibid. 3 USDA Press Release # 0104.99. March 15, 1999. 4 Management Area Direction. White River National Forest, 1999. P.O. Box 2308 ? 249 Warren Ave. ? Silverthome, CO 80498 ? 970/468-0295 ? Fax 970/468-1208 owww.nwc.cog.co.us revision. This will be coupled by anticipated increases in use of the Forest by visitors. The issues associated with this topic [urbanization] are expected to continue. In order to effectively manage the Forest in the future, it is necessary to consider the impacts on both public and private lands. It is also necessary to consider the effects of development on private lands on the Forest. This will include goals and objectives and Forest-wide direction. Development of a management area prescription, allocation of some lands to that prescription, and monitoring of how well actions are achieving established goals and objectives will also be necessary Most important will be the need to establish cooperative relationships with others to try to deal with issues beyond National Forest System lands.' Urbanization is a topic that all governmental jurisdictions are facing in light of unprecedented population growth within the region. The WRNF identified urbanization as a separate issue topic in the Analvsis of the Management Situation, but eliminated it as a separate topic and alternative in the DEIS because, "...urbanization is not directly controlled by Forest Service management activities. "s NWCCOG agrees with the WRNF Analvsis of the Management Situation, but disagrees with the WRNF conclusion in Summarv of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. A plausible argument could be advanced that no local governmental jurisdiction can directly control urbanization within its legal authorities. However, if this rationale were used by other jurisdictions in addition to the WRNF for eliminating the urbanization topic, then urbanization and its effects on the region would not be addressed. It is the position of NWCCOG that urbanization is an extremely important regional topic that affects multiple governmental jurisdictions and must be addressed by all working in cooperation and collaboration with one another. Therefore, NWCCOG will propose that the WRNF reexamine the urbanization topic in collaboration with multiple governmental jurisdictions within the region to fully assess the topic on all jurisdictions including the WRNF. 3. Community Relationships To Sustain Community Vitality And Healthy Ecosystems. A stated goal of the USDA Forest Service is to, "...build community relationships that sustain both community vitality and healthy ecosystems, plus enhance the quality of life."7 In addition, three main goals apply to the management of all National Forest System Lands: ensure sustainable ecosystems, provide multiple benefits for people within the capabilities of ecosystems, and ensure organizational effectiveness.8 Finally, a stated forest- wide goal, which applies to all National Forests in the Rocky Mountain Region is, "Cooperate with individuals and organizations, and local, state, tribal, and federal governments to promote ecosystem health and sustainability across landscapes.'a NWCCOG is in agreement with the conceptual linkages between healthy ecosystems and healthy communities through sustainability. The WRNF is also aware that impacts on an ecosystem extend beyond the Forest's boundaries. The WRNF stated, "Where multiple ownership exists in a watershed of any /eve/, it is important that the Forest work with the appropriate agencies and individuals where necessary to protect the watershed. "10 The WRNF went on to state, "Cooperative relationships are emphasized with. other agencies and adjacent private landowners."" Ecosystems do not stop at the National Forest boundaries, but extend to lands of adjacent jurisdictions. However, NWCCOG questions the ability of the WRNF to manage its lands and achieve its stated goals without examining complete ecosystems. (The preferred alternative identified zero acres of intermix lands.) In addition, NWCCOG is concerned that there are no Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines specifically designed " to address the Forest-wide Goal of "Cooperate with ...local governments to promote health and sustainability across landscapes. 42 5 Analvsis of the Manaeement Situation. White River National Forest, 1997. 6 Summarv of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, White river national Forest, 1999. 7 Rural Communitv Assistance. USDA Forest Service. 8 Government Performance and Results Act. 1993. 9 Prooosed Revised Land and Resource Manaeement Plan, White River National Forest, 1999. 10 Draft Environmental Imoact Statement, White River National Forest, 1999. 11 PrODosed Revised Land and Resource Manaeement Plan, White River National Forest, 1999. 1i Ibid. Therefore, NWCCOG will propose that the WRNF, working in collaboration with adjacent governmental jurisdictions, develop a continuing multi jurisdictional policy level process, supported by specific Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. The purpose of the intergovernmental process will be to address regional issues, including urbanization, and their effects on ecosystems, community vitality, and quality of life during the development of the Forest Plan Revision as well as the implementation and monitoring of the approved Forest Plan. Conclusion NWCCOG believes that by focusing on the three aforementioned areas, multi-jurisdictional collaborative relationships can be developed to address important region-wide issues, producing mutual benefits to the environment and communities of the northwestern region of Colorado. i ` The General Assembly in 2000 co J 0 Thursday o-o .r will affect municipal interests o :ft o r; . January 27, 2000 What will you do about it? w~ t Q To help municipal officials understand pending o 1.0 state legislation, the Colorado Municipal League '1+ a C will hold Its annual Legislative Workshop on > Thursday, lanuary 27. This day-long workshop will n focus on key municipal Issues before the 2000 General Assembly, the League's legislative w program, and what you as a municipal official can n" ~p _ do to Influence the legislative process. A~ (gyp ~p t C The workshop Is an excellent opportunity for n N rM municipal officials to learn about the legislative Cy; O process and its Importance to cities and towns. It r""~ will feature several concurrent sessions to meet the ¦ ¦ growing Interest in legislative issues by workshop v` attendees. e~:.. t N H U7 Following the workshop, there will be a legislative C-3 , M9 reception at the League office, located at 1144 ° a } ~ Sherman St. Municipal officials are encouraged to =3 r- o, r r•i a^ 3}, personally invite their own legislators to come with them to the reception, and we also encourage you _ C; ! } to arrange meetings withyour legislators whileyou o are In Denver. U3 L.,~ ¦ ¦ X59' The CML Poliry Committee will meet Friday' January 28, at the league office. We urge Policy '6~'Tl y Committee members to attend the workshop because the information to be discussed will be E J - relevant to them. For overnight accommodations, CML suggests calling the Burnsley Hotel, 1000 Grant St 303- _ J ~ 830-1000; Adams Mark Hotel, ISSO Court Place 303-893-3333; the Cambridge Hotel, 1560 Co Sherman St 1-800-877-1252; or the Comfort Inn, - i 401 17t° St. 303-296-0400. S } WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU Adams Mark Hotel 1550 Court Place, Denver IN DENVER ON JANUARY 27. Registration form CIVIL 2000 Legislative Workshop Thursday January 27, 2000 Adams Mark Hotel, Denver By After k Ian 17 Ian 17 ; CIVIL Members _$85 _$9S ? 8:15-8:45am 1:45-2:45 Concurrent Sessions ( ) Nonmembers _$135 _$140 Registration and coffee Federal Issues Update ' Policy Committee $80 $ 90 What's happening at the nation's capitol of 8:45-10:15 municipal Interest? Hear an update from Amount enclosed: $ 2000 General Assembly, What the National League of Cities. Invited Municipal Officials Can Anticipate speaker: Cameron Whitman, chief lobbyist, National League of Cities. Registration Fee includes cost of meeting The League's lobbyists will present an rooms, conference materials, lunch and overview of state legislative activities Land Use ' affecting municipal interests and review the coffee. The member's fee for registering: This panel will focus on what kind of , League's own 2000 legislative program. annexation and growth management bills are ; the day of the workshop is $100. There 10:15-10:30 pending before the legislature. will be no refunds of any registration fees. Morning break 2:45-3:00 ' Afternoon break ; Name 10:30-11:45 (Concurrent Sessions) Title Tax Policy 3:00-4:00 Day Phone How Is the Legislature addressing the key The State of State-Municipal Relations ; Fax issues of tax reform and tax policy? A panel Gov. Bill Owens has been tentatively of legislators and other state officials will Address confirmed to discuss emerging state- ~ address the Question. municipal Issues. Emerging Issues This panel will focus on what kind of 4:3 League Open House ; Email. general Issues are before the League pending ; Representing Legislature affecting cities and towns. A reception for municipal officials and • legislators will be held at the League's , Noon-1:30 office, 1144 Sherman Street. Lunch: Legislative Leaders and Mail or fax this form, and send payment to: Municipalities Elected officials enrolled in CML, 1144 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203- Various members of the legislature's the Municipal Officials' Leadership ; 2207; FAX (303) 860=8175. Make checks leadership will review 2000 Statehouse Training Program will receive 3 payable to Colorado Municipal League. activity of municipal concern. credits by offending the full workshop, i Enrollment and attendance forms Return form with fee no later than for the program will be available ; January. 24, 2000 at the workshop. • ~ 41 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FR: Bob McLaurin RE: Town Manager's Report DT: December 30, 1999 Community Survey We have begun preparing for the 2000 Annual Community Survey. This will be the thirteenth consecutive year we have conducted this type survey. Several years ago, the Council decided to coordinate the survey with the biennial budget process in which a large scale survey is conducted as part of the two year planning process, and a telephone/Internet survey is conducted during the off year. For your information, I have enclosed copies of last year's telephone survey and the 1998 mail back survey. If you have particular areas you would like to see explored, please contact Suzanne or me. We anticipate mailing the questionnaires in March and having the data compiled by May. CML Legislative Workshop The 2000 CML legislative workshop will be held on Thursday January 27th. This meeting will be held at the Adams Mark Hotel in Denver. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an overview of the 2000 legislative session. I have enclosed a copy of the agenda for your review. If you are interested in attending please let Beth know so she can get you registered. I will be attending and can provide transportation to anyone who wishes to attend. Up Coming Meetings January 11, 2000 -Work Session Alpine Garden Update Inc. 500 Presentation Discussion of Council 6 Critical Strategies Community Development Walk Through/Orientation Januarv 18. 2000 - Work Session Signs for Merchants, Development of Vail 50 Development of new programs for Information Centers Whitewater Park - Gore Creek Promenade Discussion of Mater Deed Restriction/Permitted Capital Improvements Discussion of Council's Critical Strategies Januarv 18. 2000 - TC Wayfinding Planning Schedule `i _a• TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1999 An Overview of Results. for the Vail Town Council Review Session June, 1999 INTRnDuc,rION For the twelfth consecutive year, the Town of Vail conducted a survey of Town residents and absentee property owners and business owners to evaluate opinions on a variety of issues. RRC Associates was again retained to assist in this effort. The purpose of the survey program was to evaluate respondents' level of satisfaction with respect to a full range of community services, and to gather opinions on selected issues currently facing the Vail community. This year. for the first time, the survey was conducted over the telephone, and it was also made available over the Internet via the Town of Vail's web site. The 1999 surveys were designed to parallel previous surveys in terms of a number of questions related to household demographic profiles, as well as ratings of services and facilities. This year the survey was shortened slightly in order to permit completion of calls over the telephone. A telephone survey was fielded this year in part because of declining response rates to the annual mailback survey. A total of 600 phone interviews were completed over the telephone in the following proportions: 300 interviews with Town of Vail residents, 200 interviews with absentee owners of property (second homeowners), and 100 interviews with business owners or managers. In addition to the telephone survey program described above, a second survey was conducted this year using the Town's web site. The Internet survey was put in service on April 15. 1999 and over about a seven week period through the first week of June a total of 56 surveys were completed. Although the. sample is small it is interesting to note that ratings from the Internet survey are closely paralleling telephone survey responses. RRC Associates has entered the results from both surveys. Telephone and Internet, and transcribed the open-ended comments for interpretation and presentation. A sampling of typical statements from the open-ended comments are provided with this report. A complete summary of a sample of responses to open-ended questions and sets of quantitative tables, in addition to the Internet survey results, will be provided in separate documents and will be available through the Town of Vail Community Information office on June 15. This report is an overview summary of the results of the 1999 study. Following the Town Council review session, a complete report will be presented summarizing the results from the 1999 Community Survey. Tile results of the Telephone Survey are presented in two sections. The first section is the "Summary of Results" that highlights selected findings from this year's research. In addition, a brief summary of RRC ASSOCinTts i TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 19" t Internet survey results is provided. The second section, titled "Detailed Survey Results" consists of a copy of the original questionnaire with the response frequencies (given in percentages) and average (mean) scores provided where appropriate for each question. The number of responses to questions are also indicated by the symbol "n=" on the survey form. Several graphs are provided to summarize the results of ratings questions where appropriate. SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS The survey has once again drawn participation from throughout the community. Response rates by sub-area are similar to past surveys although more participants reported living in the West Vail area this year. Not surprisingly, the absentee respondents are somewhat different from residents: they are more clustered in neighborhoods with more second homes such as East Vail, Vail Village and Lionshead. West Vail and East Vail are most often identified as the neighborhoods of residents responding to the survey, as illustrated by the Table below. TABLE I WHERE IS YOUR RESIDENCE WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL LOCATED? RESIDENT ABSENTEE East Vail 30% 38% Booth Falls and Bald Mountain Road areas 1 1 Booth Creek/Aspen Lane 1 1 Golf Course 4 3 Vail Village 7 14 Lionshead 4 22 Potato Patch. Sandstone 8 3 Buffehr Creek, Lionsridge, the Valley 1 1 Vail Commons/Safeway area 1 - West Vail Area 42 19 {n an effort to facilitate easy comparisons with last year many of the survey questions are reported in total with resident and absentee property owner responses combined. However, the overall profile is presented below with percentage responses from residents and absentee owners compared. Note that several demographic questions were deleted from the telephone survey, including the age and income of respondents. In general. response patterns are similar to past years although the survey had more responses from renter households. In addition, the survey had more responses from persons that are not registered to vote in Vail. Similarly, the Internet survey reached a segment of the community that is relatively unlikely to be registered to vote with 38 percent reporting they are not registered. These results suggest that there may be opportunities to use the Internet to encourage voter registration and to reach segments of the community that may be otherwise excluded from communications. The telephone and Internet approach apparently reached a broader cross section of the community than the mailback survey of last year, which was dominated by long-time owners. RRC ASSOCIATES 2 ti TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY I99 J TABLE 2 TOWN OF VAIL RESIDENT AND ABSENTEE PROPERTY OWNER PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS OWNIRENT RESIDENCE 1999 1998 1997 RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE Own 68 99 76 100 66 97 Rent 31 1 23 - 31 3 Other 1 - 1 - 3 - OWN/OPERATE A BUSINESS WITHIN THE TOWN OF VAIL 1999 1998 1997 RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE Yes 37 2 33 4 32 4 No 63 98 67 96 68 96 TENURE WITHIN TOWN OF VAIL (OR LENGTH OF TIME OWNED PROPERTY IF NON-RESIDENT) 1999 1998 1997 RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE Less than 1 year 5 1 5 5 6 5 1-5 years 28 18 20 22 25 24 6-15 years 30 33 35 40 34 37 More than 15 years 32 47 41 33 35 34 MARITAL STATUS 1999 1998 1997 RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE RESIDENT ABSENTEE Single, no children 41 6 38 7 40 9 Couple, no children 17 13 22 14 20 13 Household with children 24 46 23 32 26 33 Empty nester 19 36 19 47 14 45 (children no longer at home) Tm: TWO BIGGEST ISSUES FACING TILE TOWN As in recent years. the survey contained an "open-ended" question asking respondents the "two biggest issues in order of priority" facing the Town. This is a question that was asked the past two years in_ identical format: this years results closely resemble last years' findings. Again this year, the dominant issue has been "affordable housing.- No other category was mentioned as frequently as the top priority. The results concerning the "Top Issues" this year are portrayed by the graphs below. RRC ASSOCIATES 3 TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1999 c FIGURE I MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING THE TOWN OF VAIL RESIDENTS AND SECOND HOMEOWNERS COMBINED, SUMMARIZED FROM OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS Percent of Respondents 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Housing (employee. affordable, general, local) Y _ , h -.n Controlled growth / 01998 01999 development 1€ Open space / environment I As summarized below - "other" categories z, o accounted for 32% of responses It is interesting to note that while residents and absentee owners considered together identify housing as the top priority, absentee respondents are especially likely to identify growth issues as their greatest concern. These results are very similar to 1998 when growth issues began to dominate the comments of the absentee homeowners. On the following pages verbatim comments are summarized. The lists provide a more complete illustration of the types of comments redefined and they also provide an indication of the pairs of comments that were provided. For example, one respondent identified "Balancing local needs and tourism" as a top priority with "Air pollution-woodburning" as the second priority. A review of the lists suggests the breadth of citizen interest and concern. The comments indicate that residents and absentee owners alike view housing, growth and open space issues to remain top priorities, Just as they have been over the past year. RRC ASSOCIATES 4 TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1999 EXAMPLE OF SELECTED RESPONSES Top Priority-Residents Second Priority-Residents 171 Replies 144 Replies Affordable housing consolidated (74 Affordable housing consolidated (23 entries)-43% entries)-16% Open space consolidated (11 entries)-6% Open space consolidated (15 entries)-10% Growth issues consolidated (25 entries)- Growth issues consolidated (29 entries)- 15% 20% Key: a=affordable housing related, o=open space related, g=growth related Affordable housing (29 entries) Affordable housing (3 entries) Housing (23 entries) Housing (7 entries) Employee housing (15 entries) Employee housing (5 entries) Affordable housing related (7 entries) from Affordable housing (8 entries) from below below Open space (6 entries) Open space (9 entries) Open space related (5 entries) from below Open space (6 entries) from below Growth (8 entries) Growth (8 entries) Growth related (17 entries)_from below Growth issues (21 entries) from below Environmental issues (4 entries) Parking (4 entries) Balancing local needs and tourism Air pollution - woodburning A Bell area - 50 acres develop employee housing Appearance not world class center Better access to golf courses during summer a Availability of affordable housing Better employees in community Balance environment with prosperity Better pay for employees Better pay O Better use of open space o Better use of open space - eliminate code enforcement Budget sales tax Bus system Building and maintaining sense of community Category 3 Category III Cemetery Category III g Coming to grips with an aging infrastructure Citizen participation (absentee community) Consistency of administrative policies and procedures in enforcing G City not growing like it should g Controlling growth G City planning Coping with change Community, neighborhood, environment, families, Cost of living children G Conflict between housing and open space Dealing with transient nature of population G Controlling growth g Decent growth rate Creative, positive leadership Deterioration of buildings Decline of type of people who visit Vail a Development housing all high end G Density Don't do Cat 3 G Expansion and growth Employee attitude Fire coverage Employee pay RRC ASSOCIATES S TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 19W i G Overcrowded Lack of suitable income for employees G Overdevelopment Large turnover in police dept. G Overdevelopment Less government Overhaul police dept. personnel Limited control of speeding in residential areas Parking Litter and garbage around town - fine 'em Parking - not enough, fees way too high Losing customers to other communities in the valley G Preserving infrastructure, keeping up capital a Low income housing improvements in a fiscal environment of diminishing tax revenues. A Public housing o Maintaining open space Recapturing community spirit and feeling Maintaining realistic perspective on costs G Redevelopment Modernizing Reduced senior lift tickets o Need more open space Relationship with Vail Associates Need to attract tourists all year Responsiveness of council and town staff Need town council elected by district representation G Revamp/update village o Open space, overdevelopment Roadways/back streets in winter g Overdevelopment Speed limits - revise and enforce g Overdevelopment in Vail Village Spend too much money People in services not that friendly Start running the town - no planning, not g Population control - gonna bloom and blossom listening to the town - need to plan for it Too expensive ski passes a Portable housing O Too little open space a Public housing G Too rapid of growth Public maintenance Tourism is too high Public relations G Town OK, but county growing too fast Quality of services Traffic g Renovation of existing establishments, business, and homeowners up to standards Transportation - getting workers to work a Rent control Transportation problems Satisfy visitors Unwillingness of town voters to vote for town Servers improvements Upgrading the town - modernization Sources of revenue: finding new other funding other than sales tax Vail Associates too involved Speeding, esp. in neighborhoods - speed limits too high Vail is getting too big g Stable community Vail's decreasing position as the leading ski resort Staffing, seasonal esp. in the nation Work force tougher to find unless to run the Stop using Magnesium chloride on streets business g Stopping down valley from turning into another Aspen - too much growth, unenvironmental Street repair Stupid highway in the middle of town RRC ASSOCIATES 6 TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1999 r Absentee Comments-an example of responses Top Priority Second Priority 57 Replies 50 Replies Affordable housing consolidated (14 Affordable housing consolidated entries)-25% (9 entries)-18% Open space consolidated (3 entries)-5% Open space consolidated (1 entries)-2% Growth issues consolidated Growth issues consolidated (9 entries)-1.8% (25 entries)-44% Key: a=affordable housing related, o=open space related, g=growth related Affordable housing (3 entries) Affordable housing (0 entries) Housing (3 entries) Housing (0 entries) Employee housing (7 entries) Employee housing (7 entries) Affordable housing related (1 entry) from Affordable housing (2 entries) from below below Open space (2 entries) Open space (1 entries) Open space related (1 entry) from below Open space (0 entries) from below Growth (4 entries) Growth (2 entries) Growth related (21 entries) from below Growth issues (7 entries) from below Parking (3 entries) g Overcrowding (5 entries) Animal activists Accessibility of parking and getting into town g Commercial development related to growth Attracting out of town skiers Community center Becoming too citified Concerned about outdated resort Better services accommodations g Controlling growth Budget g Development Careless driving on round-a-bouts g Development Current homeowner's property values Do more for families with children Economic development Environmental issues Environmental concerns g Expansion, overdevelopment Expanded public services g Growth management Expensive merchant passes a Lack of affordable housing Get out of housing issue g Less growth Good employees Lionshead building neglected a Greater housing for employees g Lionshead developments Lift tickets too high g Lionshead redevelopment Maintaining quality of life and small town feeling Maintaining costs so it does not get Marketing unaffordable Management of ski areas More activities for seniors More individual stores More control of ski area g Overcrowded More landscaping g Overcrowded growth More public bathrooms RRC ASSOCIATES 7' TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 19W ti g Overcrowding New construction at Lionshead g Overdevelopment g Over-growth g Overdevelopment Parking g Planned growth Parking not available o Preserving wild areas and wildlife Pollution Prices too high Restraint of Vail Associates Ski industry not skiing Vail Retail environment versus Vail Associates g Slow down development Ski expansion g Stop expanding ski area Too expensive ski passes Structure at the bus stop g Too much construction Too expensive to live here Too much traffic g Too much growth Traffic not managed well g Too much growth Upgrade the ski area Traffic congestion Vail Associates promotes Beaver Creek over Vail and diverts best business to other properties RATINGS RESULTS An important purpose of the survey is to provide ratings of various aspects of Town services. Results from this year's survey again indicate that residents and absentee property owners are generally satisfied with the quality of services provided by the Town and are also satisfied with the attitudes of Town employees. In general, absentee owners are more positive than residents, but both groups are typically positive. As summarized by the foldout graph on page 2 and 3 of the attached survey summary form, ratings are almost uniformly up this year from last year. Among the categories that were up sharply were The Art in Public Places Commission, The Design Review Board, Animal Control, Community Development and Police (in general), and the Bus Service. Pricing of parking was the most negatively rated category overall, and it slipped somewhat from 1998. The Town Council also received slightly lower marks on the scale where the choices were "gotten worse" "stayed the same" and "gotten better." The survey results suggest that the declines in Town Council ratings may be attributed in part to some differences in responses by geographic response from within the Town. For example, contrasting East Vail responses with West Vail, 13 percent of East Vail felt Council had "gotten worse" compared to 21 percent of West Vail respondents. Matterhorn and intermountain residents were also relatively negative. The single exception is in the ratings of the Town Council where a slight decline in ratings is evident. "Too LITTLE" OR "Too MUCH" ATTENTION A series of questions asked respondents to indicate whether services/facilities in the Town receive "too little" or "too much" attention. Results indicate that most respondents are satisfied with the levels of attention being given to services. RRC ASSOCIATES K' TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1999 Services/Facilities Receiving Too Much or Too Little Expenditure: Resident Comments Services/facilities receiving too much attention • Betty Ford Alpine Gardens receive too much money • Budget for police is extraordinary • Bus receives too much money, town employs too many people in general and spends far too much Sanding roads too much • Spending too much on traffic enforcement • Too many locals got ticketed during worlds • Too much administration • Too much art in public places • Too much attention to public works, bus, parking, library • Too much gravel used in snow maintenance • Too much into surveys • Too much on art • Town council "tests" too much • Vail controls town services too much Services/facilities receiving too little attention • Art in public places - appalling taste, horrible • Bus service to East Vail receives too little • Bus services needs more funding in summer • Bus stops dirty, parks need more attention • Cleaning streets too little • Community Development Department - big projects should be approved or denied. • Do more cleaning • Dog pound shelter needs more money • East Vail Fire Station receives too little attention • Gravel removal attention for bikes and rollerblades needed • Information booth needs to be more accessible (parking) to public. • More animal control, too many dogs • More expenditures on affordable day care • More for recreation activities • More for the library • More money on back areas - Chamonix, Arosa, Bassingdale • More money towards public housing • More structures in parks • Need more animal control, full recreation center, facilities for community events • Need to fix gymnastics building • Not enough for the library • Not enough money on Police Department and Planning • Not enough on absentee owners. Not prepared for full occupancy (if all second homeowners come to stay) • Parking • Public Works at times under-funded • Skier visits down, don't lose focus of having a ski area RRC ASSOCIATES 9' TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY IW9 • Terrible job on steepest roads and frontage • Too few bike paths • Too few parks, parking structures need improvement • Too little attention to affordable housing (3 entries) • Too little attention to high cost of parking for people working in Vail • Too little to parking (3 entries) • Too little: parking, fire,: housing Services/Facilities Receiving Too Much or Too Little Expenditure: Absentee Comments Services/facilities receiving too much attention • Parks and Recreation gets too much • Too many gardens, flowers, and lights at Central Park - too plastic • Too much funding for firefighters • Too much growth, taxes • Too much of town is tourist oriented Services/facilities receiving too little attention • Affordable housing • Greater diversity of retail outlets • More benches at shuttle pick-up • More expenditures on ski slopes and services • More expenditures promoting individual stores • More lighting in parking structures • More recreation facilities • Overcrowded on golf courses during summer • Owner's recreation pass - no information for distant owners • Parks are lacking • Public employee housing needs attention • Schools need more funding • Too little attention to Lionshead • Too little attention to parking (3 entries) • Too little employee housing. • Too little funding for ambulance • Too little streetscaping, zoning, view corridors, parking • Too little town expenditures on parks • Too little/few community recreation areas, facilities • Too little/not enough expenditures for library expansion RRC ASSOCIATES 10' TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY I99 SENSE OF COMMUNITY There remains a general concern with a lack of "sense of community," although results are largely unchanged from last year. Resident respondents, in particular, feel the "sense of community" within the Town of Vail has "gotten worse" over the past several years (43 percent compared to 25 percent of the absentee owners). Interestingly, the responses to the Internet survey showed an identical 43 percent in the "gotten worse" category. TILE LOCAL ECONOMY A series of questions addressed opinion concerning whether, "The TOV needs to take action to improve the community's economic vitality (retail quality and variety, keeping businesses in Vail) in commercial areas." Results suggest that there is strong support for this direction among residents and absentee owners with 60 percent reporting "yes" and 33 percent "no." About 7 percent are "uncertain." Residents are significantly more likely to support action (65 percent compared to 50 percent of absentee respondents) with about 10 percent of the absentee group having "no opinion." Regarding the importance of various actions, the single most identified action item for local residents was to "expand summer marketing" followed by improve retail quality. THE INTERNET AND COMMUNICATIONS As noted previously. the survey response rates declined this year suggesting that there might be a need to investigate other alternatives to solicit community input. One of the clear possibilities is the Internet. which has seen tremendous growth over the past year. Last year's survey showed that 64 percent of residents had access to the Internet: this year the figure is at 73 percent. Residents access to the Internet now exceeds that of absentee owners (currently 63 percent). Overall, 1999 Internet access is at 73 percent. INTERNET DISCUSSION THE INTERNET SURVEY As described above. the Internet Survey was designed to compliment the Telephone Survey and to provide a means of encouraging participation from a segment of local residents or absentee owners that may not have been selected to respond to the Phone Survey. Because the results from the Internet Survev were based on "self selection" we have not combined them with the random sample that composed the Telephone Survey. However, they do provide an additional source of input and they are rich in comments and suggestions as respondents took advantage of the e-mail capabilities of the Internet to record detailed written comments. Findings include: • 79 percent of the 58 respondents report a Vail address with 70 percent indicating they are year round residents of Vail. The remaining group are either absentee or business owners. • Among Internet respondents 56 percent completed the survey "at home", 32 percent at work. and 5 percent at the library. • The geographic distribution of web survey responses was generally similar to the resident's version of the Telephone Survey with East Vail and West Vail neighborhoods most represented in the responses. RRC ASSOCIATES I I TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 1999 • Overall, the responses on the Internet Survey closely track with those received through the Telephone Survey. For example. Internet respondents are especially likely to feel that the "sense of community" has "gotten worse" (43 percent) and that the Vail economic vitality "needs to be improved." Similarly, the ratings obtained through the Internet Survey are similar to those obtained through the random telephone technique. In conclusion, we believe that the Internet represents a viable means of soliciting community input at modest cost. While it should not replace the mail or telephone methods at this time, the Internet can be viewed as an increasingly viable and cost effective method for gathering input. • Finally, one of the benefits of the Internet is the detailed written comments that are received. The summary below represents a sampling of comments from Internet respondents. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ? Continue to work to build a sense of community as the TOV has done in recent years. Everyone will acknowledge the importance of the resort to our survival, however, it is the nature of the community that keeps people here and will continue to attract families and committed individuals in the future. ? It is the community that gives soul to the place. ? I think the TOV ought to do what municipalities should be doing and not get involved in all the side issues that belong in free market. Like commercial businesses, like housing, like real estate, like redevelopment, etc. 1 think the current council is way off base. No private business could operate the wav they are...why is it ok to do so with taxpayer's money? It is not town government's job to take care of everyone's financial health. Give it up! ? In light of the recent news that TOV tax revenues are down it would only make sense for the town to halt any more plans for building employee-housing units. There appears to be a smug attitude from down valley residents about the Town of Vail and its desire.to serve their needs. Mind you they seem to be proud of what they have in the way of commercial areas but there needs to be a concerted effort made to win over the "down valley" crowd and get them back in town for dinner and such. The retail shopping in Vail is not very appealing at this juncture so it is easy to see why folks aren't enthused about staying in town to shop and dine. Another things I have noticed is that the parking/code enforcement people really do their job with a vengeance, it seems there needs to be a little friendlier attitude towards individuals who need to pick up or drop off children in town. On two occasions 1 have gotten ticketed at times when there are no people in town and I was parked in a loading zone in front of my office. ? The TOV needs to take less responsibility for the welfare of merchants, etc. in the TOV. The free market will take care of the merchants who can't seem to make it. Let's quit coddling everyone at the tax payers expense. Charge for parking until the structure is paid for. The housing "problem" should be handled by the private sector totally and should be regarded as a regional issue. I am continually dismayed at how the TOV talks about wanting more locals living within the TOV, but then treats the locals who do live here as secondary citizens. The guy who is "might" come here is always more important than the guy who "is" here. TOV doesn't represent the thinking of the RRC ASSOCIATES 12' TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY ICJ people who live in the TOV. TOV has its own agenda... rather I think it is someone else's agenda being implemented through the TOV. Get rid of Bob McLaurin...he adds nothing to the town. Restore honesty and integrity to TOV. The Common Ground process has destroyed the Town's credibility with its citizens. Vail needs to concentrate. Vail has no after ski gathering place that is big enough for everybody, like Copper's base lodge bar or deck. Trail's End in Lionshead is the closest thing. Both Vail and Lionshead need some kind of "base lodge" type gathering place. Apres-ski entertainment in Vail is not commensurate with Vail's big reputation. Entertainment and retail could use better town management or support: that is, a committee to offer suggestions to businesses on how to improve themselves, keep current, and offer more excitement and newness. The town must care about its businesses. How about a suggestion box, electronic or otherwise, so that front rangers or others can make suggestions on entertainment they have seen in Denver that they like: or of shops they would like to see, or of merchandise they would like to see available in Vail. If you really care how Vailites feel, put more issues to a vote and stop wasting your time and ours with hyped up planning devices such as this survey. It is bogus. The council has tackled too much and is doing a very bad job. You are in your own little world patting yourselves on the back, but totally out of touch with the people who live here and care about Vail. You are pawns of certain special interest groups and the rest of Vail is looking for places to move to that are not so money oriented as you've made Vail. • Please be conservative in additions of convention space when "redoing Lionshead". Do not even think about changing the library!!! • I feel it is important to not just focus on the one issue of low employee housing. We need to look at the big picture from all sides salaries, benefits, what solutions are there that don't require new buildings? • Offer more opportunities for people to come into the village. The free evening concerts during the championships drew a lot of people, which brought a lot of business to the merchants. Mix them up so some are in the day and others are in the evenings. Vail First is the most incredibly selfish group I've ever witnessed. Bus service is excellent. Make town web site more visible through marketing. • I have spent more time out of Vail in the last year and I can't believe all the people who have said they will not come back because the service and quality was so bad in Vail it is not cheap there so the experience should be great and it is often not. • Keep up the good work. This type of survey (e-mail) is very user-friendly and is an excellent means of getting broad feedback! • Loosen Up. Look to the future, be creative and fun! TOV has lost the energy of where it's at! Think about the "old" days- FAC, Ford Invitational, No Name Golf Tourney, Mountain Man marathon. even the 4th of July Parade was blab. TOV needs to be proactive in the regional issues - help with the down valley and stop alienating the locals who have worked very hard in giving all they've got to the area, people are fed up with the high costs of being associated with Vail and the attitude that goes with the upkeep of TOV Look at the Edwards area and realize the locals have found a new lively, fun, and sense of community due to the kick in the pants shove Vail has given to locals, their friends, family and children of this community to move on out and down valley. Remember the old days, when you knew everyone in town, you supported the restaurants, the RRC ASSOCIATES 13' TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY SURVEY 19W shops and the events (even helped make them happen) because TOV was the community--TOV even helped down valley locals to success, and received the help in return we love Vail, please try to keep growth within limits so our grandchildren will be able to use Vail. More summer activities seem needed. World Cup did not seem to improve anything, just a distraction. ? Vail needs to promote more hi-tech year round businesses in order to increase the number of full- time residents and therefore strengthen the community. DETAILED SURVEY RESULTS The detailed results from the survey are presented in the attachment by individual question. Each question is reported in a form that allows comparison with last year. Residents and absentee property owner responses are merged, with absentee business owners not included in these results. Where overall results compared to the previous year, are of interest, the data have been represented in a graph format. RRC ASSOCIATES 14 Town of Vail Community Survey 1999 Results Through May 6, 1999 Residents and Absentee Responses Consolidated Hello, this is with . We are conducting the annual Town of Vail Community Survey by telephone this year. The Town Survey is part of an ongoing effort to improve Town services and communications, and you have been selected at random to participate in this important program. All of your responses will remain strictly confidential and be reported only together with other responses. Do you have a few minutes to answer some questions? (IF NO), Is there a more convenient time that 1 might call back, or is there another adult member of your household that might be available to complete the survey? Thank you for participating. FIRST, A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT TOWN OF VAIL GOVERNMENT... 1. Over the past year, how would you rate the responsiveness of the following groups? Has their responsiveness gotten worse, stayed the same, or gotten better? GOTTEN STAYED THE GETTING WORSE SAME BETTER mean 1 2 3 Current Town Council 1999 14% 62% 24% 2.10 1998 9 55 36 2.27 Planning and Environmental Commission (also known as the PEC) 1999 23% 52% 26% 2.02 1998 15 69 16 2.01 Design Review Board (a.k.a. the DRB) 1999 23% 41% 36% 2.11 1998 18 69 13 1.95 Art in Public Places Board (a.k.a. AIPP) 1999 20% 33% 47% 2.25 1998 18 65 17 1.98 Town of Vail staff 1999 10% 55% 35% 2.25 1998 8 69 23 2.14 2. How satisfied are you with town administration services? Use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means "not at all satisfied" and 5 means "very satisfied" to rate each of the following items. NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED General administration (managers office, 1 2 3 4 5 finance department, clerk's office, staff) Information dissemination (meeting notices, See Graph on Page 2 project updates, newsletters, etc.) Municipal Court 3. What do you believe are the two biggest issues, in order of priority, facing the Town of Vail? I. Affordable/employee housing 2. Grox th issues 3. Open space issues TOV Ratings (5113199) Residents & Absentee Consolidated Mean Satisfaction Rating 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 1 Town Of Vail Staff I .1 2.14 - - - - ----I - - - - 2.25 Town Council I r 12.27 TOV Government (1-Gotten Worse, 2-Stayed the Same, 3-Gotten Better) 2.10 - I Art in Public Places 2.25 - - - - - - - - -L - i 2.01 Below ratings on 5 point scale (1 =Not at All Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied) Planning 8 Environ. Commission~ 2.02 Design Review Board, ~5 2.11 RATE ADMINISTRATION Municipal Court 1 3.76 r I I i ~ I I i Information Dissemination 13.58 i ! I I I f ? 1998 I~ 1999 General Administration I JJJJIIJ/11111111111J/11J/11JJ/1J11111////////1/11111////////rrrrll//1(L//11/1/1r11r////1111111/111111 13.578 RATE COMMUNITY DEV. I Courtesy And Attitude 1 13.52 Overall Service And Efficiency 3.27 43.39 RATE PUBLIC WORKS I. Snow Removal I J4.13 4.22 Park Playground Equipment Safety I 14.02 Overall Park Maintenance I i 4.00 4.09 Appearance/Condition of Town Buildings II ( j 3.84 /q 3.81 i I ~ I ! Road & Street Maintenance I 3.66 1//i13.83 Frontage Road Maintenance I ( i 3.60 3.76 RATE FIRE I i I i 4 Emergency Medical Services .46 4.55 Fire Emergency Response Time I 14.32 4.4,4 Courtesy And Attitude I i 4.34 4.47 Fire PreventionAnspection Program I ( ( 4.01 I I I I Fire Public Education Services 14.00 i/I 3 95 i I RATE POLICE I Feeling Of SecuritylSafety 1 14.09 ~J1////1/11///11/fJf~1/111//f/(~ffffff///JJJ/f/J/fffJJJf111111/JJ1/1/f/J/J(//fJJ//11Jf1J/J~ ~/JJJ//////////1////1f////////r/lrlrrrrr/a 4.30 i Overall Quality of Service Friendliness/Approachability I 14.00 4.05 I I i I i Visibility Of Police I 13.78 3s Fairness Of Police I ) 3.81 3.89 RATE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES Overall Quality of Service /1/fJJ1JJ!/JJf/13.04 3.52 1 Response Time To Complaints I 1 J.96 ////1i/////f//f///////!//1r/fr~i//////J//lrrrrJrr/rrr~/1f/f/frJllrrJIJJJJff//1f1r/r1/1r/1 3.51 RATE BUS SERVICE I j Dependability of Bus Service /1 410 ///A 4.26 In-Town Shuttle Frequency I ) 4.08 I4.15 Bus Driver Courtesy I f 13.94 4.18 Cleanliness Of Buses 13.87 4.08 Cleanliness Of Terminal I 13.66 4.06 RATE PARKING Speed Of Transaction i 13.66 At Booth .97 Booth Attendant Courtesy I ( 3.9 3. 3 Cleanliness/Lighting Of Structures 3.33 , .47 Overall Parking Fees/Pricing l 3.15 TOV Ratings ( 5113/99) 1999 Residents & Absentee Consolidated Mean Satisfaction Rating 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 RATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , 1999 Resident & Absentee Consolidated (1=Not at Ali Satisfied, 5=Very Satisfied) Courtesy And Attitude 3.77. i Overall Service And Efficiency L((iii//iiiii3 39 I ! Cleanliness and hygiene of restaurants 3.87 Environmental quality in the Town of Vail 3.69 Quality of new development and redevelopment 3.69 Building permit review and inspections 3.28 3 COM2V UNH Y DEVELOPMENT The Community Development Department provides planning, design review, environmental health, and building inspection services. 4. Have you used the Community Development Department with the past 12 months? 1999 1998 20% 22% Yes 80 78 No [SKIP TO Q. 71 5. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the Community Development Department. Use the same 1 to 5 scale as before. NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED DK Overall service and efficiency 1 2 .3 4 5 x Courtesy and attitude Building permit review and inspections See Graph on Page 3 Cleanliness and hygiene of restaurants Livability of Vail (environment, quality of development, amenities versus cost to live here) Environmental quality in the Town of Vail (air, water, etc.) Quality of new development and redevelopment over the past three years (Austria Haus, Golden Peak, Slifer Plaza, streetscape, etc.) PUBLIC WORKS The Public Works Department provides maintenance of public areas including parks, roads and streets. 6. Rate your satisfaction with Public Works services in the Town of Vail: NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED DK Snow removal 1 2 3 4 5 x Frontage Road Maintenance by the State of Colorado Road and street maintenance by the Town of Vail See Graph on Page 2 Park playground equipment safety Overall park maintenance Appearance and condition of town - owned buildings EMERGENCY SERVICES 7. Have you utilized Fire Services within the past 12 months? 1999 1998 15% 9% Yes 85 91 No [SKIP TO Q. 9] 8. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Fire Services in the Town of Vail. NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED DK Fire response time 1 2 3 4 5 x Emergency medical services Courtesy and attitude See Graph on Page 2 Public fire education services Fire prevention(nspecton program 4 9. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Police Services in the Town of Vail. NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED DK Overall feeling of safety and security 1 2 3 4 5 x Visibility of police foot/vehicle patrol Friendliness and approachability of See Graph on Page 2 Vail police department employees Overall quality of service Overall fairness of police employees 10. Is traffic enforcement too little, just right, or too much? TOO JUST Too LITTLE RIGHT MUCH 1998 20% 65% 15% 1999 14 71 15 ANIMAL CONTROL (Contracted from Eagle County) 11. Have you had contact with animal control within the past 12 months? 1999 Note: This question was not asked in 1998 12% Yes 88 No [SKIP TO Q. 14] 12. Please rate your satisfaction with animal control services. NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED DK Response time to complaints 1 2 3 4 5 x Overall quality of service See Graph on Page 2 13. Are patrols for leash law violations too little, just right, Too JUST Too or too much? LITTLE RIGHT MUCH 1998 51% 36% 13% 1999 33 43 24 TOWN OF VAIL BUS SYSTEMAND PUBLIC PARK17VG 14. Have you used the TOV bus system within the past 12 months? 1999 1998 86% 88% Yes 14 12 No [SKIP TO Q. 161 15. Please rate your satisfaction with bus service. NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED DK Frequency of In-town shuttle 1 2 3 4 5 x Bus driver courtesy Dependability of bus service See Graph on Page 2 Cleanliness of buses Cleanliness of Vail Transportation Bus Terminal 5 16. Please rate your satisfaction with public parking services in Vail. NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED DK Booth attendant courtesy 1 2 3 4 5 x Speed of transaction at exit booth Overall parking fees/pricing structure See Graph on Page 2 Cleanliness and lighting of parking structures LIBRARY 17. Do you hold a library card in the Town of Vail? 1999 1998 60% 63% Yes 40 37 No [SKIP TO Q. 16) 18. Have you visited, called or e-mailed the library within the past 12 months? 1999 1998 66% 70% Yes [SKIP TO Q. 191 34 30 No (IF NO) Are there any additional services or areas of interest we could address that would persuade you to use the library? 19. Are you aware the library provides extended research services available via phone, e-mail or a visit to the library? (Interviewer - If needed, note that questions can relate to company profiles, book reviews, health research, etc.-Any question that may come up.) 1999 Note: This question was not asked in 1998 71 % Yes 29 No [SKIP TO Q. 141 20. Are there any services or facilities listed previously (including public works, emergency services, bus, parking, library, etc.) that currently receive too much or too little attention (expenditures) from the Town? Too Much: -Too Little: See Attachments LOCAL ECONOMY 21. Do you feel the Town of Vail needs to take action to improve the community's economic vitality (retail quality and variety, keeping businesses in Vail) in commercial areas? 1999 1998 60% 67% Yes 33 22 No [SKIP TO Q. 23] 7 11 Don't know/no opinion 6 22. How important are the following potential actions the Town could take? Use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means "not at all important" and 5 means "extremely important" NOT AT ALL EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT, 19% mean 1998 mean Increase commercial space 1 2 3 4 5 2:65 2.62 Increase lodge beds 2.67 2.58 Increase lodge occupancy See Graph Below 3.45 3.05 Improve retail quality 3.58 3.64 Improve lodge quality 3.31 3.51 Expand summer marketing 3.96 3.89 Improve streetscape 3.20 3.68 TOV Ratings (Draft 5/13/99) Resident and Absentee Consolidated Mean Satisfaction Rating 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 I Increase commercial space 01998 01999 ~ i Increase lodge beds 1 Increase lodge occupancy Improve retail quality Improve lodge quality Expand summer marketing Improve streetscape 7 23. Over the past two years has the sense of community within the Town improved, gotten worse or stayed the same? 1999 1998 18% 17% Improved 33 40 Gotten worse 41 30 Stayed the same 9 12 Don't know/no opinion Please provide the following demographic information. Please remember that all responses-remain strictly confidential and are reported only in group format 24. Where is your residence within the Town of Vail located? (Don't read list - if not on list write in here for coding: A 1999 1998 33% 26% East Vail 1 3 Booth Falls and Bald Mountain Road areas 1 1 Booth Creek/Aspen Lane 3 4 Golf Course 9 11 Vail Village 10 8 Lionshead 6 10 Potato Patch, Sandstone 1 4 Buffehr Creek, Lionshdge, the Valley 1 2 Vail Commons/Safeway area 35 27 West Vail Area 25. Do you own or rent your residence? 19% 1998 78% 80% Own 21 19 Rent 1 1 Other (specify) 26. How long have you lived within the Town of Vail (or owned property if a non-resident)? 1999 1998 4% 5% Less than 1 year 25 21 1-5 years 35 37 6-15 years 37 37 More than 15 years 27. Do you have computer access to the World Wide Web? 1999 1998 73% 68% Yes 27 32 No 28. Which of the following best describes you? (IF RESIDENT) Do you own or operate a business within the Town of Vail? 1999 1998 26% 28% Yes 74 72 No 8 29. Are you a registered voter in Vail? (Residents Only) 1999 1998 64% 74% Yes 36 26 No 30. Which of these categories best describes your marital status? 1999 1998 30% 23% Single, no children 16 19 Couple, no children 31 27 Household with children 24 .31 Empty-nester, children no longer at home Thank you for your participation in our continuing evaluation program. Please attach sheet for additional comments or suggestions. 9 KIM I t i s ra z ss: es" 1 tee o' ~ y any ~ 1 ov a PI-eas arken spa ir 81M n I e o ` ac n r e c! cfi~" f dot I a c gam: d4h F z What do you believe are the three biggest issues, in order The Community Development Department provides planning, design of priority, facing the Town of Vail? review, environmental health, and building inspection services. ° 1. Have you used the Community Development Department 2. within the past 12 months? O Yes O No 3, Please rate your satisfaction with the Community Development Department. Use the "Don't Know/No opinion" column as appropriate. . Not at All 11-4 ® a Satisfied, isfiei~ DK 11 Z O ® ® How satisfied are you, in general, with the overall performance Overall service and efficiency O 0 0 o - - - wt O , o Courtes of the Town of Vail government? Y yai d attitude r : , O O ~Oz, Qj O' Not at All Very o Development review process staff 0 ® ® Q ® O Satisfied ' Satisfied o Z Development review process -t ; Current Town Council 0 O ® O O. O- Design Review Board Planning and _ Development review process Environmental Commission Planning & Environmental Commission Design Review Board O Building permit plan review Art in Public Places Board Building permit turnaround time O Town of Vail staff O ® ® O ® O Building inspections O 0., O O. Specifically, over the past year, how would you rate Restaurant inspection and 1 2 3 4 5 the responsiveness of education program O O O..-._ O O O 0- the following groups? Gotten Stayed the Getting. ` Environmental planning program Worse Same Better ! Comments/suggestions for improvement in the above categories: Current Town Council 0 - O O Planning and Environmental Commission 0 O O Design Review Board O . O O Art in Public Places Board O O O Town of Vail staff O O 0 Comments/suggestions for improvement in the above categories: a Rate your satisfaction with Public Works services 111111111113 in the Town of Vail? NotatAll V ery SatisfredZ,. :a°' Satisfied DK ® Snow removal 0 _ 03 O O O Frontage road maintenance+z T~ z 3aLs j ~,,;~QdO O O O How satisfied are you with town Not at an Very (provided by the State of Colorado) _'g z y7: tr , , -_.F administration services? Satisfied,. Satisfied DK Road and street maintenance O ® O 0 O O ° General administration O ® ® © O (provided by the Town of Vail) (managers office, finance dept, clerk's office) Cleanliness of public spaces ,~(~.QQyQ.mQ Information dissemination -O O © O Park/playground equipment safety O ® O 0 ® O meetin 'notices, announcements, project d dates Overall ark maintenance' s 2 2~ s a s Municipal Court M O 0 ® ®_•-".O Appearance and condition of ° Financ' fcashier window: : `t town owned buildings 2 3 a s Sales tax / O ® ® O ® O Comments/suggestions for improvement in the above categories: business license services Comments/suggestions for improvement in the above categories: PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA m ?00000®®O®002000000000000o 1200 I 0, Men ® ° s ® Have you utilized Fire Services in the past 12 months? 0 Yes O No How frequently do you ride the TOV bus in a typical week? (Each one- way trip=one ride) 00®®®000®0 io ,z ,3 ,4 ® Rate your satisfaction with Fire o 0 ® Services in the Town of Vail? Not at All:, e Y 0 If less than twice a week, why don't you ride the bus? ® Satisfied ` . absf` o 0 o Z 0 Bus schedule doesn't meet travel needs ® Fire emergency response time O O ® 0 .0 0 Bus stop is too far from my home ®Emergency:medical services O O Automobile is needed for work ® Courtesy and attitude Q O ® O 0 O Drive my car because parking is available ® Fire public education seances , 6 ,.0. O Other: ® Fire department plan review O ® O ® © 0 Rate your satisfaction with bus service. Y ® Fire preventionfnspection program O 0,.. ®„-,0 <O O NotarAn Vry, e { o ® Fire code enforcement O ® O ® ® O Frequency of TOV bus service: Satisfied , '~%Satisfied o Z ® Overall fre_services proyided-~_.„•r_- In-town shuttle O O O O 0 0 ® Quality of TOV bus service , ~•Or a® s ~O O ® Rate your satisfaction with Police Bus,dnver courtesy 0- ® Services in the Town of Vail? Not at All - every Dependability of bus service O ® _O O O O ® Satisfied "sA SatisB DK Cleanliness ® Overall feeling of safety and security O ® O ® O O Cleanliness of Vail, ® Visibility of police foot/vehicle "-trot, Q e 0 =rt O ® O 0 Transportation Bus Terminal O O O O O O ® Friendliness and approachability of ® Vail police department employees O ® ® O O Have you used public parking in Vail within the past 12 months? ® Overall quality of service ..0 O Yes O No ® Overall fairness of police employees O O O O O O Rate your satisfaction with public ® Too Just Ve ` ' ti ~•fi'_'- parking services in Vail. Not at All Little Right Much DK Satisfied Satsfed OK - - . ® Enforcement of traffic regulations Discount parking program ® 0 ® (speeding, reckless driving, DUI, etc.) O O O 0 (debit card/blue, gold pass) ® Comments/suggestions for improvement in the above categories: Booth attendant courtesy, Q- O ' 0 ® O ® Speed of transaction at exit booth O O - ® © O ® Overall parking fees/pricing structure 0 The ® The "Park Free After 3" program_ Q~ . ® Tr®._•__O _ © O ® Cleanliness and lighting of ® - • parking structures ' 2 s l0 . 0 ® Rate your satisfaction with Animal Comments/suggestions for improvement in the above categories: Control services in the Town of Vail? Not atoll u f.very( ® SatisfiSitisfiedi DK Response time to complaints ® Overallguality of service _O ® Too Just ? z Too - - ® Little Nght..>rM>Much ~ DK o Patrols for leash law violations O O 0- _ . O Do you hold a library card --Do you and your family members e Comments/suggestionstor improvement in the above categories: in the Town of Vail? feel welcome at the library? O Yes O Yes ® 0 No 0 No O Don't know / No opinion ® 11017A :11 ki 1 1911:111:111111 - Have you visited the library within the past 12 months? O Yes ® Have you used the TOV bus system within the past 12 months? 0 }No Are there any add/Gorial sevesor alas of mferest we O Yes 0 No could address that would persuade you to use the h6rar}/~ ® a : ® What is the distance from From your work to the z Y c: ti, x o~ your home to the nearest nearest TOV bus stop? - - - ® TOV bus stop? 0 Less than 118 mile Would you be likely to use a ® O Less than 1/8 mile O 1/8 to 1/4 mile privately operated coffee house NotatAll - }Ve O 1/8 to 1/4 mile O More than 1/4 mile in the back of the community Like! y,~x ZVkety DK ® 0 More than 1/4 mile 0 Not applicable room at the library? O ® 0 0 How satisfied are you with the Not at All From the list in the last question, rank the three improvements you following library services/facilities? satisfied..;.:'" Sahsfie DK consider to be of greatest importance to the Vail community (INSERT # - Research information G5. 0 ® ® © O FROM LIST) and indicate where you think it should be located: Circulation services.. Top choices: location: Fiction and nonfiction books O O O O 0 Magazines and newspapers O O O O O, l', Alternate media including videos and books on tape O ® O O. O. On-line databases 0 O 0 O Q, Any further comments concerning your responses: Youth materials O ® ® ® ® O Youth programs Community room O . New library physical layout O O O ©0: Do you think the Town has an adequate: Parking/access O ® O O ® O supply of the following facilities? Too ?ust Too tittle- DK Rig~ii 'rMuch~ Comments/suggestions: Little- Small neighborhood pocket parks 0, O 0 . O Large community.parks Ball fields _ 0 0 O 0 Are there any services or facilities listed previously (including public Bike pathsAanes _r•_•_ , _ _ - works, emergency services, bus, parking, library, etc.) that currently Walking trails,..___O, O O receive too much or too little attention (expenditures) from the Town? Designated open space, .O. _O - O O Too Much: Too Little: Any further comments: ® ® ' I k, ®i The Vail Town Council has initiated a public involvement process to Below is a partial list of criteria that is proposed for siting affordable develop a comprehensive plan which identifies: 1) the most important housing on Town of Vail owned lands. Using a scale from i to 5 where public uses for TOV land; 2) the most appropriate sites for those uses; 1 is "Not at All Important" and 5 is "Extremely Important, how important ) are the following criteria? Not at All and 3) which tools (funding or other implementation strategies) to use to make them happen. (You should be aware that the Town Council has important-_;_ --_tmpon~nt DK Compatibility with adjacent uses already made a commitment to pursue affordable housing opportunities O _ . O-.___ Dy _ O O O Proximity to bus routes/stops : where appropriate, on some Town of Vail owned lands.) The Proximity to employment O O O O O O comprehensive plan will be used to make budget and policy decisions a s about how town property and other resources will be used. Your input is Proximity to par open space -Q:. Q; ~ O__:„_:.O_„., . 0, requested to help shape plan priorities. Proximityto commercial servicesr t O O O ,O _ O _ O. Livability for res'idents`of the L' O rO~ U~ ® O y `0 For many years, the Town of Vail has contemplated civic uses that could development (balcon'ies,"on-site storage, etc) be pursued via public-private partnerships. From the list below please Are there other criteria that should be considered? identify how important each additional use for Town lands 0 is to the Vail community? Not atAll .,r!~Extrem, important _Impoifan~ DK 1 Performing arts center O ® ® O 0 O The Town Council has indicated it will create a dedicated funding (approx. 1,200 seats) - source(s) to facilitate the provision of affordable housing. From the list 2 Community theatre . s O O ® O O O below prioritize our top three choices for funding sources. 250 seat r *~i Y p 9 m (approx. Top 2nd 3rd 3 Conferencelconvention center O O ® O ® O choice choice choice 4Family fun center. 0; O ®~:0. 0 ® ® Property tax increase (billiards, bowling, indoorplayground, video arcade) ;u , 0 X10• :Dedicate;a porton of e~asting sales tax 5 Gymnastics facility O ® O O (D O O O ® Reallocate a portion of RETT Qa 6Indoor swimming pool ; z O O ,0. O © 0; (real estate transfer tax) e s, 7 Outdoor swimming pool O O _ O O O O O 3, Take~ori_more;debt via bond_issue_ 8 Multi-purpose meeting rooms O O O ; O O_ O. O _ O - Initiate employee's: tax(paid,by business owner) 9 Second ice rink O ,~rylnitiate business improvement district 10 Skateboard park O ® ® O O `;0. O O O Other sources: e 11 Youth center O O ® O _0 (describe) 12 Other: O Do you have any comments on your response? v IF 1I Do you feet the Town of Vail needs to take action to improve the community's economic Which of the following best describes you: am vitality (retail quality and variety, keeping businesses in Vail) in commercial areas? O Non-resident owner of business/comm. property mM O Yes > How important are the following potential '9 O Year-round resident (12 months/year) { Y .Q O No actions the Town could take? Not at All Extremely; ~ o O Seasonal resident: MR O Don't know/ Important ;Important o Z O 6 No months/year - e No opinion Increase commercial space O O O 0 O O 2- 5 months/year Increase lodge beds O _ . O _ 0 0 O O Less than 2 months/year increase lodge occupancy O O O. 0, O O_ e~ Improve retail quality 0 O ® 0 0 O; Are you a registered Do you own or operate a Improve lodge quality _ O _ _ O _ 0 O . 0 O voter of Vail? business within the TOV? ® Expand summer marketing 0 O O 0 O Yes 0 Yes Improve streetscape _ O O O_ 0 O O O No O No ® Create seasonal housing O....._®... O, : ® Q O ® Which of these categories best describes ® Should new development in Vail Comments: your marital status? . - ® be responsible for housing some O Single, no children ® of their workers? O Couple, no children O Yes - What percent? % O Household with children ® O No O Empty nester, children no longer at home ® O Don't know / No opinion - ® (If children) How many children To what extent are the following a problem for your No Large do you have under 18 years? ® household or business: Problem Problem. DK 0 to 5 years: O ®O ®s+ ® 1-70 noise 0 0 0 0 O 6 to 12 years: 0 0 0 ®5+ ® General noise (barking dogs, construction, etc.) O 0 0 0 .0 O 13 to 18 years: 0 0 ® 0 e+ ® Over the past two years, has the sense of How many vehicles are kept at your residence? ® community within the Town improved, O Improved O Stayed the same 0 0 0 0 0 O 9 ® gotten worse, or stayed the same? O Gotten worse O Don't know / No opinion ® Including yourself, how many persons reside in ® Why do you say that? your household? 0 ® ® O 0 ® Including yourself, how many persons in your ® household are employed? 0 0 0 0 0 0 6+ ~e ® How many full and part-time Are any of your jobs ® jobs do you currently have? in the Town of Vail? KIM Where is your residence within the Do you own or rent your residence? Number of full-time jobs- O Yes am Town of Vail located? O Own O Other (specify): O O O O O No ® O East Vail O Rent Number of part-time jobs: ISM O Booth Falls and O O O O ISMS Bald Mountain Road areas How long have you lived within the Town of ® O Booth Creek/Aspen Lane Vail (or owned property if a non-resident) ? Which of these categories best describes your age? ® O Golf Course O Less than 1 year O 6 to 15 years O Under 20 O 45 to 54 ® O Vail Village O 1 to 5 years O More than 15 years O 20 to 24 O 55 to 64 ® O Lionshead O 25 to 34 O 65 or over ® O Potato Patch, Sandstone Do you have computer access to the Internet? O 35 to 44 O Do not wish to reply . ® Buffehr Creek, Lionsridge, the Valley ' O Yes O No ® O Vail CommonslSafewaysrea = Which of these categories best describes the annual ® O West Vail (north of 1-70) Do you or will you use the Intemet to keep income of your household (before taxes)? ® O Matterhorn, Glen Lyon . up-to-date on Town of Vail activities? O $0 -14,999....: O $75,000 - 99,999 O Intermountain O Yes - In what way? O $15,000 - 34,999 = 0 $100,000 -149,999 ® O Not a resident of the Town of Vail O No O $35,000 - 49,999 O $150,000 or more O $50,000 - 74,999 O Do not wish to reply e10 Thank you for your participation in our continuing evaluation program. 1= Please attach sheet for additional comments or suggestions. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA MUM ~0o0®®000000000000000000 - " 1200 VIM ORDINANCE NO. 37 _ Series of 1999 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 5, ZONING MAP; REZONING LOT 34, BUFFEHR CREEK SUBDIVISION FROM PRIMARY SECONDARY (PS) DISTRICT TO OUTDOOR RECREATION (OR) DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that this zone designation is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, is consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, and is appropriate for the area; and WHEREAS, The Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has recommended approval of this zoning map amendment at its November 22, 1999, meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to amend the official Town of Vail Zoning Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail is hereby amended as follows: Lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision / 1950 Chamonix Lane shall be rezoned to Outdoor Recreation (OR) District. Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1999 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 21St day of December, 1999, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 4th day of January, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 4th day of January, 2000. Ludwig Kurz, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1999 WOO - U _ 9-s~ -Vw o . -44 owl s .,vcQm C~z a _ S.\ 10*8 ESVE6Lb0L6t Ol WDN-A WHEI:60 000E-b0-S0 ?j pcm = . UJ . e... , . C.1t~,. A4" .-Vi g veAN Z0'd ES17Z62,1701,6T Ol W02lj WHET :60 0002-b0-T0 la~ V.l .~e, . c .....o U.~_.o.\... . 1 1, - __~,,~a~.Q~ . ~v~._...._.. ~ ~ ~-:e.,.. - ---vw:e~~....._... vin . ---.._.....__._.__._..._..._.,~~a-~.--- Win.. _~_~.c.~e_.............. 20'd ZSbZ6LbOL6T Ol wodj WUET:60 0002-b0-T0 b0'd ld101 i I I 1 vTe~ -C 0... . JLAv nO~ Cow i I J1 ~ ~?AC-~C1Sr, a C~.Ut~l{ (~Q C,l. \ r~ 1 1 zo- ~~ec~v er Ca &023 b0 'd ZS17Z62.b0LGT Ol WOHJ WUt7T:60 0002-b0-T0