WSP04908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0025,"1 Table 4 displays how the allotments vary by alternative in terms of whether they should be retained, closed, or partially closed. Table 4 Summary of vacant allotments AL TERNA TIVE Recommended status B C D E F I Cattle allotments recommended for retention 23 5 6 4 10 11 Cattle allotments recommended for partial retained 0 3 4 0 2 3 Cattle allotments recommended for closure 0 15 13 19 11 9 Sheep allotments recommended for retention 28 8 6 4 18 5 Sheep allotments recommended for partial retention 0 4 8 0 4 0 Sheep allotments recommended for closure 0 16 14 24 6 23 Total vacant allotments 51 51 51 51 51 51 Decisions to retain or close vacant allotments will be made on an allotment-by-allotment basis and will be separate from the record of decision for the FEIS. Recreation Management This topic includes recreation, ski-based resorts, aerial transportation corridors and scenic resources. Maps in the map packet related to recreation management are Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, Scenic Integrity Levels and Management Areas. Recreation. The White River National Forest is capable of providing a variety of recreation settings for non-motorized and motorized opportunities in summer and winter. The quantity, quality and distribution of recreation opportunities depends on the mix of recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes available and the theme of each alternative. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the mix of ROS settings, by alternative, in summer and winter. Budget levels will continue to affect the quality of services in developed facilities in all alternatives. Under the experienced budget level (the average Forest budget from 1 995 to 1997), the number of developed units that could be rehabilitated or reconstructed ranges from 59 units in Alternative E to 41 units in Alternative F. On the Forest, one family campground may have between four and 108 units. The Forest's current backlog in facility maintenance makes reconstruction of existing facilities a higher priority than the building of new ones. Consequently, deveioped capacity would be exceeded within the planning period in all alternatives because of the increased developed recreation use that is expected to occur. A large share of the recreation budget would be allocated to recreation speciai uses in all alternatives, especially in Alternatives C and E, because of commitments authorized by existing permits. Under the experienced budget level, only 14 permits could be administered annually to standard in Alternatives B, C, D, F and I, as defined in Meaningful Measures (a Forest Service process that helps improve services to -- 27 -