Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' J '; I <br /> <br />term improvement in condition on some areas and <br />other areas would be stabilized and would experience <br />increased production. <br /> <br />WILDLIFE HABITAT <br /> <br />Habitat improvement and production to help meet <br />CDOW's long-term herd goals for elk and deer would <br />be achieved on some GMUs. Land treatment <br />projects which reduce sagebrush below 25% would <br />lower sage grouse populations. <br /> <br />LIVESTOCK GRAZING <br /> <br />Disposal of 2,585 acres of public land would reduce <br />long-term productivity by In AUMs. Managing <br />livestock forage use in some riparian areas could <br />result in short -term forage allocation reductions, but <br />forage production could be further increased as a <br />result in the long.term. <br /> <br />WILDERNESS VALUES <br /> <br />Mineral or rights-of-way development could result in <br />long-term losses in wilderness values as a result of <br />slow reclamation efforts or results on some fragile <br />lands in WSAs. <br /> <br />IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE <br />COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES <br /> <br />SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES <br /> <br />The loss of soil through wind and water erosion would <br />be irretrievable. <br /> <br />WILDERNESS VALUES <br /> <br />Wilderness values that are permanently altered by <br />non-conforming uses would be irretrievably lost. <br /> <br />ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL <br />RESOURCES <br /> <br />The loss of archaeological and historical sites and <br />information would be irretrievable. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE B IMPACTS <br /> <br />DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC LANDS <br /> <br />Disposal of public lands would result in a loss of <br />administrative control of all resource values on these <br />lands except valid existing rights and existing land use <br />authorizations. <br /> <br />IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B <br /> <br />IMPACTS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC <br />CONDITIONS <br /> <br />IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED MANAGEMENT <br />ACTIONS <br /> <br />Impacts from Oil, Gas, and Geothermal <br />Management. The Planning Area would not <br />experience measurable social or economic impact <br />because of the low potential for occurrence of these <br />resources. <br /> <br />Impacts from Forest Management. The potential sale <br />of 1,180 MBF of commercial timber would support <br />Planning Area income and employment and produce <br />$30,000 in federal revenue. On the other hand, the <br />potential loss of 590 MBF of commercial timber <br />represents losses to local Planning Area income and <br />employment, and a loss to federal revenue of $15,000. <br /> <br />Impacts from WIldlife Habitat Management. <br />Increases in forage supply would translate into <br />increases in game populations and in recreational <br />activities associated with them and would lead to <br />increases in Planning Area income and employment. <br /> <br />Impacts from Livestock Grazing Management. <br />Eliminating grazing from some areas and not <br />allocating any additional forage would reduce present <br />active preference by 5,480 AUMs. Any decreases in <br />AUMs could result in fmanciallosses for the affected <br />ranching operations. <br /> <br />Impacts from Recreation Management. Economic <br />benefits from recreation would be medium to high but <br />unmeasured and would depend on the area of the <br />impact. Benefits would occur in those businesses <br />providing tourist and recreation sales and services. <br />All ESA counties are dependent on tourism related <br /> <br />4-13 <br />