| OCR Text |
Show NATIONAL FOREST LOW BriHiET PROGRAM the constraint of a budget reduced 25 percent below the level, this alternative emphasizes market outputs which provide revenues to the Government. Many capital investments would have to be foregoing and maintenance of many existing investments would be at such a low level that they would have to be abandoned. No new campgrounds or picnic sites would be built and existing sites would be closed as they wear out. There would be minimal management of dispersed recreation in areas of concentrated use. s to about one million board feet. Timber production would be reduced Livestock grazing would be reduced 23 percent to 109 thousand animal unit months since the amount of available forage is highly dependent on capital investments for structural and improvements. Range permittees would have to take over construction, operation, and maintenance of all structural imimprovements would revert back to their provements while the condition. The minerals management program would remain at the current level which is not expected to keep up w ith the anticipated workload The management of outputs such as water, fish, wildlife, land exchange; and dispersed recreation would have to le severely restricted or eliminated. Both soil and watershed activities would be limited to technical assistance to commodity producing resources. The backlog of needed watershed treatment could not be accomplished. There would be no land exchange or land line location programs, but there could be some land line location in conjunction with commodity outputs or special uses. Within EMPHASIS IS OX LOCAL ISSl'ES AJID COXCERXS The strategy of this alternative is to produce a combination of market and nommarket outputs that best respond to issues and concerns by Human Resources units. Market outputs will be emphasized in Human Resource Units ( HRlTs) that are dependent upon Forest products while nonmarket outputs will be emphasized in HRU's that are more oriented toward the service and industrial sectors of the economy. A preliminary social impact assessment indicates that two of the HRUs, Fremont and Piute, are heavily dependent on Forest products; two, Fillmore and Beaver, are moderately dependent; one. Delta, is moving rapidly toward a nonagri cultural economic base; and one, Richfield, has already moved to a nonagri cultural base. Because of these perceived conditions of the Forest, the strategy of this alternative Is to emnhasize the market opportunities in timber and range in the Fremont and Piute HRUs. Within the Richfield HRU the emphasis will be on the nonmarket opportunities of recreation and wildlife. Since potential coal mines are located within this HRU, mineral production will also be emphasized. Within the three remaining HRU' s, the emphasis will shift, over time, tow ard the nonmarket opportunities of recreation, water, and wildlife. Although the overall Forest outputs would not differ much from alternatives 2 and 4, the special solution will be quite different. 1982 two-third- al non-mark- ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTION FOR THE YEAR 2000 x a 4 l-- ? I f K T 4 i i Z&h'JI. i |
