Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Scenery Management Objectives are defined in terms of Scenic Integrity Levels. Scenic integrity levels describe existing conditions and whether the landscape is visually perceived to be “complete” or not. The highest Scenic Integrity Level means that there is little or no deviation from the landscape character that makes it appealing and attractive to visitors and local residents. Scenic Integrity Levels also describe the level of development allowed and ways to mitigate deviations from the area’s landscape character. Usually the most effective way to meet Scenic Integrity Levels is to repeat visual form, line, color, texture, pattern, and scale common to the scenic values of the landscape character being viewed. In natural and natural appearing landscapes, deviations such as created openings can sometimes be visually enhanced through repetition of size, shape, spacing, surface color, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings common to the existing landscape character. When repetition is designed to be accurate and well placed, the deviation may blend so well that change is not evident (Scenic Resources Report page 2). The desired future condition for the MA-9 and MA-15 land allocations is to enhance scenic views through treatments that result in a more open landscape characteristic of historic old growth forests with visible large diameter ponderosa pine. <strong>Environmental</strong> Effects: Alternative 1 would result in no measurable direct or indirect effects on scenic resources within the planning area in the short-term. There would be no measurable direct or indirect effects on scenic resources over the long-term short of changes affected by disturbance agents such as fire and insects. As a result, no short or long-term changes in the recreational experience of viewing the landscape from major roads would be expected (Scenic Resources Report page 3). Views of the night sky from telescopes within the observatory permit boundary would be obscured over time (Scenic Resources Report page 3). No coordinated vegetation management activities would be implemented that would maintain views over the long-term, more than 10 years. Continued unrestricted OHV use outside of the EFR OHV area would increasingly affect the quality and type of recreational experience associated with scenic resources through increasing noise, dust, and increased use (Scenic Resources Report page 3). Similar impacts would be expected within the boundaries of the EFR OHV area, but due to the restriction of OHVs to designated routes (roads and trails), the impacts would be expected to be less. Changes in the landscape due to wildfire, and to a lesser extent, insects, could be noticeable, especially when viewed from roads (Scenic Resources Report page 3). The desired future condition characterized by open stands of large diameter ponderosa pine would be delayed. High and increasing stand densities would continue to make stands more susceptible to stand replacement wildfires and further delaying or setting back the development of desired stand characteristics. Under both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, the overall pattern of the proposed treatments is to concentrate treatment in stands with higher tree densities. The treatment of smaller trees would result in the enhancement as well as protection of the larger trees. The reduction of tree densities over larger contiguous areas of the landscape versus smaller isolated treatment patches would be less visible in the views of Pine Mountain from Highway 20. This is especially true during winter months when snow on open ground visibly contrasts to the darker appearing cover of forested areas (Scenic Resources Report page 3). Scenic views in foreground areas along Road 2017 and adjacent to campground facilities would have visible short-term impacts (less than 10 years) from proposed vegetation management and fuel treatment 3-88
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 activities throughout the project area (Scenic Resources Report page 3). These would include paint, flagging, and signs on trees, the presence of slash, disturbed ground associated with skidding activities and landing areas, and the presence of stumps. Proposed mitigation measures, specifically flush cutting stumps, using low impact machinery or hand piling of slash within 300 feet of recreation sites and main travel routes, locating skid trails and landings 300 feet or more from recreation sites and Road 2017, in addition to others described in the Scenic Resources Report (pages 6-7) would help to minimize both the extent and duration of those impacts. Additionally, vegetation and fuel reduction treatments that open forest stands and shrub communities slash piles and concentrations, and burning and mowing activities may all be visible to the viewer for at least the short-term, up to five years or so. Mitigation measures such as removal of slash piles and locating landings and skid trails away from main travel corridors would help to minimize these impacts, especially if cleanup is completed within two years. Within 5 to 10 years, the visible aspects of both fuel reduction and vegetation treatment activities would become increasingly less noticeable due to natural changes across the landscape such as vegetative growth and regrowth. Improvements in forest health and reductions in the risk and intensity of large, stand replacing wildfire would also help to improve scenic quality across the landscape. There would be no closure of the area to OHV use under Alternative 2. The effects would be the same as those described under Alternative 1. OHV use would be restricted to designated roads and trails under Alternative 3 and cross-country travel prohibited. There would be no designated OHV routes on Pine Mountain under either action alternative. This would result in reduced levels of noise and dust in addition to reduced levels of use. The closure or decommissioning of 19 miles of system roads under Alternative 2 and 42 miles of system roads under Alternative 3 would also serve to reduce dust and noise concerns and result in improved recreational experiences associated with views from roads. Alternative 3, with the combination of road closures/decommissioning and the proposed OHV travel restrictions would result in a greater improvement because of the greater potential reduction in both noise and dust levels. Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would maintain large tree canopy cover by thinning from below. This would serve to feature the larger diameter ponderosa pine and moving treated stands toward the desired future condition. Alternative 2 would retain approximately 10 percent of each unit in an untreated condition and Alternative 3 would retain approximately 20 percent. These prescriptions would help to maintain longevity, particularly of the larger pine, on the landscape by reducing ladder fuels and stress on larger trees (Scenic Resources Report pages 4 and 5). They would also help to maintain vertical and horizontal diversity on the landscape and help to create and maintain a more naturally appearing and visually appearing landscape. Both alternatives would meet the Visual Quality Objectives of Partial Retention and the Scenery Management Objectives of Moderate Scenic Integrity for the north and northeast slopes of Pine Mountain visible from US 20 to the north, views along FR 2017, and the south facing slopes of Pine Mountain below the observatory (Scenic Resources Report, pages 5 and 6). The resultant landscapes in these areas would appear slightly altered but the noticeable deviations would remain visually subordinate to the viewed landscape character. Both the MA-7 and MA-8 land allocations have a scenic quality objective of Modification although higher levels may be prescribed. Under this objective activities may dominate the surrounding landscape but would appear natural. Created openings would be shaped and blended to the natural terrain to the extent possible. In MA-7, S&G M7-20 requires projects on high traffic volume roads to meet the Modification or higher objective. There is no high traffic volume roads located within the planning area 3-89
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:
Page 118 and 119: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 130 and 131: ISSUE 3 - WILDFIRE RISK - DIRECT &
Page 162 and 163: OTHER EFFECTS - CUMULATIVELY SIGNIF
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?