This land is my land
From California
To the New York island
From the Redwood Forest
To the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.
Folk Singer Woody Guthrie’s lyrics memorably express the public lands heritage of the United States. The song should remind ski area operators of their favorite sport because over 130 ski areas on public lands managed by the United States Forest Service provide 60 percent of annual skier visits in the United States. A proposal to restrict future opportunities for skiing on the White River National Forest in Colorado, however, suggests that the Forest Service may have a different song in mind for public lands in the heart of ski country.
Recreation on NFS Lands
Since 1960, recreation on the 191 million acres of public lands known as the National Forest System (NFS) has been the fastest growing use of those lands.
Statistically, outdoor recreation on NFS lands doubled between 1970 and 1995 and increased a whopping 1,161 percent since 1950.
Millions of Americans enjoy their NFS lands through alpine skiing and snowboarding. Proudly proclaiming itself “World Leader in Skiing Opportunity,” the Forest Service does it while permitting skiing on only 1/10th of one percent of the 191 million acres of NFS lands they manage.
The White River National Forest
The White River National Forest (WRNF) in north-central Colorado exemplifies the observation that “recreation is the window through which most Americans see their national forests.” The WRNF, established in 1891, is one of the nation’s oldest national forests and, with 2,270,000 acres, one of the largest. Timber cutting, grazing and mining around towns like Breckenridge, Aspen, Carbondale, Eagle, and Glenwood Springs used to be the dominant uses of the WRNF. Over the last 30 years, however, recreation has become the primary use of this forest.
Between 1960 and 1980, as mines were closed and timber cutting declined, skier visits to the WRNF grew and additional ski areas were built. Between 1980 and 1997, skier visits continued to grow as destination resorts such as Aspen, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, Keystone, Snowmass and Vail matured into international four-season resorts. By the 1997-98 season, 12 ski areas on the WRNF provided 7.6 million skier days, dwarfing the 200,000 produced by the four WRNF areas in 1960.
And, of course, people recreate on their WRNF lands in other ways. Over a million people visited the WRNF last year to enjoy the stunning scenery and extensive wilderness areas and to hike, mountain bike, raft, backpack, hunt, fly fish, rock climb and use off-road vehicles.
In addition, the economies of communities around the WRNF have become dependent on tourism and recreation, including over 500 million dollars in annual skiing-related labor income.
The Draft Forest Plan
In August 1999, the Forest Service released a draft Forest Plan and draft environmental impact statement that, if adopted, may significantly change recreation and skiing on the WRNF. A Forest Plan in certain respects is akin to a zoning overlay for a national forest, typically for a 10- to 15-year period, that makes identified lands available for different uses such as skiing, wildlife habitat, off-road recreation, preservation, nonmotorized recreation, etc. After a Forest Plan is finalized, additional site-specific environmental review occurs before the Forest Service allows specific actions like recreational development. The Forest Service expresses its long-term vision for a national forest by identifying the alternative it prefers among the different ones proposed, any one of which represents a potential Forest Plan. Often, the preferred alternative becomes the selected alternative that controls the national forest for the next 10 to 15 years.
The draft Forest Plan for the WRNF is notable because the Forest Service’s vision does not include any growth for recreation. The Forest Service’s preferred alternative—known as Alternative D— is premised on the idea that “a higher priority be given to physical and biological resources than to human uses of the Forest.” This abstract planning language describes a rejection of recreation.
Although the Forest Service has balanced recreation and preservation for years under the current Forest Plan—and one alternative in the draft Forest Plan would continue to do so—Alternative D makes no attempt to balance the two. Instead, it allocates 47 percent of the WRNF outside of wilderness areas to wildlife habitat. This means that together, wilderness and protective wildlife habitat would comprise 80 percent of the WRNF. This land allocation and corresponding management directions would restrict or reduce mountain biking, hiking trails, snowmobiling, backcountry ski huts and other popular forms of recreation on the WRNF, especially in the 80 percent set aside as wilderness and wildlife habitat.
Wildlife protection and environmental preservation are the objectives of Alternative D. The draft environmental impact statement, however, shows no data that wildlife populations are declining or need greater protection. Indeed, the elk population, for instance, has grown significantly over the years. Similarly, the draft Forest Plan does not show that air and water quality and forest health are deteriorating under the current Forest Plan, or that existing controls are inadequate to prevent impacts to the WRNF from recreation and other human activities.
Restrictions on Skiing
Alternative D is particularly restrictive to skiing; in the Forest Service’s words, the plan makes “no attempt to meet long-term public demand for skiing on NFS lands” and does “not endorse recreation and tourism as key values.” (See box at bottom of Page 54.) In effect, the Forest Service’s currently preferred alternative freezes skiing on the WRNF at existing levels despite the fact that skier visits to the WRNF are projected to grow 1.75 percent annually over the next decade, largely based on the projected impact of echo boomers.
Given all that, the Forest Service may be rethinking whether it wants to be “World Leader in Skiing Opportunity.”
Future Implications
Fundamentally, Alternative D rejects the idea that wildlife and environmental preservation can be balanced with recreation. The Forest Service instead has indicated that preservation is inconsistent with recreation and other human uses of NFS lands.
Strands of Alternative D may be traced to a high-profile report by a Committee of Scientists who recommended that the Forest Service make “sustainability” the first priority in managing NFS lands. It is unclear where recreation and skiing fit within this new management philosophy of sustainability. The draft Forest Plan for the WRNF may mark a new chapter in public lands management because the Forest Service recently implemented the suggestions of the Committee of Scientists in new proposed regulations for national forest planning.
It is likely that many environmental groups will support Alternative D. A shift away from a balance of recreation and preservation, however, should spark significant concern from millions of Americans who believe environmental preservation and recreation are compatible. The draft Forest Plan is beginning to generate opposition. U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., calls the plan “a huge threat.” Numerous media accounts report complaints by individuals, recreational interest groups, local governments and elected officials that Alternative D restricts access to the WRNF, makes public lands less public and ignores the importance of recreation on NFS lands.
The Forest Service’s final action on the draft Forest Plan for the WRNF will not be known until late 2000.
The Heart of Alternative D
In its own words (see 3-331 of EIS) the Forest Service tells how quality will decline:
“The number of acres allocated to ski-based resorts would be substantially reduced from 91,243 to 43,195 acres and would only include lands currently permitted for skiing. No expansion of existing sites would be allowed. Aerial transportation corridors on NFS lands are not allowed. Existing special use permit boundaries remain the same regardless of safety, avalanche or boundary concerns. Additional development outside special-use permit boundaries is not allowed. In addition, ski patrollers are not authorized to carry out patrol activities outside of existing permit boundaries. There is no attempt to meet long-term public demand for skiing on NFS lands. No new ski sites or expansions of existing sites would be allowed. This alternative restricts use and limits facility capacity. There is no attempt to meet projected recreation demand for skiing and other summer recreation uses at ski-based resorts beyond currently approved levels.”
For More Information
The Forest Service Internet site contains the proposed forest planning regulations mentioned in this article as well as information on Forest Service lands, forest planning, future policy directions and recreation: http://www.fs.fed.us/.
To file comments on the draft White River National Forest Plan by the February 9, 2000 deadline, send comments via e-mail: fpc/[email protected]. Or, via mail to Forest Supervisor Martha Ketelle, Forest Plan Revision Comments, White River National Forest, P.O. Box 948, Glenwood Springs, Colo., 81602.
The complete White River National Forest draft Forest Plan and draft Environmental Impact Statement (more than 1,400 pages) are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning.html. Or, contact the Office of the Forest Supervisor, White River National Forest, at (970) 945-2521.
The Report by the Committee of Scientists is available at www.fs.fed.us/news/science/.
