http://www.swparks.com/picsbig/mbells5.jpg
Final Paper
White River National Forest
The two and one quarter acre White River National Forest is located in the heart of the Colorado Rocky Mountains, approximately two to four hours west of Denver on I-70. The scenic beauty of the area, along with ample developed and undeveloped recreation opportunities in the forest, accounts for the fact that the White River consistently ranks as one of the top Forests nation wide for total recreation use. The Forest provides for an excellent variety of recreation opportunities in all seasons with eleven ski areas, eight designated wildernesses, several national trails, approximately 70 forest service administered developed sites (campgrounds, picnic grounds), and over one and one half million acres for general motorized and non-motorized backcountry enjoyment. Popular recreation activities in the Forest include downhill and cross-country skiing, developed and dispersed camping, four-wheel driving, sightseeing, photography, hunting, fishing, hiking, boating, snowmobiling, picnicking, bicycling, horseback riding and backpacking.
The elevation of the Forest ranges from 5,000 to 14,000 feet. Warm days and cool to freezing nights can be expected in the mountains during the summer. July and August are usually the warmest months, and afternoon thunderstorms are common. Fall in the Forest is brief but spectacular, as changing aspens cloak the mountains in gold. Peak color time is normally the last part of September. Crisp, sunny days mingle with early snowstorms in what many consider the premier season of the year. Winter brings the abundant powder snowfall that Colorado is famous for. Most winter recreation, including skiing and snowmobiling, occurs between Thanksgiving and Easter, but high elevation sites offer good snow much later into the spring.
The park itself is obviously a source of great enjoyment to all and offers a plethora of opportunities for recreation. Unfortunately though, the park, as well as the surrounding environment, has become the victim of an increased population in the area, a growth in the number of annual tourists to the region, and an economic expansion which has utilized natural resources found within the park boundaries for the purpose of producing goods and services. Because White River National Forest is a national treasure, measures have been introduced to protect the environment in accordance with pollution limits, resource consumption, and economic efficiency. In the past few decades, forestry officials have implemented strategic plans for the preservation of the wilderness and resources with White River and update those plans every fifteen years or so. These updates are often the issues of debate over how the land should be managed and to what extent they affect such variables as bio-diversity, pollution, recreation, etc.
The following points of interest are critical assessments of the current situation that the park is facing. The first part introduces the concept of market failures, or rather pollution externalities, asymmetrical information, as well as non-excludability and non-rivalry, within the park. It gives a precise evaluation of certain market failures that the park is facing. The second part offers a conjoint analysis survey, including a description of its uses in regards to White River National Forest. The ultimate goal of the survey is to identify the efficiency effects of the purposed actions that are being considered. In this section, the topics include the willingness of consumers to pay for recreational use within the park, the magnitude of external effects in White River (as a function of the level of the activity or good which is causing the effects), and also the reactions to plans proposed by the forestry service from consumers. This survey is vital to the end conclusion which defines which alternative plan should be implemented to ensure the maximum economic efficiency that is achievable as well as the minimum amount of pollution that can be procured. The final part of this project is the explanation and impacts of the alternative plans that are being proposed. This part includes evaluations and recommendations based upon the prior two sections concerning market failures and the conjoint analysis survey. This is the most important part due to the implications which it could have concerning the future state of the White River National Forest.
Market Failures
The White River National Forest encompasses 2.27 million acres of the most spectacular scenery and pristine wilderness found in Colorado, as well as being a major ground for recreation opportunities. Presently, the Forest service is weighing alternative plans regarding future use of the forest acreage. With the multitude of draft plans being considered come many proposed levels of logging and timber management, motorized vehicle use for recreation, and the expansion of ski areas, along with resultant connecting aerial tramways. Each one has the potential to be detrimental to the environment by introducing various forms of pollution to the environment. There would be a lack of proper control over this pollution, be it noise, air, water, or ground waste. The ability to judge the amount of pollution introduced, what level of abatement should be levied, and the equitable distribution of the cleaning effort, cannot be clearly defined. In this way, the park is similar to an open access resource, and the potential for large environmental harm is significant.
Now let’s ruminate the immediate effects of the implementation of these plans, how they are market failures, and what type they are.
Negative Production Externalities
To begin with, while some alternatives call for the reduction in the total amount of road miles within the forest, in order to facilitate plans that encourage the increase of logging and other timber management, new road construction would need to occur. The building of new roadways would introduce several negative effects not accounted for by the price of construction, upkeep and research. The construction of new roadways would mean exhaust fumes and noise pollution from construction vehicles, cars, trucks, and buses, which would result in harm both animal and plant life. The increased motorized vehicle access also increases the risk of soil contamination, and negatively affecting the flora and fauna both near the road, and further into the forest because of local wind patterns. The cost of adding extra passageways through the forest needs to be weighed against the protection of plant and endangered animal species. The pollution associated with adding these roadways is a negative production externality.
Additionally, by increasing the logging and timber management levels, there will have to be a corresponding increase in the amount of transportation in order to haul the timber, as well as an increase in the amount of people working in the park. This could lead to an increase in human waste such as garbage, and the noise, air and ground pollution associated with heightened levels of logging would negatively affect the native wildlife. It is unlikely that there will be a balance between the marginal costs to the wilderness area and the marginal benefits, such as increased employment, to the park revenue that comes from increased logging.
At the heart of much of the heated debate regarding the new draft plans is the proposed expansion of Vail Associates ski area, an additional 1000 acres to be used for new ski trails, lift construction, and possible production of aerial tramways to connect different ski resorts. This expansion has a rather large potential for environmental harm, as it could negatively affect animal habitat, increase air and ground pollution, and cut deep into roadless areas and untouched wilderness.
Also, by expanding aerial tramways and the existing ski area, they would have to cut into land that is the best available for the preservation and active promotion of the endangered native lynx habitat in the state, and perhaps the Southern Rockies. The proposed expansion would destroy upwards of 120 acres of feeding habitat and 90 acres of essential living habitat of the endangered lynx by splitting and isolating the different tracts of lynx habitat.
The construction and development of the area would introduce air pollution, in the form of exhaust, and ground contamination from oil and other waste products of motorized vehicles and machinery. The market failure here revolves around Vail associates’ desire to expand the ski-area as well as their likely inability, and non-desire, to fairly weigh their production benefits against the cost to the surrounding environment.
Public Goods and The Free Rider Problem
The White River National Forest is non-excludable and non-rival. A non-rival situation, simply put, means that one person’s enjoyment of the forest does not preclude others from receiving the same benefits of the good. The forest is non-excludable because it provides open access to its visitors with no entrance fee, and there is no limit or control placed on the amount of people that visit the forest. This creates an inefficiency though, one where people have no incentive to share in the abatement costs associated with their individual use of the forest and the harm caused to the resource. People who are not willing to pay will have no restrictions placed on their consumption of the good in question. This market failure applies most to the use of motorized recreation vehicles and their negative impact on the environment.
The forest management plans for the most part make positive strides towards reducing the available land for such an activity. However, by allowing any motorized vehicle use at all the forest runs the risk of the same types of pollution associated with new road construction and vehicular travel. Except now, the pollutants are released into the environment on dirt paths in the forest depths, possibly more harmful then if they were on the main roadways.
It is unlikely that people who own these vehicles would find on their own an appropriate use level that weighs their desire for recreation with proper forest protection and preservation. Therefore, without proper funding from an another source, the forest will be subject to the negative consumption externality caused by snowmobiles and ATV’s.
The negative impacts are primarily threefold; air and water pollution, disruption of animal and plant life, and the erosion of wilderness area, both designated and non-designated paths. The effects of carbon monoxide and other air pollutants is especially disconcerting when considering their proximity to endangered species and protective habitats. It is also possible that these emissions, if carried by strong enough winds, could effect local communities. However, by enacting a policy that reduces or restricts the use of these vehicles, the harmful pollutants could remain a short-term problem.
Asymmetric Information
In regards to the Vail Associates expansion proposal, it appears that Vail is privy to certain information regarding the endangered lynx habitat that could alter the outcome of their petition for 1000 acres from White River. This is a market failure because one party involved in a transaction does not completely inform the other of all the facts, or purposely misleads the other party. What is the true standing of the endangered lynx habitat?
The exact number of lynx in White River is unknown, in fact, there have been very few lynx sightings of date. However, as recently as 1992, there were lynx sightings, and according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service "there is no question that lynx exist at Vail ski area and the surrounding mountains." The research studies were performed to gauge the impact of the Vail category three expansion on the lynx habitat. It was stated in a 1999 conferencing report by the US Fish and Wildlife Service that:
"The service also finds that the project (Cat III) as proposed, is likely to adversely affect the lynx, and may continue to the ultimate extirpation (extinction) and diminish potential for recovery of the lynx in the Southern Rockies ecosystem."
Vail Associates, however, is alleged to have tried to block this information from the public, in an attempt to prevent bumps in the way of their petition for expansion. A wildlife biologist working for Vail associates saw and tracked a lynx as recently as 1992, and the photo and hair samples remain on file at the Colorado Division of Wildlife. According to the Boulder Community Network, upon learning that the expansion would be a greater negative externality than originally predicted, Vail Associates attorney’s and the Forest Service told the CDOW to "avoid, if at all possible, making further comments in writing."
The asymmetric information is harmful to the lynx and it’s possible that a misinformed choice could be made regarding the future use of White River National Forest.
All of these market failures represent clear dilemmas which face White River National Forest. While they are presently at issue, these market failures have the potential to affect the park for years to come. Through the following sections of this project, solutions will be presented and alternative plans proposed in order to minimize the effects of these problems. Immediate action must be taken to ensure the sustainability of White River for future generations, both in regards to resource consumption and places for recreational activities.
Conjoint Analysis Survey Explanation
Survey Explanation
Our project, on the White River National Forest, concerns a proposed draft plan that includes the expansion of ski resorts such as Vail, the elimination of ATVing, and the augmentation of logging grounds. Our survey is going to be used to analyze the effects of the draft plan, if implemented. In the beginning of the survey, we asked certain background questions about the people whom we are surveying. The standard age, sex, and income, we will use as guidelines for certain groupings that we will want to make up. The time spent in participating in outdoor activities is important because we want to know if the person we are surveying will have an impact on the land after the draft plan or not. The certain activities question is important because specific parts of the plan which we are inquiring about involve some of those certain activities. Thus, again, we are looking for the impact of the person being surveyed. Lastly, the question about environment protection is important to decide whether or not the person being surveyed is concerned with the environment as a whole, or just with the effects that the draft plan will have on their ability to participate in their outdoor activity in White River National Forest.
The three areas of the draft plan which we are particularly interested in, the ski area expansion, the logging and protection of forestry, and recreational vehicle use, each have questions specifically designed to evaluate the effects of the draft plan on the interviewee. The first one, on the Vail expansion, has questions related to the amount of ski land, price, and effect on the surrounding animal habitat. These are all important as a person who skis is very interested in the amount of skiable trails and the price of skiing, while a environmental-minded person with care about the lynx habitat. Combined with the information in the introduction to this survey, these questions should aid us in evaluating the effects of the draft plan on the park and its ski resorts.
The logging part of the survey is important due to the amount of wild acreage that is available within the park. The price of park pollution control is especially important because it affect the park service’s budget, which may in turn lead it to put a use price on the activities which occur within the park. The amount of pollution itself will be important to people who are concerned with the environment as well as those who participate in activities which will be affected. The amount of new jobs created will be used to evaluate if the surrounding economic impact and if the interviewee is concerned with finding a new job, or the surrounding job market itself.
Lastly, the part in ATVing will be used the same way as the previous two. The noise pollution question will imply that as ATVing goes down, so will the loud sounds which accompany those machines. This is important mostly to people who are not involved with ATVing, but rather activities such as hunting, where noise is very important. The effects on the wildlife question is similar to those in the two above parts and will directed at those who consider conservation a priority.
Conjoint Analysis Survey for the White River National Forest
Demographic Questions:
Have you ever visited the White River National Forest? If so how often?
Please Rank your time spent participating in an outdoor activity:
Never Very Little Average Considerable
Which of these activities do you participate in? (check all that apply)
ATVing Fishing Scenic Driving Backpacking Hiking Snow mobiling
Boating Horseback Riding Snow shoeing Camping Hunting
Spelunking X-Country Skiing Mountain Biking Downhill skiing
Age:
1) 10-20
2) 21-30
3) 31-40
4) 41-45
5) 46-50
50+
Income:
$0-$25,000
$25,001-$50,000
$50,001-$75,000
$75,001-$100,000
$100,001+
Gender:
1) Male 2) Female
Interest in Environmental Protection:
None Very Little Average Above Average Very Interested
Some of Colorado’s most spectacular scenery is found in the White River National Forest, one of the most popular in the country. Here resides the nation’s largest Elk herd , along with some of the best habitat in the state for lynx, wolverine, goshawk and eagles. The White River National Forest contains about 300,000 acres of potential wilderness and other areas now at risk from logging, oil and gas drilling, ski area expansion, and unchecked motorized recreation. The Forest Service has considered several "alternatives" for managing the forest for the next 15 years the most prominent of which is the Draft Plan.
Ski Area Expansion:
The proposed Vail expansion would cut into the White River National Forest. The 885 acre tract could affect both the native and endangered lynx habitat as well as the elk herd. Such expansion could not only destroy wildlife habitat but contribute to the sprawl and congestion already being experienced by mountain residents.
Please rate on a scale of 1(Very Undesirable) to 10(Very Desirable) each of the following scenarios regarding Vail ski area expansion:
Scenario Amount of New Congestion $ Lift Ticket Lynx Habitat/Elk Herd
Ski Area
1 885 Acres 4 min. lift line $60 Likely Extinction
2 400 Acres 12 min. lift line $45 Survival Questionable
3 0 Acres 19 min. lift line $40 Encourage Expansion
Logging & Protection of Forest:
Conservationists have identified some 300,000 acres of wild lands deserving of wilderness protection. The draft plan recommends less then 16% (47,200) for protection. Under the proposed Draft Plan logging would double from current levels and fail to protect any lodgepole pine or aspen old-growth forests. The draft plan creates numerous management areas for forest carnivores, but then promotes logging not habitat protection within these areas.
Please rate on a scale of 1(Very Undesirable) to 10(Very Desirable) each of the following scenarios regarding Logging & Protection of Forest:
Scenario Wild Acreage Damage/Pollution* Economic Impact Price of Park Pollution Control
1 300,000 Negligible 0 new Jobs $500,000
2 200,000 Increased 200 new Jobs $1,000,000
3 47,200 Considerable 400 new Jobs $3,000,000
*Negligible= Not measured, Increased= Pollution rises by 50% or less, Considerable= Rises by more than 50%
Recreational Vehicle Use:
The use of off-road vehicles is also a hotly debated issue. While many enjoy the use of snowmobiles and ATV’s for recreation and transportation, there are others bothered by the noise pollution and the potential for erosion. The Forest Service has recommended the end of off-road travel and has proposed limits to motorized travel to designated routes.
Please rate on a scale of 1(Very Undesirable) to 10(Very Desirable) each of the following scenarios regarding Recreational Vehicle Use:
Scenario Noise Pollution Wildlife Effects* Cost of Changing Outdoor
Activities**
1 Very High 80 dec. per acre Constant erosion/pollution $0
2 Moderate 40 dec. per acre Less Frequent erosion/pollution $75
3 None None due to vehicle use $200
*Less Frequent Erosion= Erosion decreases by some number as ATV use declines
**Cost of Changing Outdoor Activities= This is the cost of changing to another activity instead of ATVing. As an example, this could include the price of new ski equipment, or the fishing rods and a tackle box.
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.
Of all the proposals alternative D looks to have the best balance by limiting the market failures, environmental concerns and economic prosperity. Alternative D, like all the other alternatives, will not make everyone happy; it slows down pollution by motorized vehicles but it still allows for their use, it allows for logging but at a moderate level, and it stops the expansion of ski-resorts but allows them to keep their current areas. Although it is not a universal solution, Alternative D is the best compromise and it also limits the amount and severity of market failures with the most precision. To corroborate this finding, that alternative D is the most suitable, the conjoint analysis survey will be utilized and the results will be compared to the proposal. If similar, alternative D will surely be passed and will ensure effective protection of the White River National Forest for the generations to come.
In this report the status of the White River National Forest was inspected concerning the future sustainability of the Forest both in environmental and business terms. Lately there has been a great deal of concern about the area because of the changing of the Land and Resource Management Plan and the expansion of ski-resorts. Both environmentalists and businessmen wish to see the Plan changed in accordance to their agendas. However, the Forest Service wishes to please both sides and the people who use the Forest on a recreational basis. Through this study of the White River National Forest it can be concluded that all parties will receive a great deal of benefit if they are all willing to compromise. They must look at the effects that each plan will have on the forest and the people who are a part of it, then they will realize that a compromise like in Alternative D will be the most efficient use of the Forest’s resources. Alternative D, if passed, will allow for continued use, over generations, of the Forest by businessmen, environmentalists, and tourists. The land will sustain both its pristine natural beauty and the people who visit the Forest through the efficient use of its resources.