|
<br />O~~:51
<br />
<br />Social and Economic Environment
<br />
<br />The relationship between the White River National Forest and local lifestyles and
<br />economies is highly interdependent and complex. Skiing, Wilderness, exceptional
<br />scenery, and headwaters vital to various municipal water sources all provide a stunning
<br />backdrop to mountain communities that are growing at alarming rates. The DEIS looked
<br />at current conditions and made population projections in the vicinity of the Forest
<br />
<br />Socio-economic planning area. The Forest is located in portions of nine counties;
<br />however, only five of these counties have important social and economic ties locally.
<br />These five counties are Eagle, Garfield, Pitkin, Rio Blanco and Summit The robust
<br />tourism-based economy and high cost of living in some of these counties has caused a
<br />direct spillover to two adjacent counties, lake and Grand, which provide public services
<br />and affordable housing for service and retail workers employed in Summit and Eagle
<br />Counties. These counties are the focus of the social and economic analyses in the Pian.
<br />
<br />Population. In the first half of the 1990s, weak economies on both coasts of the United
<br />States, technological advances in communications, and changing preferences of "baby
<br />boomers" were some of the factors that prompted a migration to the central Rocky
<br />Mountains. High-growth rates in mountain communities continue today, and are
<br />expected to continue in the foreseeable future. Since 1990, population in the seven-
<br />county area has increased 30 percent, and is expected to nearly double by 2010. These
<br />numbers account only for permanent residents -seasonal fluctuations from skiing and
<br />winter tourism employment is important in all of these counties.
<br />
<br />Table 11
<br />Populations in the seven-county area
<br />
<br />County 1990 1995 1997 2000 2005 2010 2020
<br />Eagle 24,330 31,746 35,309 39,955 46,762 52,611 62,336
<br />Garfield 31.658 37,780 40,165 43,900 50,485 58,058 74,132
<br />Grand 8,807 10,140 10,844 11,966 13,923 16,075 20,740
<br />Lake 6,639 8,172 9,132 10,570 12,857 15,428 20,402
<br />Pitkin 13,960 15,811 15,840 16,597 18,645 20,671 24,343
<br />Rio 81anco 6,182 7,106 7,259 7,705 8,470 9,247 10,656
<br />Summit 14,235 18,972 20,810 23,783 28,659 33,458 41,591
<br />Total 105,811 129,727 139,359 154,476 179,801 205,548 254,200
<br />
<br />Source: Colorado State Demo9raphers Office, March 1999
<br />
<br />Garfield, Eagle and Summit Counties account for 70 percent of the area population
<br />today, and are projected to account for the same in 2010. These counties, along the 1-70
<br />corridor, are projected to grow 2.5 percent annually in the next two decades. From 1990
<br />to 1997, Eagle and Summit Counties ranked as the ninth and tenth fastest growing
<br />counties in Colorado. Of the remaining counties, lake and Pitkin are at the extremes.
<br />lake is projected to double in size by 2020 with an average annual growth rate of 3.3
<br />percent In contrast, Pitkin County exercises a policy of controlled growth and should
<br />experience a 1.9-percent growth rate. Rio Blanco is quite different from the
<br />resort/tourism-oriented counties, and is projected to grow at a modest 1.6-percent
<br />average rate out to 2020.
<br />
<br />-- 41 --
<br />
|