Environmental Assessment

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3
Sub-Area
General
Treatmen
ts
Vegetation
Only
Plant Associations
Affected (acres)
Pondero Xeric
sa Pine- Shrub-
Sagebru Sagebru
sh
sh
78 1
3-170
Prescription(s)
Variable (thin small trees to 16", thin
small and medium trees to 21", precommercial
thins, etc.)
Total
Acreage
Fuels/Veg
Overlaps
28 35 Combinations of above categories 63
Totals: 3,044 501 3,545
Action Alternatives: Habitat for the greater sage-grouse would be maintained or improved under
Alternatives 2 and 3. Fuel reduction and vegetation treatments in Alternatives 2 and 3 would alter plant
communities toward historic conditions. No treatments under either alternative are proposed in known
occupied nesting habitats.
Implementation of proposed fuel and vegetation treatments under both alternatives could result in
disturbance or displacement of nesting or brood rearing grouse. Application of mitigation measures
identified for both alternatives would eliminate this risk.
The proposed closure of system roads under both alternatives would also serve to protect and maintain
existing habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 current uses would continue. Cross-country motorized travel would
continue to potentially disturb or displace nesting and brood rearing birds. Habitat would continue to be
at risk of damage or destruction where vehicle travel occurred.
In conclusion, the effects of vegetation treatments for both action alternatives have been determined to
provide positive effects for historic sage-grouse habitats, including known occupied habitats. Therefore,
there are no direct adverse impacts on sage-grouse habitats. Direct or indirect adverse effects could occur
if nesting or brood rearing grouse are disturbed or displaced by treatment activities. Compliance with the
PDCs would eliminate any adverse impacts.
The closures of roads/OHV trails within historic sage-grouse habitats by both action alternatives would
also be a positive effect. Additional closures would potentially occur via future OHV access planning.
Potential cumulative adverse impacts on the vegetative components of habitat were reviewed, and it was
concluded that only rangeland livestock grazing was a significant consideration. Refer to the recent
Cinder Hill EA for a detailed evaluation of the effects of grazing on greater sage-grouse within the Opine
Project's area.
Other potential adverse cumulative effects are primarily related to those on adjacent non-Forest Service
lands including: grazing on BLM and private lands (most notable in the areas of occupied leks and low
elevation wintering habitats); OHV use and road densities on BLM and private lands; and hunting of
sage-grouse on BLM and private lands as administered by ODFW. Given that a petition to list the
Greater sage-grouse was denied by the USFW (USDI 2003) it is concluded that these effects are
insignificant, as well as beyond the scope of this project.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Soils – Neither action alternative is expected to create any impacts that would cause irreversible damage
to soil productivity. There is low risk for mechanical disturbances to cause soil mass failures (landslides)
79