Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Table -3-45 Effects of Vegetation and Fuel Reduction Treatments on the Known Goshawk Site Nest Site ID N. goshawk Nest Core N. goshawk PFA N. goshawk Nest Core N. goshawk PFA Gross Acres 30 400 30 400 Units Prescriptions Treated Acres H09 SD02 F09 H09 P07 P08 SD02 SD08 F9, 17, 36 F35 P346 F09 P309 P315 P324 P346 F09, 17, 36 F35 MTT STT Pre- Treat/Burn MTT STT STT STT STT Pre-treat/Burn Pre-treat/Mow STT Pre-treat/Burn STT STT STT STT Pre-treat/Burn Pre-treat/Mow 3-134 20 10 30 100 72 7 37 14 391 10 30 30 45 157 14 148 384 13 Effects Fuels treatments overlap veg units. Prescriptions were not designed for goshawk objectives. Treatments will negatively affect (reduce) canopy cover. 100% treated. Fuels treatments overlap veg units. Prescriptions were not designed for goshawk objectives. Treatments will negatively affect (reduce) canopy cover, and understory stand structure for prey species. 100% treated. Fuels treatments overlap veg units. Short-term there would be potential negative effects (reduce) on canopy cover, and understory stand structure for prey species. 100% treated. Fuels treatments overlap veg units. Short-term there would be potential negative effects (reduce) on canopy cover. 100% treated. Project design criteria, specifically NG3 and NG6, impose seasonal restrictions when the nest is occupied and do not permit commercial harvest within the 30 acre nest area. Treatments, non-commercial thinning and burning of piles, are proposed within the known nest stand with the objective of providing long-term habitat viability. The effects of treatments from Alternative 2 on the goshawk site are not conducive to the long-term maintenance of essential habitat components (i.e. nesting and foraging) because canopy levels are too low and do not retain mid-story trees for multi-layer structure. Prescriptions were not designed considering goshawk objectives resulting in residual canopy cover levels becoming too low. The elimination of small tree clumps in the understory would reduce habitat of bird species that are potential prey for goshawks. The effects of treatments from Alternative 3 on northern goshawk nest sites are negative in the short-term. Prescriptions were designed considering goshawk objectives. However, overall canopy cover would be reduced and the stand structure simplified. Unthinned retention patches would mitigate these effects. There would be no effects on existing or potential nest trees; these trees would be retained. In the long-term (15 years and longer) the treatments would reduce competition among trees and reduce the probability of large tree mortality due to insects and/or disease. The reduction of understory ladder fuels and the overall canopy coverage would reduce the probability of catastrophic wildfire. The prescriptions for thinning and natural fuels reductions have been designed to mitigate the short-term effects and promote long-term stand structural characteristics favorable to goshawk. Both alternatives would affect potential nesting habitat that is currently unoccupied. Potential habitat is usually those plant associations that are also currently those at highest risk to insect epidemic; specifically bark beetles, and wildfire. Both alternatives propose a variety of treatments, including commercial and non-commercial harvest as well as fuel pretreatment that would reduce stand densities, and in the short-
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 term, simplify stand structures to the extent that they would not provide the characteristics of optimal nesting habitat. Treatments on Pine Mountain are predicated on the premise that re-treatments would not be required for at least 20 to 30 years. It is therefore reasonable to assume that canopy closure levels and structural diversity would increase to the point of providing optimal nesting habitat at or near that time. Thinning prescriptions and tree marking guidelines would target for removal disease trees, particularly those with dwarf mistletoe, that provide nesting structure such as brooms or forked tops. The application of prescribe fire would also result in reductions in stand densities but the effects would be less. Burning would be limited to piling and burning or the burning of jackpot concentrations of fuels. No burning would be applied in retention patches under either alternative. Regardless of the treatment, resulting stands would provide good foraging habitat following treatment. Small and medium tree thinning would create more open stand conditions which allow for greater maneuverability as well as greater visibility and access to prey species. Mechanical shrub treatments and the application of prescribe fire would promote greater plant diversity thereby providing habitat for a wider variety of birds and small mammals. Long-term, more than 30 years, habitat would become more stable and be of a higher quality with a lower risk of damage or loss due to insect epidemic or uncharacteristic wildfire. The population of this species would then become stable. Additional potential nesting habitat would be provided by the retention patches proposed under these two alternatives. Alternative 3, because it provides for 20 percent of the unit acreage to be retained in an untreated condition, would provide more potential habitat than Alternative 2 which would retain only 10 percent of each unit in an untreated condition. Alternative 3 treats more acres of existing or potential habitat than Alternative 2 and therefore results in more short-term negative effects (loss of structural diversity, disturbance, reduction in canopy closure). Treatment prescriptions proposed in Alternative 3 for the nest stand and the PFA were developed with goshawk objectives in mind. This is not true for Alternative 2. With the exception of vegetation and fuel reduction treatments proposed or implemented in adjacent planning areas, none of the current, on-going, or reasonable and foreseeable actions would have any cumulative or cumulatively significant effects on this species or its habitat. None of these actions would damage or remove habitat. The effect of Alternative 1 would be the potential population reduction of the species over this portion of the landscape in the long-term. Maintaining existing and potential habitat with high tree densities increases the risk of losing that habitat to insect epidemic and/or wildfire events. Adjacent areas, including areas with recent, on-going, or proposed vegetation and fuel reduction projects that contain potential or existing habitat are already part of occupied territories. Therefore, any birds displaced due to habitat losses associated with insect or wildfire events would likely have to travel long distances to locate unoccupied habitat and established new territories. The cumulative effect of implementing Alternatives 2 and 3 would be the short-term reduction in the quantity, quality, and distribution of nesting habitat associated with dense stands that are also at high risk of loss due to bark beetle attack and/or wildfire events. Conversely, the quantity, quality, and distribution of foraging habitat associated with more open stand conditions would increase as a result of vegetation and fuel reduction treatments. Treatments have been or are nearly completed in the adjacent Fuzzy planning area. This scheduling of planning and implementation would spread treatments out over an extended period that could last 10 to 15 years or more resulting in habitat being developed relatively 3-135
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:
Page 162 and 163:
OTHER EFFECTS - CUMULATIVELY SIGNIF
Page 164 and 165: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
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?