WSP02042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on Z-3 % '. ALTERN A TIVES: Each of the above proposed management prescriptions (1-4) above will be analyzed separately for each resource. Following development of resource analysis and public input, a mix of any or none of the management prescriptions could be developed in the decision document for the proposed plan amendment. Consequently, the analysis of the above will provide the decision maker with a multitude of alternatives. NO ACTION: Under the no action alternative, existing management would not change, and the boundary of the existing SRMA would remain as currently established. None of the beneficial or adverse impacts identified in this document would occur. The acquired lands in the SRMA would continue without planning direction, contrary to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which requires land use planning for all public lands administered by the BLM. The opportunity to establish differing priorities for the involved land and avoid environmental impacts associated with oil and gas development, or entry under the public land laws and mining Jaws would be foregone. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED: Several management prescriptions as well as resource prioritization strategies were considered in the development of the proposed action. Consideration was given to identifying the entire SRMA as a recreation land use priority, but because of specific resource concerns associated with other resource programs, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. All of the proposed action land use priorities are in conformance with the recreational management theme for the river conidor and the recreational emphasis associated with the SRMA expansion. No other alternatives were identified which provided the required resource protection while satisfying user expectations associated with the Colorado River SRMA. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTI ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSIRESIDUAL IMPACTS Under the following discussion for Management Prescription #2 (Identifying Land Use Priorities), some of the public land in the proposed SRMA would retain the same land use priority as established in the original 1984 RMP. The portions of the proposed SRMA that would be identified with a wildlife, soils, protected or no land use priority were identified with that priority in the original 1984 RMP. Consequently, there would be minimal if any environmental impact associated with the identification of these priorities, since there would be nc change from the existing situation. The majority of the proposed land use priority changes are associated with conversion of other land use priorities to a recreation land use priority. The following environmental impact discussion for Management Prescription #2 is developed on that premise. 9