Summary of the

Final Environmental

Impact Statement

To accompany the Land and Resource

Management Plan - 2002 Revision

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Region
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUMMARY

for the 

WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST 

LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2002 REVISION

Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, 

Routt, and Summit counties, Colorado 

Lead agency: USDA Forest Service 

White River National Forest 

PO Box 948 

Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 

Responsible Rick Cables, Regional Forester 

official: USDA Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain Region 

PO Box 25127 

Lakewood, CO 80225 

(303) 275-5350 

For further Martha Ketelle, Forest Supervisor 

information White River National Forest 

contact: PO Box 948 

Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 

(970) 945-2521 

E-mail address for general 

forest information: 

whiteriverso/r2_whiteriver@fs.fed.us

Abstract This is the summary for the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

documents analysis of seven alternatives developed for programmatic 

management of the 2.3 million acres administered by the White River National 

Forest. The Forest Service has identified Alternative K as the selected 

alternative. 
Note to 

readers 

The Forest Service believes that readers should be given notice of several court 

rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, 

reviewers of Draft EISs must structure their response to the proposal to make 

clear the reviewer's position and contentions [Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 

Corp. v. NRDC, 435 US 519, 53 (1978)]. In addition, environmental objections 

that could be raised at the Draft EIS stage but are not raised until after completion 

of the FEIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts [City of Angoon v. Hodel,

803F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Circuit 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris,

490. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)]. 

Please recycle this document when ready to be discarded. 

The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, 

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status 

(not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). People with disabilities who 

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326, W. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). The 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Introduction 

This is a summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to 

accompany the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan – 2002 Revision (Forest Plan). This summary presents the major 

findings of the analysis that went into building the FEIS and presents the 

different alternatives considered and their projected impacts. 

In addition to the FEIS, the revised Forest Plan includes the following: 

• Land and Resource Management Plan – 2002 Revision 

• Record of Decision 

• Three books of appendices that support the material presented in the 

FEIS. 

• A packet of maps that illustrate much of the data and results found in 

the Revised Forest Plan and FEIS. 

All of this information is available to you at your local Forest Service Office, 

public library or our web site, www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver. We realize, 

however, that this amount of information can be overwhelming. 

It is our hope that this summary will help you see what we did, why we did it 

and where we go from here. 

This summary contains the following information: 

• An overview of the planning process and history

• A look at the White River National Forest and its environs 

• An explanation of what occurred between the Draft EIS and the Final 

version 

• The public involvement process 

• Themes of the forest management alternatives 

• Land allocations for each forest management alternative 

• Probable effects that each alternative will have on the Forest 

• How you can find out more information about the Revised Forest 

Plan. 

1 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Overview 

The planning, 

environmental, 

and decision 

processes 

The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) analyzes seven alternatives for 

implementation of the 2002 Land and Resource Management Plan (2002 Forest 

Plan) for the White River National Forest. A draft environmental impact statement 

(DEIS) that analyzed six alternatives was issued in August 1999 and was available for 

public comment until May 9, 2001. Forest planners and interdisciplinary team

members reviewed these comments and modified the direction in the forest plan, the 

alternatives, and the supporting analysis as needed. This FEIS incorporates those 

changes and identifies the selected alternative that will guide future management of the 

White River National Forest. The Regional Forester will document the basis of this 

decision in a record of decision (ROD). 

A brief history 

of the forest 

planning 

process 

Current forest planning regulations are an extension of historical Forest Service 

experience in land management planning. For many years the Forest Service has 

prepared plans to guide inventory development, identify special management areas, 

calculate sustainable use levels, and monitor resource conditions and trends. 

In addition, Forest Service planning activities are guided by several key

pieces of federal legislation. Under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act 

of 1960 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), 

National Forest System lands are managed for a variety of uses on a

sustained basis to ensure, into perpetuity, a continued supply of goods and 

services to the American people. NFMA amended the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA) to specify 

that land and resource management plans (forest plans) be developed for 

units of the National Forest System. 

Regulations to implement NFMA are set forth in 36 CFR 219. The White 

River National Forest’s first forest plan was issued in 1984, and NFMA 

regulations state that forest plans should be revised on a 10-year cycle or at 

least every 15 years. 

NFMA regulations establish extensive analytical and procedural 

requirements for the development, revision, and significant amendment of 

forest plans. They describe procedures for the formulation and evaluation of 

alternatives and require that alternatives consider a full range of resource 

outputs and expenditure levels. NFMA regulations also acknowledge the 

need to comply with other laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Clean 

Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Archeological Resources 

Protection Act. 

The landmark 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) brought 

environmental analysis and public participation requirements into land 

management planning. NEPA ensures that environmental information is 

made available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and 

before actions are taken. The aim is to help officials base their decisions on 

Summary 2
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

an understanding of environmental consequences, and to take actions that 

protect, restore, and enhance the environment. Essential to the NEPA process 

are accurate scientific analyses, expert agency input, and public scrutiny.

These all have been part of this forest plan revision. 

Relationship 

of the forest 

plan to the 

alternatives 

Under NFMA, a forest plan establishes the goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines 

for management activities on the White River National Forest. It sets both forest-wide

guidance and the additional direction needed to define each management area

prescription. Management area prescriptions correspond somewhat to county zoning 

ordinances because they define the specific uses and conditions emphasized, allowed, 

or restricted on parcels of land. For this forest plan revision process, the goals, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines do not vary across alternatives. What does vary

across alternatives is where and how extensively each management area prescription is 

applied over the land area of a forest. 

Steps leading 

to 

development 

of the draft 

forest plan 

and DEIS 

Revision of a forest plan occurs in a number of steps. Preliminary work to revise the 

1984 Forest Plan began in 1994. Improved scientific methods and data processing 

techniques that were not available when the 1984 Forest Plan was developed were used 

during formal inventories of the forest’s natural and environmental resources. 

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

which reviewed the status of National Forest System lands administered by the White 

River National Forest. This report found that conditions and public demands had 

changed significantly since inception of the 1984 Forest Plan and that a need existed to 

revise it. 

The Forest Supervisor then solicited comments from the public on what 

factors the plan revision process should consider. After a series of open 

houses and media coverage, the White River National Forest received 

hundreds of comments from across the nation, but mainly from people who 

live near the forest. Issues raised by the public and by other agencies were 

examined by an interdisciplinary (ID) team of planners and resource 

specialists organized by the forest to spearhead the planning process. 

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 base the planning process: (1) 

biological diversity, (2) travel management, (3) recreation, (4) roadless areas, 

(5) special areas, and (6) timber suitability and allowable sale quantity. Many

different issues fall within these broad categories. Other issues are addressed 

in Forest Service guidance. The 1984 Forest Plan was revised using guidance 

provided by the 1992 Rocky Mountain Regional Guide (USDA Forest 

Service 1992), as well as staff, stakeholder, other agency, and public input. 

In July 1997, the forest released a report called 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. The AMS also 

provided a foundation for developing a broad range of reasonable 

3 Summary 
White River National Forest 

alternatives to the existing plan. The report reviewed the current and 

expected level of goods and services provided by the forest, made projections 

of public demands for resources, and discussed the need to establish or 

change management direction in response. Complete reports and details of 

these findings are available at the Supervisor’s Office, 900 Grand Avenue, 

Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 

In the summer of 1997, the 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. Forest 

managers solicited comments from the public at these open houses and 

through media disclosures. 

After completing the AMS, forest planners turned their attention to 

formulating a preliminary array of forest management alternatives that 

responded to the six initial issues. These alternatives were based on the 

public comment received as well as on improved knowledge of the forest’s

resources recorded in its Geographic Information System (GIS) database. 

By July 1998, six alternatives had been developed. They were described in 

depth in Chapter 2 of the DEIS. By design, each alternative meets legal and 

administrative requirements and can be implemented if selected. 

The next step in the revision process was to evaluate the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives presented in the DEIS. A summary of these 

effects was presented in Chapter 3 of the DEIS. For each forest resource, 

resource specialists described its existing condition and discussed how the 

alternatives would affect it. 

The DEIS was made available for public comment in August 1999. Based on 

public and congressional requests, the original 90-day comment period was 

extended to May 9, 2001. Over 14,000 individual responses were received 

from the public, city, county, state and federal officials, public interest 

organizations, and private businesses. A specialized Forest Service unit, the 

Content Analysis Team (CAT), reviewed all responses, organized them all 

into an electronic database by subject, and generated public concern reports. 

This helped the White River National Forest ID team and decision-makers to 

systematically consider the voluminous public input and respond to it (see 

Appendix A, Response to Comment.) 

Steps 

between draft 

and final 

forest plan 

and FEIS 

After considering public comments on the draft forest plan and DEIS, the 

interdisciplinary team made necessary changes and revisions. These are presented in 

the FEIS volumes and the 2002 Forest Plan. One change of note is the formulation of a 

new alternative, K, which is described later in this document and in Chapter 2 of the 

FEIS. This was developed in response to public comment and new Forest Service 

policies since the DEIS was released. Analysis for all seven alternatives is presented in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS. This analysis has made use of improved mapping and updated 

analytical tools, processes, and information. 

Summary 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The FEIS also identifies the alternative selected for implementation. Reasons 

for this decision will be documented by the Regional Forester in a record of 

decision. A response to public comments is provided in Appendix A. 

Following approval of the forest plan and selected alternative, specific 

activities and projects will be planned and implemented as part of the forest’s 

ongoing management activities. 

Understanding 

the White 

River National 

Forest 

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 expanse of 2,270,000 acres. The 

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

Continental Divide (Figure 1). The divide marks most of the forest’s eastern boundary, 

which is about 60 miles from Denver. Ready access to the forest by residents of 

Denver and other Front Range communities is provided by Interstate 70, which enters 

the forest at the Eisenhower Memorial Tunnel. 

The forest boundary encompasses National Forest System lands within nine 

different Colorado counties: Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, 

Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit. Table 1 provides the official 

acreages of National Forest System lands within each of these counties. 

Figure 1 

Location of the White River National Forest in Colorado 

5 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Table 1 

Acres of National Forest System lands, by county, within the White River National 

Forest as of September 1997 

County

Eagle Garfield Gunnison Mesa Moffat Pitkin Rio

Blanco 

Routt Summit

Acres 595,542 478,628 60,880 83,069 3,679 490,911 247,318 6,128 309,671

Source: USDA FS-383 

Figure 2 shows the location of these nine counties (and several others that 

border the forest) in relation to the forest boundary. 

Figure 2 

County boundaries in relation to the White River National Forest 

Summary 6
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

In terms of recreational visitor 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. Another key forest attraction is the Colorado River, a boon to

rafters, kayakers, and anglers. 

The forest has seven ranger districts: Aspen, Blanco, Dillon, Eagle, Holy

Cross, Rifle, and Sopris. Each of these districts has a district office located, 

respectively, in the towns of Aspen, Meeker, Silverthorne, Eagle, Minturn, 

Rifle, and Carbondale. Figure 3 shows the location of these ranger districts. 

Figure 3 

White River National Forest ranger districts 

Physical 

environment 

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 

7 Summary 
White River National Forest 

diverse than those found in many other parts of the country. Measured annual 

precipitation ranges from less than 12 inches on the forest’s western margin to more 

than 40 inches at higher elevations. 

Mountain ranges include the Gore Range in the northeastern portion of the 

forest, the Elk Mountains along its southern margin, and the towering 

Sawatch Range in the southeast. In the northwestern portion of the forest are 

the Flat Tops, which are a series of high-elevation plateaus. The headwaters 

of the Eagle, Roaring Fork, Fryingpan, Crystal, Blue, and White rivers 

originate entirely on the forest. 

Biological 

environment 

The White River National Forest lies within two ecological sections—North-Central 

Highlands and Rocky Mountains, and Northern Parks and Ranges—as defined by the 

National Hierarchy of Ecological Units (ECOMAP 1993). Figure 4 shows the forest 

boundaries in relation to these two sections. For a more detailed description of the 

ecological hierarchy with respect to the forest, refer to Appendix E of Volume 4 of the 

FEIS. 

Figure 4 

Location of the White River National Forest in relation to the two ecological 

sections 

Summary 8
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

About two-thirds of the area is forested. The main cover types on these 

forested lands are Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, lodgepole pine, and 

aspen. Most of these stands are in older age classes. Nonforested land makes 

up about 30 percent of the forest. These lands include grassy meadows, 

shrublands, alpine tundra, and rocky areas. 

The White River National Forest provides habitat for about 300 wildlife and 

fish species, including common species such as elk, mule deer, and rainbow 

trout, and less common species such as the peregrine falcon and the Colorado 

River cutthroat trout. 

Historical 

human use 

and 

occupation

From about 12,000 years ago, the area of the White River National Forest was 

frequented by bands of hunters known as paleo-Indians, who left signs of their passage 

throughout the region. In more recent times, western Colorado was the domain of the 

Ute Indians who occupied the area for several centuries if not longer. The Ute people 

were skillful nomadic hunters who followed herds of elk and bison on their seasonal 

migrations and established an elaborate network of foot trails that criss-crossed the 

area. 

Exploration of the area of the forest by people of European origin began in 

the 1700s by Spanish missionaries. During the ‘mountain man’ era of the 

1820s and 1830s, fur traders traveled throughout western Colorado in search 

of beaver and other animals. The fur trade lasted only a few decades. 

The nation’s westward expansion came late to Colorado because its towering 

mountain ranges were a barrier to travel. But when gold fever struck in 1859, 

thousands of people came to Colorado to seek their fortunes. The 1870s 

brought the mining boom into lands of the White River National Forest, 

starting with the establishment of Breckenridge in 1869 and Aspen in 1879. 

During this period, numerous mining camps were built near timberline in the 

drainages of the Blue, Eagle, and Roaring Fork rivers. Miners and settlers 

made extensive use of nearby stands of trees as raw material for structures, 

mine props, and railroad ties. 

The mining era was accompanied by a steady influx of farmers and ranchers, 

who, by 1881, had displaced the Utes from their homeland and from the 

forest. During the settlement period that followed, ranchers introduced 

thousands of head of cattle and sheep to the rangelands. In the same period, 

market hunting of deer and elk led to their near-extirpation from the forest by 

about 1910. 

Unregulated exploitation of timber, range, and wildlife resources in the 

public lands of the West prompted the designation of national forest reserves. 

The White River Plateau Timber Reserve of 1891 was the second such 

reserve to be named. Authority over the reserve was granted to the newly

established Forest Service in 1905. 

Livestock grazing continued as the primary use of the forest for several 

decades. Severe overgrazing by 1930 led forest managers to greatly reduce 

9 Summary 
White River National Forest 

permitted livestock numbers. This period also saw the introduction of 

protection for deer and elk to restore their numbers. 

In the 1920s, the forest acquired national significance as the site of Mount of 

the Holy Cross, known for a large cross formation that appears on its 

northeast face. This feature attracted thousands of visitors to viewpoints near 

the mountain. 

The U.S. Army’s construction of its Camp Hale base along the Eagle River, 

where 16,000 10th Mountain Division troops were trained during World War 

II, played a major role in the forest’s future. After the war, some of these 

veterans returned to establish the downhill ski areas that today are the source 

of most of the forest’s recreation use. The Aspen ski areas were first 

established in the 1940s and 1950s, with Vail and the Summit County ski 

areas following in the 1960s. As the ski resorts grew, so did nearby 

communities.

The 1964 passage of the Wilderness Act was later followed by designation of 

about one-third of the forest as wilderness, making it a popular destination 

for hikers and campers. 

Present social 

and economic 

environment 

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

Basalt, Breckenridge, Carbondale, Dillon, Eagle, Edwards, Glenwood Springs, 

Gypsum, Meeker, Minturn, New Castle, Rifle, Silt, Silverthorne, and Vail. In recent 

years, some of Colorado’s highest growth rates have been in parts of the forest’s 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 has greatly boosted employment in the tourism and 

commercial sectors of local economies and has led to populationgrowth. 

Because of high housing costs near the ski resorts, however, many of these 

new residents must commute long distances to their jobs. As a result, many

towns that historically served only the local ranching and farming population 

are experiencing rapid residential growth. This growth is accompanied by an 

influx of retail and service businesses. In the same period, the area’s scenic 

and cultural amenities have prompted the development of vacation homes, 

second homes, and golf courses. As private lands near the forest are 

converted to these residential and commercial uses, the traditional 

agricultural economic base is increasingly supplanted. 

Urbanization has posed new problems for forest managers. Development of 

private lands and the increased number of visitors to the forest have 

combined to: 

• Reduce traditional points of access; 

• Reduce or restrict wildlife habitat, migration corridors, and winter 

range; 

• Increase the risk to human safety (from wildfire); and 

• Increase the impacts that visitors have on trails, recreation sites, and 

other national forest resources. 

Summary 10
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Distinctive 

roles and 

contributions 

The White River National Forest is . . . 

Global/intercontinental/national scope

• A leading destination for skiing, tourism, and backcountry recreation; 

• The setting for about 750,000 acres of wilderness; 

• The setting for several world-famous resort communities, which host 13 

percent of the nation’s downhill skiing; 

• The location of the renowned Mount of the Holy Cross; and 

• The domain of the nation’s largest elk herd. 

Multi-state/regional scope 

• The site of the most recreation use of any national forest in the Rocky

Mountain Region; 

• The location of eight of Colorado’s 54 ‘fourteeners’—mountain peaks taller 

than 14,000 feet; 

• Host to 30 percent of Colorado’s recreation on National Forest System lands; 

and 

• Host to 64 percent of the downhill skiing in Colorado. 

Forest scope 

• The centerpiece of a growing central Colorado economy and population base; 

• The scenic backdrop for local communities; and 

• A source of support for local industries and businesses. 

Factors that 

may affect the 

White River 

National 

Forest 

Global/intercontinental/national scope 

• Changes in skiing demand; 

• Changes in off-road vehicle technology; and 

• Changing demographics of recreationists. 

Multi-state/regional scope 

• Population growth throughout the Rocky Mountains; 

• Shifts in employment; and 

• Shifts in management emphasis to ecosystem management. 

Forest scope 

• Population growth along the Interstate 70 corridor in Western Colorado; 

• Changes in ecological conditions; and 

• Changes in local industries. 

11 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Resource 

commodities 

and services 

from the White 

River National 

Forest 

Recreation. Outdoor recreation, including skiing and other winter activities, is the 

primary use of the White River National Forest. In 1997, more than 8.9 million people 

visited the forest, which provides 13 percent of the nation’s downhill skiing. 

Dispersed recreation. About 44 percent of recreation on the forest is dispersed, which 

occurs without constructed facilities. 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. 

Developed recreation. Developed recreation includes all activities that take place on 

developed recreation sites, which have constructed facilities. Use of developed 

facilities currently is at 81 percent of practical capacity and is expected to increase to 

well beyond this current capacity. 

Leasable minerals. Leasable minerals are those deposits of oil, gas, coal, etc. that are 

available for development under various laws. These deposits are generally located on 

the western side of the forest and are apart of the Piceance Basin. Production in the 

Divide Creek Unit has been ongoing since the mid 1950’s. The Wolf Creek Storage 

Unit supplies natural gas to the Roaring Fork and Eagle Valleys. Demand for fossil 

fuels will increase over the life of the plan and development of resources on National 

Forest will increase. There are also significant geothermal resources yet to be 

developed. Demand for this resource will increase along with demand for fossil fuels. 

Locatable minerals. Locatable minerals are those deposits subject to exploration and 

development under the Mining Law of 1872 and its amendments. About 42 percent of 

the forest outside of wilderness can be classified as having a moderate-to-high 

potential for locatable minerals. 

Timber production. From 1940 to 1999, timber volume harvested averaged 15.2 

million board feet (MMBF) per year, with an annual average of 22.4 MMBF between 

1984 and 1999. About 37 percent of the forest’s land base is ‘tentatively suitable’ for 

timber management. Only about 4 percent of the forest’s total land area has been 

affected by harvest activities since 1900. 

Livestock grazing. Permits are required for domestic livestock grazing on the forest. 

During the past 10 years, numbers have fluctuated annually depending on economics 

and weather. In 1998, 22,700 head of cattle and 51,500 head of sheep grazed on the 

forest. About 830,800 acres of land are considered suitable for grazing on the White 

River National Forest.

Summary 12
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

THE PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Public comments were critically important 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 FiveYear 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. 

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 

Service 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. 

13 Summary 
White River National Forest 

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 businesses1

. 

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 comments2on 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 Forest Service policies, for example, Canada lynx 

management direction. The seven alternatives (initial six plus K) are 

analyzed in detail in the FEIS. 

 

1

 A summary of the public comments on the DEIS is available on the website: 

www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/planning.html. 2

 A detailed review of public comment and agency responses is presented in Appendix A of the Revised

Forest Plan FEIS. 

Summary 14
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The Alternatives 

Introduction 

This summary of the environmental impact statement explores the 

differences among a number of management alternatives for the White River 

National Forest. These were developed to provide a range of options for the 

direction that forest management will take for the next 10 to 15 years. Each 

of these alternatives is a potential forest plan that can be implemented if 

selected. 

Included in this summary is a discussion of: 

• How alternatives were developed; 

• Overview of changes to alternatives between draft and final; 

• The features of each alternative, including the no-action alternative; 

• Alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study; 

• How the alternatives compare to one another; 

• The selected alternative; 

• Budget levels assumed for each alternative; and 

• How management areas compare among alternatives. 

Development 

of alternatives 

As explained at the beginning of this document, this plan revision process started with 

the determination that there is a need to change the forest plan approved in 1984 due to 

changes in circumstances, legal mandates, and societal uses and values. The core of 

this process is the formulation of a revised land and resource management plan, or 

forest plan, and a set of forest management alternatives for implementing the plan. 

The alternatives provide different scenarios for applying forest plan management area

direction across the land area of the White River National Forest. The alternatives do 

not vary in forest-wide direction as established in the forest plan, but do vary in 

acreage allocated to each management area (see the map packet and Table 14 for more 

information). 

The forest plan first defines a set of goals, objectives, strategies, standards, 

and guidelines that provide the forest-wide direction for managing the White 

River National Forest and its resources. The forest-wide direction combines 

regional goals established in the Desk Guide (which apply to all national 

forests in the Rocky Mountain Region of the Forest Service) with goals, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines that are specific to the White River 

National Forest. 

Forest goals are broad statements that describe overall conditions managers 

will strive to achieve. They are not directly measurable and there are no time 

frames for achieving them. In other words, goals describe the ends to be 

achieved rather than the means to these ends; they serve as vision statements. 

In contrast, objectives provide these means in the form of measurable steps, 

15 Summary 
White River National Forest 

referred to as strategies, taken to accomplish goals. Objectives generally are 

achieved by implementing projects or activities. However, objectives are not 

targets, which are a measure of annual outputs dependent upon budgets. 

Budget allocations may or may not correspond to areas that have been 

emphasized by the forest plan. A standard is defined as a course of action 

that must be followed, or a level of attainment that must be reached, to 

achieve forest goals. Adherence to standards is mandatory. Standards are 

used to assure that individual projects are in compliance with the forest plan 

and other legal mandates that govern the Forest Service. They should limit 

project-related activities, not compel or require them. Deviations from

standards must be analyzed and documented in a forest plan amendment. A 

guideline is a preferred or advisable course of action or level of attainment. 

Guidelines are designed to achieve desired conditions (goals). 

A forest plan also establishes additional direction for individual management 

areas, such as Deer and Elk Winter Range, or Ski Areas, as needed. 

Management area direction includes a desired condition statement and then 

defines which different management activities may be carried out, with 

additional standards and guidelines as needed to manage or protect specific 

resources. Table 2 presents a list of all final revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan (2002 Forest Plan) management areas, and a comparison 

to those in the 1984 Forest Plan. 

As required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations, 

alternatives have been developed using an interdisciplinary process. Public 

comments received during the scoping phase were combined with the 

revision topics, which are based on monitoring of the 1984 plan. Six 

alternatives were then developed, each with a specific theme and set of 

management area allocations designed to match the theme. These alternatives 

were analyzed in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), released 

for public review and comment in 1999.

Comments received on the draft environmental impact statement were used 

to make modifications to the draft forest plan and alternatives presented in 

the DEIS (see FEIS Volume 3, Appendix A—Response to Public Comment

for a detailed explanation of the comment analysis process and responses to 

specific public concerns identified in the comments). Based on public 

comment, revisions in national policy, and Canada lynx management needs, 

the interdisciplinary team developed an additional alternative within the 

range of those presented in the DEIS. This additional alternative is presented 

and analyzed along with the original six alternatives in this FEIS. The 

interdisciplinary team also made changes to the draft forest plan, resulting in 

the 2002 Forest Plan. 

Each alternative has been designed to respond to comments and significant 

issues in a different way, providing a range of possible management 

approaches from which to choose. In each alternative, this different approach 

Summary 16
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

is conveyed by the alternative’s theme, which emphasizes a particular issue 

or a group of compatible issues. 

Alternatives developed under this process do not follow a continuum and are 

not linked to each other in any way. Each stands alone as a potential forest 

plan. Alternatives do have many things in common, sharing the essential 

goals, concepts, and policies that all national forests are directed to follow. 

How they differ from one another is in the relative emphasis given to 

particular issues and concerns. 

For each alternative, specific land areas of the forest are allocated to the 

management areas that are defined in the 2002 Forest Plan. In Chapter 3 of 

the 2002 Forest Plan, these management areas are defined in detail. 

Management area allocations also are shown on the maps of each alternative 

in the map packet. These maps were created by selecting management areas 

consistent with each alternative’s theme and assigning them to different 

locations on the forest. Each alternative reflects a different combination of 

management area locations and acreages. A listing of these acreages is 

provided at the end of this summary in Table 14. 

Alternatives that were considered in detail are presented in this summary. 

One of these has been designated as the selected alternative. A few were 

dropped from detailed consideration because they did not meet current 

requirements or were duplicated by other alternatives. The Regional Forester 

will make a final decision on the selected alternative for implementation 

and explain the rationale for this choice in the record of decision document. 

Important 

points shared 

by all 

alternatives 

• All alternatives adhere to the concepts of multiple use and ecosystem management. 

They also all share a set of basic forest-wide goals and objectives and a set of 

standards and guidelines (see accompanying 2002 Forest Plan volume) that ensure 

protection of forest resources and comply with applicable laws. Existing activities 

under permit, which are not considered at the programmatic level, will continue. In 

all alternatives, ecological conditions will be managed to maintain minimum viable 

or higher populations of existing native and desirable non-native species, and 

watershed conditions will remain stable or improve. Standards and guidelines 

(forest-wide and management area) are designed so that management activities and 

forest uses maintain the sustained capabilities of forest ecosystems.

• All lands bordering the forest (regardless of whether they are assigned to 

Management Area 7.1) will be subject to forest-wide goals and objectives relating 

to intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships. 

• Updated data and analytical procedures, as well as evolving scientific knowledge, 

have been incorporated into all alternatives. 

17 Summary 
White River National Forest 

In addition, a number of designations and activities will not change in the 

2002 Forest Plan: 

• Existing ski resort developed areas and infrastructure; 

• Current designated wilderness; 

• Current active grazing allotments; 

• Existing developed recreation sites, utility corridors, and electronic 

sites; 

• Current designated national scenic and recreational trails; and 

• Current designated scenic byways. 

Objectives 

shared by all 

alternatives 

Management of the White River National Forest will meet objectives established in the 

1992 Rocky Mountain Regional Guide (USDA Forest Service 1992), although their 

relative emphasis varies by alternative. 

These objectives are to: 

• 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; 

• Improve the financial efficiency of all programs and projects. 

Major changes in the alternatives between the DEIS and the FEIS 

Shifts in regional and agency priorities, new direction, and public comment 

all contributed to the need for changes between the draft and final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS). These changes are summarized 

below. 

PUBLIC INPUT 

Nearly 14,000 individual pieces of public input (letters, emails, faxes, public 

hearing testimony, etc.) were received on the DEIS and draft 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 forest plan 

also identified the need for several minor improvements to analysis and 

presentation of materials in the FEIS and forest plan. As a result, editorial or 

Summary 18
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

other inconsistencies in the presentation of information in the DEIS were 

corrected for the FEIS. 

WATER 

New regional and national policy direction resulted in revision of guidance 

with regard to water rights and protection of watersheds as presented in the 

proposed revised forest plan. Direction regarding jurisdiction and rights of 

the Forest Service with respect to water rights were clarified. Regional 

watershed conservation practices were incorporated into forest plan

guidance. 

WILDLIFE 

Species Viability—as a result of the Black Hills appeal direction and in 

consideration of consequent review by the Secretary of Agriculture, the 

interdisciplinary team revised analysis in the DEIS. In order to incorporate 

the results of this analysis and appeal direction, additional forest-wide goals, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines were added to the forest plan for all 

alternatives to meet needs for continued viability of species. 

Canada lynx—as a result of listing of the Canada lynx under the Endangered 

Species Act and corresponding regional efforts toward a strategy for 

managing lynx habitat, further analysis was completed for the final EIS. In 

response to analysis additional goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines 

were developed and applied forest-wide for all alternatives in the forest plan 

to ensure the forest’s contribution to lynx recovery. 

ROADLESS AREA MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

Direction in the National Roadless Area Conservation Rule was considered 

in the period following the issuance of the DEIS. However, we were enjoined 

from incorporating this direction in the plan decision, subject to current 

ongoing efforts to revise the rule. We have incorporated the Chief’s interim

direction (Chief Bosworth memorandum, June 7, 2001) roadless areas. 

Additionally, in response to public comment and consistent with direction 

provided in the DEIS, we have added guidelines on management of roadless 

areas emphasizing our intent to maintain the character of these areas. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Draft site-specific travel management plans accompanied each alternative 

presented in the DEIS. In response to public comment, to improve-on-theground 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 also 

resulted in changes to analyses in the DEIS on the future of the transportation 

system that relied on site-specific data. 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. 

19 Summary 
White River National Forest 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

In response to public comment, the White River revisited the social and 

economic analysis presented in the DEIS. A series of stakeholder meetings 

were used 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. 

ALTERNATIVE K 

Alternative K was developed in response to public comments received on the 

DEIS and the draft forest plan that accompanied it, and to incorporate new 

Forest Service policies. Many of the public’s concerns focused on the need 

for an alternative that better emphasized various combinations of uses across 

the forest. 

Description of the alternatives 

How

alternatives 

are described

Each alternative for the 2002 Forest Plan is presented in the same format, with the 

following components: 

• Background—The major issues to which the alternative responds.

• Theme—The relative degree of emphasis applied to different resources and 

concerns. 

• Relationship to revision topics—How specific elements of the revision topics 

(see Preface) are incorporated into management areas on the forest. In this 

discussion, the terms low, medium, moderate, and high are used to compare 

levels of outputs or the relative degree of environmental impacts. No absolute 

measures are intended by these terms. For example, if an alternative calls for 

the highest level of road closure, it means simply that more roads will be 

closed under this alternative than under any other, not that a maximum

possible number of roads will be closed. The words more and less are used in a 

specific context. These terms generally are used to compare the amount of an 

activity or output in relation to the no-action alternative, which in this case is 

Alternative B. 

The interdisciplinary team originally considered nine different alternatives 

during scoping, identifying them by the letters A through I. The alternatives 

were not given names to keep the comparison of alternatives more objective 

and impartial. 

After review of the original group, six of the alternatives—B, C, D, E, F, and 

I—were deemed suitable for further analysis. The expected outcomes and 

effects of these six alternatives were analyzed and disclosed in the DEIS. 

This analysis was further refined for the FEIS. A seventh alternative, K, has 

been added for further analysis in response to public comment and changes 

Summary 20
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

in Forest Service policy. The seven alternatives considered in detail for the 

FEIS are described in the following section. Three alternatives, A, G, and H, 

were determined to be inappropriate for further analysis and were not 

considered in detail. The reasons why they were not considered in detail are 

presented later in this summary. Both groups of alternatives contribute to the 

NEPA requirement that a reasonable range of alternatives be examined. 

The management areas described in Chapter 3 of the 2002 Forest Plan 

represent an expanded and updated array of areas, compared to the set of 

management areas used in the 1984 Forest Plan. In addition, a different 

numbering system has been used to identify them. Some of the management 

areas used in the 1984 plan are unchanged (except in identifying number). 

However, a number of new management areas have been created to reflect 

current practices, knowledge, and direction. Table 2, on the following page, 

compares the existing set of management areas to the ones developed for the 

revised plan. 

21 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Table 2 

Comparison of numbering systems used in the 1984 plan and the 2002 plan 

Management area 

1984 

Plan # 

2002 

Plan # Management area 

1984 

Plan # 

2002 

Plan # 

Pristine wilderness 8A 1.11 Scenic byways, scenic 

areas, vistas, or travel 

corridors 

N/A 4.23 

Primitive wilderness 8B, 8C 1.12 Dispersed recreation 2A, 2B 4.3 

Semi-primitive wilderness 8D 1.13 Dispersed recreation, high

use 

2B 4.32 

Recommended wilderness N/A 1.2 Recreation rivers ___

designated and eligible 

N/A 4.4 

Backcountry recreation, 

non-motorized 

3A 1.31 General forest and 

rangelands ___ range 

vegetation emphasis 

6A, 6B 5.12 

Backcountry recreation, 

limited winter motorized 

N/A 1.32 Resource production ___

forest products

7D, 7E 5.13 

Core areas N/A 1.41 Forested flora and fauna 

habitats 

4B 5.4 

Wild rivers ___ designated

and eligible

N/A 1.5 Deer and elk winter range 5A, 5B 5.41 

Special interest areas ___

minimal use and 

interpretation 

N/A 2.1 Bighorn sheep habitat 4B or 5A 5.42 

Research natural areas N/A 2.2 Elk habitat 4B 5.43 

Special interest areas ___

emphasis on use or

interpretation 

N/A 3.1 Forested landscape 

linkages 

N/A 5.5 

Limited-use areas N/A 3.21 Intermix N/A 7.1 

Backcountry recreation ___

year-round motorized 

2A, 3A, 

3B

3.31 Developed recreation 

complexes 

1A 8.21 

Backcountry recreation ___

non-motorized with winter

motorized 

3A, 3B 3.32 Ski resorts ___ existing and 

potential 

1B 8.25 

Scenic rivers ___ designated

and eligible

N/A 3.4 Aerial transportation 

corridors 

new (1B) 8.31 

Corridors connecting core 

areas 

N/A 3.55 Designated utility corridors 

___ existing and potential 

1D 8.32 

Scenery N/A 4.2 

Key: N/A = not applicable; element is new to the 2002 Forest Plan. 

In the new numbering system, management areas are organized into 

categories, which are identified by the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. 

Category 6 applies to grasslands specifically and was not applied to areas on 

the White River National Forest for this forest plan revision. Each of these 

categories represents a different primary emphasis for the management of 

National Forest System lands. Refer to Chapter 3 of the 2002 Forest Plan for 

complete descriptions of each category.

The primary emphasis of each category can be described as follows. 

Summary 22
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Note: Most Management Areas in Categories 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 permit 

motorized use on designated routes. If applicable, seasonal or wildlife 

restrictions are described in the Chapter 3 of the 2002 Forest Plan. 

• Category 1—Wilderness, recommended wilderness, wild rivers; 

non-motorized recreation; limited winter motorized 

• Category 2—research natural areas (RNAs); minimal-use special

interest areas

• Category 3—motorized recreation; interpretive special interest 

areas; scenic rivers 

• Category 4—dispersed recreation; scenic areas; recreational rivers 

• Category 5—wildlife habitats; rangelands; forest products 

• Category 7—urban/wildland intermix 

• Category 8—ski areas and developed recreation sites; special uses. 

In the following section, each of the alternatives analyzed in detail is 

described, accompanied by a pie chart that shows the relative percentage of 

each management area category. The different percentages convey how the 

overall theme of each alternative is represented by the array of management 

areas allocated to it. 

23 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Alternatives considered in detail 

ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B, an updated form of the no-action alternative, reflects current forestwide direction. It meets the NEPA requirement (36 CFR 219.12(f)(7)) that a noaction alternative be considered. For further discussion of the no-action alternative, 

see Alternative A later in this summary. 

‘No action’ means that current management allocations, activities, and management 

direction found in the existing forest plan, as amended, would continue. All 

alternatives, including Alternative B, contain some modifications to direction 

provided by the 1984 Forest Plan. These include new definitions, new technologies 

and inventories, and updated standards and guidelines. Output levels have been 

recalculated for this alternative to comply with new information, in particular, new 

scientific and inventory data. 

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. Vegetation management would be applied to improve wildlife habitat, maintain and 

improve visual quality in travel corridors and recreation areas, treat of over-mature and 

diseased tree stands, and provide firewood and other wood products. (Source: 1984 Forest 

Plan, Final EIS, Summary, Page 8) 

• Biodiversity—In Alternative B, habitat enhancement projects focus on big game

species, fisheries, and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and species 

of viability concern. Management does not specifically emphasize managing 

towards historical range of variability conditions; however, the general principles 

of ecosystem management are addressed to a limited degree. This alternative has 

the highest potential for localized perforations of forest stands resulting in

changes to structural stages and patch sizes in areas in which management is 

concentrated. It also has the most potential for the spread of noxious weeds. 

• Travel Management—The current travel management plan is retained but 

adjusted as necessary to comply with new standards and guidelines. Based on 

management area prescription standards and guidelines and on Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications, this alternative is fourth in 

combined areas for snow-free motorized and snow-free motorized on-designatedroute use, close in rank with Alternatives E and D. For over-snow motorized 

travel, this alternative allows for more areas of motorized travel than any other 

alternative, with the least amount limited to motorized-on-designated-routes, 

close in rank with Alternative F. 

• Recreation—Winter ROS classes have been defined for the first time. Semiprimitive non-motorized recreation opportunities are emphasized during the 

summer, and semi-primitive motorized opportunities are emphasized in 

accessible areas during the winter. A forest-wide dispersed recreation capacity

analysis has been completed for the first time. Ski resort land allocations do not 

increase, but opportunities for additional non-ski resorts and backcountry huts 

Summary 24
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

may exist. The Scenery Management System will be implemented. Naturalappearing landscapes will be managed to a moderate scenic integrity level. 

• Roadless Areas—No inventory of roadless areas was done during preparation of 

the 1984 Forest Plan. Under this alternative, no new recommendations are made 

for designation of areas as wilderness. 

• Special Areas—No new RNAs are proposed, but three rivers are eligible for 

designation as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers. 

• Timber Harvest—The allowable sale quantity (ASQ) for the forest has been 

recalculated based on more accurate analysis of suitable timber lands and yield 

projections. It is lower than what is stated in the 1984 Forest Plan and is at a 

medium level in relationship to other alternatives. 

Figure 5 summarizes the percentages of management area allocations, by category, 

under Alternative B. 

Figure 5 Alternative B management area allocations by category

Category 1

35%

Category 2

0%

Category 3

Category 4 12%

11%

Category 5

37%

Category 7

0%

Category 8

5%

Category 1—wilderness, recommended wilderness, wild rivers; non-motorized recreation; 

limited winter motorized 

Category 2—RNAs; minimal-use special interest areas 

Category 3—motorized recreation; interpretive special interest areas; scenic rivers 

Category 4—dispersed recreation; scenic areas; recreational rivers 

Category 5—wildlife habitats; rangelands; forest products 

Category 7—urban/wildland intermix 

Category 8—ski areas and developed recreation sites; special uses. 

25 Summary 
White River National Forest 

ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C was developed to respond to a diverse range of public

comments on recreation issues. It acknowledges the need to provide a range 

of recreational opportunities to serve forest customers and local communities 

while maintaining forest ecosystems. It represents a balance of recreational 

uses with ecological conditions. 

Theme The emphasis is to provide a range of recreation opportunities in balance with 

biological diversity considerations. The range of recreation that is provided will be 

determined by projected demand and analysis of trends. The quantity of recreation that 

is available will be determined by measures of recreation capacity. Ecological 

constraints may limit recreation activities in some locations of the forest. Vegetation 

management activities will focus on producing healthier and more diverse vegetation 

conditions. 

Alternative C authorizes resource production only in areas that have been previously 

managed. No new roads will be built in areas that have not been previously developed. 

As a result, limited resource production will occur. 

Relationship 

to the revision 

topics 

• Biological Diversity—In Alternative C, habitat improvement projects focus on 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (TES), species of viability

concern, sport fish species, small game and big game species. Watershed 

conditions are improved, and most ecological changes result from natural 

processes. Together, these actions reduce the risk to species of viability

concern on the White River National Forest. 

• Travel Management—Alternative C calls for more separation of uses and 

more non-motorized recreational experiences than currently available. Based 

on the management area prescription standards and guidelines, and on ROS 

classifications, this alternative ranks fifth in combined areas for snow-free 

motorized and snow-free-motorized-on-designated-route use. A conversion of

some motorized road and trail use to non-motorized trail use would be 

expected under this alternative, along with improvements to arterial and 

collector system roads. For over-snow motorized travel it ranks fourth 

compared to other alternatives for areas of allowable motorized travel. It also 

ranks fourth, along with Alternative I, for areas of over-snow motorized travel 

on designated routes only. 

• Recreation—The distribution of summer and winter recreation opportunities 

is more responsive to current visitor demands and trends. Additional motorized 

opportunities are provided during the summer, and more non-motorized 

opportunities are provided during the winter. Ski resort land allocations 

increase as well as opportunities for additional backcountry huts. Aerial 

transportation corridors are considered. Heritage tourism opportunities may

increase. Natural-appearing landscapes will be managed to a moderate scenic 

integrity level.

• Roadless Areas—Some areas are recommended for designation as wilderness.

• Special Areas—Some new RNAs are designated. Some special interest areas 

Summary 26
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

are established, with an emphasis on heritage resources, education, 

interpretation, or ecology. 

• Timber Harvest—The allowable sale quality is at a low level, and timber 

harvesting that does not contribute to ASQ is also at a low level. 

Figure 6 summarizes the percentages of management area allocations, by

category, under Alternative C. 

Figure 6 

Alternative C management area allocations by category

Category 1

35%

Category 2

0%

Category 3

Category 4 12%

11%

Category 5

37%

Category 7

0%

Category 8

5%

Category 1—wilderness, recommended wilderness, wild rivers; non-motorized recreation; 

limited winter motorized 

Category 2—RNAs; minimal-use special interest areas 

Category 3—motorized recreation; interpretive special interest areas; scenic rivers 

Category 4—dispersed recreation; scenic areas; recreational rivers 

Category 5—wildlife habitats; rangelands; forest products 

Category 7—urban/wildland intermix 

Category 8—ski areas and developed recreation sites; special uses. 

27 Summary 
White River National Forest 

ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D was developed to respond to concerns that wildlife habitat for 

a wide variety of species, as well as biological diversity, be given special 

emphasis. It would give a higher priority to physical and biological resources 

than to human uses of the forest. It was identified as the preferred alternative 

in the DEIS. 

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

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

represents an aggressive approach to habitat management and places a low emphasis 

on letting natural processes run their course. It will use active management to make the 

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

ecosystem condition. Of all the alternatives, Alternative D places the lowest emphasis 

on developments for human uses or recreation. 

Relationship 

to the revision 

topics 

• Biological Diversity—In Alternative D, species of viability concern for the 

White River National Forest are maintained at the highest level of all 

alternatives through active habitat enhancement projects. Active management 

of vegetation composition and structure is emphasized over allowing natural 

processes to dominate. Overall watershed conditions are improved. Among the 

alternatives, this alternative will see the most changes in vegetation 

composition and structure. 

• Travel Management—The theme of Alternative D suggests that this 

alternative would have more seasonal restriction on areas of critical wildlife 

habitat. Based on the management area prescription standards and guidelines 

and on ROS classifications, this alternative ranks third in areas of snow-free 

motorized travel, with all travel limited to designated routes. For over-snow 

motorized travel, this alternative ranks sixth, close to Alternative K. Again, for 

over-snow there may be areas of seasonal and prohibited travel for the 

protection of critical habitat and wildlife. Under the theme of this alternative 

the existing road system would likely be maintained, and roads that are no 

longer needed would be closed to reduce road density in critical wildlife areas. 

• Recreation—Recreation opportunities toward the semi-primitive and 

primitive end of the ROS are emphasized. Recreation travel is restricted by

seasonal and area closures. Ski resort land allocations are reduced to current 

permit boundaries and opportunities for aerial transportation corridors do not 

exist. Opportunities for additional backcountry huts are few if any. Existing 

developed recreation sites such as campgrounds may be expanded or

improved, or new sites may be constructed to concentrate visitor use. Naturalappearing landscapes will be managed to a low scenic integrity level. 

• Roadless Areas—Some areas are recommended for wilderness designation. 

• Special Areas—A moderate number of new RNAs are designated. Special 

interest areas focus on areas of wildlife or botanical interest. 

• Timber Harvest—The ASQ is at a moderate level. Timber harvest is oriented 

to forest health and wildlife habitat purposes; the portion that does not 

contribute to ASQ is at a moderate level. 

Summary 28
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Figure 7 summarizes the percentages of management area allocations, by

category, under Alternative D. 

Figure 7 

Alternative D management area allocations by category

Category 1

37%

Category 2

5%

Category 3

3%

Category 4

5%

Category 5

47%

Category 7

0%

Category 8

3%

Category 1—wilderness, recommended wilderness, wild rivers; non-motorized recreation; 

limited winter motorized 

Category 2—RNAs; minimal-use special interest areas 

Category 3—motorized recreation; interpretive special interest areas; scenic rivers 

Category 4—dispersed recreation; scenic areas; recreational rivers 

Category 5—wildlife habitats; rangelands; forest products 

Category 7—urban/wildland intermix 

Category 8—ski areas and developed recreation sites; special uses. 

29 Summary 
White River National Forest 

ALTERNATIVE E

Alternative E was developed to respond to the growing demand for a broad 

spectrum of recreation opportunities, particularly those that are of economic 

importance to local communities. Additional support is given in this

alternative to tourism, ski resorts, hunting and fishing, and recreation 

services. These activities will vary in emphasis by local community based on 

local support and investment. 

Theme Alternative E emphasizes recreation activities and amenities that provide economic 

benefits to local communities. Land allocations help provide opportunities to 

recreation-based businesses, support the improvement of developed recreation 

infrastructure, and provide for consumptive recreation activities. The following 

commercial uses are favored: 

• Ski resorts 

• Outfitting and guide services 

• Tour operators

• Non-ski resorts 

• Developed recreation infrastructure 

Non-commercial recreation that provides significant economic benefits also 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 will be supported while maintaining or improving 

the health of forest ecosystems. 

Relationship 

to the revision 

topics 

• Biological Diversity— In Alternative E, habitat improvement projects focus 

on big game and sport fish species, threatened, endangered, and sensitive 

species, and species of viability concern. Natural processes are expected to 

occur in most management areas and conditions may or may not remain within 

the historic range of variability. Active management of habitats and protection 

afforded by forest plan direction is expected to reduce the risk to species of 

viability concern on the forest. 

• Travel Management—Consistent with its theme, Alternative E stresses a 

variety of recreation opportunities and a high degree of separation of recreation 

uses. Based on the management area prescription standards and guidelines and 

on ROS classifications, this alternative offers the second to most combined 

areas of snow-free motorized travel and snow-free motorized travel on 

designated routes. For over-snow motorized travel, this alternative ranks third 

behind Alternatives F and B. Alternative E would be expected to create more

trail opportunities along with improvements to roads. 

• Recreation—Recreation opportunities toward the semi-primitive motorized 

and developed end of the ROS are emphasized. Ski resort and aerial 

transportation corridor land allocations are maximized. Opportunities for 

additional backcountry huts and non-ski resorts exist as well as opportunities 

for newly constructed developed sites such as campgrounds and trailheads. 

Summary 30
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Natural-appearing landscapes will be managed to a high scenic integrity level. 

• Roadless Areas—Few areas are recommended for wilderness designation. 

• Special Areas—Few new RNAs will be designated. Special interest areas will 

focus on areas of heritage, education, and interpretation interest. 

• Timber Harvest—The ASQ is at the lowest level of all alternatives, and 

timber harvesting that does not contribute to ASQ is at a low level. 

Figure 8 summarizes the percentages of management area allocations, by

category, for Alternative E. 

Figure 8 

Alternative E management area allocations by category

Category 1

41%

Category 2

Category 3 2%

12%

Category 4

23%

Category 5

16%

Category 7

0%

Category 8

6%

Category 1—wilderness, recommended wilderness, wild rivers; non-motorized 

recreation; limited winter motorized 

Category 2—RNAs; minimal-use special interest areas 

Category 3—motorized recreation; interpretive special interest areas; scenic rivers 

Category 4—dispersed recreation; scenic areas; recreational rivers 

Category 5—wildlife habitats; rangelands; forest products 

Category 7—urban/wildland intermix 

Category 8—ski areas and developed recreation sites; special uses. 

31 Summary 
White River National Forest 

ALTERNATIVE F

Alternative F was developed to respond to the idea that the White River 

National Forest should be managed for the maximum use of natural resources 

on a sustained-yield basis. Alternative F would produce the highest output

levels of commodity resources among the alternatives and considers 

management activities in all areas that are legally and technologically 

available for resource production. 

Theme The emphasis in Alternative F is on resource production activities such as timber 

harvesting and domestic livestock grazing, while continuing to provide a range of 

recreational activities. In areas that are intensively managed for resource production, 

minimum population viability for all species will be an ecological constraint. In other 

areas, natural processes will be allowed to dominate the landscape. 

Dispersed and developed recreation opportunities will be at current levels or higher. 

Roaded recreation opportunities will expand. Semi-primitive recreation opportunities 

may decrease. 

Relationship 

to the revision 

topics 

• Biological Diversity—Compared to other alternatives, Alternative F places a 

lower emphasis of managing forest ecosystems within the HRV. Active 

management is emphasized over natural processes in managed areas, while 

natural processes dominate in other areas. Habitat improvements focus only on 

TES species and species of viability concern. 

• Travel Management—Based on its theme, Alternative F is likely to see the 

highest level of new road construction, as well as road reconstruction and 

maintenance. Based on the management area prescription standards and 

guidelines and on ROS classifications, this alternative offers the most snowfree and over-snow motorized opportunities. It would, therefore, be the 

alternative most limited in non-motorized recreational areas. 

• Recreation—Semi-primitive non-motorized recreation opportunities may

decrease. Summer and winter semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, and 

rural opportunities are emphasized. Ski resort and aerial transportation corridor 

land allocations may increase when there are no conflicts with other resource 

productions such as timber harvesting or livestock grazing. Opportunities for 

additional backcountry huts and non-ski resorts exist as well, providing that 

conflicts with resource production activities can be avoided. Natural-appearing 

landscapes will be managed at a low scenic integrity level. 

• Roadless Areas—No areas are recommended for wilderness designation. 

• Special Areas—Few, if any, RNAs are designated. A low emphasis is placed 

on special interest areas. 

• Timber Harvest—The allowable sale quantity is the highest among the 

alternatives and timber harvest that does not contribute to ASQ is at the highest 

level of all alternatives. 

Summary 32
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Figure 9 summarizes the percentages of management area allocations, by

category, for Alternative F. 

Figure 9 

Alternative F management area allocations by category

Category 1

34%

Category 2

3%

Category 3

2%

Category 4

3%

Category 5

54%

Category 7

1%

Category 8

3%

Category 1—wilderness, recommended wilderness, wild rivers; non-motorized recreation; 

limited winter motorized 

Category 2—RNAs; minimal-use special interest areas 

Category 3—motorized recreation; interpretive special interest areas; scenic rivers 

Category 4—dispersed recreation; scenic areas; recreational rivers 

Category 5—wildlife habitats; rangelands; forest products 

Category 7—urban/wildland intermix 

Category 8—ski areas and developed recreation sites; special uses. 

33 Summary 
White River National Forest 

ALTERNATIVE I

Alternative I responds to views expressed by a coalition of environmental 

groups that a specific set of principles of conservation biology be used to 

guide management of the White River National Forest. These principles are 

somewhat different than the set of ecological principles incorporated in other 

alternatives. In all other alternatives, active management is used to improve 

ecosystem conditions. Alternative I relies more on natural disturbance 

processes for the maintenance of ecosystems. In the analysis of this

alternative, the effects of managing the forest according to these conservation 

biology principles has been compared to the effects of managing the forest 

according to the principles used in the other alternatives. 

Theme Alternative I emphasizes the idea that the best way to perpetuate ecosystems, forest 

health, and biological diversity is to allow natural disturbance regimes and other 

ecological and evolutionary processes to occur without human intervention. 

Commodity production, including recreation, is accommodated only to the extent that 

it does not fundamentally impair these natural processes, the restoration of ecological 

functions, or the health of native plant and animal communities. To the highest degree 

possible, the essential wildness of the land is maintained. 

Relationship 

to the revision 

topics 

• Biological Diversity—In Alternative I, natural processes are emphasized as

the primary ecological change agent more than in any other alternative. Habitat 

improvements focus on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and 

species of viability concern. Management activities are focused on restoration 

of ecological conditions. 

• Travel Management—Because of the high level of non-motorized

opportunities under Alternative I, it would be expected that this alternative 

would have a higher amount of roads converted to non-motorized trails, along 

with road closures to provide for the non-motorized experience. Based on the 

management area prescription standards and guidelines and on ROS

classifications, this alternative offers the most snow-free and over-snow nonmotorized areas. All snow-free motorized travel is limited to designated routes.

• Recreation—Recreation opportunities toward the semi-primitive nonmotorized and primitive end of the spectrum are emphasized. Recreation uses 

are concentrated to protect wildlife habitat. Ski resort land allocations are 

reduced to current permit boundaries, and opportunities for aerial 

transportation corridors do not exist. Opportunities for additional backcountry

huts, non-ski resorts, and developed sites such as campgrounds are few if any.

Natural-appearing landscapes will be managed at the highest scenic integrity

level compared to the existing condition. 

• Roadless Areas—Many areas deemed eligible are recommended for 

wilderness designation, more so than in any other alternative. 

• Special Areas—More RNAs are designated than in any other alternative and 

there will be many special interest areas, with an emphasis on ecological 

values. 

Summary 34
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

• Timber Harvest—The ASQ is at a low level compared to other alternatives 

and timber harvest that does not contribute to ASQ is at a low level. 

Figure 10 summarizes the percentages of management area allocations, by 

category, under Alternative I. 

Figure 10 

Alternative I management area allocations by category

Category 1

57%

Category 2

5%

Category 3

7%

Category 4

8%

Category 5

20%

Category 7

0%

Category 8

3%

Category 1—wilderness, recommended wilderness, wild rivers; non-motorized recreation; 

limited winter motorized 

Category 2—RNAs; minimal-use special interest areas 

Category 3—motorized recreation; interpretive special interest areas; scenic rivers 

Category 4—dispersed recreation; scenic areas; recreational rivers 

Category 5—wildlife habitats; rangelands; forest products 

Category 7—urban/wildland intermix 

Category 8—ski areas and developed recreation sites; special uses. 

35 Summary 
White River National Forest 

ALTERNATIVE K

Alternative K was developed in response to public comments received on the 

proposed 2002 Forest Plan and DEIS, and to incorporate new Forest Service 

policies. Public comments that did not pertain to alternative development 

(comments on standards and guidelines, analysis processes, public 

involvement, etc.) are not addressed in Alternative K. Many of the public’s

concerns focused on the need for an alternative that emphasizes various 

combinations of uses across the forest. These public concerns, as well as 

Forest Service priorities, helped identify what uses will be emphasized and 

where they will be focused. 

Alternative K includes new policies that have surfaced since the proposed 

2002 Forest Plan and DEIS were issued—specifically, Canada lynx

management direction. Although direction for Canada lynx has been added to 

all alternatives presented in the DEIS, it was used in the initial design of 

Alternative K. 

Theme Alternative K borrows ideas and management allocations from several alternatives 

presented in the DEIS, particularly Alternatives C, D, and I. These alternatives were 

most often cited in public comments as containing desirable forest plan elements.

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 will maintain or restore ecosystem structure, 

function and composition. 

Recreation activities across the forest will continue to be diverse. Emphasis will be 

placed on quality recreation experiences in a predominately natural setting. Recreation 

growth will become more managed, while still allowing modest increases in use. 

Relationship 

to the revision 

topics 

• Biological Diversity—Natural processes will be the primary factors shaping 

ecosystems in wilderness and roadless areas; however, active management 

may occur in some areas to meet stewardship or restoration goals. Alternative 

K has the second highest level of habitat enhancement for native and desired 

non-native species. Management activities will focus on maintaining and 

restoring habitats for populations of terrestrial and aquatic species for which 

there is a viability concern on the forest, as well as enhancing habitat for other 

species, such as game species. Overall trends in watershed conditions will 

improve due to restoration work. Vegetation composition will be managed 

mainly through silvicultural treatments, prescribed grazing, and prescribed fire 

for resource benefits and to move the forest toward desired conditions. 

• Travel Management—Due to the composite nature of the theme under this 

alternative road reconstruction and road maintenance would be stressed. 

Management will be encouraged to convert roads to trails or fully

decommission roads no longer needed to serve the forest or public. 

Construction of new roads may occur; however, the utilization of temporary

Summary 36
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

roads will be stressed. All snow-free motorized and mechanized travel would 

be limited to designated routes. Based on the management area prescription 

standards and guides and ROS classifications, this alternative is second in the 

amount of snow-free non-motorized opportunities in comparison to the other 

alternatives. It ranks fourth in over-snow motorized travel. For all recreation, 

loop systems would be utilized and developed to enhance recreational 

experiences. 

• Recreation—Recreation opportunities toward the semi-primitive nonmotorized and primitive end of the spectrum are emphasized. Summer 

motorized and winter non-motorized trail opportunities will be increased. Land 

allocation for existing ski resorts will be more than in Alternative D and 

address individual resort demands and skier expectations. No new ski areas are 

allocated and opportunities for aerial transportation corridors do not exist. 

Opportunities for additional backcountry huts are few if any. Emphasis will be 

placed on improving quality of existing sites and eliminating sites that are not 

efficient to manage. New developed recreation sites will be limited. Naturalappearing landscapes will be managed at a high scenic integrity level 

compared to the existing condition. 

• Roadless Areas—Many areas deemed eligible are recommended for 

wilderness designation with an emphasis on lower elevation acreage. 

• Special Areas—Designated RNAs are fewer than in Alternative D. More areas 

are allocated to MA 3.1 than in Alternative D to manage for current and future 

recreation use. A greater emphasis is placed on primitive opportunities in 

wilderness. 

• Timber Harvest—Emphasis is on active management on the third of the 

forest outside wilderness and roadless areas. This will result in an ASQ slightly 

higher than in Alternative D. Active management of vegetation will be 

concentrated in areas that have been previously roaded or developed, and will 

focus on maintaining ecosystems and improving forest health. 

37 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Figure 11 summarizes the percentages of management area allocations, by 

category, for Alternative K.

Figure 11 

Alternative K management area allocations by category

Category 1

40%

Category 5

47%

Category 8

Category 7 3%

0%

Category 4

4%

Category 3

3%

Category 2

3%

Category 1—wilderness, recommended wilderness, wild rivers; non-motorized recreation; 

limited winter motorized 

Category 2—RNAs; minimal-use special interest areas 

Category 3—motorized recreation; interpretive special interest areas; scenic rivers 

Category 4—dispersed recreation; scenic areas; recreational rivers 

Category 5—wildlife habitats; rangelands; forest products 

Category 7—urban/wildland intermix 

Category 8—ski areas and developed recreation sites; special uses. 

Summary 38
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives Submitted by the Public 

On May 8, 2000, Congressman Scott McInnis provided the Forest Supervisor 

with a comment letter on the draft forest plan. This comment 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 

Alternative.” The full text of this comment can be found in the Government 

Comment Letters section of Appendix A, FEIS Volume 3. The map is located 

in the map packet, which is available on the web site, on CD-ROM, at Forest 

Service offices, and at local libraries. 

The comment provided specific suggestions on many issues. The cover letter 

for the comment identified six primary issues: water, wildlife management, 

intermix, allowable ski area expansion, travel management, and wilderness. 

Statements of management intent, and in some cases, rewording of direction, 

were proposed in the comment letter. 

The following is a summary of how the six areas were addressed in the 2002 

Forest Plan direction (Chapters 1, 2, and 3) or in Alternative K. Full

discussion of these issues can be located in the Response to Comment 

Appendix A, the FEIS, or the 2002 Forest Plan. 

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 forest plan. Because of the degree of concern 

and controversy, however, all water direction has been carefully examined 

and re-written. Updated water aquatic and riparian direction can be found in

Chapter 1 of the 2002 Forest Plan (Goal 1, Ecosystem Health), and Chapter 2 

(Water and Riparian Resources). 

Wildlife—Alternative K reflects an increase in winter range from the draft 

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 applies this 

prescription. 

Ski Area Expansion—The Blended Alternative allows for expansion of ski

areas in certain locations, notably Summit County. Alternative K reflects this 

request, allocating the most additional 8.25 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 a new round of planning will start after the 

forest plan revision is finished. The comments on individual roads and trails 

provided in the Blended Alternative, as well as in all other public comment 

letters, will be taken into account in the upcoming travel planning effort. The 

39 Summary 
White River National Forest 

general travel concepts contained in the Blended Alternative were considered 

in the 2002 Forest Plan. Areas of consistency with Alternative K include 

opportunities for looped trails and scenic byways. 

Wilderness—Of the 8 areas proposed for wilderness designation in the 

Blended Alternative, 5 of them are included in Alternative K. These areas 

are: Treasure Mountain, Ute Pass, Acorn Creek, North Independence, and 

Hunter. See Chapter 3, Topic 4 of the FEIS Volume 2, Recommended 

Wilderness and Roadless Area Management, for location and description of 

these areas. 

In addition to the six areas listed above, general themes in the Blended 

Alternative include: community and local support, multiple use 

opportunities, and general resource protection. These ideas were also 

explored in many other public comment letters. In response to the issue of 

community and local support, the 2002 Forest Plan now includes an 

expanded focus on public collaboration (2002 Forest Plan Chapter 1, Goal 5). 

Alternative K provides for a range of resource outputs, both recreational and 

commodity. And we have retained resource protection measures that were 

proposed in the draft forest plan, as well as adding some further direction 

resulting from new information that has recently become available. 

All comments on the draft forest plan and DEIS, including the Blended 

Alternative from Representative McInnis, were examined in the content 

analysis process described in FEIS Volume 3, Appendix A, Response to 

Comment. In this process, individual issues were taken from the Blended 

Alternative comment and combined with similar issues submitted by other 

individuals to form public concerns. The Blended Alternative content 

generated many of the public concern statements found in Appendix A. We 

have considered and responded to these public concern statements in 

Appendix A. 

In addition to Congressman McInnis’s comment being a part of the content 

analysis process, our interdisciplinary team examined and discussed 

components of the map and comment letter as a whole. Some ideas and 

positions stated in the Blended Alternative were incorporated into the 

formulation of Alternative K. Some issues discussed in the Blended 

Alternative 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. 

Summary 40
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternatives considered but eliminated from 

detailed study 

Several alternatives were considered during the development of the DEIS 

and eliminated from further study during the planning process. For example, 

alternatives that differed only slightly from other alternatives were eliminated 

from further detailed consideration. When this occurred, all alternatives that 

were dropped from detailed analysis were reviewed and compared with the 

alternatives analyzed in detail to make sure that all important issues and 

concepts were included in the alternatives analyzed in detail. 

ALTERNATIVE A

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations at 36 CFR 

219.12(f)(7) state that “at least one alternative shall reflect the current levels 

of goods and services provided by the unit and the most likely goods and 

services expected to be provided in the future if the current management 

direction continues. Pursuant to NEPA procedures this alternative shall be 

deemed the No Action Alternative.” 

As the 1984 Forest Plan was analyzed, it became clear that significant 

changes had occurred, primarily in the timber management area, but also in 

several other resource areas. The following summarizes that analysis, 

provides a rationale as to why the 1984 plan is not considered a viable 

alternative, and explains why it was updated and transformed into Alternative 

B for full analysis. 

ALTERNATIVE G

Alternative G was developed to respond to preliminary, short-term internal 

direction regarding road building and maintenance. This alternative was not 

analyzed in detail because it does not address existing long-term policy

direction. Forest plan alternatives are not designed to speculate on internal or 

external future policy; rather, they are designed to work within current 

knowledge and direction. 

ALTERNATIVE H

Alternative H was developed to respond to concerns about urbanization. 

Opinions vary widely regarding the role the White River National Forest 

should, or can, play in the urbanization of areas adjacent to National Forest 

System lands. After extensive discussion, this alternative was not submitted 

to detailed analysis because urbanization is not directly controlled by Forest 

Service management activities. Instead of serving as the theme of a forest 

plan alternative, social impacts and effects (including urbanization) are 

considered to be environmental consequences of all of the alternatives 

considered in detail. This discussion can be found in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

41 Summary 
White River National Forest 

The selected 

alternative 

Based on the analysis presented in this EIS and on public comments on the DEIS, the 

Regional Forester has identified Alternative K as the selected alternative. The reasons 

for this choice are explained in a record of decision that accompanies the release of this 

FEIS. 

Accordingly, each alternative is described in terms of how it would be implemented 

with either ‘experienced’ funding or full funding. The experienced funding level 

assumes that actual funding is at the same level as the 1998-2001 annual average. The 

full funding level assumes that all goals and objectives will be met and is considered to 

be 50 percent higher than the 1998–2001 annual average. Specific information about 

the two budget levels is displayed in Table 16 (supplemental table 3) at the end of this 

summary. 

Conformance 

with RPA 

NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219.12 (f)(6) require at least one alternative to be 

developed that responds to and incorporates the Forest and Rangeland Resources 

Planning Act (RPA) Program’s tentative resource objectives for each national forest 

displayed in the Regional Guide. However, the 1990 RPA Program establishes national 

guidance for units of the National Forest System through 1995 by providing program

emphasis and trends rather than specific, quantified output targets for individual Forest 

Service programs. As a result, no resource objectives were quantified for each region 

to display in regional guide documents, which would then be passed on to individual 

forests. 

The RPA program is updated every five years and has three components: (1) 

roles in natural resource management for Forest Service management, (2) 

Forest Service program responses to contemporary issues, and (3) long-term

strategies to guide the program development and budgetary process. 

RPA emphasizes four high-priority themes: (1) recreation, wildlife and 

fisheries resource enhancement; (2) environmentally acceptable commodity

production; (3) improved scientific knowledge about natural resources; and 

(4) response to global resource issues. This guidance was used in the 1992

Rocky Mountain Regional Guide (USDA Forest Service 1992) to shape 

National Forest System, research, and state and private forestry programs. 

This process also is considered in the revision of the existing forest plan. All 

of the alternatives incorporate the four high-priority themes. 

Comparison of alternatives 

This section is designed to help the reader understand and compare the land 

allocations, the activities and outputs, and the environmental effects of the 

seven alternatives considered in detail. Each description tells how the 

alternatives respond to the revision topics. This discussion focuses on factors 

that display measurable differences among alternatives, summarizing more 

detailed information that is found in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Summary 42
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Comparison

of effects by 

alternative

The following summary of the environmental and economic effects, which 

are presented in detail in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, reviews the differences 

among alternatives and should aid in the comparison of the effects each 

alternative is expected to have on the environment. The summary is presented 

by revision topic, with the addition of economic impacts. For a complete 

disclosure of environmental effects, consult Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

BIODIVERSITY 

Analysis of ecological conditions revealed that most components of 

biodiversity on the forest are within their HRV, but some are not: 

• Rangelands have been affected by the spread of noxious weeds and 

reseeding with non-native species. These impacts are expected to 

continue in all alternatives. 

• Some forest stands are outside HRV conditions because of 

management activities, such as fire suppression and development of 

ski areas. Alternatives F, E, and B allocate the most acres to ski 

resorts; therefore, they will have the most impact on HRV conditions 

within permit boundaries. Other management activities are not 

expected to change HRV conditions significantly in any alternative. 

Fire suppression is expected to remain at a comparable level in all 

alternatives. 

• Alternatives D, C, and K all stress the need to manage within HRV 

parameters, while Alternatives B and F do not provide management

within the HRV. Impacts on HRV conditions will be the most 

significant under Alternatives B and F. 

Two key aspects of wildlife habitats are fragmentation and perforation: 

• Fragmentation of wildlife habitat is defined as the breaking up of 

contiguous blocks of habitat into progressively smaller patches that

are increasingly isolated from one another. It also may be viewed as 

the process of interspersing blocks of suitable habitat with areas that

are hostile to plant or animal life, such as highways or urban 

development. Fragmentation is expected to remain relatively

constant in all alternatives and be most pronounced as the result of 

management activities on private lands adjacent to National Forest 

System lands. 

• Perforation refers to holes within otherwise contiguous blocks of 

habitat. An example would be a clearcut (or group of clearcuts) 

surrounded by forest. Perforation is likely to result from road 

construction, timber management, and ski resorts. Alternatives B and 

F have the most potential to increase perforation of forest stands. 

Alternatives I, E, and C, in that order, have the least amount of land 

43 Summary 
White River National Forest 

allocated to management areas that would result in increased 

perforation. 

Also under the biodiversity topic are the forest’s various physical and 

biological resources: 

Soils Standards and guidelines will maintain or improve the existing soil resource conditions 

in all alternatives. 

Watersheds Standards and guidelines will maintain or improve the existing condition of watershed 

resources in all alternatives. 

Air resources Management activities will not significantly affect the quality of air resources in any

alternative. 

Mineral and

energy 

resources 

Adequate opportunities for the private development of mineral and energy resources 

will be maintained in all alternatives. 

Forested 

vegetation 

Management activities are not expected to significantly change the percentage or 

distribution of different tree species in any alternative. Changes to structural stages (the 

developmental stages of tree stands in terms of tree size, age, and canopy closure) will 

be the most significant in Alternatives F and B, which allocate the most acres to timber 

sales, expansion of ski resorts, and road building. Alternatives I, E, and C have the 

least amount of lands allocated to these uses and are expected to undergo the least 

change. 

• The average size and shape of forest patches are expected to change 

the most in alternatives that do not stress managing within HRV 

conditions. Alternatives D, C, and K both stress the HRV, while 

Alternatives F and B do not emphasize HRV conditions. 

• Inventoried old growth is protected in all alternatives and is not

expected to be affected. More existing stands will age and acquire 

old-growth characteristics under Alternatives I, E, and C, which 

contain less timber management, road construction, and ski resort 

allocations than do Alternatives B and F. The acreage and 

distribution of late-successional forest (mature and old-growth 

forest) are expected to follow trends similar to old growth. Latesuccessional forest acreage and distribution, including old growth, 

are expected to increase substantially across the forest in all 

alternatives. 

Rangeland 

vegetation 

About 95 percent of the non-forested vegetation on the forest is considered to be within 

or moving toward desired conditions. This is expected to remain fairly constant in all 

alternatives. No significant changes to the distribution or composition of rangeland 

vegetation are expected. 

Noxious weeds currently infest at least 90,000 acres of the forest. Alternatives B and E 

have the most potential for the spread of weeds; Alternatives D, I, and K have the least. 

Summary 44
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Domestic 

livestock 

grazing 

The level of grazing by domestic livestock is not expected to change dramatically from

the current situation in any alternative. 

Fire 

management 

Prescribed fire projects in forested areas are expected to make up a majority of the 

fuels management portion of the annual planned program. More acres are burned using 

prescribed fire in Alternatives B, C, D, and K than in other alternatives. The least 

amount of fuels treatment will occur in Alternatives F and I, with Alternative F having 

the fewest acres of annual treatment. 

Alternatives that limit the amount of resource production, such as C, E, and I, will

possibly lead to a trend in larger and longer-duration fires. 

Stands large enough that are not affected by the ecological changes that 

occur at the boundaries of patches, increasing the amount of young seral 

forest habitats more than any other alternative. Alpine habitats above 

timberline will change the most under Alternatives E and F, which allocate 

the most acres to ski resorts and aerial transportation corridors. Sagebrush, 

cottonwood riparian, and pinyon-juniper habitats are not expected to change 

significantly in any alternative. Special habitats such as cliffs, caves, and 

waterfalls may be affected the most by alternatives that promote dispersed 

recreation such as I, C, and E, or from increased trail access in Alternatives 

E, B, and C. These impacts are not expected to significantly change viability

conditions for any management indicator species on the national forest. 

Overall, the wildlife resources and associated habitats on the forest are in 

good condition. Forest management actions are not expected to significantly

affect species viability in any alternative. Most of the activities with the 

potential to negatively affect wildlife resources are occurring on private lands 

adjacent to the forest. 

Mule deer and bighorn sheep would benefit from management areas that 

favor the specific habitat needs of each species. Deer are likely to benefit 

from Alternatives D, I, K, and B, which have the most acres dedicated to 

mule deer habitat management; the most acres dedicated to bighorn sheep 

prescriptions are in Alternatives K, I and D. 

Interior forest habitats are important for a wide range of wildlife species. 

Alternative F, followed by B, D, and K will have the most impact on interior 

forest patch sizes in lodgepole pine and spruce-fir stands as a result of timber 

management. Alternatives C and E will have the least impact on interior 

forests. 

The connectivity of habitats across the landscape provides for the movement 

of species to suitable habitats or to escape predation. Alternatives C, D, I, and 

K maintain the best conditions for unimpeded animal movement on the 

forest; Alternatives B, E, and F all provide conditions that impede dispersal 

or movement of some species. 

Elk habitat quality is maintained above the minimum level of concern in all 

alternatives except Alternative I. However, Alternative I provides the largest 

45 Summary 
White River National Forest 

amount of elk security habitat of all the alternatives. Alternative K provides 

the greatest amount of elk winter range. The largest number of recreational 

visitor days for big game hunting is expected in Alternative F, followed by

Alternatives E, B, C, D, and K. 

Aquatic 

resources 

Aquatic resources will be adequately protected by standards and guidelines in all 

alternatives. All alternatives maintain habitat with potential for viable Colorado River 

cutthroat trout populations; Alternatives E and I provide the most followed by C, K, D, 

B, and F. Recreational fishing opportunities are highest in Alternative C because of its 

emphasis on amenities. 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

Recreation The White River National Forest is capable of providing a variety of recreation settings 

for non-motorized and motorized opportunities in summer and winter. The quantity,

quality, and distribution of recreation opportunities depends on the mix of recreation 

opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes available and the theme of each alternative. The 

ROS maps in the map packet illustrate the mix of ROS settings, by alternative, in 

summer and winter. The number of acres in each ROS class is presented in charts in 

the recreation section of Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Budget levels will continue to affect the quality of services in developed 

facilities under all alternatives. Under the experienced budget level (the 

average forest budget from 1997 to 2001), the number of developed units that 

could be rehabilitated or reconstructed ranges from 94 units in Alternative E 

to 65 units in Alternative F. 

On the White River National Forest, one family campground may have 

between 4 and 108 units. The forest’s current backlog in facility maintenance 

makes reconstruction of existing facilities a higher priority than the building 

of new ones. Consequently, developed capacity would be exceeded within 

the planning period in all alternatives because of the increased developed 

recreation use that is expected to occur. 

A large share of the recreation budget would be allocated to recreation 

special uses in all alternatives, especially in Alternatives C and E, because of 

commitments authorized by existing permits. Under the experienced budget 

level 13 permits could be administered annually to standard in Alternatives 

B, C, D, F, and I, as defined in Meaningful Measures (a Forest Service 

process that helps improve services to recreation visitors by setting quality

standards, prioritizing work by visitor preference, and making better use of 

available funding). These 13 permits are for concessionaires and ski resort 

operators. Alternative E provides for the annual administration of 134 

permits to standard, or 39 percent of the forest’s existing recreation permits. 

Dispersed recreation includes motorized and non-motorized activities outside 

of developed areas. Alternative F provides the most summer and winter 

motorized opportunities; Alternative I provides the most summer and winter 

non-motorized opportunities. Because dispersed capacity depends on the 

Summary 46
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

ROS classes available and the transportation system, Alternative I has the 

lowest capacity outside of wilderness, followed by Alternatives D, K, C, E, 

F, and B. 

Because dispersed use is projected to increase in all alternatives, summer 

capacity outside of wilderness may be reached within the planning period in 

all alternatives. Alternative C provides for more dispersed campsites to be 

rehabilitated or reconstructed annually, approximately three percent of 

known campsites, followed by Alternatives K, E, D, B, I, and F. 

Wilderness capacity depends on the ROS classes and trail systems provided 

under each alternative. Alternative I provides the most capacity followed by

Alternatives C, F, B, E, D, and K. Current use projections indicate that 

wilderness capacity would not be reached within the planning period in any 

alternative. 

Trails provide the opportunity to experience backcountry settings, get away

from traffic and crowding, find solitude, and test survival skills. Under the 

experienced budget level, the amount of annual trail maintenance conducted 

outside of wilderness ranges from 220 miles in Alternative F to 540 miles in 

Alternative E. Inside wilderness, Alternative C provides the most miles 

maintained annually at 860 trail miles and Alternative F provides the least 

trail maintenance at 200 miles. Alternative E provides the most trail miles 

reconstructed or constructed annually with 23 miles inside wilderness and 

120 miles outside. 

Ski resorts Each of the seven forest management alternatives allows continued operation of the 11 

ski resorts currently operating on National Forest System lands, according to the terms 

of special use permits authorized by the forest. Each alternative provides a different 

level of potential annual skier capacity based on a variety of potential expansion sites 

(Table 3). Alternatives B, E, and F attempt to meet skier demand and provide the 

highest levels of service. Alternatives D and I do not allocate any additional National 

Forest System lands for skiing beyond current levels. Opportunities for skiing in these 

alternatives would remain stagnant at approved capacity levels. Alternative K allows 

for expansion and boundary adjustments for some existing resorts in response to 

projected increases in population, need to improve public safety, and to reduce impacts 

to wildlife. 

Table 3 

Acres allocated to ski areas by alternative 

 Alternative

B C D E F I K

Acres of 

MA 8.25 92,970 57,664 42,965 83,750 68,275 43,282 51,519 

47 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Aerial 

transportation 

corridors 

Alternative transportation opportunities that have the potential to directly affect 

National Forest System lands include the use of gondolas, trams, or chairlifts to move 

pedestrians to, from, or between key locations at resort communities. Such aerial 

transportation systems may be used as ‘people movers’ to provide an alternative to 

ground-based transportation systems. Aerial transportation systems also can provide a 

source of recreation in the form of scenic rides and access to National Forest System

lands. 

Table 4 

Acres allocated for aerial transportation corridors by county and alternative 

ALTERNATIVE 

County B C D E F I K

Eagle 0 0 0 1,672 956 0 0

Garfield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pitkin 0 75 0 0 75 0 0

Summit 0 346 0 1,076 366 0 0

Forest 

total 0 421 0 2,748 1,397 0 0 

Alternatives C, E, and F allow aerial transportation systems on National 

Forest System lands. In particular, Alternatives E and F make the highest 

allocations to this management area, while Alternatives B, D, I, and K do not 

allocate any lands for this purpose. 

Scenic 

resources 

Scenery is an integral component of all forest settings, contributing to the quality of the 

user’s experience. The most obvious and significant effects on scenic resources are 

from vegetation and landform alterations from road construction, vegetation 

management, power line clearing, recreation facility development, and mineral 

exploration and development. 

The scenic integrity levels (SILs) of very high, high, and moderate will result 

in a relatively natural-appearing landscape, which research has shown to be 

preferred by the public. Thus it is important for the forest to manage scenery

at this level. Table 5 displays the amount of natural-appearing landscapes in 

each alternative. 

Table 5 

Acres of natural-appearing landscapes by alternative 

ALTERNATIVE 

B C D E F I K

Acres 1,716,000 1,836,000 1,699,000 1,973,000 1,580,000 2,038,000 1,707,000

Summary 48
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Infrastructure and travel management 

New road construction levels are anticipated to be lower than 1984 Forest 

Plan projections for all alternatives. Most new construction is expected from

timber management activities. Road reconstruction and road maintenance 

may vary by alternative but should actually increase above current levels to 

bring roads into compliance. Permanent road closures, obliteration, and 

recontouring of roads identified for decommissioning will occur in all 

alternatives. Decommissioning of roads would be based on need, resource 

protection, and compliance with management area prescriptions. The amount 

of road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and decommissioning 

accomplished each year will be based on forest priorities, administrative and 

public needs, and budgetary allocations. 

The primary issue for winter travel management and recreation use was the 

perceived lack of non-motorized recreation areas. Wilderness is considered 

by many to be inaccessible to non-motorized uses such as cross-country

skiing, snowshoeing, and dog sledding because of the steepness of the 

terrain, avalanche hazards, southern aspects, or remoteness from trailheads. 

To address this issue, some alternatives allocate more land outside of 

wilderness to non-motorized travel only. Another issue influencing winter 

travel management is the effect of motorized travel on wildlife habitat. Some

alternatives reduce motorized areas to avoid conflicts occurring in wildlife 

winter ranges. Snow compaction from all uses is a concern to be considered 

in the management of lynx.

The following summary of motorized, motorized-on-designated-routes, and 

non-motorized acres (Tables 6 and 7) was based solely on management area

prescription standards and ROS classifications. Assignment was given to the 

more restrictive of the two when an area had differing travel classifications. 

This analysis was done for comparison between alternatives. This analysis 

should be used only for comparison among alternatives. A final travel area 

strategy will be completed as part of the travel management plan based on 

the selected alternative. Because of further analysis, site-specific information, 

and other considerations, it is very likely that within the travel management 

plan, categories and numbers represented will vary from what is represented 

in this document. 

49 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Table 6 

Summary of Acreage for Motorized/Motorized on designated routes/Nonmotorized—Summer 

Type of Strategy Acres %

Total 

Motorized %

Alternative B 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,510 8

'Motorized' 885,826 36 1,031,512 42

'Motorized designated 

routes' 145,686 6

'Non-motorized' 1,254,930 51

Alternative C 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,510 8

'Motorized' 613,753 25 948,700 38

'Motorized designated 

routes' 334,946 13

'Non-motorized' 1,337,744 54

Alternative D 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,511 8

'Motorized designated 

routes' 1,059,972 43 1,059,972 43

'Non-motorized' 1,226,469 49

Alternative E 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,510 8

'Motorized' 847,924 34 1,091,111 44

'Motorized designated 

routes' 243,187 10

'Non-motorized' 1,195,328 48

Alternative F 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,510 8

'Motorized' 1,046,671 42 1,268,265 51

'Motorized designated 

routes' 221,593 9

'Non-motorized' 1,018,175 41

Alternative I 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,511 8

'Motorized designated 

routes' 672,036 27 672,036 27

'Non-motorized' 1,614,403 65

Alternative K 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,511 8

'Motorized designated 

routes' 795,812 32 795,812 32

Notes: Based on Management Area Standard and Guide Strategies and ROS Classifications 

Total Lands with in the White River National Forest Boundary = 2,481,950 acres 

Total White River National Forest Lands = 2,286,440 

Summary 50
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 7 Summary of Acreage for 

Motorized/Motorized on designated routes/Non-motorized—Winter 

Type of Strategy Acres %

Total 

Motorized % 

Alternative B 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,511 8

'Motorized' 1,253,234 50 1,266,262 51

'Motorized designated 

routes' 13,028 1

'Non-motorized' 1,020,179 41

Alternative C 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,510 8

'Motorized' 889,980 36 986,647 40

'Motorized designated 

routes' 96,667 4

'Non-motorized' 1,299,797 52

Alternative D 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,510 8

'Motorized' 829,075 33 889,742 36

'Motorized designated 

routes' 60,667 2

'Non-motorized' 1,396,699 56

Alternative E 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,510 8

'Motorized' 847,924 34 1,091,111 44

'Motorized designated 

routes' 243,187 10

'Non-motorized' 1,195,328 48

Alternative F 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,510 8

'Motorized' 1,265,997 51 1,266,031 51

'Motorized designated 

routes' 30,048 1

'Non-motorized' 990,395 40

Alternative I 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,511 8

'Motorized' 462,407 19 562,343 23

'Motorized designated 

routes' 99,936 4

'Non-motorized' 1,724,096 69

Alternative K 

Non-Forest Service Lands 195,510 8

'Motorized' 825,044 33 938,246 38

'Motorized designated 

routes' 113,202 5

'Non-motorized' 1,348,194 54

Notes: Based on Management Area Standard and Guide Strategies and ROS Classifications 

Total Lands with in the White River National Forest Boundary = 2,481,950 acres 

Total White River National Forest Lands = 2,286,440 

51 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Roadless areas 

Thirty-seven roadless areas were found to be capable of and available for 

wilderness recommendation on the forest. Collectively, these areas comprise

about 298,000 acres. 

Table 8 identifies the number of and the total acreage of capable and 

available roadless acres recommended for wilderness (Management Area 

1.2) by alternative. It also shows whether they are adjacent to existing 

wilderness. 

Alternative I recommends both the largest number of roadless areas for 

wilderness designation and the largest number of acres. Alternative E 

recommends the next highest acreage, but fewer areas. There are fewer, 

larger roadless areas recommended in Alternative E than there are in

Alternative C. Alternative C recommends 10 areas, but with less acreage than 

Alternatives E or I and more acres than Alternative D. Of the alternatives that 

do recommend wilderness, Alternative D has the fewest areas and the fewest 

acres. Alternative K recommends more then D and less than alternative C. 

Alternatives B and F make no recommendations. 

Table 8 

Areas of management area 1.2 by alternative 

Alternative

B C D E F I K

Acres of 

management 

area 1.2 

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

Percent of 

capable and 

available 

roadless areas 

recommended for 

wilderness 

0 32 16 35 0 69 28

Number of 

adjacent areas 

0 9 3 0 0 22 13

Number of nonadjacent areas 

0 1 2 6 0 4 3

Capable and available roadless areas were assigned either management area 

1.2 or another management area. If an area is not recommended for 

wilderness designation, it must be allocated to one of the other available 

management areas. Table 9 summarizes how roadless areas have been 

assigned to different management areas (acreages have been rounded to the 

nearest 100). The seven management area categories have been aggregated 

into three groups to show what types of management will occur on these 

lands. Management area categories 1 and 2 were combined into Group 1; 

Categories 3 and 4 into Group 2; and Categories 5, 7, and 8 into Group 3. 

Summary 52
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 9 

Summary of capable and available roadless acres in different management area 

categories by alternative 

ALTERNATIVE 

B C D E F I K

Group 1 

acres 21,900 199,500 124,300 137,000 33,500 258,100 153,800

percentage 7 67 42 46 11 87 51

Group 2 

acres 126,600 44,200 15,000 131,800 25,700 25,500 12,100

percentage 42 15 5 44 9 8 4

Group 3 

acres 149,400 54,400 158,900 29,200 238,800 14,200 135,700

percentage 50 18 53 10 80 5 45

Roadless areas allocated to categories 1 and 2 (Group 1) are most likely to 

retain their undeveloped character. These categories are basically nonmotorized with backcountry emphases. This includes roadless areas that will 

be managed as RNAs and some special interest areas. Alternative K manages 

the highest percentage of roadless areas in categories 1 and 2. Alternative C 

has the next highest percentage, followed by D, E, F, and B. 

Categories 3 and 4 (Group 2) emphasize various types of recreation. With an 

emphasis on human uses, the roadless areas that are assigned to management 

areas in these categories are likely to retain some undeveloped characteristics 

but also to include some motorized opportunities. Development in these 

management areas, however, does not include intensive land management 

activities such as commercial timber harvest or ski resorts. Alternatives E 

and B allocate the largest percentage to categories 3 and 4, with 44 percent 

and 42 percent, respectively. 

Categories 5, 7, and 8 (Group 3) will have the most intensive development 

and have the potential to have the most significant impact on the 

undeveloped character of roadless areas. Roadless areas in these management 

areas may have timber harvest, road construction, motorized uses, utility

corridors, and wildlife habitat developments. Alternative F has 80 percent of 

the roadless areas managed with these management areas. Alternatives D and 

B manage about half of the roadless areas this way followed by Alternative K 

at 45 percent, while Alternatives C, E, and I contain a low percentage of 

roadless areas assigned to Group 3. 

53 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Special areas 

Heritage 

resources 

The White River National Forest contains a rich fabric of historical and prehistoric 

resources known as heritage resources. Only 5 to 10 percent of the forest has been 

intensively inventoried to locate these resources. However, each time a grounddisturbing activity is planned the law requires that an inventory be conducted to 

mitigate any impacts on heritage resources. In addition to these actions, at least 125 

sites are monitored annually for any adverse effects or vandalism. Because of the 

protections afforded under various laws, adverse effects on heritage resources are 

expected to be minimal. 

Research 

natural areas 

(RNAs) 

RNAs are established to maintain areas of natural ecosystems and areas of special

ecological significance. The White River National Forest currently shares an RNA 

(Hoosier Ridge) with the Pike National Forest. Fifteen potential RNAs have been 

identified for possible inclusion in the system. These range in size from 1,420 to 

24,450 acres. The number and vegetation representation of proposed RNAs varies 

depending on the theme of each alternative. Alternative B proposes no additional 

RNAs; Alternative E proposes four additional RNAs, totaling 52,600 acres; Alternative 

F proposes seven additional RNAs, 67,200 acres; Alternative C proposes nine 

additional RNAs, 76,000 acres; Alternative D proposes 12 additional RNAs 93,900 

acres; Alternative I proposes 15 additional RNAs, 116,300 acres; and Alternative K 

proposes 5 additional RNAs, 37,400 acres. 

National trails The White River National Forest manages a segment of the Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail and three national recreation trails. Other trails of national or 

regional significance either cross or are proposed to cross the forest. All of these trails 

play a role in providing trail-related recreation in systems that reach beyond the forest 

boundaries. Effects on national trails are expected to be minimal and do not vary

significantly among alternatives. 

Special 

interest areas 

The forest has some special and unique resources. Planning procedures and regulations 

allow for the recognition and protection of these resources, as has been implemented in 

several alternatives. 

Six special interest areas emphasize recreation use and interpretation of the 

environment. Alternative D proposes the most areas allocated to this purpose, followed 

by Alternatives K, C, E, and I. Alternatives B, D, and F propose no allocations for this 

purpose. 

Fourteen special interest areas minimize recreation and other uses in order to protect 

their special biological or zoological values. Alternative D would allocate the most 

land for this purpose, followed by Alternatives K, I, C, E, and F. Alternative B would 

allocate no lands for this purpose. 

Wild and 

Scenic Rivers 

National forests are directed to evaluate their rivers during plan revision for inclusion 

in the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). The White River National 

Forest evaluated all of its rivers, including 77 in detail, and found 5 rivers totaling 103 

miles to be eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS: the South Fork of the White River, 

the Crystal River, Deep Creek, the Colorado River in Glenwood Canyon, and Cross 

Summary 54
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Creek. The South Fork of the White River, Deep Creek and the Crystal River are 

recognized in Alternative B, while all of the eligible rivers are recognized in 

Alternatives C through K. These rivers will be managed to maintain their eligibility

until a detailed suitability study is completed. The second phase of river evaluation, a 

suitability study, will be considered when: 

• Strong local interest or support is demonstrated for wild and scenic 

designation; and 

• Congress expresses interest in a specific river for wild and scenic 

designation; or 

• A proposed project would alter the free-flowing character of a 

stream, such as through impoundment, or would affect the resources 

that made the stream eligible. 

Wilderness The White River National Forest manages three areas as wilderness and shares 

management of five additional areas with adjacent national forests. Congress has 

designated about a third of the forest as wilderness. In addition to providing a resource 

for recreation, these areas also are important for maintaining species diversity, 

protecting threatened and endangered species, protecting watersheds, and providing for 

scientific research and various social values. 

Alternatives analyzed in this forest plan revision vary wilderness management by 

allocating different acreages to be managed as pristine (management area 1.11), 

primitive (1.12), or semi-primitive (1.13). Pristine allocations range from Alternative E 

with 9 percent of the total area of wilderness on the forest to Alternative I with 15 

percent of the total area. Primitive allocations range from Alternative B with 89 

percent of the total area of wilderness on the forest to Alternative K with 65 percent of 

the total area. Semi-primitive allocations range from Alternative I with 0.3 percent of 

the total area of wilderness on the forest to Alternative E with 6 percent of the total 

area. 

55 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Timber suitability and allowable sale quantity 

Figure 12 displays the lands that are suitable, including scheduled and 

unscheduled, for timber production for each alternative. Alternatives F, D, 

and K have the largest amounts of suitable timber lands. 

Figure 13 displays the ASQ (unconstainted by budget) and volume offer 

(constrained to the experienced budget level) for sawtimber for the first 

decade of the plan’s implementation for each alternative. The full 

implementation level represents the funding of all programs at a level one 

and one-half times as much as the experienced budget level (the amount of 

funding that the forest actually receives each year, shown here as the average 

annual budget between 1998 and 2001). Alternative F provides the highest 

ASQ and volume offered under the experienced budget level.

Figure 14 displays the net returns for the timber program for the first decade 

of the plan’s implementation for each alternative. No alternative is below 

cost for timber management. Alternative F generates the highest net returns. 

Figure 12 

Acres of suitable timber lands by management area prescription 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

B C D E F I K

Alternative

Acres

Summary 56
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Figure 13 

Sawtimber ASQ (unconstrained by budget) and Volume Offered (constrained by

experienced budget) 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

B C D E F I K

Alternative

Thousand Board Feet/Year, first decade

ASQ

Volume

Offered

Figure 14 

Net return from the timber program per year (decade 1, experienced budget level) 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

B C D E F I K

Alternative

Net Return in Dollars

57 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Social and economic environment 

Forest 

contributions 

to area 

economy 

The White River National Forest provides jobs and income in the planning area 

through a variety of resource programs. Spending associated with downhill skiing on 

National Forest System lands dominates, providing over 90 percent of all national

forest-related jobs and labor income. The percentage of hunting- and fishing-related 

jobs in the area is very small relative to other types of recreation. The smallest job 

provider is timber harvesting, primarily because no large processing facility is located 

in the area. In total, jobs associated with national forest management activities 

currently provide nearly a third of the planning area jobs and a quarter of the area jobs 

and labor income. The forest contributes more to its local economy than any other 

national forest in the Rocky Mountain Region. 

Changes in recreational uses of the forest, agency expenditures (salaries, 

equipment, contracts), and the use of timber and forage resources have direct 

and indirect effects on planning area jobs and income. An increase in

recreation or timber production may mean an increase in jobs and income to 

local counties. In addition, if production is decreased in one resource and 

increased in another, there is a shifting of jobs from one industry to another. 

Table 10 displays the change in employment by resource for each 

alternative. Figures are displayed for both the desired condition and 

experienced budget levels. The base year of 1994 was used as a starting point 

for total jobs and income. The table reflects how jobs and income would 

decrease or increase from 1994 levels. Table 10 indicates that total jobs 

attributed to forest use will increase in all alternatives. Increases will range 

from 21 percent to 29 percent. Nearly all of the increases result from

increased skiing and other recreation use. Jobs and labor income resulting 

from timber harvest are the only indicators that could drop, with potential 

employment changes ranging from a loss of 22 jobs to a gain of six jobs. 

Effects on 

economic 

efficiency 

Table 11 displays the economic and financial public net value (PNV) (public values 

less agency costs) for each alternative. All monetary values are expressed in constant 

dollars, with no allowance for inflation. A 4 percent discount rate was used over a 50-

year period (2000 to 2049). The reduction of PNV in any alternative as compared to 

the most financially or economically efficient solution is the economic trade-off, or 

opportunity cost, of achieving that alternative. 

As shown in Table 11, the financial PNV (Forest Service revenues less costs) for 

experienced budget levels varies from a negative $83 million for Alternative I to a 

break-even position for Alternative F. What appears to make Alternatives F the highest 

PNV is high timber harvest levels. Alternatives with preservation emphases show the 

highest net cost to the taxpayer. There are no agency revenues associated with these 

emphases, but expenses remain the same. This same pattern is true for the full budget 

level, but the PNVs are lower. Higher expenses of this level do not generate additional 

revenues sufficient to offset the budget increase. 

The economic PNV (public benefits less costs) is positive for all alternatives at both 

budget levels. The net value ranges from a low $14.5 billion for Alternative I to a high 

Summary 58
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

of $15.1 billion for Alternative B. There is only a 3 percent difference between the 

lowest and highest PNV—a difference that may be indistinguishable given estimated 

accuracies for value and output estimates. The net economic benefits are orders of 

magnitude larger than the financial gross revenues. This suggests that even with the 

limited monetary values available for the analysis, society benefits greatly from the 

White River National Forest. 

Many outcomes and ecosystem conditions associated with each alternative 

are not included in the economic efficiency analysis. Prices for many of these 

outcomes and conditions have been estimated in the economic literature, but 

their portability or transferability to other locations and situations is very 

limited at this time. The USDA and Washington Office of the Forest Service 

have not established the monetary prices of non-commodity outcomes or 

conditions for application to forest planning. However, the agency’s cost of 

achieving these outcomes and conditions is included in the economic 

efficiency analysis. 

Table 10 

Change to employment by program by alternative in 2010, total jobs contributed 

ALTERNATIVE 

Resource 

Base 

year 

(1999) B C D E F I K

Experienced budget 

level 

Skiing 24,158 24,725 24,725 24,344 24,725 24,725 24,341 24,725

Other recreation 4,648 5,516 5,516 5,509 5,516 5,386 5,366 5,420

Fish and wildlife use 1,845 2,182 2,182 2,182 2,182 2,006 2,182 2,182

Grazing 221 221 221 221 221 243 221 221

Timber harvest 33 77 28 57 28 121 33 66

25% payments 46 59 48 53 48 69 47 56

Forest Service 

expenditures 333 333 334 334 334 333 333 334

Total forest

management 31,284 33,113 33,054 32,700 33,054 32,883 32,523 33,004

Percent change from 

1999 --- 5.8% 5.7% 4.5% 5.7% 5.1% 4.0% 5.5%

 

Full budget level 

Total forest

management 31,284 33,325 33,245 32,910 33,245 33,122 32,707 33,220

Increase from

experienced budget 

level --- 212 191 210 191 239 184 216

59 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Table 11 

Economic and financial efficiency (present net value over 50 years in millions of 

2000 dollars) 

ALTERNATIVE 

Experienced budget level B C D E F I K

Forest Service revenues 245 205 223 204 283 200 238

Public benefits 15,418 15,378 15,011 15,377 14,966 14,956 15,388

Costs -283 -283 -283 -283 -283 -283 -283

Financial net revenues -38 -78 -60 -79 0 -83 -45

Economic net benefits 15,135 15,095 14,728 15,094 14,683 14,673 15,105

Full budget level 

Forest Service revenues 272 218 247 216 328 207 265

Public benefits 15,445 15,391 15,035 15,389 15,011 14,963 15,416

Costs -424 -424 -424 -424 -424 -424 -424

Financial net revenues -152 -207 -177 -209 -96 -217 -159

Economic net benefits 15,021 14,966 14,611 14,964 14,587 14,538 14,991

Vacant grazing allotments 

The closure of vacant allotments eliminates the use of these areas for 

domestic livestock production in the future and removes them from the 

suitable land base. While closing vacant allotments does not reduce current 

permitted animal unit months, it does reduce future management flexibility

by eliminating the possibility of using these areas to resolve future conflicts 

between livestock grazing and other resources or provide forage in drought 

years. See the vacant allotment alternatives map for the location of these 

areas. 

The acres that would be removed from the suitable land base by the closing 

or partial closing of vacant allotments is shown in Table 12. 

Table 13 displays how the allotments vary by alternative in terms of whether 

they should be retained, closed, or partially closed. 

Decisions to retain or close vacant allotments will be made on an allotment 

by allotment basis and will be separate from the record of decision for the 

FEIS. 

Summary 60
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 12a 

Acres suitable for cattle grazing by alternative 

ALTERNATIVE 

B C D E F I K

Acres presently suitable for cattle 

grazing 960,841 960,841 960,841 960,841 960,841 960,841 960,841

Management area prescriptions 

excluding grazing (RNA’s) 0 19,069 23,421 11,009 16,180 32,220 4,324

Acres proposed for full or partial

closure in this alternative 0 150,484 134,279 195,144 80,730 160,664 152,034

Total suitable acres (cattle) for 

this alternative 960,841 791,288 803,141 754,689 863,931 767,956 804,483

Table 12b 

Acres suitable for sheep grazing, by alternative 

ALTERNATIVE 

B C D E F I K

Acres presently suitable for

cattle grazing 1,167,261 1,167,261 1,167,261 1,167,261 1,167,261 1,167,261 1,167,261

Management area 

prescriptions excluding 

grazing (RNA’s) 

0 22,268 27,772 12,020 18,151 38,335 6,374

Acres proposed full or

partial closure in this 

alternative 

0 200,472 178,781 264,026 108,261 218,004 198,428

Total suitable acres 

(sheep) for this 

alternative 

1,167,261 944,521 960,708 891,215 1,040,849 910,922 962,459

61 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Table 13 

Number of vacant allotments recommended for retention, partial retention, and 

closure 

ALTERNATIVE 

Recommended status B C D E F I K

Cattle 

Allotments recommended 

for retention 

23 5 6 4 10 13 6

Allotments recommended 

for partial retention 

0 3 4 0 2 3 4 

Allotments recommended 

for closure

0 15 13 19 11 7 13 

Sheep 

Allotments recommended 

for retention 

28 8 6 4 18 4 9 

Allotments recommended 

for partial retention 

0 4 8 0 4 1 4 

Allotments recommended 

for closure

0 16 14 24 6 23 15 

Total vacant allotments 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 

Summary 62
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

How to find out more about 

the Revised Forest Plan 

The White River National Forest is committed to helping individuals and 

groups in our communities understand the impact that the Revised Forest 

Plan will have on their activities. Full sets of all official documents may be 

found in the following locations: 

• Your local library

• On our website, www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver

• A CD-ROM available from your local Forest Service office 

If you would like to request a CD-ROM containing the full set of documents, 

or have questions and would like to speak with a Forest Service employee, 

following is a list of our offices on the White River: 

Aspen Ranger District

District Ranger Jim Upchurch

806 West Hallam

Aspen, CO 81611 

970-925-5277

Blanco Ranger District

District Ranger Bill Hahnenberg

317 East Market Street 

Meeker, CO 81641 

970-878-4039

Dillon Ranger District 

District Ranger Jamie Connell

680 River Parkway

Silverthorne, CO 80498 

970-468-8400

Eagle Ranger District 

District Ranger Cathy Kahlow 

125 West 5th Street

Eagle, CO 81631

970-328-6388

Holy Cross Ranger District 

District Ranger Cal Wettstein 

24747 US Highway 24

Minturn, CO 81645 

970-827-5715

Rifle Ranger District 

District Ranger Dave Silvieus

0094 County RD

Rifle, CO 81650

970-625-2371

Sopris Ranger District

District Ranger Bill Westbrook

620 Main Street

Carbondale, CO 81623

970-963-2266

Supervisor’s Office 

Forest Supervisor Martha Ketelle

900 Grand Avenue 

Glenwood Springs, CO 81601

970-945-2521

63 Summary 
White River National Forest 

Summary 64