Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />Identi:-ica+ion of ~"..n.-nental quality values, natur:Aa.nd cultural <br />resources, a~d a~plication of criteria ani the identi~ation of <br />ecc~G~ic a~~ social values or uses, such ~s recreation, donestic grazing <br />timber harvest, c.:ning and access ~ill be p~imarily the responsibility of <br />the Forest Service ~~d Bureau of Outdoor Recreation with specific <br />assig~ents to be agreed upon. Identification of nonrecreation ~ater- <br />based econo~ic values and water, fishery, and wildlife uses associated <br />vith the study ~iver se~ents, including uses enhanced, foregone, or <br />curtailed; and options foreclosed vill be primarily the responsibility <br />of the Depart~ent of Natu~al Resources. Analysis and evaluation of <br />the positive ~nd adverse effects of such.foreclosures or curtailment of <br />a.ltern~tive futures will be joint responsibilities of the Department of <br />Natur~l Resou~ces, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of O~tdoor RecreatiDn. <br />The report on suitability or u~suitability, and the discussion of uses <br />enhanced or foregone, ~nd optiDns foreclDsed or curtailed will be prepared <br />as one doc~~ent but will clearly identify those Df the three aspects by <br />each river segnent. The repDrt will be factual and descriptive in <br />nature. Based on the criteria, the possible uses of the river segments <br />being studied a~e: 1) wild ri~er, 2) scenic river, 3) recreation, and <br />4) unsuit~ble for inclusion in the N~~;on~l. Wild and Scenic Rivers System <br />O~ combinatiG~s of these within a se~ent. Although uses enha~ced or fo~e- <br />gone and options forclosed or curtailed will be identified and evaluated <br />to the extent ryossible, they have no bearing on the determination of <br />suitabilicy C~ lnsuitability. . <br /> <br />The recommended alternative will be selected by the National-Gtate Policy <br />Group and will contain cOffiple~entary featu~es of environmental and <br />econo~ic alternatives. Where actions br features of alternatives are in <br />conflict, the :cci~lon ~c to which will be in ch~ recommended plan <br />will be based u~cn analysis and evaluatior. of total oenefits and costs, <br />both monetary a",d nonmo:1etary. Values, desired future conditions, an,i <br />altern~tive5 identified in the public involvement process will form the <br />nucleus of t:ne :-ecommena..ea. pIa!!. All al te..~(.atives .......i~l. be eval'J.9.ted i:!. <br />quantative o~ qualitat~ve te~s for the following four accounts: 1) <br />national econo~ic develop~ent; 2) environmental quality; 3) regional <br />develop~ent; a~Q 4) social well-being. The three signatories will <br />strive for CO!1se~SUS on suitability or unsuitability of :river reaches, <br />the proposed classification of ,iver ,eaches, and the features of the <br />reco~~ended p~oposal vithin the authorities of their respective <br />statutory responsibilities. If such concensus cannct be achieved, <br />separate views may be expressed as attachments to the study report, or <br />other"ise. <br /> <br />l~90 <br /> <br />State of Colorado <br /> <br />Bureau of Outdoor <br />Recreation <br /> <br />Forest Service <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />'F" <br />