OCR Text |
Show FISHLAKE 7m (d rs5g v nSirtifnrJft fcr S s ir 'W'iiTiilrTimriTrriiiiVTrm v , r mninmiMniiriif nr THE FISHLAKE HAS FORMULATED SEVEN ALTERNATIVES . . . I The Fishlake National Forest has tentatively formulated seven alternatives, five are in response to the requirements of the 1965 five year program update to local required by the Resources Planning Art iRPA while two are in response issues. These alternatives will be examined in more detail to see which one will best meet the needs of the Forest and the public. One of the alternatives, or a com of them bination of several alternatives, will be selected and more completely developed as the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. As you read the alternative descriptions listed below please refer to the chart which show s how each alternative will produce different outputs for each resource. REOrCED BUDGET PROGRAM In this alternative the budget will be limited to 10 percent less than the 1982 budget. It emphasizes the output of market oppor' tunities such as timber, range, developed recreation, and special uses which would provide income to tbe Government The management of outputs such as water, fish, wildlife, land exand recreation would have to be severely restricted or dispersed, change TOTISrATlO.T OF PROGRAM AT (THREAT BI'OGET Simply stated, this alternative is the no action" alternative. This alternative would display the level of goods a services expected to be produced in the future if current management direction remains unchanged. Personnel and funding would continue at present level. Under this alternative some resource outputs could non-mark- he expected to decline. Because of the funding level of this alternative, authorized grazing use will have to be reduced. The reason for this is that the Fishlake Forest relies on vegetative improvements, water developments and management fences to provide sufficient suitable grazing for the current obligated numbers of livestock. These grazing reductions will be necessary to prevent watershed and range deterioration since current funding is not sufficient to replace improvements at the rate they are deteriorating. Wildlife numbers would be held at current levels, but little wildlife habitat improvement work would be accomplished. Demands for recreation are expected to increase significantly as the populations of the valley surrounding the Forest increase and as the employment mix shifts away from agricultural toward industrial and service industries. Present funding lev els are inadequate to manage ctneni dispersed recreation. And even through the year 2030. the distribution is not uniform over the landscape. Thus, with current funding the Forest will not be able to manage the increased dispersed recreation to prevent conflicts with other management programs such as watershed and range, to control the increased Off " Road Vehicle use, or maintain the heavily used areas. Lack of heavy maintenance and operation funds is already forcing the closure of several campgrounds. Implementation of this alternative will result in a significant decrease in both the quantity and quality of developed recreation facilities. Tinder harvest will probably stay at current levels, but the lack of adequate roads appears to constrain the harvest below the potential that could be devekjped. Tbe access problem would also cause a shift away from harvesting conifer to harvesting more aspen. With the expected increase in both energy and metallic minerals activity on the Forest, there wifl other be increased delays in responding to leases, permits, etc., . or the quality of minerals management win decrease. ' .. " - ' ,i. ' V. ' EMPHASES K OI MARKET OiTORTTAITIES This alternative emphasizes the development of market timities such as production of timber. livestock, developed recreation, and special uses that have the potential to produce income to the Government. The outputs Cram these resources will take precedence over other outputs from resources such as wilderness. wikSife, and dispensed recreation. , Tbe increased fundmg will allow foT the fuO development of the road system ' which in taw will allow the full development of the timber resource within the constraint of gang locally available harvest techniques. The increased funding will also allow for tbe fall development of the ranee resource which will alleviate ibe overgrazing currently taking place. Thus, this ah eras the solves tbe range issue by increasing the carrying capacity to shgfctly above tbe currently permitted " number. This alternative also addresses the recreation issue by providing far increased maintenance of existing developed sites and by providing constnictioa at places such as Johnson Valley Reservoir, Gooseberry Reservoir. Oak Greek, Little Reser-ra- r and Manning Meadow as demand warrants. Since this alternative stresses development of resources producing revenues far the Government, ft does not address the local issues of providarsg picnic sdes close to tbe towns. This alternative will decrease the opportunities for those seeking a more primitive type of recreation. Improved rarge conditions will also benefit big game populations. However. of ripanan areas by aS grazing animate will not permit optimum water quality, and. consequently, fisheries will not reach optimum capacities. cCiir-zaU- eliminated. Recreation funds would be used to manage developed sites. There would be minimal management of dispersed recreation in areas of concentrated use. current levels. Both soil and watershed activit ies Timber would be managed would be limited to technical assistance to commodity producing resources. The .backlog of needed watershed treatment would not be accomplished. Tbe mineral program would remain at the current level which is not expected to keep up with . tbe expected workload. There would be no land exchange program or land line location program, but . there would be some land Une location in conjunction with commodity outputs. zVa. . ffi ,1- - - i. . aw- - ' - s w ,r eft VS wT 4 - - sgf orMHTT-TITIE- S EMPHASIS OX This alternative emphasizes the production of nonmarket outputs .. such as dispersed recreation, fish, wildlife and water quality. Ooe of tbe prime aims would be to close and obliterate selected roads so . that more of the Forest would be in a primitive and semrprimitive classification. Mainly, these would be Two Track roads . . . that would be obliterated. Sections of roads causing resource damage would be repaired or relocated to prevent further damage.. . Prescribed fire would probably be the primary tool used in tbe areas to create vegetative diversity to enhance wildlife. Mineral management would be increased to accommodate the expected increase in workload. In addition, abandoned mines would be rehabilitated. Krrding developed recreaticM sites would be maintained and new rites developed for several purposes such as picnicking, trail heads and protection of fisheries. These activities will occur only where they dont adversely affect the primitive type recreation and wikS Je components of the alternative. There will be ", an active land fine location and land exchange program with this alternative to identify public land, and to consolidate pufchc aind private ownership. : ' Livestock grazing will continue, but at a reduced level. In critical wildlife winter range. livestock grazing will be used as a tool to improve the range for wildlife. Livestock grazing will aiso be managed to prevent adverse impacts on watershed . and ta promote healthy streamside rones. Vegetative manipulation! wflToccarm the puryon juniper, aspen and sagebrush vegetative types. Projects would be means, designed to appear naluraL Sagebrush would be treated by mid 50 percent of the brush would be left is deer winter range while 30 percent - ' would be left in elk winter range. Visual quality Is also an important aspect of this alternative. Fisheries and water quality will be enhanced by improving watershed conditions and lessening imparts on the streamride areas. While this alternative favorably responds to many issues facing the Fishlake ' Forest it docs have some negative impacts on the market issues. XOA-MARK- semi-primitiv- e . Manor' - -" . ; ISM RPA PROGRAM ,?. z 'IJ Tbe Resources Planning Act (RPA) alternative would direct . ? management efforts and budget towards supplying or developing 4 our Forest's share of tbe resource outputs and responding to phasxs areas called for by tbe Intennountaia Regional Manage- - v-.meet Plan. Under this alternative, most resource aAputs would in-crease. RPA funding levels are significantly higher than the current situation, and the Forest would be better able to meet projected demands. The emphasis is on a balanced program that favors neither market nor outputs. On the market side, timber harvest would be tncreaesd significantly with aspen playing an important but not dominant role. Minerals management would be increased as the workload increases so that applications would have a timely response. Range management would be increased leading to improved range conditions so there could be a slight increase in capacity. . . On the side dispersed recreatioo opportunities would be significantly increased to accommodate the expected population increase in central Utah. . Improved range conditions and other habitat improvements would provide tbe habitat capability for larger big game herds. Sal ami watershed conditions would be improved to enhance productivity and to respond to increasing demands for high quality water. non-mart- et non-mark- et I v |