Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3-42: Opine Project Species Status/Population Trend Summary Species LRMP/Other Designation FWS Status (BCR 9) State of Oregon Status 3-130 NatureServe BBS Trend/Notes Ranking/ONHP ranking (OSU) NA/NA NA/Declining, North Mule deer MIS NA Game species Paulina Sub-Herd Unit Greater sage- N.A./R6 SOC SV in East G4, S3/4 Positive (nongrouse Sensitive (Columbia Cascades significant)/status varies Basin) with locale Cooper’s hawk MIS NA NA G5, S4/NA Positive (significant) Sharp-shinned hawk MIS NA NA G5, S4/NA Positive (significant) Northern goshawk MIS SOC SC G5, S3/4 Positive (non-significant) Golden eagle MIS SOC NA G5, S4/NA Positive (significant) Red-tailed hawk MIS NA NA G5, S5/NA Positive (significant) American MIS/R6 SOC LE G4T3, S2B/2 Positive (non- peregrine falcon Sensitive significant)/delisted from ESA Great gray owl MIS/S&M (west of owl line)/R6 Sensitive (WA state only) NA SV G5, S3/4 Not Rated Lewis’woodpecker MIS/Focal SOC SC G4, S2/2 Negative (non-significant) White-headed woodpecker MIS/Focal SOC SC G4, S2/2 Positive (significant)/ Black-backed woodpecker MIS/Focal NA SC G5, S3/4 Positive (significant) Hairy woodpecker MIS NA NA G5, S4/NA Positive (non-significant) Williamson’s sapsucker MIS/Focal SOC NA G5, S4/NA Negative (non-significant) American (pine) marten MIS NA SV G5, S3/4 NA Pygmy rabbit NA/R6 sensitive NA SV S4, S2?/2 NA Townsend’s big- MIS/R6 SOC SC G4, S2/2 NA/declining locally eared bat Sensitive (WA state only) References: Oregon Natural Heritage Program, “Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon”, http://oregonstate.edu/omhic/omhp.html, (2004); NatureServe Explorer web site, www.natureserve.org/explorer/, (2007); ODFW “Oregon Sensitive Species List” (2004); Fish and Wildlife Service, “Birds of Conservation Concern” (2002); Forest Service, “Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List” (2004); Deschutes National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (1990); Northwest Forest Plan, USFS, Region 6 (and associated amendments) (1994); B. Altman “Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington (2000); USGS, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, “First Public Version of 1966-2005 BBS Analysis Website”, www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/, (2007); personal communication Glen Ardt, ODFW (2006); and Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District bat survey records (files, multi-year). Notes: G2 = imperiled, G3 = vulnerable, G4 = apparently secure, G5 = secure (global ratings); S2 = imperiled, S3 = vulnerable, S4 = apparently secure, S5 = secure (Oregon, State ratings); 1 = critically imperiled, 2 = imperiled, 3 = rare, uncommon or threatened, 4 = apparently secure, 5 = abundant, secure (Oregon, State ratings); SC = State Critical, SV = State Vulnerable (ODFW classifications); NA = not applicable, MIS = management indicator species, S&M = survey and manage, SOC = species of concern, BCR9 = bird conservation region, Great Basin, BBS = breeding bird survey, ONHP = Oregon Natural Heritage Program.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 MIS Summary – Table 3-43 broadly summarizes the expected effects of the two action alternatives on MIS species or their habitat in the planning area. MIS species not considered to occupy the planning area include the bald eagle, the northern spotted owl, the great blue heron, three-toed woodpecker, wolverine, peregrine falcon, and osprey. Table -3-43 Effects of Proposed Vegetation and Fuel Reduction Treatments on MIS Species and Their Habitats Project Treatments Effects 56 – Alternatives 2 and 3 MIS Prescribed Fire/Mowing Tree Thinning Raptors Mitigation Measures Northern Goshawk -, M(0) -- ST, M(- ) Protect solitude at nests. Implement prescriptions with goshawk habitat objectives. Sharp-shinned hawk -, M(0) -- ST, M(- ) Protect solitude at nests. Retain dense patches for potential nesting. Red-tailed hawk 0 0 Protect solitude at nests. Cooper’s hawk 0 -, M(0) Protect solitude at nests. Golden eagle 0 + Protect solitude at nests. Great gray owl 0 - , M(0) Retain dense LPP LOS patches near large forest openings and meadows Cavity Nesters Lewis’ woodpecker + + Protect snags. Retain burnt trees/snags for foraging. White-headed woodpecker + + Retain scattered understory patches for foraging. Protect snags. Black-backed woodpecker + -, M(0) Retain burnt trees/snags for foraging. Protect snags. Williamson’s sapsucker 0 0 Protect snags and logs (foraging). Hairy woodpecker + + Protect snags and logs. Rocky Mountain elk - to + - to + Others Road density will negatively affect elk. --, M(-) Thinning will negatively affect thermal cover even with Mule deer -, M(0) hiding mitigation. Road density will negatively affect deer. cover Provide movement corridors between cover patches. American marten --, M(-) -, M(0) Protect down logs and provide corridors for movement between habitat patches (LPP). Townsend’s big-eared bat Species associated with -, M(0) + Protect caves and lava tubes logs and downed woody debris --, M(-) - Protect features Species associated with Promotion of seral stage 7 will be a beneficial effect. various plant communities and - to + - to + Elimination of dense stands/patches will be a negative effect. Provide habitat connections for LOS dependent successional stages species. Species with special or unique habitats -, M(0) -, M(0) Protect features Regardless of the activity, fuel reduction, vegetation treatment, or a combination of both, the application of the mitigation measures would generally eliminate or substantially reduce the projected adverse impacts to MIS species within the planning area. The relatively small scale of the project relative to the range of the species, it is expected that even unmitigated effects would not likely affect the population viability of any of these species. 56 A”+” denotes a positive effect. A”-“ denotes a minor negative effect. A “—“ denotes a major negative effect. A “0” denotes a neutral effect. Short-term effects are denoted by “ST”; long-term effects by “LT”. “M” denotes mitigation and the ( ) with either a +, -, or 0 denotes whether the mitigation changes the impacts to positive (+), a small negative (-), or a neutral effect (0). 3-131
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:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
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 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
ISSUE 3 - WILDFIRE RISK - DIRECT &
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 162 and 163: OTHER EFFECTS - CUMULATIVELY SIGNIF
Page 252 and 253: AGENCIES AND PUBLICS CONSULTED CHAP
show all

Environmental Assessment

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?