Sustainability in The White River National Forest:
A Plan for the Future
Kristin Schmelz
October 25, 2000
"The good news is that humans are gifted by the potential for self-awareness and intelligent choice, and knowing our circumstance is an invitation to change."
-William Rees
Community / Social Development
I recently visited the White River National Forest in an attempt to lay out a framework for recommendations on its sustainable development. Through increased growth and use in the past 15 years, it has become apparent that new measures need to be taken to protect White River and ensure its future health. An in-depth exploration of the Forest and its current policy plan revealed the areas in which new provisions were most necessary. Through looking at these areas it is possible to see a future for the Forest which balances human desires and guarantees the health of forest ecosystems.
White River National Forest is one of the Nation’s largest and oldest national forests, encompassing over 2,270,000 acres. It is located in north-central Colorado and includes National Forest lands within nine counties, including Eagle, Gunnison, Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit. The Forest is ranked fifth in the Nation in recreation use and provides habitat for more than 300 species of fish and wildlife. White River is a leading destination for tourism, backcountry recreation, and skiing and is the setting of 750,000 acres of Wilderness.
The Forest Management Plan that is currently in affect was written in 1984. Since then, many changes have taken place within the Forest and the surrounding area. Additionally, our awareness of the importance of sustainable forestry has grown considerably. Sustainable development, which focuses on internalizing external costs and acknowledging that we live in a world of finite resources, is the way to promote a healthy White River National Forest.
In this letter a synthesis of the main issues facing the region and the viable options for future management are addressed. My personal recommendations are included as the policy alternative that I feel would best balance the desires of human beings with ecological capacity of the land. The 2000 Forest Plan recently proposed by the Forest Service highlights six major areas of importance. Four of these are discussed in this proposal, as well as one other. These five topics, the problems surrounding them, the viable alternatives, and the recommended option will be the framework for this plan.
The true question about the White River National Forest is growth. How do we determine the extent to which we are willing to allow it and how can we ensure that the growth that does take place is sustainable? Ultimately a plan must be approved that defines an acceptable balance between human desires and what is ecologically feasible for maintaining and improving the Forest and the people who live and work within it. The goal of this plan is to define this level of growth (or limits to growth) and explain how it is sustainable and attainable for the White River National Forest.
The Proposed Forest Plan, submitted by the Forest Service, addresses six main issues: biodiversity, recreation, travel management, timber harvesting, special areas, and roadless areas management. While I acknowledge the importance of special areas and roadless area management, this proposal will focus on the biodiversity, recreation, travel management, timber harvesting, and community/social development issues. For some of these issues specific cases will be examined in order to determine exactly how the suggested alternative would be implemented. Therefore some sections may be more narrowly discussed that they are in the plan submitted by the Forest Service.
Maintaining a wide variety of plant and animal species in an ecosystem is a necessary part of a healthy forest environment. A diverse forest ecosystem is one that provides carrying capacity checks and balances. It also helps control destruction by disease and maintains the natural equilibrium of the forest. Unfortunately, increased use of the White River National Forest has led to a decrease in biodiversity.
The elk herd population is one example of a species that has exceeded the carrying capacity of the natural environment. This is largely due to the absence of many of the elk’s primary predators. With the disappearance of grizzlies and wolves from Colorado, the elk population has exploded and caused over-grazing and starvation to occur all over the Rocky Mountains. This is proof of the importance of biodiversity.
Unfortunately, human desires for forest use often come before what is most sustainable for the natural environment. This is an example of "The Tragedy of the Commons" (as discussed in Theory Survey 10-04-00). Public lands, left up to self-interested human beings, are not always used in a manner that results in ecological sustainability. Because of this, it is suggested that some type of forest management to protect biodiversity is necessary.
The idea of biodiversity is relatively new and was therefore not included in the 1984 Forest Plan. Alternative D (in the Proposed Forest Plan) emphasizes biological diversity as whole, and would suggest active management of all habitat types. While this is positive, I think there needs to be certain direct steps taken to ensure biodiversity for the health of the Forest.
A program should be implemented that would identify species that are rare and declining to determine what habitat requirements they have and then work to make sure that these habitat conditions exist (meaning in some areas no more logging, road building, mining, etc). Also, native plant and animal species should be reintroduced to encourage natural balance. The parties that have been most responsible for species decline (internalization of externalities) should pay the costs of this reintroduction. This responsibility could be determined through the identification of the growth that has caused habitat destruction, whether it be ski resort development, highway construction, or timber harvesting. The US government and Congress should appropriate money to the Forest Service to help defray these costs as well.
Another aspect that should be considered is prescribed burning of the forests. While spending a day with Jamie Connell, the Dillon District Ranger of the White River National Forest and Recreation Planner, Angela Glen, it became obvious that prescribed burning would benefit the Forest. This is because many of the areas of WRNF are fuel stacks that are expected to eventually cause catastrophic fires. Some prescribed burning by the Forest Service would in this case be preventative management that would help bring the forest back to a more natural state.
I would recommend the policy option that encourages active management as a way of protecting and encouraging biodiversity. This option forces the costs onto the responsible parties and acknowledges that the commons must sometimes be managed in order to protect the public good. This policy plan would also help bring the Forest back to the most natural state possible. The DEIS statement highlights the important point that public lands are not the only lands which are struggling with the issues of biodiversity. It is often the case that private lands have the potential to have the most negative effects on biodiversity sustainability.
The opposite argument to this option would be natural management. The suggestion in this case would be to allow nature to take care of itself and assume that the commons will be appropriately taken care of. The idea being that it would be appropriate for habitat destruction to be curbed, but it would be inappropriate for reintroduction or population control of a species (such as elk) to occur. A more extreme option than this would be to continue with business as usual and assume that the invisible hand will guide the public appropriately.
Recreation has become the main use of the White River National Forest. In fact 31 percent of the recreation that takes place in the state of Colorado is within its boundaries. Newly popular activities such as snowshoeing, snowmobiling, kayaking, caving, mountain biking and the use of ATV’s have joined the more traditional activities of hiking, hunting, and fishing making the Forest a popular place for locals and visitors alike. The popularity of ski resorts has also increased since the 984 Plan and the 11 ski areas in the White River National Forest draw visitors year-round for a variety of pursuits.
Increased use of the land by a broader range of activities has caused a greater impact to the forest environment, as well as an increase in user conflicts. Because of this, it is necessary to examine the need to balance recreation and protect the wildlife and forest environment.
Contentious issues regarding recreational use of the White River National Forest are extensive. This proposal will focus of two of the most recent issues and recommend a policy that is both feasible and sustainable for the Forest.
Arapahoe Basin ski area is one of the smaller resorts in Summit County. It is at a higher elevation and receives a good amount of snowfall each year, although they are often not able to open as early because they do not have snowmaking capabilities.
A snowmaking plan has been proposed in which they would remove water from the Snake River to make snow early and late in the season in order to be open from November to September. With this plan, A-Basin would remove clean water from the North Fork of the Snake River. In doing so, they would increase the concentrations of heavy metals downstream, as the North Fork currently helps dilute water that has been polluted by acid mine drainage from Peru Creek. The Forest Service has approved phase one of the plan, but environmental groups have taken A-Basin to court in an attempt to stop the snowmaking which they feel will make a bad situation worse.
Arapahoe Basin argues that it is not their responsibility to clean up water that is not theirs and protest that they would only be exercising their water right on the North Fork, similar to the town of Montezuma who owns water right there as well.
The obvious options of allowing the snowmaking or refusing to allow it are too narrow for this issue. I think the best possible plan is to continue exploring ways for the water to be cleaned up, thereby eliminating the need for the discussion. One way this is already occurring is with an electrolysis machine that supposedly works by sending electrical currents through the water and precipitating the harmful minerals out. A-Basin is working with a company who claims they can do this and that it is effectively cleans the water. Arapahoe Basin has offered to pay the monthly costs of operating this in order to hold the mineral concentration downstream at its current level.
I would like to see the plan go beyond this and I think the costs of this clean up need to be appropriated to the responsible parties. The former and current owner of the mine should be in charge of some of the clean-up as they are the ones who hold the value of the land. The land would be worth much more if it were cleaned up and would then be of increased benefit to the owners. A mutual partnership in paying the clean-up costs should be formed with Arapahoe Basin (as the permanent benefits of a pristine area would be a long term investment for them), the owners of the land, the Environmental Protection Agency, the town of Montezuma and the Vidler Tunnel Water Company (who also exercise water rights) and the counties on the surrounding area.
Overall, I think the external costs of this pollution must be internalized and a compromise must be made on who helps pay for the clean-up. Butting heads in lawsuits is money wasted that could be used to solve the problem.
Ski areas in the White River National Forest have become four season resorts that are constantly planning expansion and growth. Over half of the ski areas in Colorado have planned expansion within the next 15 years. This expansion is on public lands and environmental impacts occur as areas are clear cut, roads are created, and lifts systems are built. Mitigating these impacts is important and there are a variety of alternatives for managing them.
Environmental activist groups such as Colorado Wild, propose an end to all ski area expansion and are encouraging the evaluation of ski resorts. This evaluation would grade the resorts based on a variety of criteria that assess their environmental policies and impacts. Alternative D, the preferred alternative of the Forest Service, does not allocate any additional National Forest lands beyond current levels. Many ski areas disagree with both Colorado Wild and the Forest Service, defending their right to use public lands and arguing that skiing can be and already is sustainable. The resorts have adopted the Sustainable Slopes Charter which states their commitment to "managing business in a way that demonstrates commitment to environmental protection and stewardship while meeting the expectations of the public".
In looking at these differing viewpoints, it is apparent that a satisfactory solution will be difficult to find. My recommendations on the topic of ski resort expansion are as follows. First, an environmental assessment from a non-biased third party (such as NW COG) should be performed on each resort to determine their current environmental impact. Then an assessment of proposed expansions should be done and a precautionary polluter pays principle should be instated to determine the potential damage to the area. This bond would encourage ski areas to reduce their risk of environmental impact and would force them to be responsible for the public land they are using.
These costs would be passed onto the consumer, causing an increase in lift ticket price, although probably only a small decrease in demand. This 4P policy plan would internalize the external costs and would probably reduce expansion because of the added costs involved.
Travel management refers to the use of motorized and non-motorized forms of transportation travel within the White River National Forest. The growing popularity of motorized travel (mountain-bikes, ATV’s, snowmobiles, and four-wheel-drive vehicles) as well as non-motorized (hiking, backcountry skiing, and snowshoeing) has caused travel management to become one of the most contentious issues in forest management. Environmental groups are strictly opposed to motorized travel (especially in roadless areas) because of the erosion caused by ATV’s and four-wheel-drive vehicles, the disruption of animal habitats (especially winter wildlife ranges), and the air pollution that they cause. Those in favor of large amounts of motorized Forest travel, such as Randy Parsons of the White River National Forest Alliance of Glenwood Springs, argue that the Forest land is for public use and that there should be ample amounts of trails for motorized use.
The Forest Plan alternatives vary in the amount of trails designated for motorized and mechanized travel. Alternative D and I have the least amount allotted, while Alternative B and E provide the most (see Graph 1, attached). There are many ranges of options on this issue and it seems obvious that the most viable way to approach it is by correcting for the market pricing failures it involves.
In listening to Randy Parsons defend motorized user rights to Forest travel, it became apparent that this is not a form of recreation that is going to simply go away. According to ecological economics then, it is important to internalize the external costs of these forms of recreation in the hopes of making them sustainable.
One way of internalizing these costs would be to charge a fee similar to the fee demo already in place. The difference would be that the fee to snowmobile, drive an ATV etc, would be drastically higher than the fee to cross-country ski or snowshoe. This fee would reflect the potential environmental damage caused by the activity. This way the users of motorized travel will pay the actual costs their sport is causing and the money collected from these fees would go to restorative projects within the Forest. I think it is also important to establish a decent amount of trail systems for these motorized users. While environmental groups such as Colorado Wild disagree with this, to not do so encourages motorized users to create their own trails. The 500+ miles of user created trails in the Forest should also by destroyed so that further degradation of them does not occur.
These new fees would limit the number of users to the area, help fund the Forest Service’s measly budget, and provide incentives for technological advances to make motorized use less impacting. Another part of this plan involves an increase in the enforcement efforts by the Forest Service. Currently, there is only one law enforcement officer patrolling the area. This is obviously inadequate and encourages rule breaking by motorized users. Congressional appropriations must be increased for this to improve.
The final idea under this plan is to require a specified amount of community service time by the users of motorized and non-motorized forms of travel within the Forest. This would provide a way for them to give back to the Forest. The mandatory time would be determined based on the amount of use by each person / group. Before recreating on a specific area, each user would be required to obtain a permit and sign a contract stating that x amount of their time would be spent doing some community service on the Forest land. This time commitment would be minimal (say an hour or two for every 10 hours of use that occurs) so that objections would be kept at a minimum.
This service time would provide the manpower necessary to patrol the Forest in search of violators, rip out illegally built trails, and restore some of the damage done to the White River National Forest. It would also increase education about sustainable forestry and would give users a more personal tie to the land on which they recreate. This idea is a form of internalizing the external costs, except people are paying with time instead of money.
There are a wide variety of tree species found in the White River National Forest. Pinyon and juniper are found in the lower elevations, cottonwoods in riparian zones, conifer and aspen in middle elevations, and fir and spruce in the higher regions. These forest communities are important for plant and animal habitats and are also utilized by humans in the production of lumber, wood fiber, posts and poles, etc. Because these uses are in opposition of one another, timber harvesting has become a contentious issue in forest management.
Since 1984, less than two percent of the White River National Forest has been used for timber harvesting. 60 years of fire suppression has led to stepladder fuels, an overgrown canopy, and an older age-class in the Forest. Because of these factors, the Forest Service Plan calls for active management that would use timber harvesting and prescribed burning to clear out some of the Forest and increase health. Advocates of managed use including Woody Woodrow, former Supervisor of the WRNF, argue that cutting down more trees is the most effective way to increase the health of the Forest. He also argues that the White River National Forest is designated as a multiple use area and for this reason should not be shut off to timber harvesting. Additionally there is the claim that White River is a more suitable place for logging than many other old-growth forests in Canada and the Pacific Northwest and if logging decreases here, it will increase there.
Opponents of this argument say that the Forest Service should allow natural processes to shape the Forest and that old-growth aspen and lodgepole pine should be protected from logging. It is also questionable whether loggers would cut down the small, skinny trees that are the problem and leave the healthy old growth in place. Obviously this is another issue where a compromise that provides a method for sustainable development of the Forest is needed.
The option I recommend is forcing the timber harvesters to pay a severance tax for the timber they remove from the Forest. This tax, otherwise known as a natural capital depletion tax, would charge logging companies for depleting a natural resource. This tax would be lower than a severance tax for a completely non-renewable resource (such as petroleum) but would be high enough to internalize the externalities caused by logging.
This new tax would increase costs of logging and costs of lumber-intensive products. These costs would then be passed onto consumers who would economize and demand less of this more expensive product (See attached Graph 2). Demand for innovative, cheaper substitutes would increase and new products would develop. Revenue from the NCD tax would go into the research and development of these new products.
Additionally, it would be important for government subsidies for logging to decrease so that actual costs are realized and the market failure of externalities is corrected for. In order to protect US companies from unfair competition, an ecological tariff placed on imports that do not have a NCD tax placed on them by their country would be imperative. This would also encourage other countries to develop more sustainable forestry practices and wood product alternatives in order to compete with the United States. On a smaller domestic scale, it would also be important for wood products made with lumber from other forests to face additional taxes in areas where they would have an unfair competitive advantage. This would ensure that the price of all natural capital depleting lumber products would become more expensive.
Community / Social Development
The evolution of traditional ski areas to four-season resorts brings with it a variety of consequences and impacts on communities. This change has boosted employment in the tourism and commercial sectors, and has caused a population increase throughout the towns in the White River National Forest. While this boom has created opportunity and expansion it has also brought into question social and community development.
Two thirds of all houses being built in the five counties most closely located to ski towns are second homes. Sometimes referred to as "cold beds" these houses are vacant a large portion of the year and are looked at as trophy homes, often costing over $700 per square foot. The lack of affordable housing has become a huge problem within this area, especially considering the almost negative unemployment rate. Many people would like to work in counties like Summit, but are incapable of affording rent or purchasing a home. The breakdown of community and the inability to adequately staff businesses have led to a variety of proposed solutions.
There are a plethora of alternatives when looking at the housing situation. Ignoring the problem entirely is one suggested option as is its polar opposite: forcing a certain percentage of houses built to be affordable. The approach that I feel is most efficient and equitable if explored here.
This proposal takes a very traditionalist economics approach and suggests allowing the market to adjust and determine the correct equilibrium level. If housing is too expensive for minimum pay workers, they will choose to work and live somewhere else. This migration of workers to other areas along the Front Range will cause a severe shortage of employees at ski resorts and supporting areas. Businesses will then be forced to subsidize housing for their workers, increase wages, and provide incentives (such as down payments assistance and matched savings plans) to attract employees. The increased burden placed upon the ski resorts and other businesses in the area will cause an increase in the cost of consumer goods. Hamburgers and lift tickets will become more expensive and the true costs will be born by the producers and consumers.
The advantages of this plan are that those creating and using the goods and services will be the ones to pay for them. No tax dollars from the Front Range will be going to government subsidized housing in Summit and the surrounding counties and the market will be allowed to function in its proper, capitalistic manner. Vail Resorts has already built some working housing, proving that it does make sense financially for them to provide housing for their workers if it means they are able to fully staff their business.
The disadvantages to this plan are that it does nothing to solve the problem immediately. Market functions take time and it may be quite awhile before the problem is solved in entirely. Another problem with this plan is that the degradation of the community structure will continue. Locals that have lived in these counties for a long time will have an even more difficult time as the cost of property and living continues to rise. Additionally, this plan of invisible hand economics does nothing for the surrounding communities and the social problems they face as the lower income workers move to their towns because of the lower cost of living.
There are a few ways this plan can be improved upon while keeping with the basic theme. First, developments similar to David O’Neil’s project near Breckenridge should be encouraged. Wellington Neighborhoods is a new development of affordable housing built specifically for full time Summit County residents. This neighborhood encourages community building and offers a less risky, but still profitable investment for developers. Secondly, home buyer education should be increased to encourage low-income families to buy homes responsibly. Third, a county wide property tax should be instated to aid the counties where people are actually residing. This increased tax revenue could go to community based programs, education, and affordable housing.
The equity issues plaguing this area are by no means easily solved. Yet one must realize that no one is forcing people to live in these expensive, wealthy communities. The Front Range provides ample opportunity for employment and affordable housing. I feel the costs of living and employing people should be placed on those who produce and consume in the area.
The issues of sustainable development in the White River National Forest are far from simple. Balancing the desires of human beings with the ecological capacity of the earth is a task that is facing not just the residents of Colorado, but all the inhabitants of the earth. The issues addressed in this policy plan are but a few pieces in a giant puzzle of ideas, concerns, and desires. Hopefully they offer some useful tools and food for thought as you consider the future of the White River National Forest.
* Please see Appendix A for a summary of the suggestions in this proposal.
Literature
1. Costanza, Robert. An Introduction to Ecological Economics. St. Lucie Press. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. 1997.
2. Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. United States Department of Agriculture. White River National Forest. Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
3. Proposed Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the White River National Forest. United States Department of Agriculture. Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
4. Sustainable Slopes. National Ski Area Association. Lakewood, Colorado. June 2000.
Lectures
1. Allender, Tom. Vail Mountain Operations. October 19, 2000.
2. Berman, Jeff. Executive Director for Colorado Wild. October 20, 2000.
3. Connell, Jamie. Dillon District Ranger of White River National Forest. October 16, 2000.
4. Glen, Angela. Recreation Planner, Dillon Ranger District Office. October 16, 2000.
5. O’Neill, David. Wellington Neighborhood Inc., Breckenridge. October 18, 2000
6. Parsons, Randy. White River National Forest Alliance of Glenwood Springs. October 18, 2000.
7. Venturoni, Linda. NW COG Planner. October 18, 2000.
8. Woodrow, Woody. Former Supervisor of White River National Forest. October 18, 2000.
9. Wyatt, Lane. Water Quality & Quantity for NW COG. October 17, 2000.