Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Cooper’s mountain snail (Oreohelix strigosa cooperi) 104 Summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Species incremental impact regarding sediment input. This negative impact would be additive to other sediment input resulting from ongoing road use/maintenance and livestock grazing on public and private land adjacent to French Creek. Overall, assigned fisheries beneficial uses are likely to be maintained. Non-native fish populations would persist that may negatively impact the mountain sucker. Stream fragmentation remains largely unchanged due to Stockade Dam and perched culverts on lower French Creek. Summary The alternatives ‘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’. Mountain sucker viability is not at risk due to the minor amount of aquatic habitat affected and the low magnitude of potential direct or indirect adverse effects. Project is consistent with Objective 221. Alternative 1 No Action Beetle caused mortality is expected to diminish dense conifer stand conditions that would protect these snails from environmental conditions and desiccation. Increased potential for standreplacing wildfires, which could eliminate localized colonies and reduce suitable habitat both shortterm and long-term Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 Proposed Action Potential for direct effects. Retains more dense canopy than No Action. Colonies would likely expand where suitable habitat is present. Sanitation of beetle infested trees within Frest sites may cause short-term impacts, but would retain more suitable habitat in the long-term. Cumulative Effects Drought can have negative impacts on this species by reducing moist site requirements necessary to sustain colony number. The loss of overstory due to MPB mortality and the high probability of large-scale wildfire could reduce moist site conditions depending on size of openings and severity/intensity of fire. High intensity fire may destroy colonies and their habitat, isolate colonies, and reduce decay material necessary for their life cycle, which may last long-term. The proposed action is expected to reduce the potential for MPB and large wildfires which is expected to incrementally offset some of the effects of past fire suppression. Forest management activities, including livestock grazing, fuel treatments, recreation, and prescribed burning, in Vestal and in adjacent areas can increase isolation and increase xeric conditions that would limit snail colony expansion or extirpate localized colonies. Effects discussed above would incrementally increase impacts when added to the impacts of these past and present activities. Roads improved or constructed for the proposed action are expected to incrementally add to these impacts while the treatments are underway, but these additional impacts are expected to cease following project completion as temporary roads are closed. Summary The alternatives ‘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’.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria idalia) Summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Species The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and contribute toward meeting Objective 221. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects No direct effect to this species or its Potential direct effects. habitat. MPB infestation would Treatments to maintain grassland habitat may continue to reduce canopies, improve nectar/host plant species. Indirect possibly creating additional habitat effects to butterfly habitat may occur from for the butterfly. High fire hazard prescribed fire, noxious weed treatment, would remain and be a threat to placement of landings, road placement and habitat. crossings, especially if located along the margins of streams. These effects would likely result in loss of host and nectar species short-term. Has a higher potential for the spread of invasive species that may affect this butterfly’s habitat long-term, than No Action. Design criteria is included to protect riparian habitats, provide down woody material, and restore disturbed areas with native species. Treatment effects are expected to be minimal to riparian diversity and nectar/host plant species. Cumulative Effects Fire suppression and increase in conifer cover in grasslands and riparian areas may increase over time, negatively affecting this species. Additionally, risk of largescale wildfire or prescribed burning may negatively affect regal fritillary habitat short-term. The ‘proposed action’ is expected to offset some of the effects of past fire suppression by reducing pine encroachment into meadows and by reducing the risk of large-scale wildfires. Livestock grazing in prairies, upland meadows, hardwoods, and riparian zones may negatively affect this species. Prescribed burning in these areas could further reduce grasses, adding to these effects. Chemical use to control noxious weeds would decrease vegetation diversity in treated sites. Vegetation treatments may lead to more invasive weed infestations, which would lead to additional effects from chemical control. Fragmentation of habitat due to roads and trails may increase disturbance. Roads used under the proposed action may add to those disturbances temporarily, but the effects are expected to cease following project completion. A portion of the meadows and grasslands occur on private land. Heavy livestock use, recreation, and development on private land could negatively affect butterfly habitat. Under the ‘proposed action’, treatments that reduce pine encroachment into meadows may offset some of the loss of habitat occurring on private lands. Summary The No Action alternative would have “No Impact”. 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 proposed action contributes to conservation of butterfly habitat, Forest plan Objective 221. The proposed alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. 105
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:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 125: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
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?