Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 In addition to the removal of encroaching trees, approximately 60 percent of Unit R1B would also be mowed under both alternatives. Mowing would target manzanita, a species not highly palatable to either big game or livestock. This would result in increasing the availability of light, nutrients, water, and space for the establishment and growth of grass, forb, and shrub species that would provide additional and/or improved forage and browse for both livestock and wildlife. This treatment would also reduce existing fuel loading and fire intensity should a wildfire occur within the treatment unit. It is expected that this treatment would remain effective, i.e. provide quality forage and browse, and reduce fuel loading, for approximately 30 years when retreatment would again be necessary (Range Report, page 44). Units R2A and R2B would not be treated under Alternative 3, a reduction of approximately 272 acres. Those acres would continue to experience encroachment by juniper and pine resulting continuing reductions in the quantity, quality, and distribution of forage for livestock and forage and browse for wildlife. The process of conversion of these areas from shrub and shrub-grass to forest communities would continue with the resultant impacts as described under Alternative 1. Implementation of management actions such as mowing, prescribe burning, and timber harvest would, under both alternatives, maintain or increase the amount of transitional range available for livestock. Although management actions, particularly wildfire and to a more limited extent, mowing, reduce the quantity and distribution of bitterbrush for wildlife, these actions tend to favor increases in grasses and other herbaceous vegetation favored by livestock. This can assist in reducing the risk and impact of cattle browsing bitterbrush and making more of this limited resource available for mule deer (Range Report page 44). If two or more pastures within a given allotment are treated within the same or succeeding years, permittees may experience large economic impacts. To avoid economic impacts to permittees within any given allotment the fire/fuels and range program managers will develop a vegetation management implementation plan that would direct activities to treat only one pasture of each active allotment within the project area in a given grazing season (see Mitigation Measures/Range). The treatment of large areas or multiple units within a given allotment within a short time period may result in eliminating the need to rest one or more of the pastures. Such treatments may not adversely or significantly alter livestock distribution patterns. Distribution patterns under such an implementation strategy may improve when compared to an implementation strategy that schedules treatments on small areas over longer periods of time (Range Report, page 47). Mowing would result in fewer impacts to grazing operations than fire. Treated areas would not require a post-treatment rest. Grazing could be resumed immediately upon completion of the mowing. Similarly, vegetation treatment units, including both commercial and non-commercial harvest, would also restrict or prohibit grazing only during periods of operation, including post-harvest slash treatment. Impacts could be further reduced by careful coordination of operations and the scheduling of grazing under the rest rotation grazing system. Vegetation treatment units that include follow-up fuel reduction treatments using prescribe fire could also require one or more grazing seasons of rest. No treatment units have been identified under either alternative that would require post-treatment rest. Some fuel reduction units proposed in Alternative 2 would treat areas previously treated to reduce fuel loadings. Within these retreatment areas, new treatments would be expected to result in the reduction in the quantity, quality, and distribution of shrubs while increasing the quantity, quality, and distribution of grasses and forbs. Big game would lose browse and livestock would gain forage. Retreatments would also delay the recovery of the shrub component and extend the time during which forage quality, quantity, and distribution would remain high. With the increased forage availability, it is expected that 3-80
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 competition for browse, particularly bitterbrush, between livestock and deer, would decline. Under Alternative 3, no previously treated areas would be treated unless a review showed retreatment was necessary. Recovery of shrubs would continue unabated in those areas. The quality, quantity, and distribution of forage species would slowly decline. Competition between livestock and deer for shrubs, particularly bitterbrush would remain and increase as forage quality and availability in these areas declined. Road closures and decommissioning would have little or no measurable impacts on grazing or grazing operations under either Alternative 2 or 3. Roads proposed for closure or decommissioning does not currently provide access to existing water sets or other grazing facilities under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, four (4) roads (2300-080, 2017-400, 2017-540, and 2017-543) are proposed for decommissioning. All four roads provide access to water sets, CT plots, and/or other range improvements such as fences. One, 2017-540, is also used as a cattle driveway to move cattle between the west side of Pine Mountain to the top. Two of the roads, 2017-400 and 2300-080, are proposed for designation as a designated class II OHV trail under a separate analysis and decision. Both provide access to water sets and/or CT plots. Use by the permittee would continue upon decommissioning and designation under the terms and conditions of the grazing permit. Some access to portions of existing fence lines may be lost. Permittees do have alternative means of accessing any fence segments that become less accessible due to road closures or decommissioning including the use of horses or OHVs. Possible conflicts between grazing and vegetation and fuel reduction treatments may occur where these operations occupy common sites under both alternatives. Gates controlling livestock movement could be left open. Fences could be cut, damaged, or destroyed. Water haul to water sets could become more difficult with increased traffic levels on roads or due to reduced visibility associated with dust or smoke. Accidents between livestock and vehicles may increase. Livestock use patterns may also be affected. Conflicts would be reduced under both alternatives by implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in Chapter 2. Protecting improvements, signing and closing roads, and coordination with both the district range management specialist and affected permittees would serve to minimize the conflicts. Improvements damaged or destroyed during management activities would be repaired or replaced by the contractor, or in the case of Forest Service actions, by the district. Tables 5-7 (pages 49-56) and Table 8 (pages 57-63) in the Range Report identify the specific improvements, trend plots, and roads important to grazing operations for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. There are not expected to be any measurable effects of implementation, except when operations are occurring. The several sale area improvement range projects identified for both action alternatives could be implemented assuming money is available. The road to the trick tank on West Pine Mountain would be gated thereby reducing vandalism. Conflicts between dispersed campers, OHV users, and livestock would be reduced at the water set adjacent to Road 2017 by the construction of a fence. New wildlife friendly fences, constructed along the northern side of Pine Mountain would improve the movement and safety of wildlife. The removal of unnecessary fence lines would also serve to improve the movement and safety and wildlife. Management actions, particularly fuel reduction treatments and vegetation management activities such as timber harvest, would provide a net benefit to grazing and grazing operations within the planning area. Such actions alter forage production on treated sites with often dramatic increases in forage production for periods ranging from two (2) to 20 years depending upon the site, specific management actions, and the implementation schedule. 3-81
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:
Page 60 and 61:
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 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 130 and 131: ISSUE 3 - WILDFIRE RISK - DIRECT &
Page 162 and 163: OTHER EFFECTS - CUMULATIVELY SIGNIF
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?