Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Proposed <br />3/5/81 <br />4 - 4 - 4 <br /> <br />Alternatives' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-..--. - .. <br /> <br />- 4 <br /> <br />"lit!. <br /> <br />A lterna ti ve F: <br /> <br />Preferred Alternative from DEIS/SR. <br /> <br />Segments 2, 3, 4, ~ are recommended for designation as "recreational <br />river"; Segments 5, 6, and 8 are recommended for designation as <br />"wi ld ri ver"; Segment 1 is not recolTl1lended for desi gnation. (Change <br />from DEIS/SR: Segment 8 recommendation as wild.) <br /> <br />Management Direction: similar to Alternative A, except that developments to <br />accomodate recreation and provide resource protection may not be quite as <br />restrictive in recreational segments as the EQ alternative. Key difference <br />comes in Segment 1, where no designation would foster a management approach <br />designed to recognize the Segment as a developed urban forest area, primarily <br />in private ownership. Major water resource development would be possible in <br />Seg~ent 1, but cannot be clearly predicted or discounted at this time due to <br />insufficient data. <br /> <br />. .'r. . I. <br />