WSP08707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 0 1I"1I~5 . Issue 9 - ,May 2002 - Take a look at the final range of Alternatives, page 3 In this Issue: Reflonal ForMter Selects Final Range of Alternatives Analysis Begins Final Range: of Altemuives Public Involvement !'bnning NeoN1 I j ir ;,.... -. -. ~1!dIClh~O~~ :;l}~vis~Tr~.:~er ~ .. ... ",~_.':-~,;...;"'" ..........., ~~._-- '...--.... -" '-"- - .. .-.. ~. Regional Forester Selects Final Range of Alternatives On April II. 2002. Rocky Mountain Regional Forester Rick Cables ap- proved the final range of Alternatives for the Medicine Bow National Forest Plan Revision. The six Alternatives. known as A.F, will be analyzed in de- tail and considered for selection. 2 Alternatives A-F represent a wide range of approaches to management of the Medicine Bow. Alternatives were designed to respond to public issues as well as resource conditions. law, and policy. All six Alternatives provide for multiple uses of the Medi- cine Bow National Forest. ] . Two additional Altern:llives, known as G and H, will not be considered for selection, but will be analyzed to pro- vide benchmark information for man- agement of natural resources on the Medicine Bow National Forest. Al- ternative G, the non-commodity AI. ternative, emphasized higher levels of natural processes such as fire, insects. and disease to occur on the Forest. Alternative H was added as a result of public input received during the March open houses. It emphasized vegetation management and com- modity production at levels higher than those in other Alternatives. , Regional Forester Cables believes draft Alternative G is substantially similar to Alternative F. Both Aller- natives ban clear cutting; restrict snowmobiles to designated routes; limit oil and gas leasing; recom- mend most roadless areas for Wil- derness; emphasize natural proc- esses, such as fire, insects, and dis. eases; and recommend most poten- tial Research Natural Areas. The timber emphases of Alterna- tives B and H are also very similar. However, Alternative H did not fully meet the purpose and need for Revision in providing for biological diversity and primitive recreation opportunities. Both Alternatives G and H repre- sent important public concerns. Therefore, we will analyze compo- nents of these Alternatives to pro- vide benchmark information on wa- ter yield, potential impacts of fire and diseases, and social and eco- nomic effects to communities. This information will help describe the range of effects and demonstrate potential impacts. This analysis will be published in the draft Envi- ronmental Impact Statement to be released in the fall of 2002.