WSP12286 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It has been recommended that the South Fork of the White River and the Crystal River be studied further to determine their suitability for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic River System. The study to determine suit>:\- bility will be completed by 1990. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Environmental consequences are the anticipated effects of implementing the alternatives considered in detaiL The effects can be beneficial, adverse, direct, indirect, or cumulative. Forest Direction described in Chapter III of the Forest Plan will be used to mitigate many of the adverse environmental effects. Table 3 summarizes some of the significant resource and economic effects. Alternatives A through D all have programs for vegetation modification above historic levels. Alternative A has a program directed toward a broad range of resource outputs including wildlife habitat, water yield, visual quality, range condition, and timber outputs. Alternative B would carry out currently approved management plans and result in modification for product ion of wood fiber and improvement of wildlife habitat. Alternative C has the highest level of manipulation of all alternatives for the purpose of increasing water yield. Alternative D modifies large acreages for water yield, downhill ski- ing, and wood fiber production but has the lowest modification for wildlife habitat improvement of all the alternatives. Alternatives E and F have levels of treatment only about one-half that of Alternatives A through D. Alternative A, C, and D provide the highest level of developed recreation over the period, although Alternative B is not far behind. All four of the alternatives will meet expected average demand over the planning period. Alternatives E and F do not meet expected demand. All alternatives meet various levels of the expected demand for downhill skiing. Alternatives A, B, and C meet the mid-range of demand; Alternative D meets the upper end of the demand estimate; and Alternatives E and F meet the low end of demand. All of the alternatives have the same acreage managed as Wilderness. It is expected that under all alternatives projected use will exceed management capacity in the 2001-2010 decade. Wildlife habitat will be improved through various vegetation management practices. One objective is to improve overall habitat diversity. A major criterion for wildlife habitat improvement is usability of the habitat. While Alternatives Band C have the highest level of habitat improvement, Alterna- tives Band E provide the most usable habitat. Alternatives E, B, and C provide the most acreage managed as winter range, while Alternatives A and E would provide for the most animals. All alternatives would provide for an increase in the habitat for wildlife using winter range on the Forest. Alternatives C, A, and D would provide for an increase in permitted livestock grazing while Alternative Band E would retain current levels over the period. Only Alternative E would result in a decline in current capacity. 24