Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from soil erosion with this alternative because no new activities are planned. Alternative 2 Ground disturbance associated with commercial treatment activities has the potential to impact soil productivity by creating conditions that can contribute to a greater potential for soil erosion. Noncommercial vegetation treatments, dead fall treatment and fuel break construction are not expected to have any impacts to soil productivity from soil erosion because the organic layer would still be present on the soil surface, protecting the soil from erosion. Prescribed fire is not expected to have any impacts to soil productivity from soil erosion because the organic layer is not expected to be burned off, thereby leaving some organics on the soil surface protecting the soil from erosion. Vegetation treatments on soils with a Severe Erosion Hazard Rating (SEHR) and steep slopes have the most potential to increase soil erosion. Approximately 2,164 acres or 9% of the treated acres are located on soils with a severe erosion hazard rating with slopes greater than 20% and less than 40%. One thousand one hundred ninety-six (1,196) additional acres or 5% of the treated acres are proposed for treatment on slopes greater than 40%. Minimal soil erosion may occur from the commercial activities but implementing the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including WCPs and BMPs, and the design criteria “On soils with severe erosion hazard rating and slopes between 20 and 40%, machinery operations must be restricted to dry or frozen soil conditions” and “On soils with severe erosion hazard rating and slopes steeper than 40%, ground skidding must be avoided” there would be very little soil erosion occurring, and only for short distances. The potential for erosion related to roads would be minimized with proper erosion control structures at proper spacing for the grade of the road. These would be built in the road and be maintained throughout the operation and also upon putting the roads to bed. Direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from soil erosion are not expected because very little erosion is expected to occur from this alternative with the implementation of the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including WCPs and BMPs, and the design criteria. Soil Compaction – Direct and Indirect Effects “Soil compaction is caused by excess weight of vehicles and animals. It impairs infiltration, root growth, and soil biota,” (USDA Forest Service 1996a). Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from soil compaction with this alternative because no new activities are planned. Alternative 2 This alternative may have short-term impacts but the impacts are not expected to persist. Minimal soil compaction can occur from the commercial activities. BMP monitoring of timber units in the Black Hills since 2005 (USDA Forest Service 2008, 2009 & 2010) have shown some impacts occur but all units met Forest Plan Standards. If compaction 152
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 does occur it would generally be expected to be reduced over time meaning no long-term effects. Forest Plan Monitoring on one site has shown “there is evidence that conditions were such that within one geographic area, on at least one soil type, and to the depth sampled, that the mean soil bulk density decreased from levels above the threshold classified as “detrimental compaction” to levels below the threshold within the time period of one year” (USDA Forest Service 2009). No indirect effect on soil productivity from soil compaction with this alternative is expected. Short-term direct effects can occur but are not expected to persist. Nutrient Removal – Direct and Indirect Effects “Soil fertility depends on organic matter and nutrients. Soil productivity can be degraded if humus and topsoil, or even excess leaves and limbs, are taken off site,” (USDA Forest Service 1996a). Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effects to soil productivity from nutrient removal with this alternative because no new activities are planned. Alternative 2 This alternative includes commercial and non-commercial vegetation management, dead fall treatment, fuel break construction and prescribed fire. Noncommercial vegetation management, dead fall treatment, fuel break construction and prescribe fire do not affect soil productivity from nutrient removal because organic material is not physically removed from the site. Lopping, chipping, crushing, or mastication leaves all material on site. Burning will change the form or composition of the nutrients but most will be still available on site. Commercial vegetation management generally removes whole trees from the site in order to reduce the fuels in the stand. This could pose a concern on some soils, however with the mountain pine beetle activity in the Vestal project area, there would be sufficient material left on site to meet Standard 1102, including Guideline 1102a, and soil productivity would not be affected No direct or indirect effects on soil productivity related to soil nutrients are expected to occur with this alternative. Soil Heating – Direct and Indirect Effects “Soil heating is caused by severe fires that occur when humus and large fuels are dry and large fuels are consumed near the ground. Soil heating sterilizes the soil, alters soil physics, consumes organic matter, and removes much of the site’s nutrients,” (USDA Forest Service 1996a). Impacts to soil productivity from soil heating usually occurs as a result of a wildfire but can occur in small areas with prescribe fire. Alternative 1 There would be no direct or indirect effect to soil productivity from soil heating with this alternative because no new activities are proposed within the project area. Alternative 2 Effects from soil heating can occur from burning of slash piles and prescribed fire. 153
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:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 173: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
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?