Laserfiche WebLink
CRAPTERFIVE D~'ett EIS Recisions <br />return to the potential natural community in about 20 yeazs. However, impacts to these • <br />communities in severe winter range could adversely affect big game forage and cover habitat <br />for the short- to mid-term and reduce the carrying capacity of critical habitat during the <br />period required to re-establish vegetation. These periods assume that reclamation is directed <br />towazd these components. <br />Page 4-39 <br />Direct impacts under the Proposed Action from development of the Piceance Site, the pipeline <br />corridor, and the Parachute Site would include the incremental disturbance or loss of <br />approximately ~,54G 1,562.5 acres of vegetation over the 30-yeaz life of the project. Acres of <br />vegetation disturbance aze provided by vegetation community type in Table 4.7-1. Long-term <br />impacts, including the disturbance of vegetation for process facilities, the exi;;ting experimental <br />test mine facility, a 50-foot-wide pipeline ROW, access roads, ponds and rail facilities, would <br />affect 395.5 acres for the life of the project. For the short term, 46>; 684acres would be affected <br />for construction activities, including temporary disturbance of vegetation for installation of the <br />piping system, an electrical transmission line, a natural gas line and the product pipeline. Mine <br />panel disturbance, occurring in approximately 5-yeaz increments, would imp;rct 483 acres over <br />the life of the project. <br />Page 4-43 <br />The pipeline corridor would cross a few very steep slopes, most notably on Davis Point. <br />Revegetation of these steep slopes, even with grass and forb species, could trke more than 2 <br />years unless climatic conditions aze very favorable at the time of reclamation. Areas with shallow <br />bedrock ma~not be able to be restored to pre-construction conditions and productive because <br />of the presence of broken bedrock on the soil surface following construction. <br />This alternative is similar to the Proposed Action and, for vegetation resource;s, there would not <br />be a notable difference in impacts. A few project facilities would be enlazgeci. Table 4.7-2 <br />shows acres of disturbance for this alternative. About ~,GA5,5 1,621.5 acres of vegetation would <br />be disturbed under this alternative. This includes an additiona132 acres ofPinyon-Juniper <br />Association and 5 acres of sagebrush on the Piceance Site; 4 acres of grasslartds or sagebrush on <br />the pipeline corridor; and 18 acres of disturbed grassland on the Pazachute Site compazed with <br />the Proposed Action. <br />Page 4-44 <br />Short- and long-term removal and disturbance of vegetation would occur antler both action <br />alternatives and cannot be avoided. A permanent reduction in the azea of natural vegetation <br />communities would only occur if any project roads were maintained after project closure. <br />Replacement of tazeet vegetation may not occur in azeas alone the pipeline w+here broken <br />bedrock or other adverse surface conditions exist. <br />Page 4-45; Wildlife <br />The affected habitat in the mine panels would be primarily pinyon juniper woodland, which • <br />provides shrub species for browse, hiding cover, and protection from cold and wind during <br />5-28 <br />