Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ALTERNATIVE F - (REDUCED BUDGET) <br /> <br /> <br />be approxima tely 5.5 MMRVD' s. Dispersed non-motorized recreation opportun- <br />ities would decrease while motorized opportunities would increase. Trails <br />and trailheads would be expanded. A "no lease" recommendation for oil and gas <br />leasing would be made for oil and gas leases in all wilderness. Improvement <br />of wildlife habitat would be emphasized and winter range would be treated <br />every 25-50 years. Current grazing capacity would be maintained. Only 80 <br />percent of current timber industry needs would be met with the emphasis on <br />wildlife habitat improvement. Water yields would decrease slightly as re- <br />growth exceeds vegetation removed. Mineral exploration would be limited by <br />access and there would be more emphasis on protection of surface resources. <br /> <br />Alternative F emphasizes the production of goods and services such as devel- <br />oped recreation, skiing, range, and timber that have a monetary value but at a <br />"real dollar" budget level approximately 25 percent below 1982 levels over the <br />first five decades. Vegetation management would be directed toward production <br />of wood fiber to the extent possible but would be at the lowest level of all <br />alternatives. Developed recreation capacity would be reduced as sites were <br />closed. Downhill ski areas could increase to currently approved capacity, but <br />no new sites would be approved. Potential skiing capacity could be about 5.5 <br />MMRVD's. Dispersed nonmotorized recreation opportunities would increase while <br />motorized opportunities would decrease. There would be no additional trail or <br />trailhead construction. A "lease" recommendation for oil and gas leasing, <br />with appropriate stipulations, would be made on some wilderness lands. Wild- <br />life habitat capacity would decrease over time and there would be no program <br />for winter range treatment. Grazing capacity would meet only 80 percent of <br />current industry needs. Wood resource outputs would expand within budgets to <br />meet needs, although this alternative would have the lowest outputs of all <br />alternatives. Water yield would also be the lowest of all alternatives, and <br />would be slightly below current levels. Lack of access built by the Forest <br />Service might limit mineral exploration and development. <br /> <br />COMPARISON OF PLANNING QUESTIONS BY ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />Each alternative addresses the planning questions in a different manner. <br />Table 2 compares how well the alternatives address the Planning Questions <br />in the 1991-2000 period. The outputs and effects to be measured are deter- <br />mined from an evaluation of the facets of each Planning Question. <br /> <br />8 <br />