Johnny O'Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and ...

Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 1-No Action
No activities would occur so there would be no direct effects to goshawks. In the absence
of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of goshawk habitat in the
analysis area will significantly change in the near future. Fire behavior is expected to
change in the long term, increasing the potential to remove existing and future goshawk
habitat in the event of a fire start within the analysis area. There would be no treatments
that attempt to retain late-successional elements, diversify stands, or treat dense plantations.
The No Action Alternative does little to promote the development or retention of goshawk
habitat and it increases the potential for wildfire to reduce habitat in the long term.
Action Alternatives
NSO nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat is used as a surrogate for goshawks in this
analysis. Combining these habitat classifications, thinning is proposed to occur within
approximately 880 acres of habitat in Alternative 2, with fewer acres proposed in other
action alternatives (Table 1). Treatment is proposed within and adjacent to suitable habitat;
however, habitat is not expected to be lost or degraded. The implementation of project
design standards will minimize or avoid significant effects to goshawks. Thinning,
underburning, or the combination of both could affect goshawks in the short term, but are
expected to be beneficial in the long term.
Table 1. Treatments within NSO Habitat, by Alternative
CT=Commercial thinning; NCT = Non-commercial thinning; UB=Underburning; HP=handpiling
Silviculture/Fuels
Acres Roosting¹ Acres Foraging
Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
CT with HP or UB 2 2 2 6 6 6
CT/NCT with HP or UB 69 55 51 658 659 577
NCT with UB or HP 96 43 43 46 15 15
Mastication 0 0 0 0 0 0
Thinning Total 167 100 96 710 680 598
Underburn Only
1986
(NR)
2053
(NR)
2057
(NR)
1790 1820 1902
Total 2153 2153 2153 2500 2500 2500
5