Laserfiche WebLink
<br />01""5[,') <br />':.J _I ... """" <br /> <br />Alternatives Not Considered in Detail <br /> <br />Several alternatives were considered and eliminated from further study during the <br />planning process. All altematives that were eliminated were reviewed and compared with <br />the alternatives analyzed in detail to make sure that all important issues and concepts <br />were included in the alternatives analyzed in detail. <br /> <br />The 10 Team originally considered nine alternatives ~A through I. After reviewing these <br />alternatives, six of them- S, C, 0, E, F and 1-- were deemed suitable for further <br />analysis. Three alternatives -- A, G and H- were found to be inappropriate for further <br />analysis, thus were not considered in detail. <br /> <br />Alternative A. NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219.12(1)(7) state that "at least one <br />alternative shall reflect the current levels of goods and services provided by the unit and <br />the most iikely goods and services expected to be provided in the future if the current <br />management direction continues. Pursuant to NEPA procedures this alternative shall be <br />deemed the No Action Alternative." <br /> <br />As the 1984 Forest Plan was analyzed, it became clear that significant changes had <br />occurred, primarily in the timber management area, but also in several other resource <br />areas. Alternative S, the No Action alternative, was designed to serve as an updated <br />form of the 1984 Forest Plan that is responsive to current technology, conditions, pubiic <br />issues and management concerns. <br /> <br />Alternative G. Alternative G was developed to respond to preliminary, short-term <br />internal direction regarding road building and maintenance. This alternative was dropped <br />because it did not address existing long-term poiicy direction. Forest Plan alternatives <br />are not designed to speculate on internal or external future poiicy; rather, they are <br />designed to work within current knowledge and direction. <br /> <br />Alternative H. Alternative H was developed to respond to concerns about urbanization. <br />Opinions vary widely regarding the role the Forest should, or can, play in the <br />urbanization of areas adjacent to NFS lands. This alternative was dropped after <br />extensive discussion because urbanization is not directly controlled by Forest Service <br />management activities. Instead of serving as the theme of a Forest Plan alternative, <br />social impacts and effects (including urbanization) are considered to be environmental <br />consequences of the alternatives considered in detail. <br /> <br />-- 22 - <br />