Laserfiche WebLink
The apparent advantages and disadvantages of each option are: <br />Option #1 <br />Advantages <br />1. Would result in more con- <br />sideration for the local <br />concern, values and needs. <br />Option #2 <br />Advantages <br />1. Retains a degree of local <br />control over private land <br />development and use while <br />meeting predetermined <br />standards designed to <br />protect key values. <br />2. A high degree of assurance <br />that key values will be <br />protected. <br />Option #3 <br />Advantages <br />1. Maximizes the assurance <br />of key value protection. <br />Disadvantages <br />1. If administrative and local <br />zoning controls are not fully <br />effective, deterioration of <br />some key values could result. <br />Disadvantages <br />1. Resource development and land <br />use would probably be more <br />expensive because of anticipated <br />relatively higher standards <br />achievable as compared to <br />Option #1. <br />Disadvantages <br />1. Least capability for response <br />to local needs and values. <br />2. Resource development and land <br />use would be more expensive <br />because of anticipated relative- <br />ly higher standards achievable <br />as compared to Option #1. <br />The most difficult area in which to achieve compatible management of <br />the key resource values will be between that of mineral development and <br />protection of the recreational and wilderness resources. <br />Option #1 permits mineral development subject to the General Mining <br />Laws. These Laws contain no provisions to require mineral development in <br />a manner compatible with the other key values. Under this option, local <br />government would have to exercise the authority to devise regulations <br />that govern use and development of non - Federal property, including prior <br />-11- <br />