Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3.1 Introduction This Chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that are affected by the Proposed Action and alternatives and the effects (or consequences) that would result from implementation of those alternatives. The effects disclosed in this Chapter provide the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the benefits and risks of the alternatives. The Affected Environment Section under each resource topic describes the existing, or baseline, condition against which environmental effects of the alternatives were evaluated and from which progress toward the desired condition can be measured. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives through compliance with standards set forth in the 1988 Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (also referred to as the Forest Plan or LRMP), as amended, and monitoring required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and National Forest Management Act of 1976. The environmental consequences discussion centers on direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives, including recommended mitigation measures. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. These terms are defined as follows: • Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same place and time as the action. • Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time, or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. • Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. • Unavoidable adverse effects are those that cannot be avoided due to other constraints (Section 3.1.3). • Irreversible effects are permanent or essentially permanent resource use or losses. They cannot be reversed, except in the extreme long-term. Irretrievable effects are losses of use or productivity for a period of time. Irreversible and irretrievable effects are disclosed in the direct and indirect effects analyses for relevant resources, and summarized in Section 3.1.4. For the purposes of this analysis, the terms ‘effects’, ‘impacts’ , and ‘consequences’ are used interchangeably. 3.1.1 Analysis Process The environmental consequences presented in Chapter 3 address the impacts of the actions proposed under each alternative for the Inyo National Forest. This effects analysis was done at the forest scale. However, the effects findings in this chapter are based on site-specific analyses of the unauthorized routes proposed for addition to the National Forest Transportation System (NFTS or system) as well as the existing system roads proposed for reclassification as motorized trails. Unauthorized routes proposed in the alternatives have been reviewed by appropriate resource Introduction – 49 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 specialists and their findings documented in the project record. Additional information concerning the existing condition or environmental effects associated with a specific road, trail or area is available upon request. In the existing condition (i.e., Alternative 1), there are a total of 1,695 miles of unauthorized routes on the Forest. Of those, 1,668 miles are currently available for motorized use and are considered for addition to the NFTS in the action alternatives. The remaining 27 miles of unauthorized routes are within the boundaries of the 313,000 acres of new wilderness designated in March 2009. These routes are closed to motorized use in all alternatives, as motorized and mechanized uses in wilderness are prohibited by law. As described in Chapter 2, all action alternatives (Alternatives 2 – 6) include the following components or actions: • Adding unauthorized routes to the forest transportation system for public motorized use. Routes may be added as either roads or motorized trails. • Prohibition on travel off of forest transportation system roads and trails. • Changes to the existing NFTS, such as reclassifying and NFTS road as a motorized trail. For ease of documentation and understanding, the effects of the alternatives are described separately for each of the actions proposed for each alternative. The combined direct and indirect effects of these actions are then added to the effects of relevant past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions (or PFFA) in the cumulative effects analysis for each affected resource. Throughout the effects analyses, the term “routes available for motorized use” is used to compare the effects of the alternatives. For the No Action alternative (Alternative 1), this term includes all existing unauthorized routes, even though those routes will not be added to the NFTS. For the action alternatives, it includes only those unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in that alternative. 3.1.1.1 Analysis of Cumulative Effects According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects analysis area is described for each resource, but in most cases includes the entire Inyo National Forest including private and other public lands that lie within the Forest boundary. Cumulative effects are projected for a 20-year timeframe. This time period is expected to capture the time needed for the effects of the majority of known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects to recover to the point where they are no longer measurable. In addition, unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, and resource responses to climate change make assumptions about anticipated effects beyond this period speculative. For all resources, past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the “Affected Environment (Existing Conditions)” and “Environmental Consequences” section under each resource. Relevant present and reasonably foreseeable future activities are identified and analyzed in the cumulative effects analysis for each resource. An inventory of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions potentially contributing to cumulative effects is available in Appendix D. Introduction – 50 Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009 Each resource area identifies the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to the discussion of cumulative effects for that resource. Relevant actions are those expected to generate effects on a resource that will occur at the same time and in the same place as effects from the proposed action or alternatives. Appendix D includes additional detail (e.g., location, type of effect, etc.) about the activities considered in the cumulative effects analyses. In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions. The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent