July 1998
Vail Pass Fee Demo Program Generates Controversy
A Fee Demo Program was instituted at Vail Pass this year to raise funds for a management plan whose purpose is to create separate and shared areas for motorized and non-motorized use. The program was implemented part way through the season on January 16 and ran through to the end of the winter season in April. The fee program proved to be quite controversial, generating many comments ranging from positive to negative.
The BSA received feedback throughout the winter on the fee program and the management plan. Many people felt that the $5 per day per person use fee for the weekends was too high given the changes they saw on the ground. Others were concerned that the high fees were forcing some users out of the market, and others felt that the new maps were not clear and were difficult to translate to the ground. Some people were angry that they had to pay the daily use fee to ski on the north side of I-70. The BSA has shared all of the comments with the Vail Pass Task Force and the White River National Forest.
At the Vail Pass Task Force meeting at the end of June the BSA and other members discussed the results of the Fee Demo program and in what ways it can be improved for next year. Results from a user survey conducted during one weekend at Vail Pass were presented and discussed.
The survey results included several interesting points. Close to 40% of users surveyed would support the current fees of $5 per person on weekends and $2 on weekdays if the services were improved. Of the services cited as needing improvement, separation of use was the most popular, followed by parking, toilet facilities and grooming of trails. Given a choice of several prices to pay for using the Vail Pass area, $2 was the most popular choice, followed by $5.
Many users surveyed felt motorized users should pay more because they require the costly grooming of trails by snowcat and travel more miles in a day than non-motorized users. We initially agreed, but after reviewing the comments we realized that there are equal miles of trail maintained and set aside for motorized and non-motorized use and that non-motorized users often stay longer in the area because they are accessing huts. In addition, one of the original compromises in use separation was to groom snowmobile trails to draw motorized users away from the trailhead where the majority of day use skiers and snowshoers spend their time.
Many people were angry that fees had to be paid to ski on the north side of I-70 even though it appears that the area is not managed. Members of the Task Force explained that use of the North side of I-70 was part of the early negotiations between motorized and non-motorized users and the area is now managed as non-motorized. Legally everyone who parks at the Black Lakes trailhead must pay a user fee. The Colorado Department of Transportation has said that they will continue to prohibit parking on the North side of the highway next year, forcing those who want to ski the area to park at the Black Lakes trailhead and pay the fee.
The main outcome of the June Vail Pass Task Force meeting was a recommendation to the Forest Service to make the use separation enforceable next season
An improvement was made to the fee structure midway through last season when the charge for hut users was changed to a per night rather than per day fee, allowing overnight guests to pay $5 rather than $10. This will continue for next season. Lowering the daily fee is possible, however it remains to be seen how much the fees can be reduced without causing a shortfall in funds. Many BSA members are frustrated that the per person fee does not encourage carpooling. Ironically, the Task Force is concerned that carpooling would increase the number of users in an already over-crowded area. There is also concern that sufficient funds could not be generated by charging $5 per vehicle rather than $5 per person.
The main outcome of the June Vail Pass Task Force meeting was a recommendation to the Forest Service to make the use separation enforceable next season. The Forest Service has previously said that mandatory separation must wait until the Forest Plan revision is complete, which looks to be as late as 2001.
The proposal brought about intense discussion among task force members concerning which closure areas were working and those that were not as well as modifying the map to reflect what was happening on the ground. The group discussed the need for an adopt-a-trail type system where members of the Task Force would be responsible for marking and grooming various trails. Representatives of the snowmobile groups generously offered to maintain several trails to help encourage compliance by snowmobilers.
Several changes were made to the existing trail map before the proposal was voted on. These include, 1) a motorized route through Shrine Bowl, 2) changing the area to the west of the trail from Ptarmigan Pass to Sugarloaf Peak from non-motorized use to multiple use, 3) marking the non-motorized Commando Run on the map (a big omission in the current map), and 4) changing all the motorized areas to multiple use. The map changes were recommended by Ev Elmendorf, Executive Director of the Task Force, based on her observations of what was working on the ground.
The changes disappointed some of the Task Force members including the BSA. However, it seemed more important to lose a bit of non-motorized terrain in exchange for mandatory separation of use. We feel that recommended use separation can only go so far and that mandatory, enforceable separation is an important step in creating reliable non-motorized areas. In the end, a proposal to make the restrictions enforceable was passed, along with the above mentioned changes to the map. This decision could set a precedent for other areas.
It is our feeling that without the management program motorized use would occur everywhere in the area and destroy the day and hut skiing experience. We also feel that some form of a fee program is necessary to fund a management plan which will allow for quiet areas at Vail Pass. Please continue to give us feedback on your experiences at Vail Pass so that we can accurately represent your concerns in our dealings with the Vail Pass Task Force and the Forest Service.