Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 The cumulative effect of the proposed treatments, past treatments, and foreseeable treatments within and adjacent to the planning area, is a short-term, downward trend in the overall amount of dense high risk stands potentially used for nesting by the northern goshawk, but an upward trend in the amount of open stand conditions more suitable as potential foraging habitat. Any known nest sites within the planning area is protected from disturbance (see PDCs) with nest core areas designated and deferred from treatment; this would also be the case in the adjacent planning areas. Through time, additional nesting habitat will develop within the project and be at a lower risk to wildfire and beetle-induced mortality and of higher quality because of increased diameter growth due to thinning. In conjunction with current management objectives to develop more LOS habitat (often the best potential nesting habitat), this will help in creating more stable habitat amounts in the future. The result is more stable populations of goshawks throughout the landscape, and a lowered risk of displacement. Cumulatively, the action alternative effects on nesting and foraging habitats will not lead to a trend toward Federal listing for the northern goshawk. Cooper’s Hawk - Forest-wide S&G WL-17 (LRMP page 4-53) defines nesting habitat for this species as having a mean canopy cover of 60 percent or greater; a tree density of at least 365 trees per acre, a stand size of at least 15 acres, and a stand age of 50 to 80 years. Habitat estimates for this species within the planning area are the same as for the northern goshawk and were made using the same information and methodologies. The LRMP requires habitat for 60 pairs across the Forest. With no direction in the LRMP for distribution of those pairs, equal distribution across the three ranger districts would require habitat for 20 pairs on the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District. Based on land area, the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District would require habitat for 35 pairs. Field surveys have detected no nests of this species within the planning area. Alternative 1 would have no short-term effect on either the habitat or population of this species. Stands currently rated at high risk to bark beetle attack or wildfire would remain at high risk. Long-term, the risk of loss of existing habitat to either bark beetle attack and/or wildfire would remain. Loss of nesting habitat could displace this species from the area. In the event of a catastrophic wildfire, it would take decades for nesting habitat to return. Maintaining existing and potential habitat with high tree density increases the risk of losing that habitat. Potential nesting habitat is limited in the planning area (comparing acres of potential habitat to total acres) and is likely limited on the landscape. The effect of losing existing and potential habitat in the planning area would be a reduction in population of this species over the affected landscape. It is likely that potential habitats in the adjacent planning areas are already part of an occupied territory; any displaced birds would have to travel long distances to establish new territories. Populations would remain stable only in the absence of natural disturbances such as beetle outbreak and wildfire. It is more likely that there would be a declining trend in populations as a result of habitat loss due to natural disturbances. Both alternatives would affect potential nesting habitat. 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-term, less than 20 years, simplify stand structures to the extent that they would not provide the characteristics of optimal nesting habitat. Thinning prescriptions and tree marking guidelines would target for removal disease 3-137
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:
Page 166 and 167: 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?