My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12286
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
12000-12999
>
WSP12286
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:14:29 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:29:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.765
Description
White River General
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
8/1/1983
Author
USFS
Title
Summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Forest Plan - White River National Forest
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />000293 <br /> <br />PLANNING QUESTION 9: How will the Forest administer existing winter sports <br />sites and allocate inventoried potential sites? <br /> <br />The issues rela ted to skiing deal wi th what sites should be developed and <br />when. There is also concern about the effects of major resort expansion on <br />local areas. <br /> <br />PLANNING QUESTION 10: How will the Forest be managed in response to the <br />increasing demands associated with oil shale and other energy developments? <br /> <br />The issues and concerns related to this question deal with the expectation <br />that private land development will continue to consume wildlife habitat for <br />human use and there will be substantial increases in demand for dispersed <br />recreation use. <br /> <br />PLANNING QUESTION II: What will the management direction be for the Wilder- <br />nesses on the Forest? <br /> <br />Wilderness is a major use of the Forest, accounting for more than 30 percent <br />of the land area for which the plan is being prepared. Some of the majo r <br />issues related to wilderness are mineral exploration; vegetation management, <br />particularly related to the mountain pine beetle infestation; commercial use <br />of wilderness by outfitter guides; conflicts between users; questions about <br />water diversions; and the general concern about the overall effect people will <br />have on wilderness. <br /> <br />PLANNING QUESTION 12: How will the Forest be managed in response to increas- <br />ing pressure on wildlife habitat? <br /> <br />The issues in this question are similar to Planning Question 10. The include <br />the loss of wildlife habitat to human use, particularly winter range and <br />calving areas, conflicts between uses, and appropriate methods of vegetation <br />treatment to increase effective wildlife habitat. <br /> <br />PLANNING <br />surface <br />to the <br />used? <br /> <br />QUESTION 13: Where on the Forest will surface occupancy or no <br />occupancy of land for oil, gas, or geothermal leases be recommended <br />BLM, and if leases are permitted, what lease stipulations should be <br /> <br />The issues related to this question include the amount and type of acreage to <br />be leased, its location, and how the Forest Service will protect and restore <br />the resources in the leased area. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION <br /> <br />This chapter of the EIS describes and compares the alternatives analyzed in <br />the Forest planning process. Six alternatives, including the Proposed Action, <br />are conSidered in detail. <br /> <br />Prior to development of the alternatives, benchmark levels were developed to <br />derive reference points for comparison with the alternatives as well as to <br />define the range of outputs and costs within which feasible alternatives <br />would be constructed. These benchmarks also provided a basis for analyzing <br />trade-offs between alternatives. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.