Laserfiche WebLink
Public acquisition of most private land in the Area would aid in the <br />management of public lands and likely be in the long -term interest of <br />the public, particularly lands with wilderness values; however, costs <br />would be substantial, perhaps excessive at this time in view of the <br />Nation's fiscal situation, since more cost - effective land acquisition <br />opportunities for wilderness or other public uses exist elsewhere, where <br />mineral values are non - existent. For these reasons, the alternative of <br />giving the area the status similar to that of a National Park is not <br />regarded as feasible nor practical. <br />REPRESENTATIVE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES <br />The review identified four management alternatives: <br />1. Recommend declassification of the Primitive Areas, i.e. <br />no Wilderness. <br />2. Recommend that the present Primitive Areas be retained. <br />3. Recommend all suitable area for inclusion in the National <br />Wilderness Preservation System and rescind the Primitive <br />Area classification for areas judged not suitable. <br />4. Recommend suitable and available parts of the Primitive <br />Areas and portions of contiguous lands for inclusion in <br />the National Wilderness Preservation System, and rescind <br />the Primitive Area classification for areas judged not <br />suitable and /or available. <br />Analysis <br />Alternative #1 does not provide for maintaining the suitable and <br />available portions of the Primitive Areas and contiguous lands as an <br />enduring wilderness resource. <br />Alternative #2 recognizes that until Congress takes definitive <br />action on the two Primitive Areas, they-retain their present status <br />and management as prescribed by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Also, <br />Congress could retain the Primitive Area status by a special Act, but <br />in reality, this would not seem to serve the public in that this pro - <br />cedure would set Up another type of classified area; but it could not <br />be maintained as to 4s purposes because of the developments which are <br />occurring on the intermingled and adjacent private lands. <br />Alternative #3 provides.for four Wilderness Units of 177,150 acres, <br />consisting of all lands which meet the suitability criteria of the <br />Wilderness Act of 1964, without regard for recognizable boundary defini- <br />tion and does not recognize the known mineralization contained in portions <br />