Laserfiche WebLink
CNAPTERFOUR Enuironmentai l~onseyuences <br />and likely removal of revegetation plants by grazing animals. Revegetation in mule deer severe <br />winter range represents a special case. Because mule deer are browsers, re-estat~lishment of pre- <br />existing habitat values may not occur within 5 yeazs because shrubs are slower to establish than <br />grasses and forbs. <br />Natural Gas Pipeline Alternative A <br />Construction of this alternative would result in temporary disturbance of about 1.5 acres of <br />sagebrush shrubland and 0.3 acre of greasewood shrubland. Impacts, mitigation and reclamation <br />would be as described above. <br />Natural Gas Pipeliue Alternative B <br />Construction of this alternative would not result in any impacts to vegetation in aiddition to those <br />described above. <br />Pipeline <br />Vegetation Types <br />Construction of the product pipeline would result in temporary disturbance of 449 acres of <br />vegetation within a 125-foot construction ROW due to crushing by construction equipment <br />traffic. More than 80 percent of this disturbance would affect woodland or shrubland vegetation <br />types. Although reclamation would occur immediately following pipeline installation, impacts <br />would be for the mid-term to long term due to the length of time necessary to re-~~stablish the <br />woody vegetation. Herbaceous cover would be left in place and, although trampled, would be <br />expected to recover within 1 yeaz. <br />A 50-foot-wide permanent ROW corridor would be kept clear of woody vegetati~~n for the life of <br />the project. Long-term disturbance of 267 acres includes 87 acres of woodland or shrubland <br />vegetation types, although the entire ROW would be immediately revegetated with grass and <br />forb species to stabilize soils. <br />Less than 1 acre of wetlands would be disturbed. Refer to Section 4.9 for further details of <br />impacts to wetlands. <br />The pipeline corridor passes through a ntunber of geographical azeas that have been documented <br />to be the locations of plant communities considered to be vulnerable or imperiled in the state of <br />Colorado and/or throughout their ranges (Figure 3.7-2). Potential impacts to these plant <br />communities would be assessed in consultation with the BLM on asite-specific basis based on <br />final pipeline routing and specific known community site locations. Should it be necessary to <br />disturb these communities, BLM would require them to be revegetated with species indigenous <br />to the site. <br />Noxious Weeds <br />Potential impacts and mitigation would be as described above for the Piceance Site. <br />4-42 Vegetation <br />