Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 84 Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) NOTE: Also an R2 Sensitive Species Summary of Effects on MIS increase in both alternatives. This project is contributing to Objective 238a because the proposed action increases the amount of habitat available for ruffed grouse. The proposed action would meet all standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 No Action Ponderosa pine may continue to become denser and encroach into hardwood stands and shrubs. However, the predicted MPB effects to conifers would result in an increase in hardwoods and shrubs, providing improved habitat along riparian corridors for this species. This alternative would be expected to benefit the song sparrow. Adverse cumulative effects may occur because of livestock grazing. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 Proposed Action Direct effects are possible, but it is expected that individuals would leave the area before that occurs. Vegetation treatments may disturb individuals temporarily, but song sparrows are expected to return to the area. Proposed treatments would increase and enhance habitat. Some meadows and aspen stands near or adjacent to riparian areas would be released from pine encroachment. Mountain pine beetle caused mortality may also benefit this species by killing overstory pine along riparian areas. Because of vegetation treatments and MPB activity, hardwoods would increase. Additionally, pine habitat would become more open causing the potential for shrubs to increase in the understory. The additional habitat may increase enough for a population increase of song sparrow. Cumulative Effects Adverse cumulative effects may occur because of livestock grazing. Project activities are expected to outweigh effects. Summary The proposed action is expected to have more beneficial impacts to song sparrows because of treatments within meadows and hardwood stands that may include riparian habitat. Additionally, because of MPB activity, both alternatives have the potential for an increase in hardwoods and shrubs. This project is contributing to Objective 238a because all alternatives increase the amount of habitat available for song sparrows. The proposed action would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects No direct or indirect effects. Potential direct effects are largely avoided by the seasonal in-water work restriction to avoid the mountain sucker spawning, incubation and emergence period. Indirect effects to aquatic/riparian habitat are predicted to be negligible. Proposed reconstruction of FSR 342.1E would include one new road-stream crossing on French Creek downstream of Stockade
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Summary of Effects on MIS Lake. This may have short-term adverse effects resulting from some streambank disturbance and additional sediment input into the stream. The use of vegetative buffers to trap sediment and other techniques that minimize ground disturbance, protect streambank stability and maintain overhead tree canopy to shade streams would mitigate adverse impacts to fisheries habitat. Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, such as recreational fishing, nonnative fish stocking, livestock grazing, road use/maintenance and water impoundment would continue to directly or indirectly affect fish populations and/or their habitat. Existing instream structures that are barriers to fish passage, such as dams and “perched” culverts, would continue to fragment the stream network and affect fish distribution. These conditions and activities may have either a positive or negative effect depending on the fishery resource (native vs. non-native fish) or the type of activity (habitat restoration vs. degradation) being considered. Most of these effects are long-term because of their chronic, ongoing nature though their magnitude and intensity may vary over time. Summary This project would have a neutral effect on the Forest-wide population trend of the mountain sucker because of the minimal amount of occupied habitat (lower French Creek) in the project area and the minor degree of adverse effects to that habitat. The implementation of resource conservation measures would meet the intent of Forest Plan Objective 238d to maintain stream quality and connectivity. Mountain sucker viability is not at risk due to the minor amount of aquatic habitat affected and the low magnitude of potential direct and indirect adverse effects anticipated under the proposed action. The implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines (Standards 1106, 1109, 1113, 1201, 1203 and Guidelines 1115 and 3212), regional watershed conservation practices and project-specific design criteria would avoid and minimize long-term negative indirect effects to fisheries consistent with Forest Plan Objectives 103, 217 and 219. Potential adverse effects to aquatic habitat and control nonpoint surface water pollution are mitigated consistent with Objective 221 of the Forest Plan. The proposed action ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing’. The No Action alternative may adversely impact individuals as well, primarily due to the negative interaction from ongoing non-native fish management to provide for recreational fishing opportunities. Species of Local Concern (SOLC) The following is a summary of effects to the previously mentioned wildlife SOLC. A detailed analysis can be found in the Wildlife Report in the project record. Table 37. Summary of Effects to SOLC Summary of Effects to SOLC Alternative 1 No Action Atlantis Fritillary (Speyeria atlantis Conifers encroachment would continue into meadows/grasslands Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 Proposed Action Habitat adjacent to riparian areas is expected to increase in size because of vegetation 85
Page 1 and 2:
VESTAL PROJECT United States Depart
Page 3 and 4:
Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17:
OHV Off Highway Vehicle POL Product
Page 20 and 21:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 105: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
show all

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?