All the alternatives have consequences on recreation, but they are hard to pin-point because so many of them depend on further analysis in the future, e.g. watershed analyses. They want to see the consequences of the standards and guides more thoroughly displayed in terms of recreation consequences, e.g. marten den sites and willow flycatchers. There is general fear that recreation could be more detrimentally affected than what is displayed in the document. A good number of people voiced strong support for the over-all protection of the forest environment, including old growth and critical habitat. Community economic and social stability from changing management emphasis and commodity output reductions.
Active management is needed for the forest to regain desired conditions.
Many Riparian areas need active management-a hands off approach will create more problems. Standards and Guidelines in the draft will have serious effect on grazing. Science on the viability of the willow flycatcher is too weak to serve as guidance. The public is also telling us that the Standards and Guides for resource management are infeasible for the Forest. For example, they do not allow for the acceleration of large trees through active management.