Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Shrubs in both early and mid classes and shrub-grass habitats would continue to decrease in distribution and quality due to encroaching trees. Shrub habitats would continue to age with a greater proportion of shrubs moving into late seral stages. Mature shrubs that are above snow levels and accessible to mule deer during winter months would increase in abundance, but nutritional quality would decline as the shrubs aged. Browse, particularly bitterbrush for wintering mule deer, would decline in numbers, distribution, and quality as tree canopies shaded out existing shrubs. Forage species, particularly grasses and forbs, that provide high nutritional quality during spring and early summer periods would decrease in both abundance and diversity as the combination of increasing litter accumulation, maturation of shrub habitats, and the lack of disturbance. Nesting, brood rearing, and foraging habitat for the greater sage-grouse would also decline in size, distribution, and quality. Increasing numbers of trees would provide additional perch sites for birds preying on sage-grouse. This alternative would also retain the high risk of wildfire and the potential loss of critical winter browse (bitterbrush). Over time, the risk of wildfire and the degree of potential loss of bitterbrush may increase. In addition to forgoing the opportunity to reduce the risk of wildfire, it also forgoes the opportunity to improve the abundance of herbaceous forage by reducing tree canopy cover. Alternative 2 and 3 (Bitterbrush Age/Structure Ratio): The analysis indicates an insignificant difference between Alternatives 2 and 3. Both retain acreages and percentages of early seral bitterbrush at levels above the desired condition, 46 and 43 percent versus 33 percent. Both alternatives reduce the percentage of mid seral by 50 percent to approximately five (5) percent, well below the desired condition. Both also retain over 50 percent in late and decadent and also well above the desired condition. The differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 are primarily associated with treatment activities proposed in the Tepee Draw WRHU and, to a lesser extent, in the General Forest land allocation (Table 3-13) Alternative 3 retains a greater percentage of bitterbrush acres in the late/decadent seral stages in the Tepee Draw area, 19 and (32) percent respectively, versus the 20 percent and (31) percent retained under Alternative 2. Alternative 3 also results in fewer acres and a lower percentage of acres in the early seral stage following treatment than Alternative 2 in the same area; 39 versus 49 percent (currently 12 percent). The situation is reversed in the General Forest allocation where treatments proposed under Alternative 3 result in a greater percent of bitterbrush acres in the early seral than Alternative 2; 83 versus 74 percent (currently 48 percent). Most of this change in both alternatives is associated with treatments in decadent age class/structure bitterbrush stands. Table 3-14 Vegetation and Fuel Reduction Treatments on Bitterbrush Age Class/Structure by LRMP Allocation, WHRU, and Alternatives 2 and 3. WRHU or Age Class / Structure (acres / % of Shrub Acreage) Total Ac. / % of LRMP Early Mid Late Decadent Area allocation Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Ge ner al For est Lav aci cle Existin g 464 / 48 464 / 48 150 / 16 150 / 16 Change +256 +334 -110 -110 -85 -84 -62 -140 Total Existin g 720 / 74 1,581 / 24 798 / 83 1,581 / 24 3-28 130 / 13 130 / 13 40 / 4 40 / 4 45 / 5 46 / 5 0 / 0 0 / 0 4,343 / 65 4,343 / 65 Change +508 +539 -0 -0 -438 -466 -70 -73 223 / 23 161 / 17 772 / 12 223 / 23 83 / 9 772 / 12 972 / 2 (shrub 967 ac.) 7,487 / 14 (shrub 6,696 ac.) 972 / 2 (shrub 967 ac.) 7,487 / 14 (shrub 6,696 ac.)
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 WRHU or Age Class / Structure (acres / % of Shrub Acreage) Total Ac. / % of LRMP Early Mid Late Decadent Area allocation Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Ma hog any Pot hol es Pin e Mt n Tep ee Dra w Tot als Total Existin g 2089 / 31 4,570 / 53 2,120 / 32 4,570 / 53 0 / 0 0 / 0 94 / 1 94 / 1 3-29 3,905 / 58 1,805 / 21 3,877 / 58 1,805 / 21 702 / 10 2,085 / 24 Change +19 +17 0 0 -2 -2 -16 -15 Total Existin g 4,589 / 54 2,608 / 27 4587 / 54 2,608 / 27 94 / 1 94 / 1 466 / 5 466 / 5 1,803 / 21 1,809 / 19 1,803 / 21 1,809 / 19 2,069 / 24 4,780 / 49 699 / 10 2,085 / 24 2,070 / 24 4,780 / 49 Change +2,800 +2633 -312 -291 -873 -802 -1,616 -1,540 Total Existin g 5,408 / 56 2,150 / 17 5,241 / 54 2,150 / 17 154 / 2 3,221 / 25 175 / 2 3,221 / 25 936 / 10 3,908 / 30 1,007 / 10 3,908 / 30 3,164 / 33 3,547 / 28 3,240 / 34 3,547 / 28 Change +2,669 +2,244 -1,707 -1,664 -492 -606 -302 -295 Total Existin g 4,819 / 38 1,361 / 12 4,394 / 33 1,361 / 12 1,514 / 12 940 / 9 1,557 / 12 940 / 9 3,416 / 25 3,392 / 31 3,302 / 26 3,392 / 31 3,245 / 25 5,226 / 48 3,252 / 25 5,226 / 48 Change +3,936 +2,943 -463 -217 -1,241 -1,355 -1,813 -1,751 Total Current Post- Treatm ent 5,297 / 49 12,734 / 26 22922 / 46 4,304 / 39 2,734 / 26 21234 / 43 477 / 4 4,871 / 10 2279 / 5 723 / 7 4,871 / 10 2589 / 5 2,151 / 20 15,387 / 31 12380 / 24 2,037 / 19 15,387 / 31 3,413 / 31 16,633 / 34 3,475 / 32 16,633 / 34 Current conditions, which are dominated by the late and decadent age classes, have resulted in an unacceptable level of risk of loss to an uncharacteristic wildfire. 12,112 / 22 (shrub 8,554 ac.) 9,690 / 18 (shrub 9,663 ac.) 13,443 / 25 (shrub 12,688 ac.) 10,919 / 20 (shrub 10,919 ac.) 54623 / 100 (shrub 49,625 ac.) Between 1990 and 1999, a total of 4,992 acres in the Opine planning area had fuel reduction treatments applied to them. Alternatives 2 and 3 both contain proposed treatment units that contain acres treated during that period including approximately 2,284 acres in 14 units under both alternatives. Random reviews of areas treated during that period identified little bitterbrush recovery indicating that areas treated within the past 20 years are highly unlikely to provide adequate browse for mule deer due to the slow recovery of the bitterbrush and other forage species. Alternative 2 would retreat those previously treated acres. Maintenance treatments would likely result in a long-term delay in shrub recovery, which would result in poor spatial distribution of critical winter forage for mule deer. Alternative 3 would not treat any area treated within the past 20 years unless those acres were determined to have recovered. This would permit shrub recovery to continue and increase the probability of a better distribution of 12072 / 24 12754 / 26 12819 / 26 12,112 / 22 (shrub 8,554 ac.) 9,690 / 18 (shrub 9,663 ac.) 13443 / 25 (shrub 12,688 ac.) 10,919 / 20 (shrub 10,919 ac.) 54,623 / 100 (tshrub 49,625 ac.)
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3:
Abstract: The Opine Planning Area i
Page 6 and 7:
PROJECT LOCATION CHAPTER 1 Figure 1
Page 8 and 9:
PURPOSE AND NEED CHAPTER 1 commerci
Page 10 and 11:
PLANNING DIRECTION - MANAGEMENT ALL
Page 12 and 13:
PLANNING DIRECTION - MANAGEMENT ALL
Page 14 and 15:
OTHER PLANNING DIRECTION & STRATEGI
Page 16 and 17:
OTHER PLANNING DIRECTION & STRATEGI
Page 18 and 19:
ANALYSIS ISSUES CHAPTER 1 The Opine
Page 20 and 21:
ANALYSIS ISSUES CHAPTER 1 overstock
Page 22 and 23:
ANALYSIS ISSUES CHAPTER 1 Soils The
Page 24 and 25:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS CHAPTER 2
Page 26 and 27:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION - ALTERNATI
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS - ALTERNAT
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59: ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION - ALTERNATI
Page 60 and 61: ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION - ALTERNATI
Page 62 and 63: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER
Page 64 and 65: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER
Page 66 and 67: IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES CHAPTER 2
Page 82 and 83: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 130 and 131: ISSUE 3 - WILDFIRE RISK - DIRECT &
Page 158 and 159:
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
OTHER EFFECTS - CUMULATIVELY SIGNIF
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
AGENCIES AND PUBLICS CONSULTED CHAP
show all

Environmental Assessment

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

Delete template?

Save as template?