Final Environmental Impact Statement

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