Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Both alternatives propose fuel reduction treatments, specifically prescribed fire that include or are adjacent to current launch sites for hang and paragliders. Para- and hang-gliding activities would be prohibited while management activities occurred. However, impacts to such activities are expected to be limited given the relatively short window for burning that occurs during the spring and fall each year. Most hang- and paragliding activities occur on weekends when burning activities are less likely to occur. Such activities also occur later in the spring through the early to mid-fall when weather conditions are more conducive to flying. Conditions conducive to flying are also less conducive to and desirable for prescribe burning. Road closures and decommissioning would eliminate motorized access to approximately four (4) campsites under Alternative 2 and approximately 10 campsites under Alternative 3. Closing of roads would not preclude the site from being used as neither the road or the site would be subsoiled. Access and use would require access by foot, horse, or other non-motorized means. Decommissioned roads and the associated dispersed site(s) would be subsoiled. Experience suggests that these sites would not be used in either the short or long-term. Neither alternative proposes to close or decommission system roads that provide access to known hang and paragliding sites. None of these roads is proposed for maintenance that would improve access during periods of high fire danger when motorized access on these roads, particularly Roads 2017-300 and 2017- 350, is prohibited due the presence of fine fuels (tall grasses) in and adjacent to the road prism. The campsites where access would be changed or closed are popular with campers, OHV enthusiasts and big game hunters. Though some campers would be displaced with the proposed road closures, site access restrictions and restoration activities (i.e. subsoiling, vegetation treatments) would improve the vegetative, soil and aesthetic resources of some of the adjacent individual areas. The reduction of dispersed campsites will lead to an increase in the use and occupancy of the remaining campsites, more so for Alternative 3 due to the increased amount of proposed road closure. The existing inventory of dispersed campsites only accounts for those adjacent to system roads. Except for sites located on or adjacent to closed or decommissioned roads, the remaining approximate 100 campsites in Alternative 2 and approximately 115 campsites in Alternative 3 would continue to be accessible and usable. The potential for new sites to become established would be reduced except in areas adjacent to open system roads. For motor vehicle campers that will be displaced from site and road closures, it's likely they would take one of the following actions: o Utilize other existing campsites in the area. o Develop new sites and access roads in and outside the project area. o Camp and recreate at another location other than this area. o Breach road closures to access campsites. The proposed seasonal closure of the area from December 1 st to March 31 st of the following year would have little or measurable impact on dispersed use. During normal years, access is either limited or prohibited by snow. Access to most dispersed sites is only possible during years of limited or no snow. Use has been and is likely to remain either very low or non-existent during this period and would be limited to sites immediately adjacent to or on those roads that would remain open during this period. The greatest impacts are expected at the Pine Mountain Campground because with the increasing popularity of the observatory during the summer months, people and livestock are more likely to occupy the same general area at the same time. It is unlikely that proposed vegetation and/or fuel 3-86
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 reduction treatments would occur simultaneously due to safety and liability concerns. Therefore, it is unlikely that campers would be subjected to all of these operations at the same time or even during the same season. As recreational use is increasing in the area, the risk of accidents also would be expected to increase regardless of the alternative selected. Expansion of the Pine Mountain Observatory permit area and the subsequent construction of new facilities are expected to result in at least some increase in the use of the Pine Mountain Campground above current rates of increase, especially when the proposed education building is completed within the next 5 to 10 years. This would be expected under all three alternatives. Although the observatory does not expect visitor numbers to exceed 5,000 per year, the number of visitors that could be accommodated for programs at one time would increase over current numbers. Due to the many programs that occur in the evening and continue or could continue late into the night or early morning hours, this is likely to correspond in an increase in the number of people using the campground. This is likely to result in the campground being filled more often. Indirectly, the new development at the observatory may also result in an increase in dispersed use, particularly around the observatory area under all alternatives. When the Pine Mountain Campground is filled, overflow use would be expected to move to other areas. As this currently occurs with much of the overflow occurring on the flat ridgeline to the north, this pattern would be expected to continue, but with an increased frequency. Additional use would also be likely below the observatory along FR 2017. Improvements to OHV facilities within the EFR OHV area have been proposed, including upgrades to the Sand Springs Campground, moving trails, and improvements at trailheads and staging areas. This would likely result in increased use at the Sand Springs Campground because of improved facilities as well as additional use at existing dispersed sites. Under all alternatives, such increases are also likely to result in the development of additional dispersed sites, especially outside of the OHV area. Some of this increase may be directed to sites outside of the planning area, including onto other adjacent ownerships. Cumulative Effects Alternatives 1, 2, and 3: There would be no measurable cumulative impacts expected under any alternative. Scenic Resources Existing Condition: The north and northeast slopes of Pine Mountain visible from Highway 20, views along Forest Road 2017, and the south facing slopes of Pine Mountain below the Pine Mountain Observatory are within the MA-9 (Scenic Views) land allocation. This allocation has a Visual Quality Objective of Partial Retention and a Scenery Management System Scenic Integrity Level of Moderate. This refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character appears “slightly altered”. Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed (Scenic Resources Report page 1). Within the old growth management allocation (MA-15), the same scenic values for preserving the landscape characteristics of large ponderosa pine in a more open forest setting should be retained (Scenic Resources Report page 1). Maintaining unobstructed views to the night sky from the observatory is both a primary concern to those visiting and utilizing the facilities at the observatory and a priority for the future as outlined in the 20 year Master Plan developed in 2001 (Scenic Resources Report pages 1-2). 3-87
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:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 130 and 131: ISSUE 3 - WILDFIRE RISK - DIRECT &
Page 162 and 163: OTHER EFFECTS - CUMULATIVELY SIGNIF
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?