Laserfiche WebLink
Aquaric and Riparian Resources <br />Table 3.18 Comparison of Potential for Impacts between Alternatives on Land Suitabie <br />and Available for Timber Harvest <br />? <br />? <br />? <br />AIternative iC E ` g <br />Suitable & Available 35.5 18.9 38.7 4.2 2.1 30.0 <br />Timber Lands (1,000 <br />acres) ? <br />Potentially Affected Aquatic Bcosystems <br />Crenulated Eghemeral <br /> <br />ges (miles) <br />Draina- <br />944 <br />502 <br />1092 <br />111 <br />56 <br />798 <br />Intermittent Streams <br />(miles) 397 211 433 47 23 336 <br />PerenniaUFish- <br />Bearing Streams <br />(miles) 490 261 534 58 29 414 <br />. <br />Total Streams (miles) ' <br />. <br /> 1,831 974 2,059 216 108 : I1548.:This analysis assumes that average drainage densities can be applied accurately to suitable and <br />available timber lands, and that there is equal risk and consequence of effects from timber <br />harvest and related activities carried out in proximity to the three stream types. Tn reality, risk <br />and consequence are probably not equal for crenulated, intermittent, and perennial streamcourses. <br />Most timber harvest tends to occur in the upper portions of watersheds, so effects are more likely <br />for internuttent and crenulated drainaaes. Conversely, direct effects are less likely but potentially <br />more sianificant for perennial, fish-bearina streams. <br />Tmplementation of watershed conservation practices is key to avoidin; or minimizing impacts to <br />aquatic species and potentially affected streams under any alternative. Actual areas harvested in <br />any given year would vary depending on alternative and budget levels, with site-specific effects <br />on aquatic and riparian resources occurrin? in proportion to proposed harvest levels. <br />Chapter Three • 129 <br />K, . -