Laserfiche WebLink
<br />nnH5 <br /> <br />10. I question the water yield figures provided in chapter 3. While yields from <br />watersheds that will be harvested or treated with fire are identified, the potential <br />increases from grazing, roads etc. are not. Thus, you can not identify with any <br />certainty that the increases in water yield suggested provide a complete picture. <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />Based on this rather hurried review, it is apparent that utilization of the forest to meet <br />human needs will be reduced. From the water perspective, wild and scenic river and <br />wilderness studies or designations wilI make any water development on the forest more <br />difficult. If any of these studies or designations occur downstream of existing water <br />facilities, the existing facilities and their operations will certainly be impacted during <br />future permit reviews. <br /> <br />The DEIS needs further work on the impacts to water yields. The values in the DEIS <br />suggest that alternative D will provide more water than proceeding with Alternative B. <br />This appears contrary to conventional logic which suggests that the less vegetation there <br />is on the land, the greater the runoff. Since Alternative D would result in more vegetation <br />than Alternative B, I'm not convinced that the runoff can also be greater. _ <br />