Laserfiche WebLink
<br />19,::> <br /> <br />., ,- <br />f, <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />NOTES ON THE WEST DOLORES <br /> <br />DDH <br /> <br />The West Dolores combines logically with and would complement the <br /> <br />recommended main-stem segment of the Dolores. <br /> <br />1.) It is fully eligible, and in fact has several outstanding <br /> <br />values when only one is sufficient. Its scenic, geologic, and fish <br /> <br />and wildlife values are outstandingly remarkable (while the Forest <br /> <br />Service did not agree that the fish and wildlife values were outstanding, <br /> <br />the U. S. Fish and wildlife Service did). These would mesh well with <br /> <br />the outstanding scenic, geologic, historic, and cultural values of t~e <br /> <br />main stem. <br /> <br />2.) With inclusion of the West Dolores, the river would provide <br /> <br />an outstanding variety of recreational experiences. Short-season <br /> <br />whitewater rafting and kayaking on the main stem would be supplemented <br /> <br />by the high-quality fishing, hunting, back-packing and ski-touring on <br /> <br />the West Dolores. <br /> <br />3.) The Dolores traverses five life zones in its 140-mile <br /> <br />journey from the alpine zone to the high desert. Deleting the West <br /> <br />Dolores eliminates three of these from the system. The chance to <br /> <br />observe the ecological transitions between these zones is a unique <br /> <br />feature of this river. <br /> <br />4.) Including the West Dolores would make the Dolores a much <br /> <br />more valuable component of the system. <br /> <br />The Forest Service chose not to recommend it because of "inter- <br /> <br />mingling of private lands...and the potentially difficult and costly <br /> <br />administration." <br /> <br />1.) The Act was not intended to contain only rivers that are <br /> <br />easily and cheaply administered, or rivers that flow only through <br /> <br />~1~1 <br /> <br />{.~.. <br />. <br />