Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 designed to retain all currently existing thermal cover within these WRHUs while meeting or exceeding standards and guidelines for hiding cover. In summary, for MA7, the LRMP hiding cover requirement meets or exceeds 10 percent with the exception of Alternative 2 (approximately 9 percent cover) of the Opine project. Due to the large stand replacement wildfires discussed above, thermal cover requirement are not met over a large area. The degree of effect on mule deer cannot be quantified because there is no direct correlation between thermal cover and deer numbers. What is known is that in high snow years; the majority of the deer herd moves entirely off of the Deschutes National Forest and utilizes the hundreds of thousands of acres of adjacent BLM lands that have essentially no thermal cover. The Opine and Fuzzy Projects include 72,490 acres of MA7 (48,259 ac. Opine and 24,231 ac. Fuzzy) or 70 percent of the North Paulina Sub- Herd Unit (103,548 acres). The ongoing South Bend and Oz projects will affect about 6,240 acres of MA7 or 6 percent of the North Paulina Sub-Herd Unit. In total, the described projects will affect 76 percent of the North Paulina Sub-Herd Unit. It is likely that there are potential short-term (less than 20 years) negative cumulative effects from the combined impacts of the Opine, Fuzzy, South Boundary, and Oz projects due to the total percentages of MA7 that will be treated and the known conditions of cover in these areas. The herd population data from ODFW indicates that the North Paulina deer herd is well below management objectives (i.e. 55 percent). It should be noted however, that the described effects will be spread out both spatially and temporally across a very large area, and individual projects have adopted various mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce negative effects. An example of project mitigation is the retention of all existing thermal cover in the Opine (Alternative 3), South Bend and Oz projects. The reduced site capability of winter range habitats at low elevations (e.g. limited precipitation) is one of the contributing factors to the current low levels of thermal cover. However, other variables that are also probable agents include the past railroad logging activities that promoted an even-aged black-bark pine stand without understory regeneration over large areas of these WRHUs. These conditions have reduced the amounts of both thermal and hiding cover for big game. Natural re-growth of trees in these areas through time will recruit more cover. The availability of habitat components to deer is affected by human disturbance. The principal metric utilized in wildlife habitat assessments to determine effectiveness is motorized road/trail density. Because deer on winter range are much more vulnerable to disturbance at a critical period of their annual life cycle, cumulative effects is more meaningful for that period than for summer range. The degree of effect due to disturbance by vehicles includes a number of variables: road class, traffic volume, traffic type, time of year, amount of cover along road, topography, etc. The amount of habitat affected then is subject to the variables resulting in different effects by road. The Fuzzy project currently has 2.6 miles of roads per square mile, plus an additional .5 miles per square mile of OHV trails. Post-treatment the total density would be reduced to 2.0 miles per square mile. The Opine project presently has a road/trail density of 4.96 miles per square mile within the project boundary. Post-treatment, the density is projected to be 4.6 miles per mile. The LRMP has different standards for summer range and winter range. For the latter the plan specifies that the density will not exceed 1.0-2.5 miles per square mile. The effects on habitat effectiveness in these areas is magnified by the following factors: 1) low amounts of hiding cover; 2) extensive open areas of open, non-forest habitat types; 3) gentle terrain lacking topographic barriers along roads; and 4) relatively high public use and easy access from a growing urban population. Conversely, future actions include seasonal winter range closures following management activities in the Opine project area, which will reduce road densities to a maximum of 2.5 miles per square mile. For the purposes of cumulative effects, the overall broad effect can be categorized as being positive for the Paulina deer herd within the Opine and Fuzzy project areas. 3-22
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 In conclusion, there is no definitive, quantifiable effect on deer numbers due to cumulative effects. There is, given the evidence presented, a certainty that the sum of effects have contributed to reduced deer numbers. A variety of other variables may also be contributing to low deer numbers, e.g. weather, snow conditions, predators, poaching, road/trail disturbance, disease, etc. Adjacent private lands are being developed and eliminating historic deer wintering habitat, which may be one of the more important impacts on local deer herds. In the long-term, with forest re-growth, travel management, and reduced wildfires, the deer herd numbers will rebound. Additionally, the effects of past wildfires on deer winter ranges have had the most substantial, long-term negative impacts on deer habitats. The assessed management activities are designed to reduce the risk of future catastrophic wildfires, and subsequently impacts to deer. Therefore, the negative cumulative effects described for management actions are short to mid-term and will be a benefit to deer both in the short (reduced fires) and longterm (>20 years, more cover). Measurement Standard - Thermal Cover Thermal cover is only required in the Deer Habitat allocation (i.e. winter range) and the objectives is 30 percent. There is no exception for black-bark pine stands. Thermal Cover – As noted previously, thermal cover within the planning area is currently below the MA-7 LRMP objective of 30 percent. Across the winter range habitat units (WRHUs), thermal cover percentages range from an average of two (2) to approximately 20 percent with an average of about eight (8) percent. Only six (6) percent, or 1,338 acres, is actually located within the MA-7 allocation Thermal cover increases to nine (9) percent across the entire planning area, including both forested and non-forested acres. It is unlikely that many of the forested areas in the planning area are biologically capable of sustaining thermal cover objectives specified in the LRMP for the deer winter range land allocation (MA-7). The silviculture report cites a 1978 paper by Barrett, which concluded that ponderosa pine stands with site indices of less than 90 are not capable of providing dispersal habitat on a sustained basis. Thermal cover habitat was defined (Barrett, 1978) as stands with an average diameter of six (6) inches dbh and a canopy closure of at least 25 percent. Site indices across most the planning area is below 90. The research also suggests that stands seven (7) inches dbh or smaller might meet thermal cover, but only at the high end of the upper management zone. Stands above seven (7) inches dbh can only meet the 40 percent canopy closure if managed above the upper management zone and at stocking levels so high that beetle outbreaks are likely (Silviculture Report, Appendix D Silvicultural Specialist Letters, page 53). Alternative 1 (Thermal Cover): There would be no substantial short-term change (less than 10 years) in the acreage or percent of thermal cover in the planning area. Under Alternative 1, the number of acres rated as either marginal or acceptable thermal cover would be expected to increase in the shortterm assuming no disturbance from wildfire, insects, or disease. The quantity, quality, and distribution of thermal cover may increase during this time period due to increasing stand densities. These same acres are also rated as moderate to high risk for bark beetle attack. Fuel loadings would continue to increase resulting in an increased risk and potential for a high intensity wildfire that would likely result in the loss of both tree and shrub vegetation over very large areas. Such losses would eliminate existing thermal cover as well as hiding cover and bitterbrush browse for mule deer. Long-term, more than 10 years and assuming no disturbance events such as bark beetle attack or a wildfire, the quantity, quality, and distribution thermal cover could be expected to increase due to continuing increases in stand densities. Increasing stand densities would result in an increasing risk to insect and/or disease outbreak, especially in densely stocked ponderosa pine stands, and a high risk of wildfire. Both events, either singly or in combination, would result in significant reductions if not the 3-23
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3:
Abstract: The Opine Planning Area i
Page 6 and 7:
PROJECT LOCATION CHAPTER 1 Figure 1
Page 8 and 9:
PURPOSE AND NEED CHAPTER 1 commerci
Page 10 and 11:
PLANNING DIRECTION - MANAGEMENT ALL
Page 12 and 13:
PLANNING DIRECTION - MANAGEMENT ALL
Page 14 and 15:
OTHER PLANNING DIRECTION & STRATEGI
Page 16 and 17:
OTHER PLANNING DIRECTION & STRATEGI
Page 18 and 19:
ANALYSIS ISSUES CHAPTER 1 The Opine
Page 20 and 21:
ANALYSIS ISSUES CHAPTER 1 overstock
Page 22 and 23:
ANALYSIS ISSUES CHAPTER 1 Soils The
Page 24 and 25:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS CHAPTER 2
Page 26 and 27:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION - ALTERNATI
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS - ALTERNAT
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53: ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION - ALTERNATI
Page 62 and 63: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER
Page 64 and 65: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER
Page 66 and 67: IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES CHAPTER 2
Page 82 and 83: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 130 and 131: ISSUE 3 - WILDFIRE RISK - DIRECT &
Page 152 and 153:
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
OTHER EFFECTS - CUMULATIVELY SIGNIF
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
AGENCIES AND PUBLICS CONSULTED CHAP
show all

Environmental Assessment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?