Laserfiche WebLink
r' <br />species on these lists which were not included in the Biological Assessment or Biological <br />Eva luation were determined to be unlikely residents of the project area due to different <br />habitat requirements (refer to Table 3.2). <br />3A.2 Environmental Consequences <br />Alternative 1: No Action AI[emative. The No Action alternative would have little <br />immediate impact to MIS, TES (threatened, endangered, sensitive) species, or aquatic <br />species. Opportunities to improve big game (elk and deer) forage afid browse conditions <br />by creating small openings in the oakbrush habitat conununity type would decrease. <br />Hairy woodpeckers and otter animals which use standing dead and down logs would <br />have: good habitat conditions as trees died and remained on site. This condition (an <br />incrc;ase in dead standing and down trees) would primarily improve in the Long Draw <br />area. <br />There would be no effects to TES species under the No Action alternative. <br />Altc:mative 2: Under this altemative, GVBs 15-O1, 02, 03, 3.5 and 5 and 15-OS are <br />located on the south -facing slope of Long Draw in Gambel oak deciduous shrubland <br />habitat. The access proposed to the GVB drill sites is from FR 711 and then on to an <br />existing ATV trail. This ATV trail was last reopened by MCC for drilling access to site N <br />(RAV-8) in 1995, then was effectively closed to full sized vehicles. MCC proposes to re- <br />open the route to a 14 foot width to the reclaimed location of SOM-~3. This route is also <br />Gambel oak habitat and in relatively flat topography. New temporary road construction <br />is needed to access GVB sites. Gambel oak and its associated understories would be <br />cleazed along this route, from there the road would drop into Long Draw. The proposed <br />road alignment down the bottom of Long Draw would disrupt the riparian habitat there. <br />The effects to big g~une (deer and elk) associated with the density and motori.~ed use of <br />roads and trails in tkte analysis area has been an issue with past coal exploration proposals <br />and continues to be an important issue in this proposal. Roads and trails decrease the <br />effectiveness of security areas (.zreas which are attractive to elk during times of stress). <br />Human activity on public lands can cause big game animals to move to lower elevations <br />earlier than normal (CDOW 1990). Results from an elk seasonal distribution study in the <br />North Fork Valley t~etween 1991 and 1996 (Homan 1996) located elk on public lands in <br />the fall prior to rifle seasons, however after the rifle seasons and before winter these elk <br />had tnoved to lower elevation private lands. In some years, some of these elk were on <br />river bottom private lands one week after the third rifle season. Displacement of elk :utd <br />deer from public to private lands, reduces hunting opportunities and creates conflicts with <br />landowners and livestock. There is a need to keep big game on public lands as long as <br />possible in the fall, thereby minimizing conflicts with private landowners. <br />Displacement from selected habitats over time is a much more serious impact [o elk than <br />the immediate response of fleeing from a disturbance. Studies have repeatedly shown <br />that vehicle traffic on forest roads establishes a pattern of habitat use in which areas <br />nearest the road are not fully uti lized by elk (Marcum 1976, Marcum and Edge 199 L <br />16 <br />