Environmental Assessment

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3
continuously during that period, but over a landscape rather than a smaller area. Existing populations
would have opportunities to move both spatially and temporally around the landscape.
No cumulatively significant effects have been identified for this species or its habitat under any of the
three alternatives.
Goshawks have an average territory size of about 10,000 acres, which if mapped as a circle would
represent an area with a radius of ~ 7 miles. Therefore, given the low density of this species an
assessment area 14 miles distant from the Opine project boundary would seem appropriate. Mixed
conifer and moist ponderosa pine late-successional forests are preferred habitats, although forest structure
appears to be more limiting to goshawk habitat rather than stand composition (Reynolds et al. 1991). A
variety of earlier forest seral stages are considered potential foraging habitat.
There would be no cumulative effects associated with the No Action alternative. There are no mixed
conifer habitats within the Opine planning, and the existing LOS stands would not be altered by any
management actions.
Past effects in the area include Paulina wildfire (1988) approximately four miles west of the project
boundary, which had the most substantial negative impact on goshawk habitat in the area. However the
area was dominated by lodgepole pine forest and not likely high quality habitat for goshawk, particularly
for nesting. The area has not recovered enough to provide any benefits to goshawks. The remaining area
has been managed for timber production for many decades and provides a wide array of habitat
conditions. The amount of mixed conifer LOS habitat in this area is unknown.
Surveys for goshawks in this area have located 19 nest sites. This data is not current, however, because
follow-up nest monitoring has not been done. The LRMP has a goal of managing for 40 pairs of
goshawks across the entire Forest. The assessment area is approximately 500,000 acres in size or about
31 percent of the entire Forest’s area. Therefore, it should be providing about 12 goshawk pairs,
assuming that it is all suitable habitat (i.e. mixed conifer, LOS), which it is not. In comparison, the Opine
project area represents about 3 percent of the total Forest area and should have 1.35 pairs of goshawks.
Presently, there is one confirmed pair, plus one suspected pair present within the project. In summary,
though lacking quantitative habitat data, it would appear that the number of desired goshawk pairs are
present, and there are apparently no adverse cumulative effects impacting goshawks at this scale.
Because neither Opine action alterative is altering any late successional forest stages, they are not
contributing to the cumulative effects on potential goshawk nesting habitat. Past projects in the area have
retained patches of non-treated forest for big game cover, which could potential be utilized by goshawks.
In addition, there are no preferred mixed conifer habitat types within the potential territories near the
project or within it. There are eight designated Old Growth Management Areas to the west of the project
and two within the project, which provide adequate potential nesting habitats for goshawks in the area.
Past fuels treatment projects in the project area (~5000 acres since 1990; 9 percent of project area) have
been limited to reducing shrub habitats. These areas are likely providing a lower quality habitat for
potential goshawk prey species. However, as noted the goshawk has a large territory and is very mobile,
which reduces potential negative effects at the local scale. The action alternatives propose substantial
treatment acreages of shrubs and understory coniferous trees. Mitigation measures to retain a minimum
percentage of shrubs and young trees for deer should also provide habitat for potential goshawk prey
species. Fuel treatments are designed to reduce ladder fuels which can increase the probability of
catastrophic crown fires. Such fires would have long-term negative effects on both nesting and foraging
habitats for goshawks.
3-136