Laserfiche WebLink
<br />QZOl9 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />A matrix has been set up in Table 1, comparing the five alternatives to five <br />cri ter ia. <br /> <br />These criteria are: <br /> <br />1. Satisfies state DOW goals and objectives. <br /> <br />2. Least adverse impacts on wildlife habitat. <br /> <br />3. Best meets public needs. <br /> <br />4. Greatest management potential. <br /> <br />5. Most economically feasible, <br /> <br />Table 1 Analysis of Alternatives <br /> Al terna ti ve s <br /> Standards A B C D E <br />1- Sa tis f ies State Goals + + + <br />2. Least adverse impacts + + 0 0 <br />3. Best meets pu blic needs + + + <br />4. Greatest management potential ++ + + <br />5. Most economically feasible ++ 0 0 0 <br /> <br />++ Exceeds goals and standards <br /> <br />+ Meets goals and standards <br /> <br />o No af fect <br /> <br />Does not meet goals and standards <br /> <br />Alternative A meets or exceeds the goals and standards established by the <br />state. Alternative C also meets the state's goals and standards, but the man- <br />agement potential is less because of probably fewer acres in a less desirable <br />area. The opportunity for a 6,000 acre hunting lease is not included in <br />Alternative C. <br />