Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />more dense subdivision in order for th~ developer to <br />recapture the initial investment in the land. , <br />, <br /> <br />There is no change in river quality and lac~ of eligibility <br />upstream fran the developnent. I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />The river I s ineligibility for wild and I scenic rivers <br />consideration does not change under this alternative. With <br />the full developnent there appears to be sarf opportunity to <br />improve the actual quality of the fisheries, habitat in the <br />river where it meanders through thel private land <br />developnent. However, the density of the ovEjrall developnent <br />is expected to preclude adding the river Ito the national <br />system even if it were eligible. I <br />I <br />Developnent in the back bowl could cause al change i.n water <br />quality of the East Fork of the san JuaIil. However, the <br />segment was also found to be ineligible during the <br />developnent of the Forest Land and Resource I Management Plan. <br />Therefore, no change in wild and scenic ~iver opportunity <br />will occur. <br />I <br /> <br />There will be no physical change in river qJality and lack of <br />eligibility upstream from the profo~ed development. <br />Recreation use along the river will ~ncrease as the <br />population in the developnent increases~ However, this <br />increase in use will prooably not chang~ the eligibility <br />character of the river. I <br />, <br />, <br />! <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />In Alternative One, ultimate private land develbP1lent at the Wolf <br />I <br />Creek Valley base area would be about 80% qf the developnent <br />proposed in Alternatives Two and Three. Assum~ng that about 80% <br />as many woodburning stoves. and fireplaces as ~n Alternatives Two <br />and Three would be built in Alternative One, ~nd that woodstOles <br />and fireplaces account for the majority of th~ CO emissions, the <br />Alternative One air quality inpacts would bel about 80% of the <br />allPunts shown in Tables IV-IO and IV-ll. I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />(2) <br /> <br />Alternative Two <br /> <br />(3) Alternative Three <br /> <br />The river's ineligibility for <br />consideration does not change <br />Developnent on the front side will <br />of the West Fork of the San Juan. <br />will not be affected. <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />Cl irrate al"d Ai r Oual i ty <br /> <br />a. <br /> <br />Alternative One <br /> <br />182 <br /> <br />I <br />Old 'd 0 0 <br />WI ar. scemc nver <br />under ~his alternative. <br />not af~ect the condition <br />Likew~se, the East Fork <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />