HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1122 PECTHIS ITEM Y AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
TIC IS HEREBY GIVE that the Planning and Environmental Commission o the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 1-3- of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on November 2, 1999, at 2;00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
request fora minor subdivision, to allow for the re-alignment of the right-of-way, located at
2755 nowberry rive/Lot 10, lock 9, Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: David E. Webster
Planner. rent Wilson
request for a variance from Section 11- -, to allow for one additional building identification
sign, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. West/Vail Commons City Market, Vail as Schone 3rd
Filing.
Applicant- City Market, Inc.
Planner. Allison Ochs
request for a rezoning from Primary/Secondary to Outdoor Recreation, located at 1953
Frontage d. and 1950 Chamonix/Lots 34 and 40, 13uffehr Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Town o Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planners Allison Ochs
A request for a worksession to discuss a redevelopment proposal involving a rezoning,
conditional use permit revision and development plan approval for Ski Club Vail, located at 593
Vail Valley Drive / Part of Tract , Vail Village 7t" Filing,
19N PAIL d?
1
PL-LIC T1. ' _i :_ 'PHEDULE
Monday, November 22, 1999
AGENDA
Proiect Orientation 0 PEC '- m. i I - Communitv Develooment ® Deoartment 12:00 .
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
i Visits 1:00 P.M.
Driver; Brent
ATE; If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 .m., the board will break for dinner from 6000 - 6;30 p.m,
Public Hearin - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a mirror subdivision, to allow for the re-alignment of the right-of-way, located
at 2755 Snowberry Drive/Lot 10, Took , Vail Intermountain.
A
TO IN OF PAIL
4. A request for a rezoning from Primary/Secondary to Outdoor Recreation, located at 1950
Chamonix/Lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Allison Ochs
5. A request for a worksession to review a major amendment, to allow for the proposed
redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special Development District No.
, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the
Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, ,
dock 5-D, Vail Village First Piling.
Applicant, Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED `AIL DECZ-1-T a 1 , 199
. Information Update -White River National Forest Plan amendments.
7. Approval of November 6, 1999 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2136 for information,
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification.. Please call 479-2336, Telephone for the
Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published November 19, 1999 in the Vail Trail
2
yw a X ®® :F__1? L C---- -'-!-ION
"NG SCHEDULE
Monday, November 2, 1999
MEETING RESULTS
rou t Orientation / LUNCH PEC - CommunjV Development Department 12:
MEMBER PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Driver; ®'rent
- -E: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the beard will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
1. That the applicant provide the Town of Vail Department of Community
Development with a revised final plat with all required signatures for recording,
prior to final ?design Review Board approval for any improvements on the property.
WA 41L
I
2. A request for a variance from Section 11-413-3, to allow for one additional building
identification sign, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. West/Vail Commons City Market, Vail
das Schone 3ra Filing,
Applicant: City Market, Inc.
Planner: Allison Ochs
MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: -0
TABLED 13,1999
3. request for a orksession to discuss a redevelopment proposal involving a rezoning,
conditional use permit revision and development playa approval for Ski Club Vail, located
at 593 Vail Valley Drive / Part of Tract B, Vail Village 71h Filing.
Applicant: Ski Club Vail, represented by Snowdon & Hopkins Architects
Planner: Brent Wilson
WORKSESSION T
4. A request for a rezoning from Primary/Secondary to Outdoor Recreation, located at 1950
Chamonix/Lot 34, Buffehr Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Torn of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Allison Ochs
MOTIC q: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: -0
L-LD APPROVAL T TOWN IL
5. A request for a worksession to review a major amendment, to allow for the proposed
redevelopment of the Vail Village Inca, Phase IV, within Special Development District No.
, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the
Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, & O,
Block 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther
TA s - ITIL F 13, 1999
6. Information Update - White River National Forest Plan amendments.
7. Approval of November 3, 1999 minutes.
Community Development Department
2
MEMORANDUM,
The Town will "swap„ 1,625 square feet of existing right-of-way for a revised 1,661 square
feet of right-of-way-resulting in net decrease of 6 square feet for Mr. Webster's lat. This
is being done at the request of the applicant.
IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to allow for
the re-alignment of Town right-of-way, a platted easement, and property boundaries, subject
to the following findings:
That the proposal meets the review criteria for a minor subdivision contained in Title
13, Subdivision Regulations.
2, That the proposal is consistent with the Town's development objectives,
development standards for adjacent properties and the provisions/intent of the
Primary/Secondary zone district regulations.
The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following condition:
That the applicant provide the Town of Jail Department of Community Development
with a revised final plat with all required signatures for recording, prior to final Design
Review Board approval for any improvements on the property.
Ill. ROLES PEC _ l _ I ILITI
When reviewing a minor subdivision request, the PEC shall (generally).
Ensure the proposal meets the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations.
• Evaluate the impacts of the proposal on adopted T®V policies (Land use plan, Vail
Village Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment aster Plan, Town of Vail
treetsca e aster Plan).
® Evaluate the impacts of a proposal on the neighborhood, traffic, air and light and
general bulk and mass (potential off-site impacts).
a Evaluate a proposal's impact on the natural environment.
0 Evaluate impacts of the proposal on the community, traffic, public facilities, etc.
IV. I I ! CRITERIA
One basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation
of a new lot must be met. As result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria
as outlined in Title 1 ("Subdivisions") of the Town Code. The first set of review criteria to
be considered by the EC for a minor subdivision application is as follows:
A. Lot Area,
The minimum allowable lot size within the Primary/Secondary zone district is 15,000
square feet. The proposed lot contains 44,342 square feet.
B. Frontaae
This lot is required to have a minimum frontage of 3 feet. As proposed, it contains
a frontage of 131 feet.
C. Site Dimensions
This lot is capable of containing a square (30' on each side) within its boundaries.
The second set cf L _ criteria to b considered it a minor s -_--. mn r i as
outline in the _ Regulations, an is as follows:
The subdivision purpose statements are as follows:
To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and
proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with
development on adjacent property.
Staff Response: The proposed plat amendment does not create any conflict
with development on adjacent land.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value
of buildings and improvements on the land.
Staff Response: Staff believes this proposal will not be detrimental to the
value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of land in
the immediate area.
Staff Response: The subdivision regulations are intended primarily to address
impacts of large-scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this particular
proposal to amend the plat. Staff does not believe this proposal will have any
negative impacts on any of the above-listed public facilities.
. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish
reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures.
Staff Response: This goal of the subdivision regulations will not be impacted
by the proposed plat amendment.
7. To prevent the pollution of air; streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage
facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the vise use and
management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve
the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land.
Staff esonsg; This proposal will have no impact on these issues. Drainage
issues are being addressed by staff as part of the design review process.
4
5
2630
16
2744
15
2734
-'2 0
/ 4 j 2665 j --
2734 272 4 26$5 5
2_ 7__„__? __,_.. -? 2
2 4
2744 5 2664
2714 3
\_ - 2674
I
13
2754 2702 {y I 2 2 684 2701
1
2694
f
11 12
2735
2700
14
2724
LXT
J. '? -1 T - 8-
BLOCK 9
f i
VAIL
L,4 i ii LTra i ION
TOWN OF VAL-, - _° _ CGtJNt Y, COLORADO
-flR3977'33°
i'P.ir,Ear e, r;rnnrr, nq r,t ,; R-950.53'
nt.dv (;hzs :¢ rr)_.
-
.
T
53
T®53'
74'
'
CPI
CB=S2T04S27U4'33'W IA 177'1 IL 1 GEl.I"nil 1 AMi iYrliCRaNIL.
77-
,1 71'
'
1 AE
Zg°4fi
. _ 4
-•
1 h
h 71 ,
.
-.. „`I ?q'
`
*
X08'22'44°
_ L
CG J -'. y
L-16-76' me n< am <e r„ .n !e . e.Yr,.e
y. IV_
-
' CH-16. r ao-J -( D-33'79'50' F`° t
\
li75" rn ru-t!
' _ Jlr
R
ti fA P
CI3aN10'37'08°E (u ntfD flY nll; tt,ail L-35 R .649` \ r
OR1c orv
rNirtx' x
w
v
°
, T=1@ 2"
crtm34.99' nr
u„r can J>
t r x w 'u.e
7
Ir r
l Urx t
- 24'45!41'E
6=0&'55'23" ''
!
\ R-50.6f1° ? t
_
\
? E=7.79' ? n
75 T=7.90' I rnn rc ra<wux
s;
)
[
Qi-7.78' I
l
° ,. ,xrr, re ua,e
r
un
!
ar
r
LQIt4 CB=N83w
l4
E „
to
.
,u, as
pch
i
,o t o,e
.FS. i R7 s„` v
r?
rz )h
?\ I
I^
101T V
\
.. *' A
.. - F? § u JIICAII:A.L IAIU
,SF*xn w M1 !
?n
r.u
-..e...?
_ -.. _ -.. -,..® ... ®.NUI e i ?. ... .... --? ®... _+---.gym ....» - -....e. , F.13.ns
° I [01 41U,v, nun nSfl3L4A;S..4LN_IltLCA1L.
w.., llItl~S'(dilL'',hlt.:.
g
P ... ..... mr .. _ tan„ m
GRAPH],' SCALE' iro
U.7
uaa annnrrv, narx. n,re, R,<av x,.xxrw.. aaa, .ur w lk+xi . mrv,t rx p.r en cuFUt
o at Foorm ?'aHr.
r, t w .R 1 _
m
. !an , zo u r
.
® a) xi ra x.n c a r?. .as.s!
® ai at Sle' 48nF (4l i {'.L4. JnxJS) CI.Ptl7fIry,U_9N6Lfit'!7{;4L4.1LtiTALSQ/dMISSIUI{. LSRT111;Aif„
nY a m,¢ !?,
?) mor9 Vit
(xxil W C5t ru Ax0 A rJ.rtq?/e'CxLpnP nl rNC x. rRix'M_.t Pt,vlR tY LIXO,L4 ni ...V9 lot Id c.mMZ°kn uim _.._._. tlar a 4.0. 19 4
e) onrz a _asr,e r..¢a r r s.
75 n am,rzs smrt, unac,s
11 11 ?Al I
m . rxnn,nntw xrcw.a ,xa«., ""s a"'x, ac couxiJ+.?n awi nr
x rzx rc.x? rxrw me onrz
xlrz..t.
r<., ,r v,re, ,,,d,,,, r4 v . r?rr .,.,.,,, „ r.mm <.,,. il'P.Yc.YtXt%.L J4I111 If_
+n?pT
hNO USS-SIlMMNt'i
Cni to ar.ss. so-rNS rtYi carat. roue r ri'l[,[rv,Y
C.pPr'.G.,>
:i=6 s,nrc. m moan ? a
Mrc a uctc? )
w<r„rnr «oa atn, .?aaa. Nu._. _mv
a _ nn tesa. l,r
ur ... •mao,
m.r.e« mx n<?r,, mn ermur ,..,r -._ oorrxd+. «n. r.. o.re,m.a n w anm,a?., .r m,r.A "w,? ..rn
,,,,,, mu „<r ,rv, _ aox .r
lmiv]'; b.ap.9 b Cmo-ub r« yru mue{ rnmnm
o,x cave m .r<n e.,r aerocv n ,ru. a eaR:?i> _.._..._ ..__ 6,,;,a D-t":nfr.a®
-
Applicant: City Market, represented by ark Prichard
Planner: Allison Ochs
DESCRIPTION F T REQUEST
The Sign Variance Sections purpose reads as follows:
11® ROLES REVIEWING
Planning and Environmental Commission:
Action: The C is responsible for final approval/denial of a variance.
Desion Review Board:
Action: The R has O review authority on a variance, but must review any
accompanying R application.
Ill. STAFF RECC
Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for the building identification sign
variance based on the following findings:
I. APPROVED I CC.. .... DNS SIGN PROGRAM
According to the approved Vail Commons / City Market Sign Program, the si nage that
is currently allowed specifically for City Market is one 20 sq. ft. Building Identification
sign, and one 0 s q. ft. wail sign. Each individual retail establishment is allowed signa e
per the code. To date, no sign variances have been granted.
V. CRITERIA
Before the Planning and Environmental Commission acts on variance application from
the approved sign program, the applicant must prove physical hardship, and the
Planning and Environmental Commission must find that:
There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings,
topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within
the adjacent right of way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of
the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or
conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the
applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses
or enterprises.
2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant.
Staff Response: As stated above, staff does not believe that special
circumstances exist. .
3. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of
the sign code, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or
working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public
welfare in general.
Staff Response: The current Vail Commons 1 City Market Sign Program
allows for adequate linage. Currently, City Market has one tenant sign above
the entrance to City Market, along with a building identification sign on the
building facing North Frontage Road. Staff believes that this existing si na e is
adequate.
4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this Title any
more than is required to identify the applicants business or use.
VAI LDATA//EVER YON /PEc/99MEMO/cITYMARK
Request for i Variance
The consequence of poor visibility and lack of identifying markers on the parking
structure is that customers drive past the entrance to the lover level parking garage onto
the upper level parking area, unaware that the lower level parking area either exists or
that it belongs to City Market. This creates a situation where traffic congests on the upper
level, while the lager parking area is relatively unused.
This proposed sign will brim attention to the fact that there is an additional underground
parking area and that this space is for City Market and Jail Commons customer use.
This will encourage customers to use the lower level parking garage, thus getting the
out of the snow and inclement weather and at the same time, alleviate some of the traffic
congestion on the upper deck.
Under these unique circumstances, the current statutory limitations on signage create an
undue burden and an unnecessary physical hardship on the City Market and the Vail
Commons Shopping Center, Furthermore, in as much as demand for parking in West
Vail often exceeds supply, the community as a whole is not realizing the full benefit o
this extensive parking facility.
For the reasons set out above, City Market, Inc. respectfully requests a variance from the
Vail sign ordinance.
00
C'
0
n1
_c
-71
woo
1_ P
? a
{ s s"511
f
t
MEMORANDUM
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a request for a worksession, staff will not be providing a recommendation.
Staff will forward a recommendation at the time of final PC review of this item.
IV, REVIEWING BOARD ROLES I
The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for:
The is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for:
V. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS /.CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
Following is a preliminary description of criteria used for development plan evaluation
within the Ski Base Recreation zone district:
2
"Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale,
massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent
properties and the surrounding neighborhood."
Preliminary sketches indicate the following development statistics:
Lot Area (Tracts F & B) = 50.095 acres or 2,182,138.2 square feet
Restriction
wilding height
Floor Area
Site Coverage
Setbacks
Parking Spaces
Site Coverage for
Ski Base Recreation
District (Golden Peak
Ski Base).
Allowed/Required
60% at 35'; 40% at 40'
per PEC approval
per PEC approval
per PEC approval
per PEC approval
xistinq
63,979 sf or 2.9%
roo s d
70,329 sf or 3.2%
The footprint for the new structure would be located approximately 25' to the south and
60' to the east of the existing structure. Staff believes the proposed bulk, mass,
character and scale of the proposed structure is compatible and consistent with adjacent
properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Given the somewhat limited shifting of
the building configuration, staff believes impacts to private views from Manor Vail and
Northwoods/Pinos del forte toward the ski mountain would be minimal.
At their November 3rd pre-meeting, the Town's Design Review Board conducted a
cursory, informal review of the plans and indicated Ski Club Mail "was headed in the right
direction." Deduced copies of the proposed site plan, floor plans and building elevations
are included in this memorandum.
Other criteria relevant to PEC evaluation of development clans for orooerties within the
Ski Base Recreation district include;
Following is a summary of the key issues outlined by the PEC at their November 8th
meeting.
€ r c p g r i n Compliance
4
INSUMMARY
Staff believes this proposal is a major improvement for Ski Club Mail overall and a step in
the right direction. However, staff believes the following key issues should be addressed
by the applicant prior to final development plan approval:
a A demonstrated plan for snow storage.
5
ti
i
5
CNIIORENS PARK
5.3o FORD PARR
8 Sd
3 .?W?2Hp41
R
II -
ILIAV1AH.ALLA, 121 s. 5 6 7
'' M1 . SEASONS' `'? _ -' •? CONDO
coN;?o I
3a4
-_r ?HOR?a Lam: H \ 0 ` ,'
TIVOLI CONDO
,5g 6 434 1
w A W TRACT -fl
TRACT F-1 F2
I
TRACT' E A., R 8 C ` \ 7*\ 1 ?.' .' FORD
AMPRHEATER
`
KAO FORD PARK %
3IXi - i MANOR VAIL
AS&G
595
a \ 342 ?? 535 t\ VjLDF.N PEAK
? TRACT 78 F ",OR VA36..
\ .\
T-- 385 &595
\
- - ---
3a2 3 / ? yT __ __- \ j ?-
\?\ 179 -'TRACT A
?yy I " `PINKS 6:i
94 7 / NORTE - = /
93 75\
1 I
`5 351 55 \ 1 C ? G ?? /
NORTHWOODS
598 ?i+LCE
urcr _ S '
±
1
Nub Vail
p CIA I - - C.
Tract E- V,-
KFY
1T-
EXISTING 2' CONTOURS
_---?- EXISTING IO'CONYOURS
'-"-- PRIPOSED2 CONTOURS
r-----? PROPOSED 19 CONTOURS
9?°ag
EXI5'1'INO CONIMRS TO REMAIN
r
L k ) EX19 TWO CONIFERS TO BE REhIOVED
MS TIN. ASPEN TO REMAIN
x EXISTING ASPEN TO. BE REMOVED
NEW CONIFERS
N.- ASPEN
SKI CLUB VAIL
VAIL, COLORADO
¢g .'TuPVTY
F4L b'iTU44h -F? tD " FbYta.ATge
-IN HATIVS bMM mly.
INPDA.mAT16N iPB Ai Eaby$ VnuEY
LURVEYIN&1 bATbD IDS&bq7.
ExKtl.u. ThnNSPePM6p-
S' tlcewA OW
.6
?LPNL. pASt
EXT'fi j-ppHSF?hP»$'t+-
La
1 b
..txdrik.INp 4p.
aaolNY
yAN b
+
4PAGBY
- bvM"4 TYw ?NU.aUM1B
f + d
t .N.WHn?
?. i,w HhnMlralved5. L-1
SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
DESiGAdWORKSHOP
nroue am +Anauf^n?M w?9tR?F sDm+YSS?iwLO ®IUs
NOVEMOER 77, 1999 t#Mrm o Yo aa' et
}
_ D11--5
I
I
I
I ;c
f
! ? I
f
r
i I FI
----- - t
I 1
t
z
zi
U-
0
C6 0
1°-
U- LL
MOO
-117 Z
C
X?
? m
Y
? o
XXq 6 I lqj 91 JPI vll= , -" rim
1 1
i
2t ? 4;?,?ey Zbt. 2°v=6i+? 14L.
I ?5_Z G be zf"=
X11P )ra t?fcIX I ^en
?O`? f<a?ic-tkfs -
MAORI
nt rf R
i-oW?ta Lrrvr%L
r
1 7
\ 4' i2
f 21.
?24a To, 4, ?
I \ it ? a
\ I
g S
S H
? n P ol1 ? ??oo'e ? ? 24>?s ° e? ?
M-1 _
?IUlhtf Y?tY ¢IMC? gas fh^ar+lr-tom
s J
t-, a
a
U.
I F-
i ; 0
av dry 1 (t ur-)
LFT 1 \
r?
F7117 ? I
4aktd$ C WXiY \ » a_"
FVD
e? is r aDIPa_ ?? # q o°
m
- " v ? I P tt Ci- ? •-
u e'
- I=
Al
1
Applicant; Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Allison Ochs
Im DESCRIPTION F THE REQUEST
"The Outdoor Recreation District i intended to preserve undeveloped or open
space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational
activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas,
facilities and uses."
The Torn of Jail is requesting the rezoning first, will then return to the neighborhood for
more input on the design of the park, and finally, will return to the Manning and
Environmental Commission for the Conditional Use Permit and resubdivision which will
vacate the lot line between the existing park and the proposed park expansion onto lot
34.
I® `,? ' 7- O T--r----- 130ARDS
n-e
a
f9 0 VAIL
STAFF REC'-_----Er'DATI0N
IVs
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from Primary/Secondary to Outdoor
Recreation of the above property subject to the following findings:
1. That the proposed zoning is suitable with the existing land use on the site and
M.T. d I I
The EC shall make the following findings before granting approval of a zone change
request:
Is t ?i-* zoning suitable with the exists _ se the site an
jai--_- -_dmJ uses'?
1
Is h amendment preventing a convenient workable relationship it land
uses consistent it municipal objectives.
2)
The rezoning of Lot 34, Suffehr Greek Subdivision is
municipal objectives. The lot was identified as a
Comprehensive Open Lands Plan to acquire and
environment. This rezoning will limit development to
activities.
consistent with stated
high priority in the
protect the riparian
outdoor recreational
2
IL 3) Does the zoning provide fort growth of an _- -®, viable community?
Zoning of the site as Outdoor Recreation allows for the development of a
neighborhood park through a Conditional Use Permit process by restricting
development. Parks are an integral part of any community. With the Town of
Vail's emphasis on outdoor activities, along with its natural beauty, this zoning
helps to provide for an orderly, viable community,
4) the c:e- -- _ _-- --b with the n Use Plan?
The following are goals and policies of the Land Use Plan staff believes are
related to the proposed zoning:
In addition, Lot 34, uffehr Creek Subdivision discussed in the Comprehensive
Open Lands Plan, Lot 34, uffehr Creek was listed as a high priority to protect
the riparian area on uffehr Creek,
3
i
Amok
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FRO : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST PLAN AMENDMENTS
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1999
The following pages include a 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 "E9""C" and "D". The other three plan alternatives are not being seriously
considered by the USES.
The three plan alternatives addressed in this report are summarized below:
Alternative B ® an updated version of the existing Forest Plan that reflects current fores ide
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 s 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.
ulleted below are some substantial issues identified by staff as outlined in the plan alternatives:
Game Creek/CouLyar Rides Area - a change in management direction from " ackcountry
Recreation, Non-Motorized" to "Deer and Elk Winter Range" could limit human recreation
activity in the winter/spring seasons in the Game Creek/"Min Mile" area outside the
permitted ski area boundary.
Aerial TranSnortation Corridors - Life the existing forest plan, neither Alternative "C" nor
"D" proposes any lift/gondola transportation connections in the Vail area. Staff supports this
decision.
EXISTING
FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS -
V
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 _ A AE MANAGEMENT FOREST AREAS
COLORADO-VICINITY
VAIL. Following is a brief summary of management area designations proposed for the areas of the forest
surrounding Jail 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 VA IL CHUTES / TWO EL ASS
Current USFS anaee ent Area Designation
(3.32) Backcountry Recreation
Non-Motorized
anaLye ent Direction
Primitive, non-motorized
recreation.
Alternative "C" Manace ent Area Designation
(3.32) ackcountry recreation
Non-Motorized
Alternative "D" Management Area Designation
(5.45) Forest Ca ivores
Management Direction
Primitive, non-motorized
recreation.
Management Direction
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 / PIT KIN CREEK (NORTH F 1-70)
Alternative "C" Management Area Designation
(5.42) Bighorn Sheep
Alternative "D" Mana e ent Area Designation
(5.42) Bighorn Sheep
ManaL,e ent Direction
Recreation activities that disturb Bighorn
Sheep should be restricted.
Manaee ent Direction
recreation activities that disturb Bighorn
Sheep should be restricted,
EA = E SANDSTONE / EST" VAIL (NORTH OF 1-70)
Current CSFS ManaLye ent Area Designation
(43) Dispersed Recreation
ManaLye ent Direction
Resource management activities are
compatible with, and reduce impacts to,
recreation sources and opportunities.
(5.13) resource Production - Forest Products
Alternative "C" Management Area Designation
(5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range
Alternative "D99 Management Area Designation
(5 A 1) Deer and Elk Winter Range
Crazing of domestic livestock is
coordinated with timber management
activities to ensure adequate regeneration.
Management Direction
Restrict recreation activities that would
disturb deer and elk during winter and
spring periods when the area is occupied
by animals.
Management Direction
Restrict recreation activities that would
disturb deer and elk during winter and
spring periods when the area is occupied
by animals,
AREA = VA MOUNTAIN d PERMITTED S AREA
Alternative "C" Management Area Designation
(8.25) Ski- Based Resorts Existing Potential
Alternative "D" Management Area Designation
(x,25) Ski- Based Resorts Existing Potential
ManaLye ent Direction
Resource management activities minimize
impacts to recreational resources within
existing permitted sites and areas planned
for future development,
Management Direction
resource management activities minimize
impacts to recreational resources within
existing permitted sites and areas planned
for future development.
Please note: Under Alternative "D " Vail Mountain ski area operations would be restricted to
the existin- permit area boundaryv.
AREA = GAME CREEK / COUGAR MIDGE (WEST OF SKI AREA)
Current USFS Management Area Designation Management Direction
(3.32) ackcountry 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" Manaee ent Area Desienation
(3.32) Eaccountry Recreation
Non-Motorized
(5.41) Deer- and Elk Winter Range
Alternative "D" ManaLye ent Area DesiLnation
(5.41) Deer and Elk Winter Range
(5.13) Resource Production - Forest Products
Management Direction
Primitive, non-motorized
recreation.
Restrict recreation activities that would
disturb deer and elk during winter and
spring periods when the area is occupied
by animals.
anaae ent Direction
Restrict recreation activities that would
disturb deer and elk during winter and
spring periods when the area is occupied
by animals.
Grazing of domestic livestock is
coordinated with timber management
activities to ensure adequate regeneration.
AREA =ICI E CREEK 1 TURKEY EE (SOUTH OF CATEGORY 111)
(5.13) Resource Production - Forest Products
Alternative "C" Management Area Designation
(5.45) Forest Carnivores
(5.4) Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats
Alternative "D" Management Area esi2nation
(5.45) Forest Carnivores
Grazing of domestic livestock is
coordinated with timber management
activities to ensure adequate regeneration.
Management Direction
Recreation restricted to a level compatible
with maintaining the effectiveness of the
area for use by the target species (lynx and
wolverine).
Motorized and non- motorized recreation
opportunities (with seasonally restricted
access). Human use high during fall
hunting seasons.
Management Direction
Recreation restricted to a level compatible
with maintaining the effectiveness of the
area for use by the target species (lynx and
wolverine).
The following e includes a table summarizing allowed activities in the forest
management areas as proposed.
GENERALLY ALLOWED ACTIVITIES AND ALLOCATIONS FOR FOREST wN °,C'; ENT AREAS SURROUNDING VAIL
Category Management Area
Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized
3.32 (with winter motorized)
4.3 Dispersed Recreation
5.13 Resource Production - Forest Products
5.41 Deer and Elk Winter Range
5.42 Bighorn Sheep Habitat
5.45 Forest Carnivores
325 Ski Based Resorts-Existing and Potential
Non-Ski-
Timber Motorized Mechanized it a Locatable Developed Based
Harvest Recreation Recreation Leasing Minerals Recreation worts
summer-no;
yes winter-yes yes yes yes yes no
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes* yes" yes yes yes yes
yes yes- yes` yes yes yes yes
summer-yes;
yes winter-no yes- yes yes yes yes
decision by
yes yes yes yes area yes no
* designated routes only, additional restrictions may apply
EXISTING AND PROPOSED
A A TRAIL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES -
VAIL VICINITY
The following three pages su arize the existing and proposed
management strategies for specific areas within the forestsurrounding 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
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 to sm/recreation based
establishments: FDT 1851.1 (Bowman's Shortcut), Way 2133W.1 (Commando Run), F
734.1/734.1A (Red and White Mountain Road), and Way 711 WA (Minturn to Game Peal).
Staff supports all. of the seasonal restrictions proposed for trails/roads in the Vail vicinity under
this plan alternative.
Alternative " - Trail/Road Closures a Seasonal Restrictions
'T'rails/Loads Inventoried = 139
New Closures
16
16
16
65
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 to `srn/recreation based
establishments: FDT 1851.1 (Bowman's Shortcut), FT 719.2E (Eiseman Hut Spur), PDR
751 .I (Fowler-Hilliard Hut), and Way 711 WA (Minturn to Game Peal).
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 la -- Available Roads and Trails
Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139
Alternative "C" -Available Roads and rails
Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139
Alternative cc " -Available Roads and Trails
Trails/Roads Inventoried = 139
ALTERNATIVE "C„
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Number Road/Trail Name
- -
F[3R 711.5[3
hack Bowls - - -
FFDR
734.11D I _li c r _
i FDR 723.1 ,)ruce
FUT 2013.1 .Pghorn
FIST 2011.1 booth Lake
FDR 710.1 Bottom of Lift 11
F DT 1851 .1 Bowman's Shortcut
FDR 734.113
F 7.1
T 2111.1
DT 2110.1
a 2133W.1
F®R 700.1 A
FT 2006.1
I'FDR
FDT 2014.1
FDR 719.1
FDR 719.2E
FT 2123.1
'F®R 751.1
FDR 734.1
FR 711.38
FDT 2130.1
FR 711.30
V 36.1
FDR 71 .1
FIST 2015.1
FIST 2015.1 A
T 2127.1
[FDR 713.1
FDR 713.1
?F 759.1
' I3uffehr
butiehr
u e r reek
uffehr Mountain
Commando Run
Communication Site
Cross Creek
avow Trail (_ ortina Lane)
Delude Lake
as a Sandstone
? Eiseman Hut Spur
Fall/ Martin Creek
Fowler-Hilliard Hut
Free_ n ur _
Game Creek
Game Creek
Game Creek Spur
Gitaiong Rd?
Golden Peak
Gore Creek
Gore Lake
Grouse Lake
an Gulch
an Gulch Spur
Holy Cross City
Full-sized motor 7 Mechanized
vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
x X 0 0 O
X X X
_ X*
?X X x x O 0
X X X X 0 O
X X X 0 0 0
0 O 0 0 0 O
S* S* S* S* 0 0
--
*
0
5
x X 0 0 0
X X*
a
0 -? 0 O 0 0 O
X X X 0 0
X S*
X X X x 0 0
X X
.
0 0 0 0 0 0
X x x X 0 0
x x 0 0 0
X X X *
X x x 0 0 0
x x x x 0 0
x y x x 0 0 0
X X x 0 0 0
X x x x 0 0
X - x - X x 0 0
*
--
* X*
*
X*
m
x X*
I * S* _ * S*
'X' _ CLOSED
"0" _ OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
*If = NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
Trails and roads shown in bold type indica',v ra - m iagement under this plan alternative
ALTERNA s IVE ,EC"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-., zed motor -----
echanize a
Number o `rid Name ve' :®is Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Puking
302 o esta -i F --o r - .
-
F 703.2A es at®--- * X* T 0 0
F®R 711.5C Litt 14 X X X 0 ® 0
DR 710.1 C Lift 6 - X X X C? -0 0
TD-R728.1 Lime _ ek * * * *
m1
FDR Lir - P - - *
.
DR 79.1 1 Lionsh t ® Q- - - 0 0 _ _, . 0
FDR 786.213 Lo ..L -
'Fr q 786.213 Lost Lc %e X* 0 -0
® L 1786.21E Lost Lake *
-0
0
1 ,F Lost Lake
D, 786.2G Lake X
F
DR 786.214
i ® ®-ake
*
T 1893.1 r® e 0
FIR 736.1 Lot Lake Read 0 0 0 0
F DR 786.1 A Last Lake Spur - - 0 0 ®
4 0 0 0
F DR 786.1B Lost Lake Sear 0 0 0 0 0 Q
`.°® `or,1C Lost Lake Spur *
X*
X*
0
0
-113 ' Lost Lake Spur N X*
F --.1H Lost Lake Spur _
x i
l1F 1 ®° ° Lost Lake Spur * * X*
FDA - 2, Lost Lake Spur x
n Last Lae Spur _ * ,?..
Ft?T 1894.1 Lost Lake to Piney x X X 0 _ ® 0
;F DR 711.1 Main Vail X X X 0 0 0
F °1 Meadow Mountain x p
FDR 748.1 Meadow Mountain Spur
FDT 2129.1 R Meadow Mountain Tie Through x ? X X 0 0 0
FIR 719.1 fiddle Creek 0 0 0 ® Q
Way 2135° Middle Creek x
?FDR 719.313 idle Creek *
FDR 719.1 middle Creek Canyon _
_ X X X* 9
PPX" m CLOSED
"0" _ OPEN
"SES rv SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
PP Ei = E C LOSURE OR RESTRICTION
Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "C"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
- I Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback' Biking
F 719.1 Middle- reek Spur
IF 719.1 Middle reek Spur * C
.F 719.2 Middle reek Spur
F 719.2 Middle Creek Spur * _
FDR 719.20 iL:®`s C_ _ k Spur * C
FDR 1m A" 11 spur * C
F 719.3 r®ndA - -- _ur * * _ m * M *
FDR 719.3A C Fmk Spur
FDR 711.30 Mid-Vail Water Tank x 0 0 O
FIJR 710.1 dill breek 0 O O O 0 O
?FDR 710.110 n ill Creek Spur x 0 0 0
-FR 710.1 ill Creek Spur 1 F X X X O 0 O
®R 710.1 G Mill Creek Spur 1 X X 0 0 ! 0
R 710.1 R Mill Creek Spur 1 FI ®__. 0
a 0
' ay 711W.4 i corn to Game Peak * C
*
405.1
FDR Muddy ass * * * *
,
F 720.1 North Sandstone
F 720.1 A North Sandstone Spur A * * *
F 720.1 North _ Sandstone Spur
TDR 720.1 north Sandstone Spur _
m
p
FDR 720.1 rt Sandstone Spur *
.
f DT 1-7 o.i North Trail S*
T ? _T_>® North Trail i S* 0
.FDT'. B„ North Trail
F DT 1 _ j.5 North Trail
T 2107.1 ##in ha i e
FR 734.1E ,Old FR 734 O 0 0 0 0
F 2 .10 1 a el"
°--
ay 2349W.1 Paulie®s *
Way 2347 of 10aulie's iver
FOR 701.1 Piney 0 0 0 0 0 0
R DT 20121 itkin x x x 0 0
"X" = CLOSE[
"0" = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRI CTIONS
= NEW CL OSURE OR RE STRICTION
Trails and road s shown in bold type i ndicate - _- management un der this plan alternative
x
ALTERi... i IVE "C"
TRAIL/F 'DAD MANAGEMENT
- Full-si m t®r echanize
[
Number KI vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
FDR 7 1.4 ilp-n.. .jr
'FDR 751® t r i,-a Spur
- *
F 734.1 Red & a
hits Mountain * X* X* *
1734.1 A Red hit Mountain * *
®4 .1 _ Red Sandstone -®e 9 ris * ? * ®®
.
a f L ® e,4 O stone ® 6 -SS * * *
S* S* S* 0
IDF K e1 I j i * *
F 713,1 -i i - tit in
_ *
F i09.2 h * *
F DT 2136-01 _
Son _ .-Ile Creek *
F 737.1 . Gaee - - - * * - _? *
FDR 711.5E Sunup Bowl - - x G 0 0
Fr 707.1 T i i rt r
7.
7 1 !21won 1 F 2
g?
707.2B
?F R Tic-' 1 !_
r-707.2C T- " -n ale
e
FDR . a
T i- ale S. 3 *
F 707.3B --
al Spur
F 76-7.3C °Th :. on 3 Spur c *
FDR 711,6A Top of Lift 10 X x ® 0
FDR 711.7A Top of Lift 7 X x ® 0 G
F DR 711.3E Top of Lift 9 x x_ X 0 ® 0
F DR 736.1 A Tourist Trap Spring x x x G G G
FDR 710.1 Town Water Tank * *
F DT 2109.1 Turquoise Lake x x 0 G
RT 2005.1 Two Elk x x G
R 762.2 Two Elk Trailhead - 0 0 ® ® G G
FIAT 2109.1 A Upper Turquoise Lake ' m x x x
m- ? G
FDR 711.5 Vail Mountain Spur x X - G G 0
NRT 49.1 Vail Pass - T E Mile G G G
;FDA 2.1 e . w ur * * * _ " 0
"X" CLOSED
"0" = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
= NEW CL OSURE OR RESTRICTION
Trails and roads shown in bald 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
FR 72.1A earyrnar Spur 3a O O O O O O
F 752.1 ea Spur -
FDR 752.1 e an Spur 3c *
F' R 751.4 ea an Spur a
:3 751.1 Weary .a i Spur C X X O O O
7 ei j ?i Spur
®m'?i m hip d reek *
Way 4 „1 Whiskey, Creek _ *
®F 770.1 _ ill Ow C reek
FDR 770.1 ill reek C
F 770.1 C illy reek 0
i
"X" CLOSED
"0" = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICT IONS
„ = NEW CLOSURE OR REST RICTION
Trails and reads shown in bold type indicate r° -, manag ement under this plan alternative
I
ALTE-.v. F IVE "D"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Nu-1 Road/Trail Name
F DR 711.5u Back Bowls
FDR 734.1 __ _lly 0 7Ur
F 728.1 - ®-aruce
FUT 2013.1 -ighorn
FUT 2011.1 -oath Lake
F DR 710.1 E -ottarn of Lift 11
T 1'851 .1 canes Shortcut
F IB 734.1 ,-uffel x
FDR 787.1 _ jr
FDT 2111.1 uff°3hr Greek
R
CST 2110.1 I3 Lehr Mountain
® ay 2133W.1 Co -irr ---do Run
p _ .1
FDR Co j F- tin it
PDT 2006.1 Crass Creek
31.1 Davos Trail (Cortina n
It-t, 1 2014.1 Delta e Lake
--6 719.1 a n ° mW e
TDR .2 Eiseman I t
DT 2123.1 Fall/ Martin 0r-L.k
FDR 751.1 Fowler-Hilliard Hut
tFDR 734.1 C Freeman car
FP 711.313 (game Creek
FT 2130.1 Game Creek
FUP 711.30 Game Creek Spur
FD R 7361 Gitalang Rd
FDR 710.1 A Golden Peak
FIST 2015.1 Gore Creek
FT 2015.1 A Gyre Lake
F DT 2127.1 rouse Lake
F 713.1 Hanks Gulch
F 713.1 Hanks Gulch Spar
JFDR .1 Holy Cross City
Full--sized motor Mechanized
vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
g x x Tx 0 0 O
X X X*
X X X G 0
X X X 0 O
x x p 0 0 0
X O 0 0 0 0
X
0 0 0 0
X 0 0 0 0 0
X X x 0 0 0
X X 0 _ 0
* * * _
X X X 0 0
X X*
_X -X X X*
X - X x 0 O
X*
X *
_
X X X 0 0 0
X X X X W O_ I 0
X X O 0
X X X 0 0 0
x x X 0 0 0
X x x 0 0
X X X 0 0
I X' X X*
--
X* * X* X*
X X X X* 0
*
_ * g g* a *
"X" _ CLOSET
"01.1 _ OPEN
„S" _ SEASONAL RESTRICTION
= NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
Trails and reads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "D"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor
Number Road/Trail vehicles
Motorcycles
ATVs
FDR 703.213 Homestake Reservoir 0 0
F 703.2 a estake Spur X* *
FUR 711.50 Lift 14 X X
F®R 710.1 C Lift X X X
F 726.1 i e Creek * *
FDR .1 'Line hack i x
F 791.1 Linsh a * * *
FDR 7. Lost Lake
® X X X
F 6. Lc st Lake x
F 786.2E LS' 9 } L !?e
IFDR 786.2F L. L ce ?.. X x I,. .. e
FDR 786.2G Lc _7 Lake - X
F 7 Lost Lake I
T° 1893.1 Lost Lake * *
FR 736.1 Lost Lake Road 0 0 0
FDR .1 Lost Lake Spur x
FDR 786.1 Lost Lake Spur X* X* *
F 7 .1 Lost Lake _ Spur * * ,*
F 786.1 Lost Lae Spur * * *
FDR . Lost Lake ur - - X* X*
FDR 786.2 Lost Lake Spur
?
FDR 786.2A Lke Spur x X
FDR 786.2C Lost Lake Spur x
FDT 1894.1 Lost Lake t Piney X X
FDR 711.1 Main Vail x X X -
UR 749.1 Meadow Mountain x X X
FD R 748.1 Meadow Mountain Spur
FDT" 2129.113 Meadow Mountain Tie Through x X X
F 719.1 i_c_e-reek * *
W a 2135.1 A Creek x X
F 719.3B I
_
FDR 719.1 C®.a _E , -are-ion * X* *
FDR 719.1 i _ _wk,_ or x - X
"O"' = OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
= NEW CLOSURE OR RESTRICTION
Mechanized
vehicles Horseback Hiking
O 0 - 0
0 0 -0
0 0 0
*
S* 0
* -
X* 0
*
* y
'*'._...__ 0
X*
0 0 O
X*
X*
X*
X*
X*
X* 0 0
* -
X* 0
* 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
S* 0 0
X -
. X* 0 ------ 1
X* --
*
0
0-
Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate --- , management under this plan alternative
ALT,Rt a iVE "D"
TRAILJFaOA MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number i--°i vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback ,Hiking
FDR 719.1 Cri-' _ L X X*
FDR 719.2 i. r al_ _ _ur x X X*
FDR 719.2B t four x X X*
F 719.2 it Crank Spur x X X X*
F 71 tc_ _a' +,r k tar X*
FDR 71 L-1-_ C???ac -pur x X*
F 711.3 id Vail Water Tank x X 0 0 R 0
F 710.1 ill reek * * X*
FED 710.1® ill Creek Spur x X 0
' 0 0
FC 710.1 ill Creak Spur 1 F X X X 0 0 0
F DR 710.1b ill Creak Spur 1 X _ 0 0 0
F® 710.1 H ?
Mill Creek Spur 1 H X X X 0 0 0
Way 711 .4 inturn Garr .. X *
FDR a Muddy ass - -
* X* *
F 720.1 North s stone x X*
n stone pr * X* X*
F 7 1 cr? a
a r ° 3ton ni 1r - X X*
F T2-0.1 C North --i stone ` ur a X
F ?20,11-11 North c' I X X*
DT 1896A North Trail x X X 0 0 0 ?I
TDT 1-96.2 'North Trail x X I X 0 0 0 m
T 1 -- or Tail x X X *
-
T 13' s.?
rt iai F _
I X S*
F DT 2'77.1 c Ridge x X*
F 734.1 1 F1 734 * * X* X*
F .1 i a ill a x X X X*--
' Way 2349W.1 aulie' Plunge ? X C l 0 0 a
Way 2347W.1 aulie` inter x X* C
FP 701.1 Piney 0 0 0 O O
FnT 2012.1 Piitkin x X x x 0 0
?. _ 751.413 t - ----n Sur x X X X*
„X„ _ CLOSED
"S" _ SEASONAL RESTRI CTIONS
= NEW CLOSURE OR RE STRICTION
Trails and roads shown in bald type indicate new management un der this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE "D"
TRAIL/ROAD MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor I Mechanized
F
iC
Road/Trail Name
vehicles
Motorcycles
ATVs
vehicles
Horseback
Hiking
FDF,l ? ®- tar i an Spur ??- X
.
FIR 734.1 Red White contain 0 0 0 0 0
ffi
FIR 734.1A
Red hite Mountain-
0
0
0
0
0
,'FDR 700.1 Fled Sandstone - Muddy Pass 0 0 0 O 0 0
FDR 700.2 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0
FIR 700.3 Red Sandstone ® Muddy Pass 0 0 O 0 0 0
F 728.1 id Road ®
X* X* * X*
F 713.1 Shrine Mountain x * I
F 709.2 Shrine Pass * * *
FIST 2136.01 _
Son of Middle Creek x X X O 0 0
FDR 7377.1 r 1 Creek S* S* S* S* 0 0
FIR 711.5E Sunup Bowl x X X 0 O 0
F 7,1 Tiaiwon a Nrun *
F _ 707.2A i, on le Spur 2 X X* _ 01 0
FDR 707.2B Tigiwon ® ale Spur 2B x x X
Fl) R 707.2C Ti i on ale Spur 2 X * 0
F 707.3A Ti(,----on Sate Spur 3 X*
IF 707.3B ?i n ale Spur X*
F 707.3C -o ale Spur 3c
F x X X*
F®R 711.6A _
Top of Lift 1 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.7A -
Top of Lift 7 X X X_ 0 O 0
FbR 711.3E Top of Lift 9 X X X 0 0 O
F DR 7361 A Tourist Trap Spring_ X X O 0 0
.
F 710.1 Town ter Wank X* X* X*
FIST 2109.1 Turquoise Lake x X X X O 0
NRT 2005.1 Two Elk X X X O O 0
FDR 762.2 Two Eik Tr ilhead 0
- 0 0 0 0 0
F DT 2109.1 Upper Turquoise Lake X ? X X ? X O O
FDR 711.5E Vail Mountain Spur x - X X 0- O O
NRT 49.1 Vail Pass - Ten Mile x X X 0 0 0
F 752.1 ' ea an Spur * a X* `` X* X*
FDR 752.1 ea an Spur a I X I _. X* 0- 0
°X"° - CLOSED
„0,,. = OPEN
"S" ® SEASONAL RESTRI CTIONS
= NEW CLOSURE OR RE STRICTION
Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate - management under this plan alternative
i
ALTER[ . a V "D"
T AIL/POAl MA NAGEMENT
Full-i ° j for ech niz
l -her ,--- -,'- Motorcycles T vehicles Horseback Hiking
Fur
_
®.
F_rj2.1 t.e
FDR 751,4 an ur 4a
FD 751.1 C earyman Spur C 0 G ® C C
FDR 751.2A ea a pear
Via 2348W.1 Whiskey Creek C C G
ay 234$ A hickey Creek x x X 0 1 C 0
F 770.1 'illo Creek *
F 77 °1 illy Creek
A 770.1C
FDR ill reek
i
"X" = CLOSED ?-
„C,,, = (OPEN
"S" = SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
= NE W CLOSURE CP RESTRICTION
Trails and roads shown in bold type indicate new management under this plan alternative
ALTERNATIVE 13
ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT
Number Road/Trail Name
FDR 711.51) A Back owls
F R 734.11] Bally Hoo Spur Rd
FDR 728.1 A 13i Spruce
Fl)T 2013.1 Bighorn
F DT 2011 A Booth Lake
F R 710.1 E Bottom of Lift 11
F DT 1351.1 Bowman's Shortcut
FDR 734.113 Buffehr
FDR 737.1 uffe r
FT 2111.1 Buffer Creek
FDT 2110.1 13uffe r ®ountain
ay 2133W.1 Commando Run
F DR 709.1 A Communication- Site
FT 2006.1 Cross Creek
FDR 731.1 ® Davos Trail (Cortina Lane)
FT 2014.1 Delude Lake
Fl)R 719.1 A East Red Sandstone
FDR 719.2E Eiseman Hut S?aur „
F DT 2126.1 Fall/ Ma isrf Creek
FI)R 751.18 Fowler-Milliard Hut
FI)R 734.1 C Freeman Spur
FDR 711.313 Carne Creek
FT 2130.1 Came Creek
FR 711.30 Came Creek S ur
FDR 736.1 Gitalon Rd
FDR 710.1 A Golden Peak
FDT 2015.1 Gore Creek
FT 2015.1 A Gore Lake
FDT 2127.1 Grouse Lake
FDR 713.1 Hanks Gulch
FDR 713.113 banks Gulch S ur 13
F DR 759.1 Holy Cross City
FR 703.213 hlomestake Reservoir
FDR 703.2A €-lomestake Spur
Fl)R 711.50 Lift 14
„X" u CLOSED
0"=r-
canine
ATVs vehicles
x 0
X 0
X 0
X X
X X
X 0
X 0
X 0
0 0
X 0
X 0
X 0
X 0
X X
0
X X
X 0
X 0
X X
X 0
X 0
X 0
X X
X 0'
X 0
X 0
X
X ®X
X 0
0 0
X 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
X 0
'Horseback
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
® 0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
0 m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ting
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
® 0
0
_0
0
0
0
0
0
0-
0
0
0
ALTERN e ilk _= R
ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT
FulI-sized motor , H. echani e
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
F DR 710.1 Lift x x x C} 0 ?
FAR 726.1 Lire Creek 0 C ® Q
Ft,R 748.1 Line Shack - . ,._ ... ?........... _ 0 G e G
F[3R 791.1 Lionshead G Q G ® C_. 0
FFDR 786.213 Lost Lake x x x C 0
FDR 786.2D Last Lake x 0 _ 0
T DR 766.2E Lost Lake x 0 b
F DR 786, F Last Lake 1 X 0
- 0
FDR 786.2E Lost Lake ® G Q
FDR 786.2H Lost Lake ,C C C i Q
F DT 1693.1 Lost Lake x 0 0 ® 0
FIR 766.1 Lost Lake Road G 0 ® 0 0
FDR 766.1 A Lost Lake Spur _ X 0 Q G
FIT 766.113 Lost Lake Spur 0 ® 0 0
FDR 766.1 C Last Lake Spur 0 0 0 0 ?® 0
FDR 786.1 [, Lost Lake Spur x G C ? a C
FEAR 766.1 H Last Lake Spur x 0 ® 0
FDR 786.2 Lost Lake Spur G 0 ® 0 0 0
F DR 786.2A Last Lake Spur x x G G 0
FDR 79'672C Lost Lake Spur a x x G C
'FIST 1894.1 Last Lake to Piney x x x ® 0 0
IF R 711.1 Main Vail x x
, ® 0
FDR 749.1 eado Mountain X X X C ® C
F13R 748.1 A w
Meadow Mountain Spur
x _
x
x
Q
0
C
F13T 2129.113 Meadow Mountains Tie Through x x x ® G
FDR, 719.1 Middle Creek 0 0 C G G
Way 2135.1 Middle Greek x G
_ 0 0
®FDR 719.313 Middle Greek x x X C
F DR 719.1 Middle Greek Canyon 0 C C G C
FDR 719.1 C _
Middle Creek Spur x x x 0 ® C
F€,R 719.1 Middle Creek Spur x X G C G
F®R 719.28 iddle Greek Spur X X X G Q Q
FR 719.28 Middle Creek Spur x X Q G G
FDR 719.2E Middle Creek Spur x x 0 G
F R 719.2® iddle Creek S ur x x 0 C 0
"X" _ CLOSED
"0" = OPEN
ALTERNATIVE R
ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT
Number f r it a
F®R 719.3 _
Middle Creek Spur
FIR 719.3A Middle Creek Spar
FDR 711.31 Mid-Vail Water Tank
FbR 7101 ill Creek
FDR 710.113 ill Creek Spur
FR 710.1 ill Creek Spur 1 F
FIT 710.1 G Mill Creek Spur 1G
F DR 710.1 HI Mill Creek Spur 1 H
Way 71_1W. 4 inturn to Game Peak
FDR 405.1 Muddy Pass
FR 720.1 North Sandstone
FDR 720.1 A North Sandstone Spur A
R 720.113 !North Sandstone Spur 13
FDR 720.1 C North Sandstone Spur C
FDR 720.1 R North Sandstone Spur H
FIST 1396.1 North Trail
FOT 1896.2 North Trail
-
FDT 1396,3 ',North Trail
'F T 1396.5 `North -frail
FIST 2107.1 Nottingham Rid e
FDR 734.1 E Old F®R 734
FR 723.10 Old Sawmill Road
ay 2349W.1 Paulie`s Plunge
Way 2347W.1 aulie®s Sister
LFDR 701.1 Piney
FIST 2012.1 Pitkin
FDR 751.4E Ptarmigan Spur 4b
FIT 751.213 Ptarmigan Spur E
I FD 734.1 Red & White Mountain
FI3R 734.1 1Re & White Mountain
FDR 700.1 Red Sandstone - Mudd Pass
F®R 700.2 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass
FR 700.3 Red Sandstone - Muddy Pass
F®R 723.1 R Ridge Road
FDR 713.1 A Shrine Mountain
Full-sized rotor ? Mechanized
vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
0 0 0- 0 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
_ 0 0 0 0 0 0
X X 0 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
X X X 0
_ 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
® X X 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
X X 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
X X X 0 0 ! 0
l X X I X 0 0 0
X X 0 0 0
X X
- X 0 0 0
®- X X X 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
X n x X 0 0 0
_
X X 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
X X X X 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
X X 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
® 0 0 0 0 0
l 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0- 0 0 0
X X X 0 0 0
"X° = CLOSED
„0" v ? -N
ALTER[,.,, ° I%'_: I3
ROAD/TRAIL MANAGEMENT
Full-sized motor Mechanized
Number Road/Trail Name vehicles Motorcycles ATVs vehicles Horseback Hiking
F13R 709.2 Shrine Pass 0 0 0 0 0 0
?FDT 2136.01 Son of Middle Creek x X X 0 0 0
FIT 737.1 Spradle Creek O 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 711.5E Sunup Bowl -
X X 0 0 0
DR 707.1 A T i iwon Campground 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR 707.2A Tigi tin Sale Spur 2 X X X 0 0 0
FIR 707,213 Tigiwon Sale Spur 2R - X X 0 0 0
F DR 707.20 Tigiwon Sale Spur C X x x 0 0 6 0
FR 707.3A Tigiwon Sale Spur 3A X X X 0 0 0
FAR 707.3 Tigiwon Sale Spur 3R X X 0 0 O
R 707.3 Ti iwon Sale Spur 3c x X X 0 0 0
jF13R 711.6A To of Lift 10 X X X 0 0 0
FDR 711.7A Top of Lift 7 X X X 0 0 0
F13R 711.3E Top of Lift 9 X X X
- 0
- O O
, FDR 736.1 Tourist Trap Spring x X 0 0_
7 0
FIO 710.113 Town Mater Tank 0 0 0 0 b 0
FDT 2109.1 Turquoise Lake x X X 0 O
I NRT 20051 Two Elk - X X X O 0 0
FDR 762.2 Two Elk Trailhead 0 0 0 0 0 0
FIST 2109.1 Upper Turquoise Lake - - X X X 0 O
FR 711.58
I Vail Mountain Spur x X X 0
0 ®
0 0
0
NRT 49.1 Vail Pass - Ten Mile
FIR 752.1 Wearnan Spur 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
F DR 752.1A Wearyman Spur 3a x X X 0 0
?. 0
FDR 752.1E Wearyman Spur 3 X X X 0 0
FDR 752.10 Wearyman Spar 30 X X X 0 0 0
F DR 751 AA Wearyman Spur 4a x X X 0 0 0
F DR 751.1 C Wearyman Spur C x x X O 0 O
FDR 751.2A Wearyman Spur D X X 0 0 0
Way 2348W.1 hickey Creek x X X 0 O 0
Way 2348W. 1 A Whiskey Creek x
-- X
__ X 0 0 0
FCR 770.1A illow Creek X X X B 0 0 0
F R 770.113 Willow Creek x 0 0 0
F DR 770.10 Willow Creek x x x 0 0 0
"X" = CLOSED
"0" = OPEN
m, -,A Ity )f t he
ivironi. • a
Introduction
o ? Ho
Return to Welcome 1
The White River National Forest ® ?..
Global f Intercont' f National Scope
.-.-.-',State / Regional Scope
Forest Scope
® the centerpiece of a growing western Colorado economy and population base
the scenic backdrop for communities near the Forest
a a source of support for kcal industries and businesses,
-
9
Overview
The White River National Forest and the Forest l
Figure 1
Location of the White fiver National Forest
White River National Forest
0®ther Region 2 NFS lands
® Denver
C 0 L 0 R A D 0
The Forest boundary encompasses National Forest System (NFS) lands within nine
different Colorado counties: Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Fatkin, Rao Blanco,
Routt and Summit, Table 1 provides the official acreages of NFS lands within each o
these counties:
Table 1
Acres of FS lands, by county, within the White fiver National Forest as of Sept. 1997
Eagle County- 595,542
Garfield County - 473,623
Gunnison County - 60,330
Mesa County- - 33,069
Moffat County - 3,679
itkin County - 490,911
Rio Blanco County - 247,313
Routt County - 6,123
Summit County- 309,671
--
The Forest has seven ranger districts: Aspen, Blanco, Dillon, Eagle, Holy Cross, Rifle
and opris. Each of these districts has district office located, respectively, in the towns
of Aspen, Meeker, Silverthorne, Eagle, intern, Rifle and Carbondale.
The Forest has ranked fifth in the (ration 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 ells; 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
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, Fryingan, 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
-4-
Forest Planning
Public Involvement and Cooperation
The overall goal for public participation was to identify and have all potentially affect
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
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
The interdisciplinary team (I 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
Travel 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.
-
Public How 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 Flan Revision.
The six alternatives were developed using significant issues raised by the public and
from input from the four work groups. Also incorporated into the alternative development
were resource specialist experience, expertise and professional knowledge-, Forest Plan
monitoring; and two internal planning documents-Purpose and Need/Development of
Planning Criteria (August 1996) and Analysis of the Management Situation (July 1997).
-7
tl 4
A Brief History of the Revision Topics
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
different set of answers to questions raised by the revision topics.
Biodiversity
-
Travel Management
Recreation t
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 1 percent of the NFS lands in
Colorado, but hosts 1 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.
Each of the forest management alternatives described in the EI 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
In the revised Forest Flan, changes were made to accommodate the following
developments:
-1-
Timber Suitability Allowable tit
11 -
Themes of the Alternatives
existing developed recreation sites, utility corridors and electronic sites
• current designated national scenic and recreational trails
a 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.
• Category 5: wildlife habitats, forest products
• Category 7: urban/willand intermix
Category 8: developed recreation sites, utility corridors.
1
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 following the alternative descriptions for the
total acreage, by alternative, of each management area on the Forest.
Alternative E, an updated version of the existing Forest Plan that reflects current
Forestwide direction, represents the "loo Action" alternative. It meets the NEPA
requirement (36 CF 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 1964 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.
Figure
Alternative management area allocations, by category (see page 11)
7
Category 1 - 36%
Category 2 - 0%
Category 3 - 12%
Category 4 - 11 %
Category - 36%
Category 7 - 0%
Category - 5%
-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.
Alternative 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
3
2
-1-
Category 1 - 43%
Category 2 - 3%
Category 3 - 10%
Category 4 - 10%
Category 5 - 29%
Category 7 - 0%
Category 8 - 5%
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 givers special
emphasis. It addresses the idea that a higher priority be given to physical and biological
resources than to human uses of the Forest.
Figure 4
Alternative management area allocations, by category (see page 11)
7
Category 1 - 38%
Category 2 - 5%
Category 3 - 3%
Category 4 - 4%
Category 5 - 47%
® Category 7 - 0%
Category 3 - 3%
-15-
Alternative E
Alternative 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.
Figure
Alternative management area allocations, by category (see page 11)
7
4
1
[_ Category 1 - 42%
Category 2 - 2%
Category 3 - 12%
Category 4 - 23%
Category 5 - 16%
® Category 7 - 0%
Category 3 - %
e
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 seeps 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.
Loaded recreation opportunities will expand. Semi-primitive recreation opportunities may
decrease.
Figure Alternative F management area allocations, by category (see page 11
7
Category 1 - 34%
Category 2 - 3%
Category 3 - 2%
-' Category 4 - 3%
Category 5 - 53%
Category 7 - 0%
Category 3 - 4%
7?3 2
-17
Alternative I
Figure
Alternative I management area allocations, by category (see page 11)
78
Category 1 - 56%
Category 2 - 5%
Category 3 - 7%
Category 4 - 8%
Category 5 - 20%
® Category 7 - 0%
Category 6 - 3%
-1-
2
Table
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
shorn for each management area. In addition, areas that overlap other areas are "double-counted" because they appear under
multiple headings.
ALTERNATIVES
Management area F 1
1,11 1.11 (pristine wilderness) only 62,000 64,600 90,700 61,100 53,500 73,000
1.11 +2.2 0 16,600 25,000 6,600 16,900 34,000
1.11 +5.42 0 300 400 500 0 4,300
Pristine wilderness(tota? 32,000 101,700 116,100 70,400 75,400 111,300
1.12 1.12 (primitive wilderness) only 646,200 643,200 504,100 516,300 605,100 503,700
1.12 + 1.5 13,400 13,300 13,300 14,000 13,400 13,400
1.12 + 1,5 + 5,42 0 1,900 1,900 1,100 1,300 1,700
1.12 + 22 0 17,600 26,700 19,600 23,000 36,100
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+4.4 100 100 100 100 100 100
1.12+5.42 0 72,200 70,000 63,900 3,700 64,400
Primitive wilderness (tota/) 661,300 643,200 626,600 632,700 654,100 634,300
1.13 1.13 (semi-primitive wilderness) only 4,000 3,100 3,200 43,600 13,500 2,400
1.13+5.42 0 0 0 1,300 0 0
Semi-primitive wilderness (total) 4,000 3,100 3,200 44,900 13,500 2,400
1.2 1.2 (recommended Wilderness) only 0 93,900 43,100 106,400 0 200,300
12 + 2.2 0 4,000 0 0 0
1.2+5.42 0 2,500 0 0 0 14,300
Recommended Wilderness (total 0 96,400 47,100 106,400 0 214,600
1.31 Eackcountry recreation - non-motorized 60,700 163,200 39,700 32,000 37,400 331,400
1®2 Sackcountry recreation - limited winter motorized 0 44,600 7,900 49,300 0 1,400
1.41 Core areas 0 0 6,200 0 0 36,300
105 1.5 (Wild Rivers) only 600 2,500 2,500 6,700 2,500 2,500
_19-
ALTERNATIVES
Management area 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 1,600 1,7001
1.5+2.2 0 4,600 4,600 0 4,600 4,6001
1.5 gild Rivers -designated and eligible (total) 14,000 22,200 22,200 21,900 22,200 22,200
.1 Special interest areas -minimal use and interpretation I 0 9,000 30,600 4,500 2,600 16,900
. 2.2 (research natural areas) only 300 26,700 23,300 14,000 16,000 26,500
2.2+ 1.11 0 16,600 25,000 6,600 16,900 34,000
2.2 + 1.12 0 17,600 26,700 19,600 26,000 36,100
2.2 + 1.12 + 5.42 0 10,500 10,500 10,600 0 10,7001
2.2+1.2 0 0 4,000 0 0 01
2.2+1.5 4,600 4,600 0 4,600 4,600
22 + 4.4 0 0 0 0 900
2.2+5.42 0 0 0 0 2,600
Research natural areas (total) 300 76,200 94,100 52,900 67,500 117,6001
.1 Special interest areas - emphasis on use or interpretation 0 1,600 0 15,500 0 1,8001
3.21 Limited use areas 300 25,000 37,700 0 0 23,600
3.31 Rackcountry recreation -- year-round motorized 170,100 166,300 4,600 196,400 25,600 94,700
3.32 Rackcountry recreation - non-motorized with winter motorized 100,100 46,300 31,000 67,000 16,100 4,900
3. 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 4,600 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,200
3.55 Corridors connecting core areas 0 0 0 0 0 35,300
4. Scenery 0 2,200 2,300 2,000 0 0
4.23 Scenic byways, scenic areas, vistas, or travel corridors 0 15,600 13,500 6,700 12,600 30,900
4.3 Dispersed recreation 199,0001 150,600 61,600 477,500 43,000 163,900
4.32 Dispersed recreation - high use 44,600 16,600 22,200 46,500 13,000 1,400
4. 4. (Recreation Rivers) only 2,700 9,700 9,300 9,700 9,700 6,600
4.4 + 1.12 100 100 100 100 100 100
4.4+2.2 0 0 0 0 0 900
Recreation Rivers-designated and eligible (total) 2,700 9,600 9,400 9,600 9,600 9,500,
ALTERNATIVES
Management are 10 F I
5.12 General forest and rangelands - range vegetation emphasis 309,100 99,900 62,100 5,300 562,300 43,000
5.13 Resource production - forest products 190,000 52,400 32,600 35,600 332,600 51,500
. Forested flora and fauna habitats 150,100 202,700 416,600 63,200 164,600 700
5.41 Deer and elk winter range 134,900 136,200 196,400 97,000 69,000 179,400
5.42 5.42 (bighorn sheep habitat) only 7,700 5,100 33,200 6,500 16,600 35,700
5.42 + 1.11 0 300 400 500 0 4,300
5.42 + 1.12 0 72,200 70,000 66,900 3,700 64,4001
5.42 + 1.12 + 1.5 0 1,900 1,900 1,100 1,600 1,700
5.42 + 1.12 + 2.2 0 10,500 10,500 10,600 0 10,7001
5.42+1.13 0 0 0 1,300 0 0
5.42+1.2 0 2,500 0 0 0 14,300
5.42+2.2 0 0 0 0 0 2,8001
Bighorn sheep habitat (total) 7,700 92,200 115,900 91,000 22,300 134,000
5.43 Elk habitat 16,000 112,600 166,000 64,000 53,100 36,600
5.45 Forest carnivores 5,300 41,200 116,600 13,000 40,400 50,9001
7.1 Intermix 0 7,700 0 900 5,600 4,2001
8.21 Developed recreation complexes 10,700 13,100 9,300 26,300 10,400 9,4001
8.25 Ski-based resorts - existing and potential 91,300 57,600 43,000 64,000 66,100 43,300
6.31 Aerial transportation corridors 0 400 0 2,700 1,400 01
.3 Designated utility corridors -- existing and potential 16,600 16,600 16,600 16,400 13,600 16,1001
1 _.
Alternatives Considered in Detail
9 ?
Probable Effects that Each Alternative Will
i
Have on the White River National Forest
Biodiversity
-23-
Rangeland vegetation. Abet 5 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.
4
Noxious weeds currently infest at least 90,000 acres of the Forest. Alternatives and
have the most potential for the spread of weeds; Alternatives and I have the least.
Domestic livestock grazing. The level of grazing by domestic livestock is not expect
to change dramatically from the current situation in any alternative,
ire it. 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 than in other alternatives. The most
acres of fuels treatment will occur in Alternatives F and 1, with Alternative I having the
least annual treatment.
Alternatives that limit the amount of resource production, such as , F and 1, may lead to
a trend in larger and longer-duration fires.
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 Forests
P-- mA r sources. Aquatic resources will be adequately protected by standards and
uic: _ es in all alternatives. All alternatives maintain habitat with potential for viable
Colorado River cutthroat trout populations; Alternative provides the most. Recreational
fishing opportunities are highest in Alternative due to its emphasis on amenities.
Grazing Vacant The acres that would be removed from the suitable land base by the closing or partial
closing of vacant allotments is shown in Table .
Table
Acres removed from the suitable land base for domestic livestock grazing
ALTERNATIVE
0 ® 160,000 136,000 197,000
F l
61,000 .? 173,000 a
-26-
Table displays how the allotments vary by alternative in terms of whether they should
be retained, closed, or partially closed.
Table
Summary of vacant allotments
ALTERNATIVE
Recommended status D 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 23 3 6 4 13
Sheep allotments recommended for partial retention 0 4 3 4 0
Sheep allotments recommended for closure 0 16 14 24 6 23
Total vacant allotments 51 1 51 51 1 1
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 FEIB.
Recreation t
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 (R) classes available and the theme of each
alternative. Figures and illustrate the mix of R 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 to 41 units in Alternative F.
-27-
recreation visitors by setting quality standards, prioritizing work by visitor preference, and
making better use of available funding). These 1 permits are for concessionaires and
ski-based resort operators. Alternative E provides for the annual administration of 134
permits to standard, or 3 percent of the Forest's existing recreation permits.
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 provides for more dispersed campsites, proximately three percent of
known campsites, to be rehabilitated or reconstructed annually, followed by Alternatives
E, D, , I and F.
Wilderness capacity depends on the RS classes and trail systems provided under each
alternative. Alternative I provides the most capacity, followed by Alternatives and ,
E and D. Current use projections indicate that Wilderness capacity mould not be reached
within the planning period in any alternative.
r ?-
r
Ce
t,? r
?r
v p
iM?JT'
28-
Figure
Recreation opportunity spectrum (OS) in summer, by alternative
(ROS classes: P = primitive, SP W semi-primitive non-motorized; P = semi-primitive
motorized; RN = roaded natural; Rai = roaded modified; R = rural; l1= urban)
Alternative - Summer
1,000-
P
750 - f SPM
0
SPN
500 - %
250- RM
R
< RN U
0
OS glass
Alternative - Summer
1,000-
P SPA
750 -
0
500-
Pg
SPNM
.
250-
RN P
P
0-
ROS Mass
Alternative - Summer
1,000-
, P
750- SPM
0
/ SPNM
500-
1
1
250-
RN
?
R
0 U
ROS Class
Alternative - Summer
1,000
750- P SPA
7
0
500-
29
Figure
Recreation opportunity spectrum ( ) in winter, by alternative
(ROS classes: P = primitive, SPA M = semi-primitive non-motorized; PM = semi-primitive
motorized; R = raaded natural, R = readed modified; = renal; U = urban)
Alternative inter
1,000- SPM
750- P
0
500 -
SPN
250 - Rol
< RN PA U
Alternative d inter
1,000
P SP
750 -
500 - SPNM
? r
250 - ! M
U
0
A
R®S Mass
1,000
ROS Class
Alternative inter
1,000
P SP
750- PM'
SPNM
500 -
c
011.
PIII
El 250-
Q RSV Rm R U
0
Alternative I - inter
ROS Mass
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 7,6 million skier visits per year. Collectively, ski-based
resorts on the Forest have an annual capacity of about 9.1 million skiers. The 7. million
annual skier visits experienced in 1997 is 2 percent of the available annual capacity.
Table Summary of ski area changes between 1967 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
633 The majority of new ski trails were cleared within
, existing permit boundaries
Percent of skiable acres 19.8% 40.7% 77% increase in skiable acres
Gaily capacity 74,976 93,709 24% increase in daily capacity
Annual capacity 6,900,000 9,200,000 Daily capacity is fixed. Annual capacity may vary
due to changes in length of the ski season.
Annual skier visits 5,900,000 7,600,000 24% increase in annual skier visits.
Table
Annual ski area capacity* made available by alternative
ALTERNATIVE E
Total (millions) 11.57 1036 9.22 12.34 11,15
* annual capacity is the number of skier visits in one year.
9.19
-31 -
Trial 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.
Table 7
Acres allocated for aerial transportation corridors, by county and alternative
ALTERNATIVE
County F I
a Eagle 0 0 0 1,672 956 0
Garfield 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 2,746 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 E, 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, owerline 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
displays the amount of natural-appearing landscapes for each alternative.
-32-
Table
Acres of natural-appearing landscapes by alternative
ALTERNATIVE
1,710,000 1,834,000 1,030,000 1,971,000
! 1
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 vary 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 Trav.=' _--s-iagement
New road construction levels are anticipated to be lower than 1964 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 recontourin 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 1 to 31 years,
Every inventoried road and trail has been mapped and travel management strategies for
each proposed alternative are listed in Appendix of the EIS. 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.
3
Figure 1
Acres of F land open to off-read motorized or mechanized travel
1600-
Off-road Motorized
1245 Off-read mechanized
Figure
Files of reads and trails open to motorized travel
2500 -
3
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 NF land where motorized travel is restricted
Motorized Use on Designated Routes Only
1200 - 11 dosed to Motorized Use
C
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 NAs 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 11) had just been completed when the Flan
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 they contained reservoirs, utility corridors, electronic sites,
developed recreation sites, or current raining 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 203,000 acres.
Table 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
Areas of Management Area 1.2, by alternative
ALTERNATIVE
I I
Acres of Management Area 1.2 0 ? 94,300 47,200 103,000 0 205,000
Percent of capable and available
roadless areas recommended for 0 32 16 35 0 6
Wilderness
ember of adjacent areas 0 9 3 0 0 22
Bomber of non-adjacent areas 0 1 2 6 0 4
Capable and available roadless areas were assigned either Management Area 1. or
allocated to one of the other available management areas® Table 10 summarizes how
roadless areas have been assigned to different management areas.
-36-
Table 1
Summary o f capable and availabl e readless acres i n differe nt m anagement area
cafe ories, by alternative
AL TERNATIVE
1
Acre % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
A 1.2 0 0 94,300 32 47,200 16 103,000 35 0 0 205,000 69
Group 1 21,900 7 105,200 35 77,100 26 34,000 11 33,500 11 53,100 13
Group 2 126,600 42 44,200 15 15,000 5 131,300 44 25,700 9 25,500 6
Group 3 149,400 50 54,400 13 158,900 53 29,200 10 233,600 30 14,200
Total 298,000 100 293,000 100 293,000 100 293,000 100 293,000 100 293,000 100
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 R s and some
special interest areas. Alternative manages the highest percentage of roadless areas
in Categories 1 and 2. Alternative has the next highest percentage, followed by 1, F, F
and R.
Special Areas
Heritage Bores. 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.
Scenic byways. Farts 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 E and F offer the least support to this emphasis while Alternatives E and C
offer the most.
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.
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
would allocate the most land for this purpose, followed by Alternatives I, C, E and F.
Alternative would allocate no lands for this purpose.
-38-
Alternative while all of the eligible rivers are recognized in Alternatives C through 1.
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.
Timber Suitability/Allowable tit
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 (A Q) 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 1 displays the lands that are suitable, including scheduled and unscheduled, for
timber production for each alternative. Alternatives , B and D have the largest amounts
of suitable timber lands.
--
Figure 1
awtimber ASQ and volume offer
Figure 15
Net returns from the timber program
-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 D EIS looked
at current conditions and made population projections in the vicinity of the Forest.
Table 11
Populations in the seven-county area
County 1990 1995 1997 2000 2005 2010 202
Eagle 24,330 31,746 35,309 39,955 46,762 52,611 62,336
Garfield 31,653 37,730 40,165 43,900 50,435 53,053 74,132
Grand 3,607 10,140 10,344 11,966 13,923 16,075 20,740
Lake 6,639 3,172 9,132 10,570 12,357 15,423 20,402
Pitkin 13,960 15,311 15,340 16,597 13,645 20,671 24,343
Rio Blanco 6,132 7,106 7,259 7,705 3,470 9,247 10,656
Summit 14,235 13,972 20,310 23,733 23,659 33,453 41,591
Total 105,311 129,727 139,359 154,476 179,301 205,54 254,200
Source: Colorado State Demographers Office, March 1999
-41 -
P
F__ f
Population annual growth rates in the seven-county area
County 1990 1995
y 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020
Eagle 5.47
- 5A6 4.21 3.20 2.39 1.71
Garfield - 3.53 3.11 3.01 2.63 2.3 2.47
Grand - 2.36 3.41 334 3.03 2.92 2.53
Lake - 4.24 3.71 5.00 4.00 3.71 2.33
Pitkin - 2.52 0.06 1.57 2.35 2.03 1.65
Rio Blanca - 2.83 1.07 2.01 1.91 1.77 1.43
Summit - 5.91 4.73 4.55 3.30 3.14 2.20
Total - 4.16 3.64 3.49 3.06 2.71 2.15
Source: Colorado State Demographers Office, March 1999
Employment. Economic data prepared by the Stag of Colorado in conjunction with
county governments and the Forest Service includes economic conditions in 1997 as
well as projections to 2020.
Employment in the planning area is projected to increase nearly 0 percent between
1997 and 2020. Jobs will more than double in Eagle and Lake Counties, increase 80
percent i Summit, and increase between 45 and 65 percent in other counties.
-42-
Table 1
Employment by major industry and county, 1997
Eagle Garfield rand Lake Ritkln i lance Summit ' Total
griculture 720 334 257 11 414 451 207 2,944
Mining and 465 719 112 230 315 647 243 2,735
manufacturing
Construction 5,069 2,434 549 267 2,727 233 1,860 13,213
Transportation,
communication 1,033 765 211 30 535 152 512 3,294
and utilities
Wholesale and 7
639 153
6 1,743 693 5,253 544 6,266 28,346
retail trade , ,
Finance, insurance 2
350 1
254 743 110 1,660 91 1,491 7,723
and real estate 1 ,
Services 11,396 6,915 2,813 919 7,363 769 3,266 36,94
Government 2,310 3,101 1,025 670 1,611 1,025 1,632 11,373
Total 31,056 22,275 7,463 2,964 20,396 3,916 20,462 1 08,576
Table 1
Employment in the seven-c ounty area
County 1990 1995 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020
Eagle 13,367 26,417 31,053 36,643 44,394 52,751 69,763
Garfield 16,065 20,339 22,275 24,276 26,704 23,707 32,252
Grand 5,354 6,336 7,463 3,247 9,071 9,525 10,401
Lake 2,543 2,745 2,934 3,315 3,923 4,655 6,102
Pitkin 16,629 13,922 20,393 22,057 24,675 27,404 33,225
Rio Blanco 3,772 3,323 3,916 4,263 4,302 5,402 6,537
Summit 13,643 19,131 20,462 22,534 26,441 30,104 36,364
Total 76,379 96,264 108,576 121,396 140,516 156,547 195,145
6° e15
Employment annual growth rates in the seven-county area
County 1990 1995 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020
Eagle - 7.54 3.43 5.67 4.14 323 2.33
Garfield - 4.33 4.65 2.91 1.92 1.46 1.17
Grand - 5.16 4.11 339 1.92 0.93 0.33
Lake - 1.50 4.26 3.57 145 3.45 2.74
Pitkin - 2.62 3.33 2.64 2.27 2.12 1.94
Rio Blanco - 0.27 1.21 2.91 2.39 2.33 1.93
Summit - 7.00 147 131 3.20 2.63 2.05
Total - 5.17 5.12 3.79 2.97 2.44 2.10
I
43
Table 16
White River National Forest contributions to the area economy by program, 1997
Employment (gobs} Labor income ($)
33,444 721, 316, 770
31,996 579,131,417
1,443 142,635,353
45 1,099,469
96 1,662,370
31 585,312
50 1,434,020
274 1
0,929,564
33,943 °
73g,547,525
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.
-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 play 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 1 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 (FNV), which is defined as the value of discounted
benefits minus discounted costs. NV 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. financial efficiency analysis is the PNV of Forest
Service revenues and costs.
-4-
I
Table
Change to employment by program by alternative
Total number of jobs contributed
Resource Base year
(1997)
31,995 41,129 41,129 38,699 41,129 41,129
1,448 1,957 1,957 1,951 1,957 1,904
45 48 48 48 48 49
98 98 98 98 98 105
31 24 9 17 9 37
50 80 64 6 64 83
274 274 274 274 274 274
y
a9 $3
,943
3 ?g
43,614
`,'`
41,153
_ 8
43,560
- 28.5 27-4 21.2 2 -A 28.4
a
38,556
2,066
47
98
12
62
274
41,115
21.1
31,995 41,129 41,129 38,699 41,129 41,129 38,556
1,448 1,957 1,957 1,951 1,957 1,904 2,066
45 48 48 48 48 49 47
98 98 98 98 98 105 8
31 32 11 23 12 51 13
50 80 66 70 66 93 64
274 411 411 411 411 411 411
33,943 43,756 43,720 41,300 43,721 43,742 41,256
- 28.9 28.8 21.7 28.8 28.9 21.5
4
Economic and financial efficiency (in millions of 1997 dollars)
ALTERNATIVE
Enip-rience budget level
$276 $239 $248 $239 $306 $232
$19,798 $19,761 $19,049 $19,767 $19,376 $13,606
$260 $260 $260 $260 $260 $260
$16 -$21 -$11 -$20 $46 -$28
$19,538 $19,501 $18,789 $19,507 , $19,116 $18,348
$301 $249 $267 $250 $345 $241
$19,568 $19,514 $18,811 $19,521 $19,159 $18,361
$389 $389 $389 $389 $389 $389
-$88 -$140 -$122 -$139 -$44 -$148
$19,179 $19,125 $18,422 $19,132 $18,770 $17,972
-47
How to Comment on the Draft Documents
Release of the Draft Revision
Open Houses
tMeeting 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.
Revised FEIS and The final documents (FEIS, Revised Land and Resource Management Elan, 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
4
A
'0 " I
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 3, 1999
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Public rinq
MEMBERS ABSENT
Diane Golden
STAFF PRESENT.
Russ Forrest
Dominic Mauriello
Brent Wilson
Judy Rodriguez
2:00 p.m.
John Schofield called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. and he said to lot the record reflect that
the PEC would like to thank Vail Resorts for the tour of Category III today.
A request for an extension of a previously-granted variance and a request for a
worsession to discuss a redevelopment proposal involving a rezoning, conditional use
permit revision and development plan approval for Ski Club Vail, located at 598 Vail
Valley Drive / Part of Tract B, Vail Village 71h Filing.
Applicant.- Ski Club Vail, represented by Snowdon Hopkins Architects
Planner.- Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson explained the 31' height and said it was based on the most restrictive grading. He
also said he would clarify the setback numbers. He then went over staff issues that he said the
PEC should address and stated that a more detailed grading plan would be provided as they
went further into the process.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
November 8, 1999
Rooky Christopher said that although combining bus stops would resolve the congestion, Ski
Club Vail never intended to pay for that. He said, regarding snow storages that Ski Club Vail
would love to heat the area if they had the money.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
November 9, 1999
4"
Brent Wilson said he rare these issues by the D and they said the applicant was headed in the
right direction. He then gave an overview of the variance portion of the request. He said the
Police Department had no incidents last year and that the hardship was that staff could not
identify any other drop-off point.
John Schofield asked if the applicant or public had anything to add. There were no comments
from the applicant or public.
Doug Cahill stressed keeping the horseshoe open for a turn-around space. He asked if the
public could use this area, since it was in a public right-of-way or are they getting shoed away by
the volunteers.
Rocky Christopher said there was nothing there except Ski Club and so the public didn't use the
area. I
John Schofield stated that the hardship was recognized for the record and that this had been
confirmed by pricer C Commissions. He said there were no other like zoned properties in the
vicinity. He said it was critical to keep the horseshoe open and that Condition No. 2 was not
appropriate,
Galen Aasland agreed that the wording used in Condition No. was not correct.
Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, including the
amended wording for Condition No. 2 to read: That the PEC strongly advises that no other
requests of this nature will be considered by the Town.
Jima mild like to circulate the bike path issue among the . ,.A He said he had
no ruA. - -s " dath was reconfigured. He said he would like to sec r , hook back into
Meadow Drive safely.
John Schofield stated the options and said they would need a final approval letter from Vail
Resorts.
Planning and Environmental Commission 3
Minutes
November 8, 1999
2. request for a "staff approved" minor amendment to the Golden Peak Development
Plan, to allow for the addition of a new Magic Carpet lift in the ski yard, the relocation of
the mechanical shed and the addition of a stream crossing for summer access to the
base of Chair 12, located at 456 Vail Valley Drive/Golden Peak Parcel, Tracts F, Vail
Village 5`" and 71" Filing.
Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc.
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
STAFF . request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the establishment of a new parcel and the
vacation of platted easements, located on a Portion of Lot 1, Sunburst Filing 3 Golf
Terrace).
Applicant: Fallridge Condominium Association
Planner: gent Wilson
TABLED I l__ -I i_- 1999
4. A request for a final review of a major amendment, to allow for the proposed
redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special Development District No.
5, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the
Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 Fast Meadow Drive/Lots M, N, ,
dock 5-D, Vail Village First Filing.
The motion passed by a vote of -0.
5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a Type 11 employee
housing unit, located at 3347 Lupine Drive / Lot 7, Flock 1, Bighorn Subdivision First
Addition.
John Schofield asked about the outcome of the appeal to Council, regarding the PFC's decision.
Russ Forrest advised it was upheld unanimously,
John Schofield suggested having an orientation with the new Council and that the FC would like
to look at the Forest Service Plan
Planning and Environmental commission 4
Minutes
November 8, 1999
?m
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
November 8, 1999
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 22, 1999
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT.
Public Hearinq
Galen Aasland
John Schofield called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
Puss Forrest
Dominic auriello
Brent Wilson
Allison Ochs
Judy Rodriguez
2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for the re-alignment of the right-of-way, located
at 2755 Snow berry Drive/Lot 10, Block 9, Mail Intermountain.
Applicant: David E. Webster
Planner: Brent Nilson
2. A request for a variance from Section 11-48-3, to allow for one additional building
identification sn, located at 2139 N. Frontage d. des ail Commons City Market, 'yell
das Schone 3r Filing.
Applicant: City Market, inc.
Planner: Allison Ochs
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
November 22, 1999
1
Allison Ochs said the applicant had requested to table this until 12/13/99.
Diane Golden made a motion to table this until 12/13/99.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of -0.
John Schofield asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Farm Hopkins, the Architect representing the applicant, asked about the snow storage taking up
the parking spaces.
John Schofield said the FBD would set the parking requirement and the applicant's proposed
parking was in excess by 3 spaces.
Pam Hopkins said she was pushing hard to snowrmelt, as it was cheaper than to haul it away.
Chas Bernhardt asked if the l'BD should require the applicant to snowmelt.
Pam Hopkins said she would like the applicant to make that decision.
Tom Weber said he had no problem with this.
John Schofield asked if the public had any cornments.
Jima Lamont stated a source from Minos said the bike path was a safety hazard.
John Schofield suggested getting rid of that portion of the path which was a safety hazard. He
said that this was not a Ski Club issue, but rather the Town should address the bike path issue. a
Brian Doyon said the bike path should be bigger since it will have more uses.
John Schofield said if the bike path was taken out from the back, then a larger sidewalk would be
needed in the front.
Doug Dahill suggested paralleling the bike path or he asked if it could b realigned to make the
approach better.
Brian Doyon suggested forking the steeper part of the path one way or the other with signage.
Tom Weber said he was more concerned with bike path safety, rather than the screening.
John Schofield remarked that the sidewalk was 3'9 which was wider than anything that was out
there now, He said the IBC said 6' was adequate and suggested leaving the width alone.
Planning and Environmental Commission 2
Minutes
November 22, 1999
Applicant: Teen of Mail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Allison Ochs
Chas Bernhardt said parking there was safer than on the Frontage Read.
Diane Golden had no additional comments.
Tom Weber had no comments,
Planning and Environmental Commission 3
Minutes
November 22, 1999
5. A request for a worksession to review a major amendment, to allow for the proposed
redevelopment of the Mail Village Inn, Phase IV, within Special Development District No.
, and a conditional use permit, to allow for the operation of a fractional fee club in the
Public Accommodation Zone District, located at 100 Fast Meadow Drive/Lots M, N. C,
Block 5-D, flail Village First Filing.
Applicant, Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George uther
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 3, 1999
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table item 5.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of -0.
Information Update - White River National Forest Plan amendments.
Brent Wilson gave an overview of his memo. He said the alternatives were summarized and
suggested the PFC focus on the preferred alternative. He said the synopsis was supplied by the
Forest Service and the Forest Service would give a presentation in January with a May 9'h
deadline. He said the Town Council would be asked to offer a formal recommendation for
Alternative D.
Huss Forrest said PFC input was just like any individual input and explained that this was a
Forest Service Master Plano He said the call would be made from the Forest Supervisor. He
said there was a desire for the Forest Service Plan to address housing and transportation
impacts, but the primary issue was how the back country trails would be impacted.
Manning and Environmental Commission 4
Minutes
November 22, 1999