Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 and/or kill conifer species that have degraded these stands. This would have a long-term positive impact on this habitat type. However, short-term negative effects are expected from the proposed treatments. Theses impacts include a possible temporary loss of habitat from the disturbances associated with the treatments. Negative impacts may include increased noxious weed infestations, soil disturbance, trampling of known and/or unknown plants, or any other changes in the microclimate. If hardwood stands are treated with prescribe fire this would likely have positive impacts by increasing vegetation diversity, recycling nutrients, and reducing the likelihood of a high-intensity wildfire. With prescribed fire treatments, the risk of damage to rare plants is typically minimal as hardwood stands, burned under prescription, generally do not burn intensively. Most rare plants are normally dormant during times of prescribed fire implementation. Rare plant species that have suitable habitat in hardwood stands include, but are not limited to: southwestern showy sedge, arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, sweetgrass, least grapefern, musk-root, pale moonwort, bristly muhly, and Michigan moonwort. White spruce would have effects to this habitat type from the proposed activities. This alternative proposes to reduce the likelihood and the intensity of a large-scale fire that would negatively impact this habitat. Rare plant species that have suitable habitat in spruce stands include, but are not limited to: southwestern showy sedge, alpine mountainsorrel, arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, leathery grapefern, least grapefern, pale moonwort, musk-root, pale moonwort, bristly muhly, and Michigan moonwort. Riparian areas, grasslands and meadows would benefit more than in Alternative 1. This alternative would remove all conifers from existing meadows and grasslands. With the projected mountain pine beetle caused-mortality and the proposed treatments, these areas are expected to benefit with the removal of the ponderosa pine that is encroaching into this habitat. Conifer encroachment into these areas alters the habitat and long-term reduces the quality for rare plant species that are dependent upon this type of habitat. However, the loss of shade-providing large trees may alter the micro-climate of some areas and result in loss of plant habitat. Riparian areas would receive protection with application of the watershed design criteria “All applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and R2 Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) will be implemented” Overall riparian vegetation is expected to benefit from the removal of ponderosa pine on adjacent sites as more moisture becomes available in treated areas. Most potential for direct effects from the implementation of this alternative in riparian areas would come from prescribed fire. Rare species that have suitable habitat in riparian, meadow and grasslands include, but are not limited to: alpine mountainsorrel, arrowleaf sweet coltsfoot, leathery grapefern, least grapefern, pale moonwort, musk-root, pale moonwort, bristly muhly, silvery sedge, swollen sedge, sweetgrass, bristly muhly, woolgrass, northern bog aster, and Michigan moonwort. Although specific data is lacking on the Black Hills National Forest, the earlier successional conditions that occur with opening the overstory canopy could produce conditions that would be beneficial to site colonization by wind-dispersed, sporeproducing Botrychium species if the associated mycorrhizal species and other microsite conditions are present (Farrar 2004). Prescribed burning within the project area would help prevent a high intensity wildfire that may occur due to the large amount of mountain pine beetle-caused mortality. While 128
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 effects of prescribed burning are not well known for most rare plants (USDA Forest Service 2005a) it is presumed that a large-scale wildfire would be more detrimental to individuals and their habitat than would fire burned under specific prescription. There is always a possibility of noxious weed infestation when an area burns, but again, effects are considered to be lessened when an area is burned under prescription rather than wildfire. There are design criteria in place that would require the involvement of the district botanist when developing burn plans so that the habitat requirements of rare plants in the area would be considered. Indirect effects from any of the proposed treatments would be the increased potential for noxious weed infestations in disturbed areas. This can be detrimental to rare plant species, as noxious weeds and invasive species have the ability to out-compete desired native and rare plant species. The herbicides used in noxious weed control can also be detrimental to rare species if the individuals are inadvertently exposed to the herbicides. While unknown individuals may exist on these sites and may be damaged during operations, the overall effect should be neutral to beneficial. The effects to R2 Sensitive Species are discussed in detail in the Vestal Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation. In summary, all alternatives have a determination of “May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend for federal listing.” for the three species which occur or may occur in the Vestal project area. There is currently one known location of Viola selkirkii within the project area that may be impacted by the treatments. There is a potential for other suitable habitat that contains unknown individuals. This known location is however surrounded by rock outcrops and is located in a highly inaccessible area. Prescribed fire is proposed in a known occurrence of Viola selkirkii. It is believed that applying prescribed fire within the project area would help prevent a high intensity wildfire that may occur due to the large amount of mountain pine beetlecaused mortality. It may also increase the water and nutrients available to Viola selkirkii, Cypripedium parviflorum and Platanthera orbiculata habitat, thus enhancing the habitat. There is always a possibility of noxious weed infestation when an area burns, but again, effects are considered to be lessened when an area is burned under prescription rather than wildfire. Because Viola selkirkii, Cypripedium parviflorum and Platanthera orbiculata habitat occurs in Picea glauca stands and it is often protected by large granite outcrops, it is unlikely the area would carry a fire when burned under prescription. However these areas may burn in a large-scale wildfire that is likely to have much more severe conditions. In addition, there is design criteria in place that would require the involvement of the district botanist when developing burn plans so that the habitat requirements of Viola selkirkii would be considered, including the exclusion of small areas. The known occurrence of Viola selkirkii would be protected from any mechanized treatment activities under the design criteria for riparian and wetlands. Suitable habitat for Viola selkirkii, Cypripedium parviflorum, and Platanthera orbiculata is typically avoided by equipment conducting treatment activities due to topography (rock outcrops, etc.) and riparian areas. Riparian areas would receive protection with application of the watershed design criteria “All applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and R2 129
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:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 149: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
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?