NEPA--Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Council on Environmental Quality regulations direct agencies to succinctly describe the environment
that may be affected by the alternatives under consideration (40 CFR 1502.15). As such, this chapter
summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area and the
effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and
analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Table 2-3 (p.50).
The following chapter is organized by resource area to address issues that were raised during
scoping (e.g. Vegetation, Recreation, and Watershed). Resources for which there are no issues are
not discussed (e.g. Air Quality).Each resource section begins with a description of the Affected
Environment, or the existing conditions. Then, each section provides an analysis of direct and
indirect effects, or Environmental Consequences, of implementing each alternative. Direct effects
are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the
action and occur later in time or are removed in distance. Differences in impacts between
alternatives are emphasized. Each resource section then describes Cumulative Effects, which are the
direct and indirect effects of the project added to the effects from other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable actions.
There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers, prime farmlands, or parklands in the project area;
therefore, there will no impacts to these resources from any of the alternatives, and these resources
are not discussed further.
One element of the proposed action that is not discussed further in this document is the impact of
using the Graysill and Flume Allotments as a forage reserve. Forage Reserve allotments are grazing
areas, that for a variety of factors are not suitable for sustained annual grazing, but are capable of
being used occasionally. The Graysill Allotment has been vacant since 1966 and the Flume
Allotment since 1983. The allotments have been vacant due to a number of factors, such as high
predator losses, extremely steep terrain, and limited access. While they are not appropriate for use as
full-time active allotments; they are lands that could be grazed occasionally. Events such as fire or
localized drought may result in the need for alternate pasture for permitted livestock from other
allotments. Without alternate pasture available, permittees would often have no other choice than to
sell their livestock. Having available emergency pasture would allow the FS/BLM to work with
permittees to potentially prevent major economic hardship during such events. At such time as a
forage reserve allotment is proposed for use, the Forest Service would require it to be used under
Design Criteria, Desired Conditions, and utilization guidelines as for similar nearby active
allotments. Because this use would occur only occasionally, and because it would be held to similar
standards as elsewhere, impacts from emergency usage of the Graysill and Flume Allotments would
be similar to, or less than, impacts on the described active allotments, and are not described at length
in this document.
Finally, although the Silverton Watershed Allotment is included within the analysis area boundary
for this landscape, it is not included in the following analyses because the allotment has already been
closed to grazing and is not being re-considered for opening. The allotment was closed in order to
protect the watershed upslope of the Town of Silverton’s domestic water intake, and this is still a
valid reason for closure.
51