PERMFILE138875 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Table 2.1 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Alternative Issue 1 2 3 Effects of the proposed drilling and road None None None reopening and construction on wildlife habitat, includes Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) species. Effects of doll site noise and lighting on May displace May displace May displace wildlife. individual species individual species individual species durin drillin¢ times durin drillin times durin drillin times Effects o(the proposed drilling and road None Some risk to impact Less risk to impact reopening and construction on riparian species riparian species than riparian wetland habitat. Alt. 2 Effects o(gran[ing an exception to the Big NA May affect wintering May affect Game Winter Range timing limitation wildlife wintering wildlife stipulation on wintering wildlife. Implications ofgeologic hazards on drill None, GVBs and road None Minimal risk saes and road alignments. access needs would not be a roved Impacts to streams from proposed road and None. Road down bottom Reduced potential drill pad building. of Lang Draw may for sediment to be have potential to nansported in Long increase sediment to Draw during the ephemeral stonn/rvnof(events.. drainage during storm runoff events. Effects of the proposed drilling and road None-GVBs and road Potential [o dismpt Less conflict with reopening and construction on livestock access needs would stock dispersal and stock movement and grazing and recreation. not be approved. affect range potential to damage GVBspreviously improvements. range approved would be Minor effects to improvements. Less installed and drilled, recreation, mainly to impact to hunters on monitoring using hunters from primary roads used. approved routes would increased traffic on occur. roads, and may effect ame distribution. Potential for noxious weed invasion on None in project area, Potential to open Potential to open disturbed sites. other existing uses about 6.7 additional about 4.2 acres that would continue to acres that could have could have weed have potential (or weed invasion. invasion. weed invasion. Effect of the proposed activities on the None Gom project. No appreciable Same as Altemative roadless character of the area. Past and existing uses change from existing 2. have compromised the compromised roadless character. roadless character. Effects of noise and lighting on None from project, Some effect from Same as Altemative recreationisls. existing uses would lighting. 2. continue and may have an impact on recreationists. Effects of GVB development on road Currently 2.4 miles No net change No net change densit road er s uare mile 11