Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 3- Affected Environment and Consequences <br />? Beneficial use of water in the form of water diversions from existing streams will not vary by <br />alternative. Potential adverse effects of current and future uses will exist and increase with each <br />water rights application. These effects are common to all alternatives. <br />Cumulative Effects. <br />Timber Management • Potential cumulative effects resulting from past, current and future <br />timber management is based on the amount of timber and number of areas harvested and <br />roads constructed. This results in increases of connected disturbed area. Reductions in <br />connected disturbed area resulting from soil and water improvements can reduce the potential <br />for adverse effects to watershed potential. Of all alternatives being analyzed, implementation of <br />Altemative E has the highest risk of adverse cumulative effects to the water resource, followed <br />by Alternatives A, G, D, C, B and F. <br />The use of best management practices and WCP direction should reduce potential for adverse <br />cumulative effects. Watershed potential should not meet tolerance levels. <br />Range Management - Potential cumulative effects of livestock grazing include degraded <br />riparian areas which will result in the loss of riparian vegetation, decreased channel stability, <br />both of which affect water qualiry. A loss in the riparian vegetation could lead to lowering of the <br />water table and change in riparian community. Existing grazing practices without a change in <br />stocking levels or grazing systems could lead to adverse cumulative effects to watershed poten- <br />tial. Potential adverse cumulative effects of implementation of Alternatives E, A, and G would be <br />the highest. Alternatives B, C, D, and F reduce current livestock stocking levels, and have <br />similar risk. Alternative F has the least potential of adverse cumulative effects. <br />Implementation of State BMP's, Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and WCP practices will <br />improve existing watershed conditions and will enable the Routt National Forest to meet State <br />Water Quality Standards, thus be in compliance with Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. <br />Recreation - With increases in recreation users forestwide, potential impacts to streams, <br />riparian vegetation and overall watershed potential could increase. With the implementation of <br />the WCP, improved environmental awareness, and continuing efforts to improve existing recre- <br />ational facilities on the Forest, cumulative effects to watershed potential should be reduced. <br />Potential cumulative effects of recreation will not vary by altemative. <br />Riparian settings receive protection under all altematives through the application of the forest- <br />wide standards and the WCP handbook. The possibilities for damage to the riparian system is <br />greater in those alternatives with more activities such as road building and timber harvesting. <br />Nevertheless, identification of riparian areas during project planning and monitoring should <br />prevent any widespread and long-term deterioration of riparian resources. <br />Ski Areas - Potential cumulative effects of ski areas on watershed potential will not vary by <br />altemative. The existing Steamboat Springs Ski Area and proposed Lake Catamount Ski Area, <br />do and, will affect the watershed resource with implementation. Stream channels and riparian <br />vegetation are altered permanently with these operations. Management in these situations <br />emphasizes use of and monitoring of best management practices to achieve state standards. <br />Diversions - Potential cumulative effects as a result of water put to beneficial use through <br />diversions of surface water will depend on future water rights applicants. More applications for <br />water diversions will strain existing stream systems further and potentially dewater streams <br />entirely. This will affect the hydrologic function of watersheds, and would violate laws that the <br />? Forest must follow. The continuation, expansion and monitoring of the In-stream Flow (ISF) <br />; program should prevent this from happening. <br />Rouft Nationa/ Forest • EIS (Water/Riparian/Wet/ands) 3-51