Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Developed Recreation This change in aesthetics could result in the project area being a less desirable place for the public to recreate and could decrease socio-economic benefits of a tourist based economy in the surrounding communities. There would also be high fire hazard within the project area due to heavy fuel loading from mountain pine beetle caused mortality. Large scale, high intensity wildfires reduce recreation use of an area and could also threaten/destroy recreation facilities in the project area such as Camp Bob Marshall and Bismarck Lake. The predicted extent of dead trees killed by MPB would have a negative impact on developed and dispersed recreation. The dead trees would become public hazards and MPB killed trees generally fall or break within 3-5 years. In addition, there would be increased maintenance needed within developed sites and impacts to permitted Outfitter and Guide authorized trails. The expense of dealing with beetle affected trees in recreation sites would increase as the epidemic increases and affects more trees in these sites. This may result in a temporary closure of recreation sites to the public if tree mortality from MPB attack exceeds recreation resource budgets to remove these hazards for public safety. Dispersed Recreation Mountain pine beetle killed pine trees are a falling tree hazard to dispersed recreation users who frequent the area. Dispersed recreation areas are not monitored and cleared of hazardous trees such as is done in developed recreation sites. Dispersed recreation users such as horse riders, hikers, bicyclists, rock climbers, hunters, etc., can expect more dead and dying trees as more pine trees become infested with MPB. Recreation Special Uses Recreation special use permit areas would be maintained by the permit holders to ensure that they are cleared of hazardous MPB infested trees and safe for the public. Therefore, there would likely be increased maintenance costs for permit holders to continue to use these permitted areas and trails. Alternative 2 The proposed activities in this alternative would reduce MPB risk and therefore, would consequently reduce the potential for MPB caused mortality. It is anticipated that the proposed thinning and sanitation treatments would result in a healthier forest of green trees that would provide a more appealing area in which to recreate versus one with large swaths of dead trees. A forest with an under story largely absent of dead and down fuels and slash would provide a more open, park-like setting desired by recreationists. The use of prescribed fire and pile burning would create periods of smoke and haze causing temporary negative affects to recreation opportunities over a broad area. These prescribed burning periods occur during the non-primary recreation tourism season, mostly late fall and early spring to a lesser extent. Therefore the effects to recreation are considered short-term and minimal. Sale activities would create short term periods of noise, dust, increased traffic and disturbance to the landscape, negatively impacting recreation social opportunities for solitude and rejuvenation in the natural environment. These impacts would be localized 148
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 and relatively short-term. Vegetation management activities would be obvious during and following implementation. These effects on the public are largely short term provided the follow up fuels reduction phase of the project occurs relatively soon (2-3 years) after harvest. No harvest activities would occur in developed recreation sites themselves during the primary recreation tourism season. Recreation special use permits (SUPs) would experience the impacts discussed above. Design criteria is included to avoid harvest activity during the primary use season within SUP permitted areas, where possible. In addition, coordination would be required between permittees and Forest Service to avoid potential conflicts. Any necessary adjustments to permitted areas would ideally occur prior to the date that Annual Operating Plans are discussed and finalized between the Forest Service and permitted Outfitters and Guides. Authorized outfitter trails/areas will be protected improvements in timber sale contracts and prescribed burning plans. Examples of protected improvements include trail tread, water bars, stock bypass gates and trail tread gravel. Travel Management Use of open public system roads for recreation during this project will be temporarily affected during periods of logging traffic and maintenance. Examples include road closure for grading and/or hauling of forest products. Road maintenance would occur during and after sale activities on affected roads enhancing their condition for post-sale recreation travel. Mickelson Trail The State of South Dakota Mickelson Trail and Mickelson Connector Trail between Custer and Custer State Park would be affected by the use of sections of these trails for harvesting timber in the Vestal project. Negative effects to these trails would be minimized through the use of specific design criteria (see Appendix B). Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary used was the project area. Time boundary for cumulative effects is from present to five years in the future. These boundaries were selected because the effects would be most evident to the project area and within five years of beginning the project. The cumulative effect of forest disturbance caused by a No Action alternative during an on-going mountain pine beetle infestation or the action alternative of harvest and post- harvest vegetative treatments could cause a shift of recreation activity from an area of disturbance to one of no or lesser disturbance. Recreation use would return to all areas and probably increase over time as the level of disturbance tapers off in successive years. The cumulative impact of No Action in an on-going mountain pine beetle infestation would result in more trees dying in larger groups over more area of the Vestal project. Thinning stands of trees in the action alternative results in more trees scattered over more area throughout the landscape when compared to the No Action alternative. This would 149
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:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 169: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?