Record of Decision

for the Land and

Resource

Management Plan

- 2002 Revision

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Region
White River National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan 

2002 Revision

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Record of Decision

WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Region

Responsible Rick D. Cables

Official: Regional Forester

Rocky Mountain Region

Recommending Martha Ketelle

Official: Forest Supervisor

White River National Forest

Colorado counties include: Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, 

Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit

This document presents the decision regarding the selection of a Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

White River National Forest. It summarizes the reasons for choosing the Selected Alternative as the basis for the Revised 

Forest Plan, which will be followed for the next 10 to 15 years. The long-term environmental consequences contained in 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement are considered in this decision.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status (not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-2791. 

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 20250-9410, or 

call 1-800-245-6340 or (202) 720-5964. USDA is an equal opportunity employer.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

ii

Explanation of Acreages and Data Sources

The information in the tables, figures and maps in the following document was generated from a 

variety of sources, including several different Geographical Information System (GIS) software

platforms, tabular databases, and data from a variety of models used in planning analysis. The 

acreage figures from the various sources do not match exactly in all cases. However, when added, 

acres of National Forest System lands (regardless of the source) are within acceptable margins of 

error.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

iii

Table of Contents

Summary of the Decision..............................................................................................................................1

Key Features of the White River National Forest............................................................................................2

The Planning Process and Public Involvement...............................................................................................3

Alternatives Considered................................................................................................................................5

Description of Alternatives Considered in Detail............................................................................................6

Alternative Themes...................................................................................................................................6

Summary Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................................8

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ........................................................................12

Comments Submitted by the Public .............................................................................................................12

Reasons for the Selection of Alternative K...................................................................................................14

Components & Rationale of the Decision .................................................................................................15

Component 1: Establishment of Forest-wide Multiple -Use Goals and Objectives....................................15

Component 2: Establishment of Forest-wide Management Requirements................................................18

Component 3: Establishment of Management Area Direction.................................................................18

Component 4: Land Suited or Not Suited for Certain Activities..............................................................27

Component 5: Monitoring and Evaluation Activities.............................................................................29

Component 6: Congressional Recommendations ...................................................................................30

How the Decision was Reached...................................................................................................................32

Other Economic Considerations ..................................................................................................................34

Identification of the Environmentally Preferred Alternative ...........................................................................34

Changes Between Draft EIS and Final EIS...................................................................................................36

Findings Required by Other Laws...............................................................................................................38

Mitigation and Monitoring ..........................................................................................................................41

Implementation ..........................................................................................................................................41

Application to Contracts, Permits and Special Use Authorizations .............................................................41

Ski Area Permits.....................................................................................................................................42

Vacant Grazing Allotment Decision.........................................................................................................43

Travel Management...............................................................................................................................43

Amendment ...............................................................................................................................................45

Appeal Review or Appeal Opportunities......................................................................................................46

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................47
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

1

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION

The Decision: This decision approves Alternative K in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) as the 2002 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised

Forest Plan) for the White River National Forest. Alternative K, with modifications1, 

describes in detail the goals and objectives, standards and guidelines, management area 

direction, lands suitable for timber and other activities, monitoring and evaluation

requirements, and recommendations for wilderness and other special areas. 

I chose Alternative K because it provides a wide variety of recreation opportunities and 

forest uses while promoting ecosystem health. I based my decision on three types of 

information – scientific and technical analyses, the views of the public and our stakeholders, 

and legal mandates and policy direction. Taken together this information and knowledge 

supports Alternative K as the appropriate strategic guidance for the White River National 

Forest. Alternative K is the logical outgrowth of the alternative development and public 

involvement parts of the forest plan revision process. Alternative K responds to a variety of 

concerns by retaining many past opportunities and uses managed within an ecological and 

social framework. I am selecting Alternative K because it positions the Forest well to 

continue to provide recreational services, forest products, and intrinsic values. This

alternative will honor our commitment to provide options for future generations. 

This Revised Forest Plan and FEIS are programmatic and represent a broad management 

strategy for the White River National Forest. The Revised Forest Plan does not include sitespecific decisions. Rather it provides overall systematic guidance and establishes

management direction to govern future actions. Needed course correction or adjustments 

will be identified through monitoring, and amendments to this Plan will be made as

circumstances warrant. This decision will remain in effect until the Plan is revised

according to applicable National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations.

Draft, site-specific, travel management plans accompanied each alternative presented in the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In order to improve on the ground 

inventories and enhance public dialogue on the future of the transportation system on the 

Forest, the site-specific travel plan has been separated from the forest plan revision

process.

2

 Travel management direction in the Revised Forest Plan is programmatic and 

focuses on a variety of opportunities to use public lands. Additional planning activities 

leading to a site-specific travel management plan will be initiated as soon as practicable. I 

am expecting a Travel Order to be completed in the near future to make some necessary 

changes to the travel system so that certain roads and trails are managed to be compatible 

with management area direction in the Revised Forest Plan.

The balance in Alternative K is responsive to public issues and provides a wide range of 

outcomes and outputs. I do feel that Alternative K sets a reasonable course that will satisfy 

 

1

 Modifications include minor adjustments to the ski area boundaries found in ROD Figures 2 and 3, boundary adjustments 

to the Freeman Creek recommended wilderness described under the Congressional Recommendations sections of this 

document, and terms and conditions associated with the Biological Opinion listed under Findings Required by Other Laws.

2

The FEIS does not include the analysis displayed in the draft that relied on site-specific data on the future of the 

transportation system.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

2

most people while providing them future opportunities to participate in Plan 

implementation.

KEY FEATURES OF THE WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST

Few places in the United States feature as much topographic relief as the region of the 

White River National Forest. Its majestic mountain ranges attract visitors from throughout 

the world for sightseeing, skiing and backcountry recreation. The Forest rises from an 

elevation of about 5,800 feet in Glenwood Canyon, to the summits of ten peaks higher than 

14,000 feet. This wide range in elevation provides the White River National Forest with 

climate, soils, and plant and animal communities that are more diverse than those found in 

many other parts of the country. 

The White River National Forest is one of the nation's largest and oldest national forests. 

Established in 1891 as the White River Plateau Timber Reserve, the Forest later

incorporated several other reserves to reach its current size of 2,270,000 acres. The White 

River National Forest is located in north-central Colorado west of the Continental Divide

(ROD Figure-1). The divide defines most of the Forest's eastern boundary, which is about 

60 miles from Denver. Ready access to the Forest by residents of Denver and other Front 

Range communities is provided by Interstate 70, which enters the Forest at the Eisenhower 

Memorial Tunnel.

In terms of visitor recreation days, the White River National Forest ranked fifth in the 

nation in 1995. Best known for its world-famous ski areas such as Aspen, Vail, and 

Breckenridge, the Forest also features the beauty and solitude to be found in some 750,000 

acres of wilderness, outstanding scenic vistas such as Hanging Lake and the Maroon Bells, 

and the nation's largest herd of elk. Other key Forest attractions are the many stream and 

rivers which provide opportunities to rafters, kayakers and anglers. 

 ROD Figure – 1 

 Location of the White River National Forest in Colorado 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

3

Communities adjacent to the White River National Forest include Aspen, Avon, Basalt, 

Breckenridge, Carbondale, Dillon, Eagle, Edwards, Frisco, Glenwood Springs, Gypsum, 

Meeker, Minturn, New Castle, Rifle, Silt, Silverthorne and Vail. In recent years, some of 

the highest growth rates in Colorado have been seen in parts of the Forest's primary fivecounty planning area. Most of this growth has occurred near the Forest's ski areas. In the 

1990s, these ski areas evolved into four-season resorts that attract visitors throughout the 

year. This change greatly boosted employment in the tourism and commercial sectors of 

local economies. During the same decade a strong national economy, baby-boom 

demographics and mainstream technology that permits many to work away from their 

offices combined to create a high demand for second homes and other private land

development. These factors and others led to rapid population growth throughout the White 

River area.

Outdoor recreation, including both summer and winter activities, is the primary use of the 

White River National Forest. In 1997, the Forest recorded more than 8.8 million recreation 

visitor days (RVDs)3. The Forest provides 13% of the nation's downhill skiing. About 44% 

of the total Forest RVDs are in dispersed areas 4. Demand is projected to increase for trails 

and scenic resources that provide opportunities for hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, all-terrain vehicle and snowmobile use, sightseeing and pleasure driving. 

Use of all developed facilities5 on the Forest, not including ski areas, is projected to be at 

90% of practical capacity by 2020. Some individual facilities are already exceeding

practical capacity.

THE PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public comments were critically important to me in shaping a responsible plan for the 

Forest that best meets the Forest Service mission, the goals of the NFMA and the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the interests of the American public.. 

Preliminary work on the revision of the 1984 Forest Plan began in 1994. Formal inventories 

of the Forest's natural and environmental resources were begun using many improved

scientific methods and data processing techniques that were unavailable during the

development of the 1984 plan.

In 1996, the Forest Supervisor published a Monitoring & Evaluation Five-Year Report that 

reviewed the status of National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the White River 

National Forest. This report concluded that conditions and public demands had changed 

significantly since inception of the 1984 Forest Plan and that the need for a revision existed.

The Forest Supervisor then solicited public comments on what the plan revision process 

should consider. After a series of open houses and extensive media coverage, the White 

River National Forest received hundreds of comments, not only from local residents but 

also from people nationwide. Issues brought up by the public and by other agencies were 

examined by an interdisciplinary team of planners and resource specialists brought together 

by the Forest to organize the planning process. 

 

3

 One RVD is equal to 12 hours of continuous use by one or more persons engaged in any recreational activity. 

4

 Dispersed recreation areas are areas without developed recreation facilities such as ski lifts, campgrounds or picnic areas.

5

 Developed recreation includes all activities that take place on developed recreation sites, which have constructed facilities.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

4

An Identification of Purpose and Need document, issued in August 1996, summarized how 

public comments and monitoring and evaluation efforts were used to determine what areas 

of the existing plan were most in need of revision. After extensive review, the

interdisciplinary team identified six areas, called revision topics, on which to focus the 

planning process: 1) biological diversity, 2) travel management, 3) recreation management, 

4) roadless areas, 5) special areas, and 6) timber suitability and allowable sale quantity. 

These broad categories incorporate many different specific issues. Other topics germane to 

Forest management are addressed through the Forest Servic e directive system. 

In July 1997, the Forest released the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS), which 

assessed the ability of the Forest to supply goods and services in response to the public's 

demand for them and discussed the need to establish or change management direction in 

response. The AMS provided a foundation for developing a broad range of reasonable 

alternatives to the existing plan. Also in the summer of 1997, the six revision topics were 

presented to the public in a series of 10 open houses held in Aspen, Avon, Carbondale, 

Denver, Eagle, Frisco, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, Meeker and Rifle. At the open 

houses, and through media disclosures, forest managers solicited comments from the public. 

After completing the AMS, and incorporating public comment and improved resource

information, forest planners formulated a preliminary array of forest management

subfactors that expanded upon the six revision topics. 

By July 1998, six alternative management schemes had been developed. By design, each 

alternative represented a potential forest plan that met all legal and administrative

requirements and that, if selected, could be implemented. The next step in the forest plan 

revision process was to evaluate the environmental consequences of the implementation of 

the alternatives. For each forest resource, specialists described the existing condition and 

discussed how implementation of the various alternatives would affect the resource. 

The DEIS and the Proposed Revised Forest Plan were made available for public comment 

on August 6, 1999. Based on public and Congressional requests, the original 90-day 

comment period was extended by 180 days to May 9, 2000. Over 14,000 individual

responses were received from the public; city, county, state and federal officials; public 

interest organizations and private businesses6.

Between the issuance of the DEIS and the completion of the FEIS, the Forest held several 

meetings to consult with the three Confederated Ute tribes and ensure American Indian 

rights and interests were adequately accounted for in the planning process. Additionally, 

stakeholder meetings were held with six different groups of people representing different 

interests, including local government. These meetings were held to help validate and

corroborate the public comment drawn from the DEIS and to aid in identifying factors and 

attributes of the forest plan decision that might be most important to the public. 

After considering public comments7 on the Proposed Revised Forest Plan and DEIS, the 

interdisciplinary team made necessary changes as they developed the FEIS. Alternative K 

was crafted for consideration during the preparation of the FEIS in response to public 

comments received on the Proposed Revised Forest Plan and DEIS and to incorporate new 

 

6

 A summary of the public comments on the DEIS is available on the website: www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning.html.

7

 A detailed review of public comment and agency responses is presented in Appendix A of the Revised Forest Plan FEIS.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

5

Forest Service policies, for example, Canada lynx management direction. The seven

alternatives (initial six plus K) are analyzed in detail in the FEIS. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The alternatives reflect a range of concerns and issues raised by the public and prescribed 

by law, regulation or policy. Each alternative was designed around a theme for management 

that achieves the purpose and need for revision and responds to the revision topics. All 

alternatives include the concepts of multiple -use, susta ined yield, and ecosystem

management while meeting the management requirements of NFMA [36 CFR 219], as well 

as other legal and regulatory requirements. Additionally, management of the White River 

National Forest will meet objectives established in the 1992 Rocky Mountain Regional 

Guide (USDA Forest Service, 1992). I recognize that the Regional Guide was withdrawn 

effective February 1, 2002 (Federal Register Vol.67, No. 25, February 6, 2002); however, 

the objectives remain appropriate and valid. These obje ctives are: 

• Protect the basic soil, air, and water resources; 

• Provide for multiple uses and sustainability in an environmentally acceptable

 manner; 

• Provide for a variety of life through management of ecosystems; 

• Provide for scenic quality and a range of recreation opportunities that respond to 

customers and local communities; 

• Emphasize cooperation with individuals, organizations, and other agencies in 

coordination of planning and project application; 

• In cooperation with other landowners, strive for improved land ownership and 

access patterns to the mutual benefit of both public and private landowners; and 

• Improve the financial efficiency of all programs and projects. 

In meeting these objectives, each alternative applies a set of forest-wide standards and

guidelines ensuring basic resource protection, provision of services, and compliance with 

applicable laws. Individual management area (MA) direction is constant across all

alternatives. Where alternatives differ most significantly is in the allocation of land to

specific management areas and specific uses, acres and areas of recommended wilderness, 

designation of Research Natural Areas (RNA) and other Special Interest Areas (SIA), and 

of suitable range and timberlands (Chapter 2, FEIS).
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

6

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

In making my decision, I have considered the seven alternatives described in detail in

Chapter Two of the FEIS. The following are summary descriptions of each alternative, 

including the theme statement and other information showing how major revision topics 

were addressed. In order to present the summary information clearly, some of the revision 

topics are summarized qualitatively. Other revision topics are summarized quantitatively in 

ROD Tables 1 through 5 at the end of this section. 

The revision topics represent the significant issues examined in this Revised Forest Plan. 

The alternatives address the revision topics in a variety of ways. The topics are: 

• Biological Diversity

• Travel Management

• Recreation Management 

• Roadless Areas

• Special Areas

• Timber Suitability and Allowable Sale Quantity

ALTERNATIVE THEMES

Alternative B 

(No Action 

Alternative)

Theme. Alternative B emphasizes production of goods and services such as developed 

recreation, downhill skiing, and range, all of which would be increased to meet expected 

levels of demand. This alternative continues existing land allocations. Vegetation 

management would be applied to improving wildlife habitat, maintaining and improving 

visual quality in travel corridors and recreation areas, treating of overmature and diseased 

tree stands, and providing firewood and other wood products.

Alternative C Theme. Alternative C provides a range of recreation opportunities in ba lance with

biological diversity considerations. The range of recreation that is provided is determined 

by projected demand and analysis of trends. Ecological constraints may limit recreation 

activities in some locations of the Forest. Vegetation management activities focus on

producing healthier and more diverse vegetation conditions. This alternative emphasizes 

resource production in areas that have been previously managed as such. No new roads 

would be built in areas that have not been previously developed.

Alternative D

(Preferred 

Alternative in the 

Draft 

Environmental 

Impact 

Statement)

Theme. Alternative D emphasizes active management of all habitat types, including the 

use of such tools as timber harvesting, prescribed fire, and structural improvements. It 

represents an aggressive approach to habitat management and places less emphasis on 

letting natural processes run their course. This alternative employs active management to 

make the most rapid progress, compared to other alternatives, toward a diverse, healthy 

ecosystem condition. Of all the alternatives, Alternative D places the le ast emphasis on 

development for human uses or recreation.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

7

Alternative E Theme. Alternative E emphasizes recreation activities and amenities that provide

economic benefits to local communities. Land allocations help provide opportunities to 

recreation-based businesses and support the improvement of developed recreation

infrastructure. The following commercial uses are favored: ski areas, outfitting and guide 

services, tour operators, non-ski area resorts, and developed recreation infrastructure. Noncommercial recreation that provides significant economic benefits is emphasized in this 

alternative. Examples include consumptive wildlife activities such as hunting and fishing as 

well as other activities such as hiking and bicycling. Economically important recreation 

would be supported while maintaining or improving the health of forest ecosystems. A 

limited degree of resource production will occur under this alternative.

Alternative F 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 all species is an ecological constraint. In other areas, 

natural processes are allowed to dominate the landscape. Dispersed and developed

recreation opportunities will be at current levels or higher. Roaded recreation opportunities 

will expand. Semi-primitive recreation opportunities may decrease.

Alternative I Theme. Alternative I emphasizes natural disturbance regimes and other ecological and 

evolutionary processes occurring without human intervention. Commodity production,

including recreation, is accommodated only to the extent that it does not fundamentally 

impair these natural processes, the restoration of ecological functions, or the health of 

native plant and animal communities. To the highest degree possible, the essential wildness 

of the land is maintained.

Alternative K

(Selected 

Alternative)

Theme. Alternative K sustains the capabilities of forest ecosystems while addressing social 

values and expectations, as well as managing for multiple resource outputs. Ecosystem

components are actively managed to improve wildlife habitat, water quality and soil

productivity. Management activities maintain or restore ecosystem structure, function and 

composition. Emphasis is placed on quality recreation experiences in a predominately 

natural setting. Recreation growth becomes more managed, while still allowing modest 

increases in use.

Alternative K addresses the revision topics in the following ways:

Biological Diversity. Natural processes are the primary factors shaping 

ecosystems in wilderness and roadless areas. Active management does occur in 

some areas to meet stewardship and restoration goals. Management activities 

focus on maintaining and restoring habitats for populations of terrestrial and 

aquatic species that have viability concerns on the Forest, as well as enhancing 

habitat for game species. Overall trends in watershed conditions improve due to 

restoration work. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

8

Travel Management. Road reconstruction and road maintenance are

emphasized over construction of new roads. The conversion of roads to trails, 

or full decommissioning of roads no longer needed to serve the forest or public, 

will be a priority. Although construction of some of new roads may occur, the 

utilization of temporary roads is stressed. All snow-free motorized and

mechanized travel is limited to designated routes. For all recreation, loop

systems will be emphasized to enhance recreational experiences.

Recreation Management. Summer motorized and winter non-motorized 

recreation opportunities are increased. Land allocation for ski areas addresses 

individual resort skier visit demands and expectations. Opportunities for new 

backcountry huts exist but may be limited. New developed recreation sites are 

limited in number. Existing developed sites may be expanded to provide

concentrated recreational use. This alternative has the potential to moderately 

alter scenic resources.

Roadless Areas. Emphasis in this alternative is placed on balancing 

opportunities for active management with retention of the undeveloped

character of roadless areas.

Special Areas. See ROD Table 4 - Total Acreage of Special Interest Areas 

Proposed by Alternatives, for a comparison of Special Area allocation by 

alternative.

Timber Suitability and Allowable Sale Quantity. See ROD Table 5 –

Suitable Timber Lands and Timber Harvest for a comparison of suitable timber 

lands and ASQ by alternative.

SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

The following discussion provides some information that describes or compares

alternatives. For a complete description of the alternatives, and a summary comparison of 

the topics, see FEIS Chapter 2. For a complete discussion of all comparative information 

for the alternatives, see FEIS Chapter 3. 

Biological Diversity. The management of habitat for species of viability concern is 

addressed through forest-wide direction and does not vary by alternative. The alternatives 

do vary in management area allocations and these allocations differ in their approach to 

active management of vegetation composition and structure, the degree to which natural 

processes influence change on the Forest, the extent of improvement in watershed 

conditions, and the amount of habitat improvement projects. 

Travel Management. Management area allocations vary among alternatives. Each

management area allocation has an associated Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

classification. ROS describes the types of recreation expected in the management area 

including motorized, or non-motorized in both the winter and summer seasons. Most

alternatives, including Alternative K, limit motorized and mechanized travel to designated 

routes. This programmatic direction will guide the site-specific travel management plan 

that will begin as soon as practicable after this ROD is implemented. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

9

Recreation Management. The following table (ROD Table -1) compares the number of 

acres in each alternative allocated to present and potential future ski area activities. The 

table shows acres allocated to management area 8.25 – Ski Areas Existing and Potential. 

ROD Table - 1

Acres Allocation to Winter Sports Areas by Alternative

Alternatives

B C D E F I K

Acres in 8.25 

MA

92,970 57,664 42,965 83,750 68,275 43,282 51,519

Roadless Areas and Recommended Wilderness. The following table shows, for 

each alternative, a summary of roadless area management. There are 640,000 inventoried 

roadless acres on the Forest. This inventory is shown on a map in the Forest Plan map 

packet. This inventory will become the White River roadless area inventory upon approval 

of this ROD. 

The inventoried roadless areas do not vary by alternative. What does vary, however, is how 

those areas will be managed. The management of roadless areas can be summarized into the 

following three groups, and summarized in ROD Table - 2:

• Group 1 (Management Area Categories 1 and 2): Roadless areas in this group are 

managed to retain their roadless character through allocation to management areas 

that are generally non-motorized and undeveloped. There is little to no likelihood 

that any roads would ever be built in any of these management areas. 

Recommended wilderness (management area 1.2) is within this group. Road

construction is not permitted within recommended wilderness. 

• Group 2 (Management Area Categories 3 and 4): Roadless areas in this group will 

be managed for a variety of recreation uses and are likely to retain some

undeveloped characteristics but also include some motorized opportunities. There 

is little likelihood that any roads will be built in any of these management areas.

• Group 3 (Management Areas Categories 5, 7 and 8): Roadless areas in this group 

have the most potential for intensive developments and the most potential for 

impact on the undeveloped character of roadless areas. The opportunity to build 

roads in roadless areas is greatest in these management areas. Any road

construction in the roadless portion of these management areas, however, will 

undergo the appropriate NEPA analysis, and will meet all applicable regulation and 

policy direction. If it occurs, road construction in the roadless portion of these 

management areas is likely to be temporary road construction.

 

 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

10

 ROD Table - 2 

 Summary of Inventoried Roadless Acres in Management Area Groups by 

 Alternative

Group 1

Alternative Roadless 

Acres

Recommended 

Wilderness 

Acres

Remaining 

Group 1 

Acres 

Group 2 

Acres

Group 3 

Acres

B 640,000 0 34,100 264,700 340,800

C 640,000 94,000 164,200 131,800 249,500

D 640,000 47,000 116,500 50,000 426,300

E 640,000 107,000 93,300 323,500 115,900

F 640,000 0 51,000 54,100 534,500

I 640,000 200,000 245,800 77,700 16,200

K 640,000 82,000 122,500 67,600 367,600

There are 298,000 acres capable of and available for wilderness recommendations. The 

following table (ROD Table - 3) illustrates the number of acres that are allocated to 1.2 

management area – Recommended Wilderness, by alternative. It also shows how many 

individual areas, both adjacent to existing wilderness and independent areas, and the percent 

of the 298,000 acres that are given the 1.2 management area allocation. 

 ROD Table - 3

 Acres Allocated to Wilderness Recommendations by Alternative

Alternatives

B C D E F I K

Acres of 

recommended

wilderness

0 94,000 47,000 107,000 0 200,000 82,000

Number of adjacent 

areas

0 9 3 0 0 22 13

Number of 

independent areas 

0 1 2 6 0 4 3

Percent of capable 

and available roadless 

areas recommended 

for wilderness (% of 

298,000 acres)

0% 32% 16% 35% 0% 69% 28%

Special Areas. Alternatives differ in the number of special interest areas allocated. 

There are two groups of special areas: management area 2.1 – special interest areas,

minimal use and interpretation and management areas 3.1 – special interest areas, emphasis 

on use and interpretation. These management areas allocations are summarized in ROD 

Table - 4.

 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

11

ROD Table - 4 

 Total Acreage of Special Interest Areas Proposed by Alternatives 

Alternative

B C D E F I K

Total 2.1 acres 0 9,140 30,740 6,030 2,600 17,200 24,260

Total 3.1 acres 0 14,910 0 15,480 0 1,780 3,870

Timber Suitability and Allowable Sale Quantity. Timber harvest is presented in 

several ways in the FEIS. To summarize, the key comparisons are listed in ROD Table -5.

Suitable timber lands are those lands that are to be managed, on a regulated basis, for timber 

harvest activities. The following table illustrates allowable sale quantity (ASQ)8 for each 

alternative. This calculation is independent of budget constraints. Timber Program Sale 

Quantity (TPSQ)9 is also shown in the table. TPSQ calculations reflect a reasonable

expectation of timber harvest activities on suited timber lands that is based on an

expectation that Forest budgets to support such activities will continue at recent levels. 

ROD Table - 5 

Acres of Suitable Timber Lands and Average Annual Harvest Amounts

Alternative

B C D E F I K

Suitable timber 

land acres 362,000 291,000 444,000 119,000 599,000 91,000 425,000

ASQ in million 

cubic feet per 

year 6.4 5.4 8.6 2.6 10.9 1.8 7.4

ASQ in million 

board feet per 

year 28.1 23.7 37.7 11.5 47.3 7.9 32.5

TPSQ in million 

cubic feet per 

year 3.3 1.3 2.5 1.2 5.2 1.4 2.8

TPSQ in million 

board feet per 

year 14.4 5.5 10.8 5.4 22.3 6.4 12.4

 

8

 Allowable sale quantity (ASQ) - The quantity of timber that may be sold, from the area of suitable land covered by the 

Forest Plan, for a time period specified by the Plan.

9

 Timber Program Sale Quantity (TPSQ) - The volume of timber planned for sale during the first decade of the planning 

horizon. Expressed as the average for the first decade.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

12

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY

Federal agencies are required by the NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate 

all reasonable alternatives, and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives 

that were not developed in detail [40 CFR 1502.14]. 

Many ideas have been suggested and evaluated during the development of the current 

alternatives considered in detail (Appendix A, FEIS). Addressing all of the permutations 

would create an unmanageably large number of alternatives that would not be helpful to the 

decision maker or the public. In addition, some issues were determined to be outside the 

scope of the current plan revision process, were already represented by one or more of the 

alternatives considered in detail, or were determined to risk unnecessary environmental 

harm. A summary of alternatives not considered in detail can be found in Chapter 2 of the 

FEIS. 

COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC

The draft Forest Plan generated an unprecedented volume of public comments. I recognize 

that this reflects the high importance that the public places on these lands and the

opportunities they provide. It is important to recognize that the consideration of public 

comment is not a vote-counting process in which the outcome is determined by the majority 

opinion. The appropriateness, specificity and factual accuracy of comment content serves to 

provide the basis for modifications to planning documents and decisions. Further, those 

who respond do not constitute a random or representative public sample because they are 

self-selected, unlike scientifically designed surveys or polls. The Forest Service encourages 

all interested parties to submit comments as often as they wish. 

Public responses are tracked, documented and analyzed using a process called content 

analysis. Content analysis systematically compiles, categorizes and captures the full range 

of public viewpoints and concerns regarding a planning project. This database provides a 

robust analytical tool for identification of public concerns and sorting of demographic and 

topic information. The interdisciplinary team used this tool in considering public

comments10 on the Proposed Revised Forest Plan and DEIS, and to make necessary changes 

as they developed the FEIS. 

I believe Alternative K reflects the integration of public comments and is a logical

outgrowth of the alternative development and public involvement parts of the forest plan 

revision process. Throughout the public involvement process the Forest Service emphasized 

that the Selected Alternative would likely be a combination of aspects of two or more of the 

alternatives presented in the DEIS. Alternative K incorporates ideas and management

allocations from several alternatives presented in the DEIS. There are no elements or 

features of Alternative K that were not included or addressed in the range of alternatives 

presented in the DEIS.

 

10 A detailed review of public comment and agency responses are presented in Appendix A of the Revised Forest Plan 

FEIS.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

13

The “Blended Alternative”. Colorado Congressman Scott McInnis provided the Forest 

Supervisor with a detailed comment on the Proposed White River Forest Plan. It has two 

main components, a set of written documents on specific issues and a management area 

map. The comment is described in these documents as the “Blended Alternative11.” The 

interdisciplinary team examined and discussed components of the map and document. Some 

ideas and positions stated in the Blended Alternative were incorporated into the formulation 

of Alternative K. Some issues in the Blended Alternative write-up are not forest plan issues, 

or are better addressed elsewhere. In some instances, the Blended Alternative proposals 

were considered and incorporated in part or in a modified way in order to be responsive to 

other public concerns on similar issues. A full discussion of these issues is located in the 

Response to Comments, Appendix A of the FEIS.

Although the Blended Alternative was not included in the Alternatives Considered in Detail 

section, I believe the extent and scope of this comment warrants discussion in this ROD. 

The cover letter identified six primary issues: water, wildlife management, intermix,

allowable ski area expansion, travel management, and wilderness. The comment also

proposed statements of management intent, and in some cases, rewording of direction. The 

following is an assessment of how these issues were addressed in the final plan direction 

(Chapters 1, 2, and 3, Revised Forest Plan) and/or in Alternative K. 

Water. The Blended Alternative proposes specific rewording of standards and guidelines 

for the management of water resources. This wording was not incorporated directly into the 

Revised Forest Plan. Because of the degree of concern and controversy, however, all water 

direction has been carefully re-examined. Updated water, aquatic and riparian direction can 

be found in Chapter 1 (Goal #1, Ecosystem Health), and Chapter 2 (Water and Riparian 

Resources) of the Revised Forest Plan.

Wildlife. Alternative K reflects an increase in winter range from the current 1984 Forest 

Plan, a concern raised in the Blended Alternative.

Intermix. The Blended Alternative applied the intermix prescription, an allocation that 

identifies areas where there are opportunities to address issues that cross many ownership 

boundaries. Alternative K also incorporates this prescription.

Ski Area Expansion. The Blended Alternative allows for expansion of ski areas in

certain locations, notably Summit County. This idea is reflected in Alternative K, which 

allocates most additional 8.25 management areas to the ski resorts in Summit County with 

limited additions elsewhere. 

Travel Management. The Blended Alternative included site-specific travel management 

recommendations, as the DEIS did include site-specific travel plans. However, at the

request of many public groups and individuals, the travel plan has been separated and that 

planning effort will begin once the forest plan revision process is complete. The comments 

on individual roads and trails in the Blended Alternative and other letters will be taken into 

account in the travel planning process. The general travel concepts contained in the Blended 

Alternative were considered in the Revised Forest Plan. Areas of consistency with

Alternative K include opportunities for looped trails and scenic byways. 

 

11 The full text of this comment can be found in the Government Letters, Appendix A, FEIS. The map is located in the map 

packet, which is available on the web site, CDROM, at Forest Service offices and local libraries.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

14

Wilderness. Of the eight areas proposed for wilderness designation in the Blended

Alternative, five of them are included in Alternative K. These areas are: Treasure Mountain, 

Ute Pass, Acorn Creek, North Independence and Hunter (Alternative K also recommends 

additional wilderness areas not included in the Blended Alternative). See Section 4 of the 

FEIS, recommended wilderness and roadless area management, for location and description 

of these areas. 

Additional Themes. In addition to the six issues listed above, general themes in the 

Blended Alternative included: community and local support, multiple use opportunities, and 

general resource protection. These ideas were also identified in many other public comment 

letters. In response to the issue of community and local support, the Revised Forest Plan 

now includes an expanded discussion of public collaboration (Chapter 1, Goal #5, Revised 

Forest Plan). 

REASONS FOR THE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE K 

I believe the strategic guidance established under Alternative K provides the needed 

direction for the White River National Forest. Alternative K provides a balanced package of 

goals, objectives, land allocations, standards, guidelines, and monitoring. Because 

ecosystems are dynamic and conditions change, the flexibility and adaptability of this Plan 

is an important factor in my decision. Some more specific reasons for selecting Alternative 

K are listed below. Alternative K:

• Promotes ecosystem health and conservation through the mix of management area 

allocations, standards and guidelines. 

• Provides multiple benefits to the public, and multiple resource outputs while 

ensuring the long-term health of the land. 

• Provides for active management to improve wildlife habitat, water quality and soil 

productivity while maintaining and restoring ecosystem structure, function and 

composition. 

• Provides for a high likelihood of maintaining or contributing to the maintenance of 

species viability.

• Places priority on reconstructing or maintaining existing roads, trails and facilities 

rather than constructing new ones. 

• Provides quality recreation opportunities where they are needed most, improves the 

quality of existing recreation sites, and eliminates sites that cannot be managed 

efficiently. 

• Provides for active management of vegetation for resource outputs and to meet 

stewardship objectives that is focused on areas where similar activities have 

occurred in the past. 

• Identifies several existing vacant allotments for possible closure or partial closure, 

subject to a site-specific decision tiered to the Revised Forest Plan.

• Uses budget resources and manages public use resources carefully and strategically.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

15

COMPONENTS & RATIONALE OF THE DECISION

There are six fundamental NFMA components of this decision. They are listed here and 

discussed in detail in the following sections: 

1. Establishment of forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives [36 CFR 219.11(b)].

2. Establishment of forest-wide management requirements (standards and guidelines) 

to fulfill the requirements of the NFMA relating to future activities [36 CFR 219.13 

to 219.16].

3. Establishment of management area direction (management area prescriptions)

applying to future management activities in that management area [36 CFR

219.11].

4. Designation of land suitable for timber production and the establishment of

allowable timber sale quantity (ASQ). Designation of lands suitable for grazing and 

browsing. Identification of lands suitable and available for oil and gas leasing. 

Provision for a broad spectrum of forest and outdoor recreation opportunities [36 

CFR 219.14 to 219.16, 219.20 and 219.21]. 

5. Establishment of monitoring and evaluation requirements [36 CFR 219.11(d)]. 

6. Congressional Recommendations for additions to the National Wilderness

Preservation System [36 CFR 219.17] and additions to the Wild, Scenic and

Recreational River System once suitability studies are complete. 

Component 1: Establishment of Forest-wide Multiple-Use Goals and Objectives 

The Goals and Objectives are listed and described in Chapter 1 of the Revised Forest Plan. 

They are based on the four goals identified in the 2000 Forest Service Government 

Performance Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan, but also include two forest-wide goals to 

address the important issues of working with and addressing a variety of public values, 

which were added in response to public concerns. They are goals 5 and 6, Public 

Collaboration and American Indian Rights and Interests.

I believe all of the Goals and Objectives listed in Chapter 2 of the Revised Forest Plan are 

important, and they are emphasized in the implementation of this Revised Forest Plan. 

Throughout the planning process, an emphasis has been placed on working collaboratively 

with federal, state and local governments, interest groups, and the public at large in

achieving the goals and objectives of the Revised Forest Plan. The land allocations in 

Alternative K are structured towards the achievement of these Goals. The Goals listed here 

characterize the intent of this Plan and offer a focus for the future. It is important to note our 

focus is on outcomes, rather than outputs. 

Goal 1

Ecosystem 

Health

The mix of management area allocations, standards, and guidelines in Alternative K meet the 

stated goal of promoting ecosystem health and conservation. Approximately one-third of the 

forest is wilderness and an additional one-third is allocated to prescriptions where natural

disturbances are relied on to regulate ecosystem structure, function and process. On the 

remaining one third of the forest, natural disturbances are complemented by management 

activities designed to improve wildlife habitat, water quality, and soil productivity. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

16

I find this approach to ecosystem health to be the most appropriate for lands on the White 

River National Forest.

NFMA requires that forest plans provide for a “diversity of plant and animal communities 

based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall 

multiple-use objectives.” In accordance with this provision, the regulations require in part 

that “fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing 

native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area” (36 CFR 219.19). 

Species-level viability assessments were conducted to identify the species of plants and 

animals for which there is a viability concern on the White River National Forest. Of 

approximately 350 species of plants and animals that were analyzed through our viability 

process, 11 plant species, 4 bird species, 4 mammal species, 6 fish species, and 2 amphibian 

species were identified as having viability concerns. Risk factors affecting viability for each 

species were identified, and specific management direction was developed to address those 

risks. Based upon a consideration of all the components of the Revised Forest Plan, I 

conclude that implementation of Alternative K will provide for a high likelihood of

maintaining or contributing to the maintenance of species viability.

Goal 2 Multiple 

Benefits to 

People

Each of the alternatives provides for a variety of uses, products, and services for the present 

and into the future. They differ in how they balance the trade-offs between the provision of 

these goods and services, and sustaining the capability of ecosystems. Budget levels will 

continue to affect the provision of goods and services under all alternatives. A large share of 

the recreation budget would be allocated to the administration of recreational special uses in 

all alternatives.

Alternative K meets the stated goal of providing multiple benefits to the public, and

providing multiple resource outputs while promoting ecosystem health and conservation. 

This alternative uses budget resources and manages public use resources carefully and 

strategically. An emphasis is placed on providing quality recreation opportunities where 

they are needed most, improving the quality of existing sites, and eliminating sites that 

cannot be managed efficiently, rather than dispersing use and developing new uses across 

the landscape. I believe this is a wise approach to building future recreation capacity on the 

Forest, one that responds to the social values and expectation of the public. Active

management of vegetation for resource outputs and to meet stewardship objectives is also 

focused on areas where similar activities have occurred in the past. 

Goal 3 Scientific 

and Technical 

Assistance

I believe use of the best scientific information available in managing the White River 

National Forest is vital to the successful implementation of this Plan. Our strategy is to 

make Forest Service information widely available using a variety of techniques for

transferring information to the public, for example, using the internet to provide maps and 

other key information. Given its significance, the path we take and the emphasis placed on 

using and giving scientific and technical assistance does not vary by alternative.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

17

Goal 4 Effective 

Public Service

Alternative K places priority on reconstructing or maintaining existing roads, trails and 

facilities rather than constructing new ones, which is consistent with national policy. 

Furthermore, I believe this approach is the most fiscally responsible. It provides for 

opportunities to improve public service while focusing financial resources on their most 

efficient use. Providing the public with safe and cost-effective roads, trails, facilities, and 

operations will provide greater security for the public and employees while enhancing the 

White River National Forest’s ability to meet other goals.

Improving the efficiency of management by conveying, exchanging, or purchasing lands 

where needed, and accurately surveying the Forest’s boundaries, will take us further 

towards achievement of Goal 4. The amount of land boundaries surveyed and marked does 

not vary significantly by alternative

Goal 5 Public 

Collaboration

Given the importance of public collaboration to the future sustainability of the White River 

National Forest and the surrounding communities, the achievement of the objective of Goal 

5 would be the same in all alternatives. 

It is important to note that Alternative K was created through a process that engaged the 

public, interested organizations, private landowners, state and local governments, and other 

federal agencies through a variety of venues and opportunities. The selection of Alternative 

K, reflects the importance I place on public input, and the numerous formal and informal 

conversations about the future of the White River National Forest that have occurred over 

the last several years. It is my hope that this decision will help turn those conversations into 

a lasting dialogue and provide an example of the kind of sound relationships needed to 

achieve the other goals of this Revised Forest Plan.

Goal 6 American 

Indian Rights 

and Interests 

Redemption of the federal trust relationship and other responsibilities are a vital aspect of 

implementing this Revised Forest Plan and an important part of agency-wide policy. The 

White River National Forest will increase efforts to work in close coordination with tribal 

governments and others in the stewardship of forest lands. As part of this effort, the Forest 

will:

• Implement consultation protocols and other formal agreements between the White 

River National Forest and American Indian tribes; 

• Provide opportunities for representatives from tribal governmental jurisdictions to 

participate in planning and management of NFS lands; 

• Cooperatively work with tribal governments to address issues of common concern; 

and work to provide appropriate access to sacred, ceremonial, and traditional use 

sites. 

As with public collaboration, redeeming our trust responsibilities and working with tribes 

would take place equally under all alternatives. The White River National Forest has

worked closely in collaboration with the three Confederated Ute Tribes to develop the 

objectives and strategies underlying this goal. I am encouraged by the success of this effort 

and view it as an important first step towards the achievement of Goal 6. All alternatives 

were consistent in the development and maintenance of this working relationship.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

18

Component 2: Establishment of Forest-wide Management Requirements 

I am establishing the revised forest-wide standards and guidelines listed in Chapter 2 of the 

Revised Forest Plan. Alternative K provides direction that will sustain the capabilities of 

ecosystems, address social values and objectives, manage the land for multiple resource 

outputs, and provide an increase in diverse recreation opportunities with an emphasis on 

quality experiences in natural settings. Alternative K provides for active vegetation

management to improve wildlife habitat, water quality and soil productivity, and reduce fire 

hazard, while maintaining and restoring ecosystem structure, function and composition. 

This balance is achieved through the particular combination of goals and objectives,

standards and guidelines and management area prescriptions in Alternative K. The forestwide standards and guidelines listed in Chapter 2 of the Revised Forest Plan are required by 

36 CFR 219.13 through 219.26 and 219.27. These standards and guidelines play a critical 

role in assuring the long-term health of the land. They provide direction for management 

and ensure that resources are managed in a sustainable manner. They represent design 

criteria to ensure that site-specific projects move the Forest towards desired outcomes 

expressed in the goals and objectives.

The standards and guidelines in the Revised Forest Plan incorporate important new

direction for the future management of the White River National Forest including an

emphasis on managing for biodiversity; maintaining a positive trend for plant and animal 

species of viability concern; combining management activities and natural processes to

shape ecosystems; meeting the need for a growing amount of diverse recreation

opportunities; and ensuring our commitments to Americ an Indian rights and interests are 

met. For example, Forest plan direction requires motorized and mechanized vehicles to

remain on roads and trails. This decision incorporates scientific findings, has general public 

support, and is responsive to emerging trends. 

One of my objectives is to simplify the content of the Revised Forest Plan, so I have 

directed the Forest not to reprint all of the laws, regulations, policies, and Manual and 

Handbook direction. These rules still apply and are listed in Chapter 3 and Appendix A of 

the FEIS. 

Component 3: Establishment of Management Area Direction 

For all alternatives, management area direction composed of theme, description, desired 

condition, and standards and guidelines is consistent. The alternatives differ in how the 

management area designations are applied to the landscape, shown on the alternative 

maps

12. Each alternative map reflects the theme of the alternative as described in the FEIS.

The Forest will use management area allocations under Alternative K to implement the 

Revised Forest Plan. These are listed in Chapter 3 of the Revised Forest Plan. This direction 

will guide future management activities in each specific management area, and is required 

by 36 CFR 219.11(c). The mix of prescriptions and how they are applied are key factors in 

my decision. 

 

12 Maps can be found in Map Packet for the Revised Forest Plan and on the website 

www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning.html.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

19

Relationship Between Alternative K and Management Area Prescriptions.

Management prescriptions are organized into eight major categories representing different 

levels of management intensity. Categories range from minimal to substantial humancaused changes. Within each category are different management area prescriptions that 

share a related management emphasis. Alternatives allocate land to categories and

prescriptions depending on the emphasis of the alternative. The following table (ROD Table 

- 6) lists the management area categories for Alternative K and this decision, and gives 

examples of prescriptions in each.

 

ROD Table - 6 

Acres Allocated per Management Category under Alternative K

Management Category Acres13 % of Forest

1 Wilderness, backcountry recreation with limited winter 

motorized use, eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers

995,600 44%

2 Special Interest Areas, Research Natural Areas 61,700 3%

3 Backcountry year-round motorized, corridors 

connecting core areas

85,300 4%

4 Scenery, Scenic Byways, high use dispersed recreation 

areas,

103,300 5%

5 General forest and rangeland, forest products, elk 

habitat, forested landscape linkages

1,127,900 50%

6 Not used in the Revised Forest Plan N/A N/A

7 Residential/ forest interface 7,800 <1%

8 Ski areas, developed recreation complexes, designated 

utility corridors

81,000 4%

The following section briefly describes the management categories, lists key management 

area prescriptions in each, and discusses the application of these key prescriptions under 

Alternative K. Please note that the following information does not discuss each

management category nor every management prescription in it. The prescriptions described 

here are those that carried more weight in my decision to select Alternative K. The

management areas not described here are described in full in Chapter 3 of the Revised 

Forest Plan. A complete comparison of acres in each management area, for each

alternative, is presented in the FEIS in Chapter 2, Table 14 – Comparison of acres allocated 

to management areas in each alternative, and in the Summary of the FEIS. 

Category 1

Wilderness, 

recommended 

wilderness, wild 

rivers; nonmotorized 

recreation; limited 

winter motorized

There is approximately 44% of the Forest, or 995,600 acres, included in these prescriptions 

under Alternative K. This category includes management area prescriptions for Wilderness 

and eligible Wild Rivers.

Management Area 1.2 - Recommended Wilderness: By choosing Alternative K, I 

am recommending the designation of 12 additions to the existing wilderness areas and two 

independent areas for a total of 82,000 acres of recommended wilderness (ROD Table - 7). 

This decision is based, in part, on the capability, availability and needs assessment in 

 

13 All acreages have been rounded to the nearest hundred. In addition, it is important to note that some areas have 

overlapping management category prescriptions. Thus, they are “double counted” because they appear under multiple 

category headings. Percent of forest refers to the portion of the total forest acreage on which a given prescription applies.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

20

This decision is based, in part, on the capability, availability and needs assessment in 

Appendix C of the FEIS, which identified a need for more wilderness to meet growing 

demand, and to give under-represented vegetation types the protection that wilderness 

designation would afford.

 ROD Table - 7 

 Recommended Wilderness under Alternative K

No.* Name No. Name

4 Ripple Creek Pass 6 Dome Peak

15a Sweetwater 21b Ute Pass

21c Acorn Creek 28 Freeman Creek

29a Spraddle Creek 48 Gypsum Creek

52 Woods Lake 53b Red Table

64 Mormon Creek 69 Assignation

75 Hunter 77 North Independence “A”

84 Treasure Mountain 8a Red Dirt

 *These numbers key to the roadless map found in the map packet of the FEIS.

My decision is to manage these recommended wilderness areas to ensure retention of the 

characteristics for which they were recommended until Congress makes a decision

regarding the future status of these lands.

Management Area 1.5 – Designated and Eligible Wild Rivers: These areas will be 

managed to protect and perpetuate eligible river segments. These wild river segments may 

or may not be located within designated wilderness. 

The Revised Forest Plan has identified five rivers or streams as eligible for Wild and Scenic 

designation. These designations include sections in management areas 1.5 (Wild), 3.4

(Scenic), and 4.4 (Recreational) (ROD Table - 13). My decision is to manage these rivers or 

streams under a Wild and Scenic River management prescription until such time as a 

suitability analysis is completed. At that time the river segment will either be recommended 

to Congress for designation or it will be managed under the prescriptions of the lands 

adjacent to the area. Please note that eligibility will not affect the existing negotiated 

agreements with local water users.

This recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive 

further review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of 

Agriculture, and the President of the United States. The Congress has reserved the authority 

to make final decisions on designation of rivers as part of the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System.

Category 2

Research Natural 

Areas; Minimaluse special 

interest areas

There is approximately 3% of the Forest, or 61,700 acres, included in these prescriptions. 

This category includes the prescription for the management of Research Natural Areas 

(RNA) and Special Interest Areas (SIA) designated for minimal use and interpretation. 

Management Area 2.1 – Special Interest Areas - Minimal Use and 

Interpretation: By applying this alternative, I am ensuring the special interest values of 

these areas are protected through management of use. The areas have been designated as 

botanical, geological, historical, paleontological, scenic, or zoological areas as well as for 

the protection and management of TES species, or other elements of biological diversity; or 

for their emotional significance, scenic values, or public popularity14. In addition, places 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

21

for their emotional significance, scenic values, or public popularity14. In addition, places 

such as caves, hot springs, cultural resource sites, 14,000-foot peaks, significant views, and 

state-designated historic sites are protected.

Within these special interest areas, vegetation, terrestrial and aquatic habitat, soil

productivity, and water quality will usually, but not always, appear natural (e.g., relatively 

pristine or pre-settlement). Vegetative management may be used to maintain or restore 

natural conditions, to protect TES species, or to protect other values for which the SIA was 

proposed or designated. Management implementation guidelines ensure protection of the 

values for which the area was proposed or designated.

The rare or outstanding values of the areas will be the primary consideration in their 

management. Other resource values and uses are secondary to the protection, maintenance, 

and restoration of an area’s special values for public education, enjoyment, and study. The 

following table (ROD Table - 8) lists these areas.

 ROD Table - 8

 Special Interest Areas for Minimal Recreation Use and Interpretation under

 Alternative K

Area Name Acres

Continental Divide Land Bridge 4,430

Dead Horse Creek 990

Main Elk Creek 4,680

Mitchell Creek 4,790

Porcupine 1,570

Quandary Peak 4,080

Sterry Lake 2,520

Taylor Pass 860 

Warren Lakes 340

Total Acres in MA 2.1 24,260

Management Area 2.2 – Research Natural Areas: I am selecting five individual 

areas for designation as RNAs in Alternative K (ROD Table - 9, FEIS, Appendix G). These 

are areas managed to protect or enhance exemplary ecosystems designated for nonmanipulative research, education, and maintenance of biodiversity. They are representative 

of a range of vegetation types and topographic features that have not been heavily

influenced by humans. Timber harvest is prohibited in these areas and there are some 

restrictions to livestock grazing. Limited development may occur in these areas and

recreation use will continue with few restrictions. These areas are not included in the 

suitable timberland base. 

Given the mix of areas recommended for wilderness designation, identified for nonmotorized recreation, managed as special interest areas with an emphasis on minimal use, 

and public comment, I believe these RNAs combined with other RNAs in the region will 

ensure the availability of research and education opportunities into the future. Additionally, 

valuable high elevation ecosystems are represented without a high level of redundancy. 

Alternative K, like all other alternatives, recognizes Hoosier Ridge, the one existing RNA 

on the White River. 

 

14 Special Interest Areas are described in the FEIS Appendix H, including the values for which the area was identified.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

22

The Lower Battlement Mesa RNA covers an area on both the White River National Forest 

and the Grand Mesa National Forest. As follow-up to this decision, I expect the Grand 

Mesa/Uncompahgre/Gunnison (GMUG) National Forests to review their Forest Plan that 

covers this area and to consider an amendment to that Plan as appropriate to include RNA 

direction. 

ROD Table - 9 

Acres and Names of Research Natural Areas under Alternative K

Research Natural Area Acres

Assignation Creek 4,000

Lower Battlement Mesa *24,400

Main Elk Creek 2,800

Gift and Kline Creeks 11,100

East Lake Creek/West Cross Creek 10,800

Total acreage** 53,100

 *Includes acreage on the adjacent Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison National Forests 

 ** Does not include the 300 acres on the established Hoosier Ridge RNA.

Category 3

Motorized 

recreation; 

interpretive 

special interest 

areas; scenic 

rivers

There is approximately 4% of the Forest, or 85,300 acres, included in these prescriptions. 

These prescriptions include Special Interest Areas, Backcountry, and eligible Scenic Rivers. 

My decision to select Alternative K is based on the inclusion of these areas and the role 

they play in the realization of Objectives and Desired Conditions for the Forest.

Management Area 3.1 - Special Interest Areas - Emphasis on Use or

Interpretation15: These will be managed to protect or enhance areas with special

characteristics. These areas have special plant, geologic, or historical characteristics and 

will play a significant role in the future of the Forest. By emphasizing use and interpretation 

in these areas, the Forest will recognize and manage use to protect the resources of special 

interest and consider future opportunities for interpretation (ROD Table - 10).

 ROD Table - 10

 Special Interest Areas for Recreation Use and Interpretation Under 

 Alternative K

Name Acres

Castle Creek and Ashcroft 100

Camp Hale 1,210

Coal Basin 1,020

Colorado Midland Railroad 1,190

Holy Cross City 170

Independence Pass 180

Total Acres in MA 3.1 3,870

Category 4

Dispersed 

recreation; scenic; 

recreational rivers

Approximately 4.5% of the Forest, or 103,300 acres, is included in these prescriptions. 

Allocations to these prescriptions are an important factor in my decision. These are lands 

where ecological processes are managed to be compatible with recreation use. These areas 

are the scenic backdrops for the nation’s number one recreation activity: driving for 

 

15 Special Interest Areas are described in the FEIS Appendix H, including the values for which the area was identified.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

23

are the scenic backdrops for the nation’s number one recreation activity: driving for 

pleasure and viewing scenery. Prescriptions in this category include Scenic Byways, scenic 

areas, vistas, or travel corridors. These areas are managed to protect or preserve the scenic 

and recreation values and uses of lands adjacent to Scenic Byways and railroads.

Category 5

Wildlife habitats; 

rangelands; forest 

products

These are areas managed to produce a mix of forage, forest products, and wildlife habitat, 

while maintaining scenic resources and offering recreation opportunities. Approximately 

50% of the Forest, or 1,127,900 acres, is included in these prescriptions. Prescriptions in 

this category include wildlife habitats, rangelands, and forest products.

Management Area 5.13 – Resource Production - Forest Products: These lands 

will be managed to provide commercial wood products. In addition, they will provide for 

forage production, commercial products, scenic quality, diversity of wildlife, and a variety 

of other goods and services. Numerous open roads in these areas will provide commercial 

access and roaded recreational opportunities, while closed roads provide non-motorized 

opportunities.

Under the implementation of direction in Alternative K, it is important to note that both 

offered and sold volumes will be lower than the ASQ and, at the same time, are likely to 

exceed mill capacity by as much as 8%. This allows flexibility to meet changing future 

demands.

The desired condition of this management area prescription will be to maintain suitable 

forested areas with commercially valuable tree species at ages, densities, and sizes that 

allow growth rates and stand health conducive to providing a sustained yield of forest 

products. A full array of silvicultural systems will be used that will produce a range of 

successional stages from seedlings to late-successional stands. Priority will be given to 

converting overmature stands to young stands managed at acceptable site occupancy and 

rates of growth. In areas in which timber harvest is planned, this direction calls for shorter 

and more frequent rotation periods. Wildfires will generally be suppressed and insect and 

disease populations maintained at endemic levels to protect commercial forest products.

Management Area 5.42 – Bighorn Sheep Habitat: Management emphasis for this 

prescription will be to provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover, escape terrain, 

and solitude for bighorn sheep and other species, while allowing vegetative manipulation 

that provides other multiple -use resources. With this allocation, I am choosing the

alternative with the most area designated as bighorn sheep habitat. Alternative K will 

provide protection for all four of the priority herds identified by the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife (CDOW), and the highest likelihood of maintaining the numbers and health of 

these herds by protective measures, and, in some areas, by pro-active management.

Alternative K provides the most protection for bighorn sheep from disease from domestic 

sheep in the Gore herd and will result in fewer conflicts with domestic sheep grazing

These areas will provide habitat for established bighorn sheep herds on the Forest. To

ensure bighorn sheep viability, maintaining and improving the habitat upon which bighorn 

sheep depend will be emphasized. Herd objectives will be established in cooperation with 

CDOW. Interpretive opportunities are provided in established viewing areas.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

24

Management Area 5.5 – Forested Landscape Linkages: I am placing an emphasis 

on the importance of landscape linkages. Alternative K places the highest acreage in

corridor designation of any alternative. The creation of habitat gaps heightens the risk that 

suitable habitats will become isolated from each other. Barriers to the movement of species 

from one suitable habitat patch to another reduce the connectivity of these habitats. When 

suitable vegetation types and cover conditions are present between patches, species can 

move between them. Corridors will provide areas for landscape-scale movement, migration, 

and dispersal of forest carnivores and other wide-ranging wildlife species; safe travel

connections between large blocks of forested landscapes across the Forest; and security 

from intensive recreational and other human disturbances. This is an important step in

providing for the maintenance of biodiversity across the forest. This prescription includes 

many of the aspects of two different management areas included in the Proposed Revised 

Forest Plan, Corridors Connecting Core Areas (3.55) and Forest Carnivores (5.45).

Category 6

Grasslands and 

related habitats

None of the Revised Forest Plan alternatives applied Category 6 prescriptions to lands 

within the White River National Forest. Category 6 is generally used for grassland and 

related habitats. 

Category 7

Urban/wildland 

mix

These are areas where public lands are intermingled with private lands to such an extent that 

ecosystem management objectives for National Forest system (NFS) lands must be 

tempered by other landowner’s uses and objectives. Less than 1% of the Forest,

approximately 7,800 acres, is allocated to this category. The allocation in Alternative K is 

responsive to public comment. 

Management Area 7.1 – Intermix: These areas are located along the borders of the 

Forest adjacent to other public and private lands. Many adjacent private lands are

experiencing pressure from urban and private residential development. Numerous public 

comments related to the high level of importance people assign to managing intermix areas 

on the Forest. I believe coordinating federal actions with adjacent landowners will prove 

critical to the success of Forest Service land management in areas of the White River 

National Forest experiencing rapid growth and urbanization. Implementation of the

National Fire Plan is one opportunity for such cooperative activities. 

Cooperative relationships will be emphasized with other agencies, local governmental 

jurisdictions, and adjacent landowners. Opportunities will be sought for coordinated, multijurisdictional management approaches to address resource issues and impacts that transcend 

the national forest boundary. Management actions will be geared toward influencing the 

vegetation composition and structure to promote visual screening and to minimize

hazardous fuel loading patterns.

Category 8

Ski areas and 

developed 

recreation sites; 

special uses

These are areas that feature special places for recreation activities with a variety of benefits 

for people and communities. In these areas, ecological conditions and natural processes are 

likely to be altered by human activities. There is approximately 3.5% of the Forest, or 

81,000 acres, included in these prescriptions. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

25

Management Area 8.25 Ski Areas, Existing and Potential: Alpine skiing and 

snowboarding are popular recreation activities on the Forest and an important part of 

Colorado’s tourist economy. Increased levels of participation in skiing and snowboarding at 

White River National Forest resorts over the last ten years has primarily been the result of a 

rapidly increasing population within the state. Over the next ten years, participation levels 

in skiing and snowboarding are expected to continue to increase in response this trend. 

Future demand for skiing is expected to be highest at the four existing ski areas in Summit 

County, which are closest to the Denver-metro area and Front Range cities. The smallest 

increases in use are expected to occur in Pitkin County where limited increases in

population growth are expected.

I have decided to allocate a sufficient number of acres for skiing and snowboarding to meet 

expected demand through the year 2010. Alternative K allocates a sufficient number of 

acres in Summit County and other locations that are most responsive to the effects of an 

increased population and demand. The mix of terrain allocated is intended to provide the 

types of terrain that best meet customer preferences and ability levels, and other qualitative 

or physical needs. 

The planned allocations will allow the four ski areas in Summit County the opportunity to 

provide a higher quality experience by lowering skier densities. In Eagle County,

adjustments are made in response to specific user needs, to balance terrain type with skier 

ability levels, and to protect natural resources. Several areas, with the potential for impacts 

to wildlife habitat, are removed from future consideration in this prescription. In Garfield 

and Pitkin Counties, the amount of terrain available is adequate to accommodate the

expected number of skiers for the next 10 years. Some minor adjustments in ski area

boundaries are being made in response to specific user needs. 

This ROD makes two boundary allocation adjustments (from those outlined in Alternative 

K) for Keystone Ski Area and Arapahoe Basin Ski Areas (ROD Figures 2 & 3). These 

modified maps replace the management area 8.25 allocation on the Alternative K maps in 

the map packet and on the website.
26

ROD Figure-2Arapahoe Basin Ski Area

ROD Figure-3Keystone Ski Area
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

27

Component 4: Land Suited or Not Suited for Certain Activities 

The decision I am making regarding the designation of lands suited or not suited for certain 

activities includes the designation of suitable timber lands and the establishment of an ASQ, 

designation of lands not suitable for grazing and browsing, the identification of lands 

suitable and available for oil and gas leasing, and the provision for a broad spectrum of 

outdoor recreation opportunities. 

Suitable Timber 

Lands and 

Allowable Sale 

Quantity

I selected Alternative K, in part, because of the amount of suitable lands and level of goods 

it provides. Tables displaying the suitable land base are in the FEIS (Chapter 3, Timber 

Section) and meet requirements of 36 CFR 219.14, 219.16, 219.20, and 219.21.

Alternatives C, E, and I produce the lowest levels of timber harvest. Lands suitable for 

timber production and availability of wood products are limited in both Alternatives E and 

I. The theme for Alternative C does not allow for road building in inventoried roadless 

areas. This results in a low timber harvest level.

Alternative F produces the highest level of harvest. This alternative does not fully resolve 

concerns expressed by other revision topics and would result in development of many

roadless areas on the Forest. Alternatives B and D move toward a balance between

production of forest products and protecting other resource values. Suitable lands include 

lands previously harvested and some inventoried roadless areas. 

Alternative K provides the balance I am seeking. Alternative K manages less acres of forest 

for timber than Alternative D, but provides a larger suitable timber base to draw from than 

Alternative B. It assures a sustainable and moderate level of timber harvest commensurate 

with past timber management on the Forest and guides harvest activities in an

environmentally sound manner. This alternative also provides for maintenance of forest 

health through a variety of vegetation management practices such at timber harvest,

prescribed burning, and livestock grazing. 

My decision to select Alternative K and the accompanying suitable timberlands is based on 

consideration of public comment, the importance of biological diversity, and the ability of 

the Forest to produce a sustainable level of timber harvest. There are 425,000 acres of land 

suitable for timber management. The ASQ is 74 million cubic feet (325 million board feet) 

per decade. ASQ is a measure of the White River National Forest’s capacity to produce a 

sustainable supply of timber on suitable timberlands given full timber program funding 

while adhering to resource protections represented by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. 

When the Forest incorporated experienced timber budget constraints to the ASQ

calculations, the Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ) for Alternative K is 28 million 

cubic feet (124 million board feet) per decade. I have decided to implement the TSPQ for 

Alternative K, which reflects harvest levels associated with experienced timber budgets.

Suitable Grazing 

Lands

Livestock grazing will continue on the White River National Forest. The standards and 

guidelines in Alternative K will improve unsatisfactory conditions on rangelands, maintain 

the quality of those in satisfactory conditions, and protect the Forest’s valuable riparian 

areas and wetlands. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

28

Alternative K emphasizes effective and efficient management of grazing allotments and 

considers some vacant allotments for closure. Urbanization, increases in property values, 

and the complexities of managing livestock in areas with high recreation use have led to a 

decline in the desirability and feasibility of some allotments for livestock production. Many 

of the adjacent ranches have been sold and subdivided. As a result, some allotments no 

longer support viable operations. Fifty-one allotments (31% of the total 163 allotments) 

currently lie vacant. Changes in the management of some allotments will be presented in a 

site-specific decision, tiered to the analysis done for the Revised Forest Plan FEIS.

Retention of some grazing allotments, although currently vacant, allows for management 

flexibility.

Lands Available 

for Oil and Gas 

Leasing 

I am affirming the decisions made in the ROD for the White River National Forest Oil and 

Gas Leasing EIS (May 26, 1993) with the changes described below. The changes to the 

1993 Oil and Gas Leasing decisions are made to bring those decisions into compliance with 

the Revised Forest Plan. The changes are based on new management area prescription 

allocations. 

The 1993 Oil and Gas Leasing ROD made two decisions: (1) lands administratively

available for oil and gas leasing activities and (2) the specific lands authorized for leasing. 

These decisions include the lease terms and stipulations that have been determined

necessary to protect the surface resources. This ROD adjusts those leasing decisions by 

reducing the lands available for leasing by approximately 90,700 acres. Specifically, lands 

recommended for wilderness, and found eligible for wild, scenic and recreational river 

designation are made administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

Recommended Wilderness - There are 15 areas of recommended wilderness in

Alternative K totaling approximately 82,000 acres. In the 1993 Oil and Gas Leasing 

ROD, 1,200 of these acres were designated administratively unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing activities. An additional 80,800 acres of recommended wilderness will be made 

administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing activities by this ROD. All 82,000 

acres of recommended wilderness, therefore, will be administratively unavailable. Each 

area of recommended wilderness was analyzed individually regarding its availability 

status. This information, be recommended wilderness, is presented in the Revised

Forest Plan FEIS. 

Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers - The following rivers were found to be 

eligible for wild, scenic, or recreational river designation in Alternative K: South Fork 

of the White River, Crystal River, Deep Creek, Colorado River, and Cross Creek. 

Cross Creek and small sections of South Fork of the White River and the Crystal River 

are located within wilderness and are therefore legally unavailable for leasing. 

Outside of Wilderness, there are a 17,600 acres included in the eligible river segments. 

In the 1993 Oil and Gas Leasing ROD, 7,700 of these acres were designated

administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing activities. An additional 9,900 acres 

of eligible wild, scenic, and recreational rivers will be made administratively

unavailable for oil and gas leasing activities by this ROD. All 17,600 acres of eligible 

river segments, therefore, will be administratively unavailable. For the revised Forest 

Plan, each river was analyzed individually regarding its availability status. This

information, by river, is included in the Revised Forest Plan FEIS. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

29

The changes in the forest-wide oil and gas leasing decision made by this ROD can be 

summarized as follows: 80,800 acres of recommended wilderness and 9,900 acres of

eligible wild, scenic, and recreational rivers are designated administratively unavailable for 

oil and gas leasing activities. These two changes result in the addition of 90,700 acres to 

the category of lands administratively unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

Changes in the availability decision are available on maps that show the original 1993 Oil 

and Gas Leasing decisions, and the specific locations of each recommended wilderness area 

and river segment that are now designated administratively unavailable. These maps are 

available in the administrative record for the Revised Forest Plan located in the Supervisor’s 

Office in Glenwood Springs, CO.

Lands 

Withdrawn from 

Mineral Activity 

Locatable minerals are those valuable deposits subject to exploration and development 

under the General Mining Law of 1872 and its amendments. These resources commonly are 

referred to as “hardrock” minerals, and include gold, silver, molybdenum, iron, copper, 

zinc, lead, and alabaster. Within the White River National Forest, approximately 755,000 

acres are designated wilderness, and are currently withdrawn from mineral activity. 

Alternative K identifies an additional 200,200 acres in management areas where other

resource values will preclude mineral activity. These management areas are: recommended 

wilderness, wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, research natural areas, developed

recreation complexes, and ski areas. Upon issuance of this ROD, the Forest Service will 

request that the BLM withdraw these lands from mineral entry. Upon withdrawal, there 

will be a total of approximately 955,200 acres withdrawn from mineral entry on the White 

River National Forest. 

Recreation 

Opportunity 

Spectrum 

Alternative K provides for a broad spectrum of outdoor recreation opportunities. The

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes tie together factors such as setting,

experience, and activities. Through these factors, ROS classes identify the suitability of an 

area for a variety of recreational opportunities. Opportunities that may be provided range 

from solitude and high personal challenge in the Pristine ROS class (on the most remote 

and undeveloped lands) through five classes of progressively more development, to highly 

developed experiences in the Urban ROS class (in areas immediately adjacent to

communities). Forest-wide, emphasis is placed on semi-primitive non-motorized 

opportunities, followed, by primitive and semi-primitive motorized opportunities. 

Component 5: Monitoring and Evaluation Activities

I am establishing a strategy, along with requirements, for monitoring and evaluating the 

implementation and effectiveness of the Revised Forest Plan and the validity of

assumptions used in its preparation. Monitoring and evaluation direction is required by 36 

CFR 219.11(d). It is my intent to invite the public and other agencies to participate in 

monitoring. A description of this monitoring strategy can be found in Chapter 4 of the 

Revised Forest Plan. 

I believe effective monitoring and evaluation will foster improved management and more 

informed planning decisions. Monitoring and evaluation are learning tools that form the 

backbone of adaptive management. With these tools, data is collected and compiled to serve 

as reference points for the future. New scientific understanding and technology, changes in 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

30

law, policy, and resource conditions, growing concerns, trends, and changing societal

values can all be incorporated into forest planning. In the development of the Revised 

Forest Plan, the monitoring focus has shifted from specific activities to broad programmatic 

requirements and connected activities. These broad requirements satisfy the regulatory 

provisions and are responsive to the Revised Forest Plan goals and objectives. Because the 

requirements are flexible and adaptable, they allow new knowledge and techniques to be 

easily incorporated into the monitoring plan. 

The Monitoring and Evaluation Chapter in the Revised Forest Plan identifies the legally 

required monitoring activities; the action, effect, or resource to be measured; the monitoring 

schedule; and the level of precision or reliability. Also listed are additional monitoring 

activities to be conducted based on funding and personnel availability. 

Component 6: Congressional Recommendations 

In assigning management area delineations, I am making related decisions for special

designations. In accordance with 36 CFR 219.17, I am making a recommendation to

Congress that 82,000 acres of land be designated as additional wilderness on the White 

River National Forest (ROD Table - 11). 

Factors considered in determining the need to recommend an inventoried roadless area as 

wilderness are outlined in FSH 1909.12.7.23b and are described in Appendix C of the FEIS. 

Red Table/Gypsum Creek and Assignation Ridge provide biological diversity to designated 

wilderness with additional acres of under-represented low elevation cover types. Other 

areas were recommended to provide additional wilderness recreation opportunities (social 

need), to improve boundary management of existing wilderness, and to complement

adjacent BLM management strategies. 

ROD Table - 11

 Recommended Wilderness Areas and Acres under Alternative K

Area Name County Adjacent 

Wilderness

Acres

Red Table and Gypsum Creek Eagle County Not adjacent to any 49,800

Woods Lake Eagle County Holy Cross 4,700

Red Dirt Eagle County Flat Tops 100

Freeman Creek Eagle County Eagles Nest 300

Spraddle Creek Eagle County Eagles Nest 900

Ripple Creek Pass Garfield County Flat Tops 1,000

Dome Peak Garfield County Flat Tops 600

Sweetwater Garfield County Flat Tops 800

Treasure Mountain Gunnison County Raggeds 1,500

Assignation Ridge Pitkin County Not adjacent to any 11,800

Hunter Pitkin County Hunter-Frying Pan 1,100

Mormon Creek Pitkin County Holy Cross 3,000

North Independence “A” Pitkin County Hunter-Frying Pan 3,000

Acorn Creek Summit County Ptarmigan Peak 900

Ute Peak Summit County Ptarmigan Peak 2,000

This recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive 

further review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the Secretary of 

Agriculture, and the President of the United States. The Congress has reserved the
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

31

authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation. Therefore, this wilderness

recommendation is not appealable under the agency's administrative appeal procedures

(FSM 1923.11). 

Freeman Creek Recommended Wilderness Boundary. This decision modifies the 

boundary for the Freeman Creek recommended wilderness area on the Holy Cross District 

to accommodate road access to private land northwest of Piney Lake and adjacent to the 

Eagles Nest Wilderness. The modification removes approximately 40 acres from the 292 

acres proposed as recommended wilderness. The area excluded from recommended

wilderness will be managed similarly to the surrounding land in 1.31 MA prescription.

Single Unit Wilderness Management. To provide wilderness visitors consistent

experiences across administrative boundaries, wilderness areas throughout the Region are 

managed under the concept of single unit management direction. The White River National 

Forest contains approximately 83% of the acres of the Flat Tops Wilderness and is the lead 

management unit. The Routt National Forest has the remaining acreage; its Land and 

Resource Management Plan was revised in 1998. As follow-up to this decision, I expect the 

Routt National Forest to review the wilderness direction in the Revised Forest Plan and to 

update the Flat Tops Wilderness management direction where conflict exists.

Similarly, the White River National Forest wilderness management direction will be 

reviewed when the Pike/San Isabel National Forest and the Grand

Mesa/Uncompahgre/Gunnison National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans are 

revised. In wildernesses where the adjacent Forest is the lead management unit, the White 

River will update its wilderness management direction where conflict exists. 

Colorado Army National Guard Operations. The Colorado Army National Guard, 

High-altitude ARNG Aviation Training Site operations on the White River National Forest 

provide unique and valuable high altitude and rough terrain aviation training opportunities 

for military pilots. This decision affirms the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated 

April 3, 1987, between the Colorado Army National Guard, the BLM, and the Forest 

Service. 

In addition, I intend that the Forest Supervisor initiate a review and amendment of the MOU 

to be completed by September of 2002. Aviation training activities conducted within

wilderness and recommended wilderness shall be identified in the amendment to the MOU. 

As stipulated in the MOU, an annual review of operations will be completed to assure that 

“use of the airspace over the public lands is conducted so as to lessen impacts, if any, on the 

natural resource values of the land.” The review shall include consideration of alternate 

locations outside of wilderness and recommended wilderness over NFS lands and lands 

administered by the BLM for training exercises. The Forest Service will work cooperatively 

with the Colorado Army National Guard and the BLM to identify locations outside of 

wilderness and recommended wilderness that meet aerial training needs and will modify the 

memorandum accordingly.

Roadless Inventory. We have updated our roadless inventory in this Revised Forest 

Plan. This information is included in Chapter 3 of the FEIS and in Appendix C of the FEIS 

and located in the map packet for the FEIS. This inventory will be used for all related 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

32

Revised Forest Plan implementation activities and replaces the 1979 RARE II16 inventory as 

the official White River National Forest roadless inventory.

Wild and Scenic Rivers. Congress designates wild and scenic rivers. The Forest Plan 

will manage 109 miles of stream for their wild and scenic values (ROD Table - 12). These 

values were identified in an eligibility study, the first phase of a two-phase process, of all 

rivers on the White River National Forest. The second phase of the wild and scenic river 

study addresses their suitability for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic River System. Upon 

completion of the second phase, final recommendations will be made to Congress. All 

action alternatives included the same 109 miles, with the exception of Alternative B, the 

modified no action alternative.

ROD Table - 12 

Streams Found Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River 

System under Alternative K

Name* Length 

(miles)

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values

Potential

Classification

South Fork of the White 

River

25 recreation, scenery, geologic wild and scenic

Crystal River 39 scenery, historic, recreational wild, scenic,

recreational

Deep Creek 13**

2

***

geologic, scenic, recreational, 

and ecologic condition

wild, scenic, 

recreational

Colorado River 

(Segment 1) 4 geologic, scenic driving recreational

Colorado River

 (Segment 2) 5 geologic, scenic driving recreational

Cross Creek

(From the headwaters 

to the wilderness 

boundary)

23 fisheries wild

 *Detailed descriptions of the stream segments can be found in Appendix F of the FEIS.

 **Portions on public lands administered by White River National Forest

 ***Portions on public lands administered by BLM.

HOW THE DECISION WAS REACHED

In order to reach a final decision on which alternative to implement, I needed a way to 

understand the vast amount of information that had been generated throughout the planning 

process. I sought a method to integrate the three bases supporting my decision – scientific 

and technical analyses, the views of the public and our stakeholders, and legal mandates and 

policy direction. I chose to use a structured process that has been proven effective in 

helping to sort through and organize complex issues and the wealth of knowledge

concerning them. Called “choosing by advantages”17, this process involved several steps:

First – The Leadership Team of the White River National Forest took each of the revision 

topics listed in the Description of the Alternatives Considered in Detail section of this ROD 

 

16 The 1979 Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE) II EIS identified the administrative designation of roadless 

areas nationwide. 

17 Suhr, Jim, The Choosing by Advantages Decisionmaking System, Quorum Books, 1999.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

33

and divided them into twenty components, or subfactors. In addition, four subfactors were 

developed to reflect social and economic issues, as shown below:

• Biodiversity

o Opportunities to Improve Forest Health

o Canada Lynx Management

o Potential Viable Populations of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout

o Elk Habitat Management

o Risk to Watershed Health

o Maintaining Management Flexibility Through the Retention of Vacant Allotments

• Travel Management and Recreation Management

o Summer Off-road Travel Opportunities for Motor Vehicles

o Summer Motorized Recreation Capacity

o Non-motorized Use Without Motorized Influence in Winter Outside of Wilderness

o Winter Travel Opportunities for Motorized Vehicles

o Estimated Dispersed Summer Theoretical Capacity

o Estimated Skier Visits in Relation to Practical Annual Skier Capacity

• Roadless Areas and Special Areas

o Natural Appearing Landscapes

o Special Areas Protected for Biological/Zoological Purposes

o Special Areas Protected for Public Use and Interpretation

o Recommended Wilderness with Highest Capability Ranking

o Wilderness Managed for Pristine Conditions

o Recommended Wilderness in Lower Elevation Ecosystem Types

o Roadless Areas Managed to Retain their Undeveloped/Unroaded Character

• Timber Suitability and Allowable Sale Quantity

o Suitable Timber Lands

• Social and Economic

o Winter Seasonal Employment

o Summer Seasonal Employment

o Demand for Affordable Housing/Rental Units

o Fiscal Impact on Local Governments

Second – Attributes of each subfactor were determined and measured by the

Interdisciplinary Team, e.g., for the subfactor Elk Habitat Management, the attribute was 

acres identified for critical summer and winter habitat (management area 5.41 – Deer and 

Elk Winter Range and management area 5.43 – Elk Habitat).

Third – For each subfactor, the advantage provided by each alternative was determined.

Fourth – Each advantage was assigned a relative level of importance and information was 

developed for each subfactor that illustrated the tradeoffs involved in seeking the maximum 

advantage for individual subfactors. This step involved in-depth discussions of each

subfactor in light of the knowledge gained through the planning process and the

professional expertise of the Leadership Team. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

34

Two subfactors, Wilderness Managed for Pristine Conditions, and Fiscal Impact on Local 

Governments, were dropped at this stage of the process.

Fifth - By considering the advantages and the importance of each advantage by subfactor, 

and assessing the tradeoffs involved among them, I was able to identify one alternative that 

provided the greatest overall advantage. That alternative is “K”, the Selected Alternative.

OTHER ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Present Net 

Value

In addition to the subfactors identified above, economic efficiency analysis provides 

additional information that was considered in determining the selected alternative. The main 

criterion used in assessing economic efficiency is present net value, which is defined as the 

value of discounted benefits minus discounted costs. The FEIS, Chapter 3, Financial and 

Economic Efficiency section analyzes benefit and cost implications of the various

alternatives. This analysis showed that Alternative K has the second highest present net 

value. Alternative B, the no action alternative, has the highest present net value. 

Net Public 

Benefits

The importance of selecting the alternative that creates the highest net public benefit was 

emphasized in the decision making process. Net public benefits are defined as the overall 

value to the nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits) minus all the associated 

Forest Service inputs and negative effects (costs) for producing those primary benefits, 

whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. Conceptually, it is helpful to think of net 

public benefits as the sum of the economic analysis plus the net value of non-priced benefits 

that have been discussed above.

With the exception of Alternative B, the no action alternative, all alternatives presented in 

the FEIS meet the purpose and need of the Revised Forest Plan and respond at some level to 

all the revision topics. Given this context, it was important to focus the decision making 

process on the kinds and amounts of benefits or advantages offered by each alternative. 

Information used in the process came from a variety of sources including agency analysis 

and public input. I placed a significant emphasis on integrating public comment on the 

DEIS into the decision-making process. 

I have found that Alternative K does the best job at balancing the trade-offs for competing 

uses, values, costs, and outputs. The advantages of Alternative K outweigh the advantages 

of any other alternative. Therefore, Alternative K produces the highest net public benefits.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require agencies to specify the 

alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable [40 CFR 

1505.2(b)]. Forest Service policy (FSH 1909.15, Section 05) defines environmentally

preferable as:
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

35

“An alternative that best meets the goals of Section 101 of NEPA....Ordinarily this is 

the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment 

and best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources.”

Although the Act itself does not define the environmentally preferred alternative, it does 

suggest national environmental policy (42 USC, Section 4331, Sec. 101 (b)). That policy 

calls for the continuing responsibility of federal government to use all practicable means to 

improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources so that the nation may:

1. “Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustees of the environment for 

succeeding generations 

2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and

culturally pleasing surroundings. 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without

degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended

consequences. 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our natural heritage 

and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and 

variety of individual choice.

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum

attainable recycling of depletable resources.”

Given these criteria, Alternative K has been identified as the environmentally preferred

alternative. This ROD has discussed the decision process and the comparisons of the 

alternatives through a deliberative process. That process, described in the previous section, 

included the evaluation of net pubic benefit, subfactors, attributes and advantages.

It is my assessment that Alternative K best meets the goals and the substantive requirements 

of Section 101 of NEPA. Alternative K will ensure the future health of the land by

providing appropriate opportunities for active management to work in concert with natural 

ecological processes. The maintenance of forest health and the physical resources is attained 

while securing the viability of plant and animal species into the future. 

Opportunities for quality visitor experiences are plentiful. Alternative K provides for a wide 

range of beneficial uses, such as timber production, livestock grazing, downhill skiing,

dispersed and developed recreation, and oil and gas development. Standards and guidelines 

within the Revised Forest Plan guard against undesirable and/or unintended outcomes. 

Alternative K management area allocations preserve historic and natural aspects of the

Forest and they provide for the expression of variety of individual preferences. I believe 

that Alternative K also achieves a balance between sustainable resource use and ecological

sustainability that will best satisfy a variety of public needs and uses. This alternative 

provides for high quality, sustainable resource management. Enhancing forest health while 

providing sustainable resource production and recreation opportunities will continue to 

contribute to the vitality of local communities.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

36

CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT EIS AND FINAL EIS 

Extensive public comment, shifts in regional and agency priorities, and new direction all 

contributed to the need for changes between the DEIS and FEIS. These changes are 

summarized below.

Public Input. Over 14,000 individual pieces of public input were received on the DEIS 

and Proposed Revised Forest Plan. Many offered recommendations or requests for changes 

or improvements in the environmental analysis; identified changes, improvements, or

suggested new alternatives; or suggested modifications to the goals, objectives, standards 

and guidelines. Public input received on the DEIS and accompanying Proposed Revised 

Forest Plan also identified the need for several minor improvements to analysis and

presentation of materials in the FEIS and Revised Forest Plan. As a result, editorial or other 

inconsistencies in the presentation of information in the DEIS were corrected for the FEIS. 

Water. Public comment on the Proposed Revised Forest Plan identified the management 

of water and aquatic resources as a key concern to a variety of people and organizations. 

This high level of concern resulted in re-examination of water direction. A variety of 

factors, including public comment, the 2000 Forest Service GPRA Strategic Plan, national 

policies and internal agency review, influenced the revision of forestwide direction

pertaining to water and aquatic resources. This revised direction focuses on achieving 

desired conditions and supporting ecological functions. Working collaboratively with 

interested parties to apply a variety of approaches to management of aquatic and streambased resources are also emphasized. The revised direction conforms more closely to 

language in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), while also

considering public concerns and internal agency guidance. 

Species Viability. The scientific community and the Courts have recognized that NFMA 

does not create a precise standard for the diversity of plant and animal communities, and the 

viability of species populations. In determining whether alternative management scenarios 

will maintain viable populations, absolute certainty is not possible, and analysis must focus 

on assessing risks. Numerous factors, which vary according to the characteristics of

individual species and particular ecosystems, are considered in evaluating risk. 

On March 29, 2001, David Tenney, Acting Deputy Undersecretary for Natural Resources 

and the Environment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, issued decisions regarding 

appeals of forest plans in Colorado. These decisions provide general guidance for the 

viability standard in the 1982 NFMA planning rule. The Forest Service then issued this 

general guidance to the Regional Foresters in a letter signed by Associate Deputy Chief 

Sally Collins (1920/1570 letter, June 17, 2001) which stated:

“Forest Service decisionmakers have considerable discretion regarding how to provide 

for viability, so long as relevant factors are not overlooked, no clear errors of judgment 

are made, a rationale is provided for using the approach taken, and the plain language of 

the regulations are met.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

37

In keeping with the statutory requirements to provide for diversity “within the multiple -

use objectives of a land management plan” (16 USC 1604 (g)(3)(B)) the amount and 

quality of scientific information should be commensurate with the land management 

activities projected in the forest plan and the viability risks associated with those 

activities.”

I find that the approach taken by the White River National Forest to analyze species 

viability, as described in the FEIS and its appendices, is consistent with this direction. It 

appropriately considers the viability risks associated with the land management activities 

projected in the Plan, and uses the amount and quality of scientific information that is 

relevant to those risks. 

New Listings Under Endangered Species Act (ESA). As a result of the listing of 

the Canada lynx under the ESA on March 24, 2000, and corresponding regional efforts 

towards a strategy for managing lynx habitat, further analysis was completed for the FEIS. 

In response to the analysis, additional goals, objectives, standards and guidelines were

developed and applied forest-wide for all alternatives in the Revised Forest Plan to ensure 

the Forest’s contribution to lynx recovery. 

National Fire Plan. Concerns over wildfire have grown over the past several years. In 

response to these concerns, a variety of reports and plans were drafted on the subject 

beginning in 2000, after the draft forest planning documents were completed. The National 

Fire Plan was the result of these efforts. The National Fire Plan is a long-term investment 

that will help protect communities and natural resources, and most importantly, the lives of 

firefighters and the public. Some activities associated with the National Fire Plan depend on 

receiving adequate funding. Analysis in the FEIS was not based on potential funding or 

targets associated with National Fire Plan, due to uncertainty of year-to-year funding. If the 

levels of fuels treatment or prescribed fire vary significantly in the future, the Forest Plan 

will be reviewed to determine if amendments are needed. Analyses regarding fuels

treatment and prescribed fire were examined, similar to all other activities in the FEIS, 

using historic budget levels. I recognize the importance and the value of the National Fire 

Plan and expect to implement activities associated with it during the duration of the Forest 

Plan. 

Roadless. Direction in the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule was considered in 

the period following the issuance of the DEIS. However, the Forest Service was enjoined 

from applying this direction, subject to ongoing efforts to revise the rule. Chief Bosworth 

made clear, in his June 7, 2001, letter, that the agency is committed to protecting and 

managing roadless areas. The Revised Forest Plan addresses protection of those areas in a 

forest-wide guideline. Specifically, it directs management activities to “emphasize longterm maintenance of roadless characteristics...” Furthermore, management of these areas 

must comply with all national inventoried roadless direction. 

Since the Forest Plan revision was substantially completed by January 12, 2002, I have 

extended the deadline for completing the Forest Roads Analysis to January 13, 2003. Until 

such time as the analysis is completed, compliance with Interim Directives 1920-2001-1 

and 7710-2001-3 (December 14, 2001) will assure that roadless areas will be managed

consistently and that the important environmental values associated with them will be 

protected. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

38

Travel Management. Draft, site-specific, travel management plans accompanied each

alternative presented in the DEIS. In response to public comment, to improve on the ground 

inventories, and to allow time to engage the public in a dialogue on the future of the

transportation system on the Forest, we have separated the site-specific travel plan from the 

forest plan revision process. This resulted in changes to the analysis displayed in the draft 

that relied on site-specific data on the future of the transportation system. All comments 

offered by the public in response to the draft travel plans released with the DEIS will be 

carried forward into the travel management planning process. 

Social and Economic Analysis. In response to public comment, the White River 

National Forest revisited the social and economic analysis presented in the DEIS. A series 

of stakeholder meetings were held to clarify and validate the significance of the social and 

economic attributes analyzed in the DEIS. Data provided from these meetings was used to 

capture the social and economic consequences of each alternative in a meaningful manner 

for the public. This resulted in further social analysis and a higher level of specificity with 

regard to community impacts, including a discussion in the FEIS about urbanization. 

Formulation of Alternative K. Alternative K was developed in response to public 

comments received on the DEIS and the Proposed Revised Forest Plan that accompanied it, 

and to incorporate new Forest Service policies and direction. Many of the public’s concerns 

focused on the need for an alternative that better emphasized various combinations of uses 

across the Forest.

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS

I have considered the statutes governing management of the White River National Forest, 

and I believe that this decision represents the best possible approach to both harmonizing 

and reconciling the current statutory duties of the Forest Service. 

Clean Air Standards 

As discussed in the FEIS, Chapter 3: Part 1, Section 3 – Air Resources, all lands managed 

by the Forest are currently in attainment with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Compliance with air quality statutes is directed in the Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 2: 

Section 1 – Physical, Air Resources.

Clean Water Act 

The Revised Forest Plan contains direction to ensure all projects comply with the

requirements of the Clean Water Act. This direction is found in the Revised Forest Plan, 

Chapter 2: Section 1, Water and Riparian Resources. A water assessment was completed to 

show the current condition of streams and watersheds on the Forest. This information is 

found in the FEIS Appendix J – Watershed Assessment.

The Rocky Mountain Region Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, released on

December 26, 1996 (amended on December 18, 2001, R2 amendment number 2509.25-

2001-1), provides direction for protection of soil, aquatic and riparian systems.

Implementation of the Revised Forest Plan is expected to contribute to protecting or 

restoring the physical, chemical and biological integrity of water of the United States in 

accordance with the Act. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

39

National Historic Preservation Act 

In accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, Forest Plans are not undertakings under the National Historic

Preservation Act. Consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the Act is not required at the 

Forest Plan level. As discussed in the Heritage Resource section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS, 

activities in the Revised Forest Plan will be in compliance with the Act. Conformance with 

the Act is directed in the Revised Forest Plan in Chapter 2: Section 4 – Social, Heritage

Resources. Additional direction is provided in FSM 2360 as referenced in FEIS Chapter 3, 

Topic 5, Part 1 – Heritage Resources.

Endangered Species Act 

A Biological Assessment was prepared to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed 

Revised Forest Plan on federally listed species and their habitat. The Biological Assessment 

concluded that implementation of Alternative K for the Forest Plan Revision would have 

“No Effect” on the Penland alpine fen mustard and the Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly; 

“May Effect, but not likely to adversely affect” the Southwestern willow flycatcher, bald 

eagle and the Mexican spotted owl; and “may affect, likely to adversely affect” the Canada 

lynx, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker. The

Biological Assessment was transmitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on September 

19, 2001, with a request to initiate formal consultation.

In the March 19, 2002 Biological Opinion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred 

with the determinations of “No effect” on the Penland alpine fen mustard and the 

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, and “Not likely to adversely affect” the Southwestern

willow flycatcher, bald eagle and the Mexican spotted owl. 

Canada Lynx. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that the action, as proposed 

in Alternative K for the Forest Plan Revision, will not jeopardize the continued existence of 

the Canada lynx; since no critical habitat has been designated, none will be affected. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that implementation of Alternative K for the 

Forest Plan Revision will result in the incidental take of Canada lynx. To minimize 

incidental take, projects that implement the Revised Forest Plan will comply with the 

Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions contained in the Biological 

Opinion. The Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions applicable to 

Canada lynx are:

Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1: Measures shall be taken at the individual

project level to eliminate or minimize adverse affects to Canada lynx and their habitat. 

Term and Condition 1. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1: The 

Forest Service shall provide an annual report to the Service that summarizes, by Lynx 

Analysis Unit (LAU) the current habitat conditions as compared with the baseline in 

2002. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2: Measures shall be taken across the Forest to 

improve habitat conditions for lynx prey, primarily the snowshoe hare and red squirrel. 

Term and Condition 2. To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2: The 

Forest Service shall, within lynx habitat described in the Colorado lynx habitat mapping 

as “other” lynx habitat, implement techniques to improve habitat conditions for
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

40

showshoe hare and red squirrel. This can be accomplished through the incorporation of 

fire, timber management, or other vegetation management practices. The purpose is to 

improve winter foraging opportunities for lynx, both spatially and temporally. To

accomplish the term and condition, where projects result in a permanent conversion of 

winter foraging habitat (will continue to be managed in unsuitable condition through the 

life of the Forest Plan), a project component shall be included to treat “other” lynx 

habitat equal to or greater than the number of acres being affected, within the same or, 

with approval of the Service, and adjacent LAU. Focus of these activities should be 

within mature, mesic lodgepole pine stands that currently provide lower quality winter 

foraging habitat and move it towards higher quality winter forage habitat conditions. 

Reasonable and Prudent Measure 3. Determine baseline snow compaction

conditions, to include permitted routes, snowmobile play areas, and frequent use areas 

for all winter activities.

Term and Condition 3: To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 3: The 

Forest Service shall complete snow compaction mapping within one year of Forest Plan 

approval. This information will be used in the development of appropriate use levels 

and location of use in the Travel Management Plan, which shall be initiated within one 

year of Forest Plan approval.

Endangered Fishes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also determined that the action, 

as proposed in Alternative K for the Forest Plan Revision, will not jeopardize the continued 

existence of the Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker, or 

result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat, within the Colorado 

River Basin above the Gunnison River. Through continuation of existing uses and potential 

new uses, the proposed action will jeopardize the continued existence of the Colorado

pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker, and result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of their critical habitat, within the White River drainage. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service determined that sufficient progress has been achieved under the 

Recovery Program so that it can serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative to avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy to the endangered fishes in the White River drainage. The

Reasonable and Prudent Measure and Term and Condition applicable to Colorado

pikeminnow, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker are:

Reasonable and Prudent Measure 4: Measures shall be taken to minimize the

impacts of water depletions on the endangered fishes which occur within the Colorado 

and White River drainage.

Term and Condition 4: To implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure 4: Conduct 

consultation for projects where water depletions will result, in the appropriate manner 

(Colorado River, White River). Depletions in the Colorado River may fall under the 

umbrella of the Colorado River Programmatic Biological Opinion Number ES/GJ-6-

CO-99-F-033. Analysis of projects will determine if this is the case and appropriate 

action will be taken, as directed by that opinion. Depletions that occur in the White 

River do not fall under the umbrella of the Colorado River programmatic biological 

opinion, and therefore must undergo formal consultation for individual projects. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

41

Conservation Recommendations that were provided in the Biological Opinion will 

be considered during project planning. Standards protecting T&E Species can be found 

in the Revised Forest Plan, Chapter 2, Section 2, Proposed, Threatened and Endangered

Species and Sensitive Species.

MITIGATION AND MONITORING

The Forest Service uses data from the monitoring program in Chapter 4 of the Revised 

Forest Plan to update and maintain baseline inventory data, to assess progress towards

meeting plan goals and objectives, to validate effectiveness of guidance provided in the 

plan, and to assess the need for amending or revising the plan. A monitoring

implementation strategy has been prepared which provides specific information on each 

item. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Implementation of this ROD will occur 30 calendar days after the legal notice of this 

decision is published in the Federal Register [36 CFR 219.10 c(1)]. 

APPLICATION TO CONTRACTS, PERMITS AND SPECIAL USE AUTHORIZATIONS

The NFMA requires that “permits, contracts, and other instruments for use and occupancy” 

of NFS lands be “consistent” with the Forest Plan [16 U.S.C. 1604(i)]. In the Revised Forest 

Plan context, NFMA specifically conditions this requirement in three ways: 

1) These documents must be revised only “when necessary;” 

2) These documents must be revised as “soon as practicable;” 

3) Any revisions are “subject to valid existing rights.” 

Permits, contracts and other authorizations which are determined by the responsible official 

to be consistent with this decision, or which are adjusted to be consistent may proceed. This 

language allows the decision maker a great deal of discretion. 

Most timber sale decisions are implemented through a three-year contract. While a timber 

sale contract is a valid existing right, the terms of the contract allow modification. 

Therefore, modification of a timber contract under its terms would not violate the “valid 

existing right” provision. Nevertheless, I have decided not to modify any existing timber 

sale contracts solely due to the Revised Forest Plan. As stated earlier, it is assumed that 

these contracts will be executed according to their terms. Finally, existing timber contracts 

will, in most cases, have been completed within three years. The decision is left to the 

Forest Supervisor to determine whether to modify decisions authorizing timber sales not 

currently under contract.

Other use and occupancy agreements are for substantially longer term than timber contracts. 

For example, grazing permits are generally issued for a 10-year term. These permits can be 

cancelled in whole or in part or otherwise modified, at any time during the term to conform 

with needed changes brought about by law, regulation, executive order, allotment

management plans and land management planning. Changes in grazing permits may be 

made to achieve objectives identified in forest plans and/or NEPA analysis and decisions. 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

42

Modifications to grazing permits can be made by a letter, issuance of a new Term Grazing 

Permit, or a standard modification form. In the standard modification form, the authorizing 

officer may include as terms and conditions of the grazing permit those applicable standards 

and guidelines contained in the Forest Plan and/or NEPA analysis and decision that specify 

appropriate management requirements. The allotment management plans and annual

operating instructions are incorporated as part of the term grazing permit.

It is my intention to see grazing permits brought into compliance with the Revised Forest 

Plan in a two-step process:

1. Upon approval of the Revised Forest Plan, all grazing permits will be modified, 

either with a Standard Modification Form or in the Annual Operating Instructions, 

as appropriate to include applicable direction. This includes, but may not be limited 

to issues of forage utilization and water and riparian resources.

2. When Allotment Management Plan NEPA documentation is completed per NEPA 

and the Rescission Act [Public Law 104-19, Section 504; July 27, 1995] schedule,

all other applicable Revised Forest Plan direction will be incorporated into the 

Grazing Permit and/or Allotment Management Plan which is a part of the permit. 

I find that applying the Revised Forest Plan’s standards and guidelines through this process 

will meet the “as soon as practicable” NFMA provision.

Other classes of “use and occupancy” agreements will be reviewed to determine whether or 

when the Forest Supervisor should exercise discretion to bring them into compliance with 

the Revised Forest Plan. Some decisions recently made but not yet implemented, will be 

reviewed, adjusted and implemented to meet the direction found in the Revised Forest Plan. 

Specifically this applies, on a case-by-case basis, to ski area development projects. I expect 

that the decision maker for such projects will review the decisions to determine if

adjustments need to be made.

The decision maker has the discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to modify pre-existing 

authorizations to bring them into compliance with the Revised Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines. I find that the statutory criteria of “as soon as practicable” and excepting “valid 

existing rights” are useful in exercising that discretion. 

SKI AREA PERMITS

It is my intent that after the Forest Plan decision is implemented, each ski area permit will 

be amended to make the permit boundary the same as the 8.25 management area boundary. 

These modifications are required by the ski area permit itself which states (FS-2700-5b 

IH1): “The terms and conditions of this authorization shall be subject to revision to reflect 

changing times and conditions so that land use allocation decisions made as a result of 

revision to Forest Land and Resource Management Plan may be incorporated.” 

The idea of equating the permit boundary and the management area boundary was mapped 

as a feature of Alternative D in the Draft EIS, and its environmental effects were disclosed 

in that document. This idea was carried forward into Alternative K as modified. This action 

does not authorize new facilities or activities. Amending the ski area permits to reflect the 

management area 8.25 boundaries does not, in any instance, constitute authorization for use 

or development.
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

43

VACANT GRAZING ALLOTMENT DECISION 

The environmental effects of management alternatives for vacant domestic grazing

allotments were analyzed in the FEIS and prepared for the Revised Forest Plan. A separate 

decision document will be prepared that will identify specific vacant allotments that will be 

closed, and specific vacant allotments that will be partially retained. This decision will be 

made approximately three months after the release of the Forest Plan decision. The Forest 

Supervisor will make this decision. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Management area allocations in this decision determine allowable uses and access to areas 

of the Forest for motorized vehicles. Although the Forest will soon begin a travel

management process, certain changes to the current travel system are necessary to bring the 

current travel map into compliance with the Revised Forest Plan. I believe the changes to 

current use are important to protect resources in areas recommended for wilderness

designation and to eliminate conflicts with the designation of areas for backcountry nonmotorized recreation. While certain kinds of use are restricted, this change, in itself, does 

not close any designated Forest roads or trails to all uses. Some specific roads and trails, 

will, however, be closed to motorized uses. These roads and trails will not be obliterated, 

however use on these roads and trails may be closed to motorized use. This is a change 

from motorized use to non-motorized use (foot and horse and/or mountain bikes). 

The use of the primary forest roads (maintenance levels 3, 4 and 5) will not be changed by 

this decision. Any needed changes will be determined by a separate analysis, which will 

include public input. It is important to note that any current rights-of-way and agreements 

for private land access will remain in place. In addition, roads under other jurisdictions such 

as county and state roads shall continue to function as currently designated. 

Portions of the following roads and trails (ROD Table - 13) use designations will be 

changed in a Travel Order to be in compliance with the management area prescriptions in 

this Revised Forest Plan. The Travel Order will be signed after this ROD is approved. 

Travel maps at the Forest and District level will be revised to reflect these changes at the 

earliest possible date. The Travel Order, signed by the Forest Supervisor, will define 

specific miles and the allowable uses on the roads and trails in the following table. All 

seasonal restrictions, special orders, private access rights, special use permits, and legal 

statutes currently in use will continue to be applicable.

The Travel Management Plan will expand this table to include the level and types of use on 

all roads and trails on the White River National Forest. Activities in the Travel Management 

Plan are site-specific and will require analysis and disclosure of effects under NEPA. These 

site-specific analyses will be done during implementation of the Revised Forest Plan. The 

management area prescriptions defined in the Revised Forest Plan, and the standards

defining the type of use allowed or restrictions within these prescriptions will be followed 

in the Travel Management Plan. Work on the Travel Management Plan will be initiated 

upon approval of this ROD.

Nothing in the following restrictions shall be construed as prohibiting the use of a

wheelchair, by a person whose disability requires use of a wheelchair, in any area open to 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

44

public foot travel. For the purposes of this statement the term wheelchair means a device 

designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, which is suitable for 

use in an indoor pedestrian area. 

ROD Table - 13

Changes to the Forest Road and Trail Use Designations under Alternative K*

System Route No. Name District

Management Area 1.2: Recommended for Wilderness, Closed to Motorized and 

Mechanized Year-round

FDT 1803.1 Chinese Wall Blanco

FDT 1811.1 Picket Pin Lily Pond Blanco

FDT 1839.1 Nellies Eagle

FDT 1862.1 White Creek Eagle

FDT 1863.1 Sundell Eagle

FDT 1863.1A Sourdough Lake Eagle

FDT 1863.2B Muckey Lake Eagle

FDT 1870.1 Mount Thomas Eagle

FDT 1871.1 Antones Eagle

FDT 1871.1C Antones Lakes Eagle

FDT 1873.1 Ironedge Eagle

FDT 1874.1 Cherry Ponds Eagle

FDT 1886.1 East Meadow Creek Holy Cross

FDT 1890.1 Lower Piney Trail Holy Cross

FDT 1912.1 Red Hill Sopris

FDT 1914W.1 Reudi Creek Sopris

FDT 1917.1 Tellurium Lake Sopris

FDT 1945.1 Last Chance Sopris

FDT 1949.1 Perham Creek Sopris

FDT 2067.1 Johnny Meyers Eagle

FDT 2190.1M Warren Lakes Aspen

FDT 2224.1 Lost Lake Eagle

NFSR 410.1 Meadow Creek Holy Cross

NFSR 412.1W Eagle

NFSR 417.1 Leeman Gulch Eagle

NFSR 425.1 Red Creek Eagle

NFSR 425.1B Muckey Lake Eagle

NFSR 457.1 Antones Creek Eagle

NFSR 514.1 Red Table Eagle

NFSR 536.1 Freeman Road Sopris

FDT 69.1 Ptarmigan Dillon

FDT 71.1 Acorn Creek Dillon

Management Area 1.31: Back-country Recreation, Closed to Motorized Year-round

FDT 116.1 Anderson Lake Aspen

NFSR 121.2A Lindley Cabin Aspen

NFSR 1219.1 Ten Mile Canyon Dillon

NFSR 132.1 Houston Draw Aspen

NFSR 1761.1 Elliot Creek Dillon
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

45

System Route No. Name District

NFSR 1761.1A Guthrie Gulch Dillon

FDT 1820.1 Big Ridge Blanco

FDT 1890.1 Lower Piney Trail Holy Cross

FDT 1958.1 Mt Sopris Sopris

FDT 1969.1 Anthracite Pass Sopris

FDT 1991.1 Petroleum Lake Aspen

FDT 1991.1A Anderson Lake Aspen

FDT 2083.1 Yule Pass Sopris

FDT 2111.1 Buffehr Creek Holy Cross

NFSR 260.1 Peru Creek Dillon

NFSR 260.2A Peruvian Mine Dillon

NFSR 260.2B Horseshoe Basin Dillon

NFSR 260.2C Arapaho Dillon

FDT 38.1 Miners Creek Dillon

FDT 40.1 Bakers Tank Dillon

NFSR 408.1B Bear Creek Sopris

FDT 41.1 Corral Creek Dillon

NFSR 569.1 Little French Gulch Dillon

NFSR 611.1 Pennsylvania Creek Dillon

FDT 611.3A Pennsylvania Creek Dillon

NFSR 706.1 Perterson Creek Holy Cross

NFSR 710.1D Mill Creek Spur D Holy Cross

NFSR 710.1F Mill Creek Spur 1f Holy Cross

NFSR 710.1G Mill Creek Spur 1g Holy Cross

NFSR 710.1H Mill Creek Spur 1h Holy Cross

NFSR 787.1 Buffehr Holy Cross

NFSR 848W.1 Hoosier Ridge Dillon

Management Area 1.32: Back-country Recreation, Limited Winter Motorized, Closed 

to Summer Motorized

NFSR 731.1 Taylor Gulch Holy Cross

NFSR 731.1E Taylor Hill Holy Cross

NFSR 754.1 Ski Cooper Holy Cross

Management Area 1.5: Wild Rivers-designated and eligible, Closed to Motorized 

Year-round

FDT 1852.1 Johnson Pasture Eagle

Management Area 3.32: Backcountry Non-motorized with Winter Motorized, Closed 

to Summer Motorized

FDT 2160.5 Battlement Trail Rifle

 *All or portions of the roads and trails which fall within the identified management area prescriptions

AMENDMENT 

All activities, many of which are interdependent, may be affected by annual budgets.

However, the goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, management area prescriptions, 

and monitoring requirements described in the Revised Forest Plan may not change unless 
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

46

the Forest Plan is amended. The Forest Plan will be amended or revised to adjust to 

changing circumstances.

An important purpose of a Forest Plan is to communicate the long-term desires of forest 

management and thereby provide some stability to local and national interests. At the same 

time, new information and changing conditions may require updates to the Forest Plan. 

These will be accomplished with public involvement through the amendment or revision 

process as described in 36 CFR 219.10. 

APPEAL REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES

This decision is subject to administrative review pursuant to 36 CFR 217. Any appeal of 

this decision must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 217.9, and be filed in duplicate with the 

Chief within 90 days of the published legal notice. Appeals should be sent to the following 

address: 

Chief, USDA Forest Service 

14th & Independence S.W. 201 14th Street

Washington, DC 20250

Any notice of appeal must include at a minimum: 

• A statement identifying the document as a Notice of Appeal filed pursuant to 36 

CFR Part 217. 

• The name, address and telephone number of the appellant. 

• Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and 

subject, date of the decision, and name and title of the Deciding Officer. 

• Identification of the specific portion of the decision to which the appeal is being 

made. 

• The reason(s) for appeal, including issues of fact, law, regulation, or policy.

• Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks. 

For questions concerning the appeal process, contact: 

USDA Forest Service

Attn: Ecosystem Management Staff 

P.O. Box 96090

Washington, DC 20090-6090

(202) 205-1066

For questions concerning the Revised Forest Plan, contact:

Martha Ketelle, Forest Supervisor 

White River National Forest 

900 Grand Avenue

PO Box 948 

Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0948
White River Forest Plan Revision 2002 Record of Decision

47

CONCLUSION 

I am pleased to announce my decision and bring this phase of forest planning to completion. 

The White River National Forest is now in a position to embark on a new era of federal land 

management, built on a strong foundation of public collaboration and state-of-the-art 

management direction. 

As we move forward we will carefully monitor our activities, the condition of the land, the 

goods and services produced, and the effectiveness of the resource protection measures 

included in the Revised Forest Plan. I anticipate that implementation of the plan will be 

conducted in the same spirit of partnership that has characterized this revision process.