WSP06571 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Oilu21-2 -~ VI. ALTER.\'AT1\"E EVALUATION In the prevlouti chapter on the effects of alternatives, the analysts revealed a minimum of difference among alternatives. The following discussion of the alternative plans discusses how the alternatives compare ~ith each other In satisfaction of the evaluation criteria located In Chapter lII. A. Overall Congressional Policy and Intent: Alternatives 1 and II provide statutory author- ity for maintaining turrent free flowing character of 51 miles of the Piedra River and its headwaters. Free flowing character can be maintained under no designation; however, future development proposals that depreciate free flowing character would have to be considered under other legal authorities. Alternstive III do~s not provide the statutory protection as do land II. In meeting Congressional intent. Alternative I and II provide legal authority for the managing agency to acquire eaSel!leot5 for protection and publIc use of the river and its envir01lJllent on private lands. The So Designation Pian does not provide this authority to the managing agency. B. Goal Satisfaction: in ~eting the concerned Table XIV displays the subjective response of each alternative pLan goals of the U. S. forest Service and State of Colorado. Each alternative provides a response in llbeeting the goals of the evaluation criteria. Each of the alternatives provide for maintsining existing developed recreation aites. The So Designa- tion Plan increasell the opportunity for dlapers..d recreation by allowing a greater variety of dispersed activities. Alternative I decreases the activities by restricting motori~ed dispersed activities. The management objectives for Alternative II do not detract from current dispersed activities nor would they particularly encourage emphasis for dispersed activities. Alternative 1 does more to protect big game winter range and ~lgration routes through the management objectives for mare restrictlve controls over develop~ents on private lands. Alternative II, through the management object1ves for recreational r1vera, provides the aame degree of protecting big game values on public lands along the Piedra but not On private landa. this is a result of the management obje~tives sllowing a greater degree of latitude fo~ dwell- ings in the recreatiQnal seg=ents. The No DesignatlQn alternative doea not establish any controla on private lands conce~ning maintaining and p~otecttng big game rsngea. On the public lands along the river these goals would be continuing concerns In all future ~eSOurCe use decisiona. There is only a slight differen~e in the alternstive effects relating to the eco- nomic related goals of livestock grazing and timber harveat. livestock grazing under each alternative could continue under existlng grazing capabilities of the range. Alternat1ves 1 and II foreclose opportunity for moat vegetative manipulation and structural improv~ents that could increase liveatock carrying cspacity. However, these opportunities are generally limited by the physiral nsture of the river corridor. I i The only adverse economic impact of Alternative I is the annual loss of 400 MBF of timber supplied to local dependent industries. The amount of wood fiber volume lost to the economy has little significance since percentagewise it 1s lesa than the allowable statistical error of the initial forest atand measurement. Theae losses to the econo=y are also, In part. offset by increasea in the recreation sector of the economy_ Also tbe existing transportation system can serve other resource usea within the drainage without need for any new roads that would parallel or croas the river corridor. As in Alternative 1, Alternative II has a loss of 400 Maf of ti~ber supplies to the local dependent industry. This is, In part, also mitigated by increasea of the local economy witbin the recreation sector. Under nO deaignation, the economic sector would not experience the adverse impact of losing 400 ~P of timber harvest each year. Continued timber harveat opportunity in the river ~orridor would be located on the Middle and East Fork drainages. the corridor on the main atea with its canyons would continue to be unacceptable for timber harvest because of ecologieal land un1t constraints unless economie and technical capability allow for ti~ber harvest without road5. The state goal of preserving Colorado's agriculture lands ia enhanced by Alternative I through the end result of scenic easements that would prevent private lands in the w1ld and scenic segments from being subdivided. Alternative IT offers less restrictive controls, through the management objectives for recreational rlver5, for conversion of agricultural lands to ho~ 5ites. ~o designation provides no controls to the managing agency to aid the state in meeting thili goal. As the current agriculture eCOllOlllic situat10n continues. prlvate land aalel< fo~ building aites is expected to continue. State wildlife conrerna will re~in largely unaffected under the three alternative plans. Alternatives I and 11 would provide a greater degree of protection for wildlife habitat than nO designation, but they do increage ttoe d1fficulty for the public to get into the river corridor to enjoy the wildlife vslue9 whether the intereat is v1~ual, photography or hunting. Alternative I best meets the goal of prespr.'ing the beauty of the state by pre~entins gradual depreciation of the natural scenery resulting from activities allowed under the management objectives for Atternati~p II and So Designation. l-}I.