Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Some alternatives were eliminated <br />eral leasing alternative and a <br />alternative. <br /> <br />from detailed study. <br />departure from Base <br /> <br />These include a min- <br />Timber Sale Schedule <br /> <br /> <br />Each alternative considered in detail is economically, technically, and <br />environmentally feasible and is within reasonable budget constraints. Each <br />alternative uses different goals and strategies for responding to the planning <br />questions. Each also contains different objectives, resource outputs, activi- <br />ties, costs, and benefits and constraints which are shown in Appendix D of <br />the EIS. <br /> <br />The key element for achieving a majority of the goals of these alternatives is <br />a healthy Forest environment. A description of the alternatives considered in <br />detail, including the Proposed Action, follows. <br /> <br />A major consideration is that there is no difference in wilderness acreage in <br />any of the alternatives under consideration. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE A - (PROPOSED ACTION) <br /> <br />Alternative A emphasizes developed recreation opportunities, downhill skiing, <br />and range which would all be expanded to meet demand. Vegetation treatment <br />applied for wildlife habitat improvement, water yield increases, and treatment <br />of overmature and diseased tree stands would also provide for firewood and <br />other wood products. <br /> <br />Developed recreation opportunities would be increased by expansion of sites <br />at which fees can be charged and downhill ski areas. Downhill skiing would be <br />expanded to meet demand and could provide up to 6.5 MMRVD's capacity by the <br />end of the planning period. Dispersed non-motorized recreation opportunities <br />would decrease while overall dispersed opportunities would increase although <br />trail mileage would be reduced. Wilderness use would increase. A "lease" <br />recommendation for oil and gas leasing, with appropriate stipulations, would <br />be made on some wilderness lands. Wildlife habitat capacity would be similar <br />to present conditions, while fish habitat would be improved. Grazing would be <br />expanded to meet demand. Mineral exploration and development would be facili- <br />tated by increased access. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE B - (CURRENT PROGRAM - NO ACTION) <br /> <br />Alternative B is the current management alternative. It continues the present <br />course of action using established goals and objectives which have been <br />modified to meet and respond to present and proj ected program levels and <br />demands. This is the "no action" alternative required in NEPA regulations. <br />There will, however, be substantial change from the current situation under <br />this alternative. Vegetation management would emphasize improving wildlife <br />habitat, range condition, and the production of wood fiber. <br /> <br />Developed recreation opportunities would be maintained at existing sites at <br />which fees can be charged, while downhill skiing capacity would be expanded to <br />meet demand and could provide up to 6.8 MMRVD's by the year 2030. Dispersed <br />non-motorized recreation opportunities would decrease, while motorized oppor- <br />tunities would increase. Trails and trailheads would be maintained. A "no <br />lease" recommendation for oil and gas leasing would be made for oil and gas <br /> <br />6 <br />