Analysis of the Draft Plan

Alternative Plans

As was stated earlier the Land and Resources Management Plan (a.k.a. Forest Plan) is under revision for the White River National Forest. The last time the Forest Plan for White River was revised was in 1984. The Forest Supervisor determined that it was time for the plan to be revised. The need for changes was based on several reasons: improved information about National Forest lands and resources, improved scientific knowledge, changing concern over environmental issues, and newly created or changed federal laws and policies.

The Forest Plan establishes management standards and guidelines for the White River National Forest. It describes resource management practices, levels or resource production, and the availability of lands for different kinds of recreation and resource management. Since so much has changed since current management standards were put into effect changes are an extraordinarily big deal for everyone who works, lives or plays in the White River National Forest. So, in 1999, a team was put together to evaluate the situation and propose a new Forest Plan for the next fifteen years. After exhaustive research the team identified six revision topics that had to be addressed in the final proposal. The six revision topics are the focus of the Forest Plan revision process. They are the focal points of each of the alternatives proposed in the Draft to the Forest Plan put out by the team. These six topics are Biodiversity, Travel Management, Recreation Management, Roadless Areas, Special Areas and Timber suitability.

The focus of this forest plan revision has been to carry out the Forest Service mandate to serve multiple service, sustained-yield objectives. Each alternative emphasizes different land and resource uses and objectives to give the decision makers a wide spectrum of proposals. Because the alternatives reflect different preferences expressed by a diverse public, they contain a number of trade-offs between competing outcomes and desires. Identification of the preferred alternative is based on the judgement that it provides the best resolution to the six revision topics as a whole. Herein, we will analyze four of the six alternatives proposed for the new Forest Plan and their pros and cons. We will also give our final opinion as to the "best" alternative proposed according to the impact of market failures and the cost and benefit of each alternative. The four alternatives we will analyze are Alternatives B, D, F and I. Each of these alternatives stands on its own as a revision the 1984 plan but in some cases they have very similar attributes. However, they are all styled to answer the same questions in as many ways as possible.

Alternative B

Alternative B is considered the "No Action" alternative; it reflects the current forestwide direction. This means that current management allocation, activities, and management direction would continue. This alternative emphasizes production of goods and services such as recreation, especially downhill skiing where acreage allocated would be increased to meet expected levels of demand.

Relationship to the six revision topics and market failures

Alternative B maintains a moderate level of Biodiversity. Habitat improvements are focused on big game species, fisheries, and threatened or endangered species. In the travel management revision very little is changed. Motorized vehicles are pretty much allowed except for a specified wilderness area. In the recreation revision there will be no new land allocations for ski-resorts, but opportunities for additional non-ski resorts and backcountry huts may exist. No new recommendations for wilderness areas are made in this alternative. There are several areas eligible for special area designation but very little else. And finally the timber harvest calls for the allowable sale quantity to be lower than in the 1984 Forest Plan and it is a medium level in relation to other alternatives. In terms of economic impacts to the surroundings, the plan would increase employment by roughly 30%. The free rider problem characterizes this alternative in terms of market failures. There is no new recommendation for expansion of ski-resorts and the logging industry is held in check by this alternative. The main problem with this alternative is the use of motorized vehicles. While the expansion of areas designated for vehicles has ceased the pollution caused by ATV’s and snowmobiles hurts both the other people using the forest directly it also affects the wildlife in the area.

Alternative F

Alternative F emphasizes resource production, such as logging and livestock grazing, while simultaneously affording recreational activities a fair amount of attention.

Relationship to the six revision topics and market failures

Its proposed timber harvest and road construction in forest lands is the largest among the alternatives. In terms of biodiversity, the plan is not as concerned with managing forest ecosystems and the improvements to the park are solely focused on endangered species. The travel management aspect of the plan would provide for the greatest increase in road miles, thus affecting the forestry and surrounding wildlife considerably. Recreation activities would be allowed to increase moderately assuming that they do not interfere with resource production activities. Landscapes within the park would be afforded only minimal protection. This is important because taking away from the scenic beauty of the forest could result in serious consequences, which would negatively affect the number of forest visitors in a year. This could be compensated though, through the encouragement of recreational activities such as skiing. Also, due to the emphasis on resource production, the plan would create many new jobs within the forest and surrounding areas. Basically, Alternative F utilizes the maximum of resources for production purposes, which would yield the highest commodity output among the alternatives. Its emphasis on environmental protection and special areas is low in comparison, while its economic focus is liberal. The negative externalities afforded by this plan are great. The increased logging and livestock grazing in the area would greatly hurt the scenic beauty of the forest and increase the pollution in the area. This would happen through the increased use of backcountry roadways by the logging companies.

Alternative I

This alternative is the response to concerns raised by a coalition of environmental groups. As opposed to other alternatives I places an emphasis on natural disturbance as a process for the maintenance of ecosystems. It looks to allow natural disturbance regimes and other ecological and evolutionary processes to occur without human intervention. Recreation and forest commodity production are tolerable to the point of imparting any harm on the natural processes and the conservation and maintenance of the ecosystems throughout the forest.

Relationships to the six revision topics and market failures

Natural processes occur at the highest level under this alternative, and management activities are oriented on restoration of habitats for wildlife such as the lynx, and protection of animals such as Elk. This alternative has the fewest available routes for motorized travel, essentially disallowing it. It would lead to the greatest reduction in trail and road miles for motorized vehicles. Ski resorts are limited to current boundaries, and the recreation opportunities emphasized are semi-primitive and non-motorized. In this alternative many roadless areas are recommended for wilderness designation, which is upwards of 56% of the forest. Under this alternative the highest amount of special research and other interest areas are designated, with an emphasis on ecological values, focusing on wildlife and botanical interests. Timber harvest that is not part of the allowable sale quantity as well as the allowable sale quantity itself is at the lowest level under this plan. This would also be the least financially efficient alternative, although it would possibly be the best for the preservation and continuation of the natural processes occurring, and the wildlife habitats within the forest. This also offers the least amount of negative externalities of all the alternatives. However, the free rider question again comes into play, where only people that are willing to use primitive forms of transportation are really allowed to enjoy the park.

Alternative D
Alternative D is what now stands as the preferred alternative to the Regional Forester. It was formulated in response to growing concerns relating to the wildlife habitats of the wide variety of species found in the forest, as well as biological diversity. It emphasizes the physical and biological resources within the park and their protection, placing the nature and preservation of the forest before human uses such as recreation. Unlike Alternative I, which has the same basic principle, the way to achieve this goal is stressed through active management policies such as timber harvesting, prescribed fires and structural improvements. Of all the alternatives, D places the lowest emphasis on the development of the forest for human recreation.

Relationship to the six revision topics and market failures

Alternative D maintains a high level of biological diversity through active management programs. It leaves little to the natural processes that occur in the forest, which will continue at a low to moderate level. As far as travel management, there will be a large decline in motorized vehicle use. Summer use of motorized or mechanized vehicles for off-road recreation will be limited, as the available roads, trails, and total acreage devoted to such uses will be reduced. In the winter, it will be all but prohibited on the whole, with certain pockets of the park still open for minor use. Recreation opportunities will be stressed on a more primitive scale. Ski resorts will be limited to current boundaries, and there will be no allowance for aerial corridors connecting different resorts. Some areas will be designated for wilderness, and a few will be recommended for new research natural areas. As timber harvesting goes, it will be paced at a moderate level, oriented more towards forest health and wildlife management than production purposes. This alternative minimizes the negative externalities, free rider effect and the lack of symmetric information.