Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 also planned treatments in the Aspen planning area, but are not removing commercial sized trees. Large, widespread outbreaks and wildfires are expected to become less common but still occur in smaller patches. Post-fire habitats are the most valuable for black-backs. Foraging and nesting habitat in the future will likely be distributed in smaller densities across the landscape. Cumulative effects to this species and its habitat as a result of the alternatives would be negligible and not relevant to making an informed decision between alternatives due the similarity of habitat throughout the landscape and the common history of past logging. Because the vegetation management objectives seek to reduce the risk of insect outbreaks and wildfire, habitat for this species may become more limited. Over the landscape, populations are expected to initially decrease due to the effects of management, but may in the long-term stabilize through better management of snag densities. Cumulatively, the action alternative effects on nesting and foraging habitats will not lead to a trend toward Federal listing for the black-backed woodpecker. White-headed Woodpecker – This species utilizes both live and dead ponderosa pines. It will forage on both live and dead trees, often selecting the large diameter specimens because they have more seeds and make more suitable nesting habitat. Having large ponderosa pine does not assure this species’ presence. Citing a 1997 paper by Marshall, notes that indications have been made that a well-developed understory of trees and shrubs may encourage mammalian predation on nests. White-headed woodpeckers are absent from early seral ponderosa pine stands. These woodpeckers are poor excavators and generally select for a more moderately decayed or softer snag in which to nest. This Habitat for this species can also be an indicator of goshawk, flammulated owl, and pygmy nuthatch habitat. The lack of large trees and snags throughout the planning area limits the amount and distribution of habitat for this species. Existing habitat within the planning area would be within ponderosa pine LOS but even in this habitat, there is a lack of the large diameter snags in densities recommended by past research. Current snag densities across the planning area are less than 1.9 snags per acre or below the 30 percent tolerance level for this species. Alternative 1 would likely have no short-term direct or indirect effects on existing habitat of this species. Long-term, additional recruitment of smaller (less than 21 inches dbh) ponderosa pine snags may be realized from bark beetle outbreaks and/or wildfire events, particularly in high risk areas. However, the quality of this habitat would be variable. Nesting habitat quality would be lower as the average diameter of nest snags ranges from 25 to 32 inches dbh. The quality of foraging habitat could be more closely in line with habitat preferences as the average size of foraging snags is 17 inches dbh. The development of new, large ponderosa pine may be compromised by the retention of dense stands and subsequent slow diameter growth. Retaining high densities may also eliminate potential future large diameter trees through losses associated with bark beetle attacks and wildfire events or a combination of both. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not remove any existing nesting habitat. Neither alternative would remove any trees 21 inches dbh or larger. Neither would remove any existing snags of any size except for reasons of safety. Long-term, thinning would promote the development of single story LOS which is the habitat of this species. Treated stands would provide higher quality habitat in a shorter time period than untreated stands due to increased growth rates on residual trees. More high quality habitat would be created under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 because more acres would be thinned Nesting habitat in proposed treatment units may be affected under both alternatives in the short-term. No snags would be removed so existing foraging sites would be retained. Thinning would reduce the potential supply of future snags by reducing stand densities and the risk of both wildfire and bark beetle attack that would potentially produce additional snag numbers. Thinning would also reduce stand canopy closures to either the lower end or below the range for this species. Post-treatment canopy closures are 3-148
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 expected to average approximately 20 percent with a range from 12 to 32 percent. Long-term, more acres of nesting habitat may develop and be retained, especially at the lower levels of the range of canopy closure. It is reasonable to expect that future management actions would target stands that are at moderate to high risk for bark beetle attack for treatment. Subsequent treatments would be expected to result in canopy closure levels similar to those projected for this entry. Post-treatment growth of residual trees would be expected to increase canopy closure levels to at least the lower range for nesting habitat. There are no extensive tracts of land with large diameter ponderosa pine present across the landscape, including both federal and non-federal lands. Past management actions, targeting stands to reduce bark beetle and wildfire risk and/or promoting ponderosa pine and large tree habitat are expected to result in an approximate 26 percent increase in habitat for this species over time across the landscape. Increasing habitat for this species is expected to result in increases in habitat for secondary cavity nesters. Habitat levels are also expected to increase across the landscape due to the retention of existing snags, especially those 21 inches dbh and larger, management of increased snag densities, and the accelerated development of LOS ponderosa pine habitat. As a result, it is likely that populations of this species would also be expected to increase. Alternatives 2 and 3, in combination with past, on-going, and proposed treatment actions in other planning areas, would result in the greatest potential distribution of both habitat and increased populations. Alternative 1, which implements no treatments to improve or increase habitat levels, would still provide future habitat but at greater risk of loss to wildfire and/or bark beetle epidemic and require longer periods of time to do so. It is also the most likely to result in both a spatial and temporal gap in habitat due to losses associated with wildfire and/or bark beetle events. There is no large, continuous tract of un-harvested white-headed woodpecker habitat on the landscape. Because of past harvest both on and off federal land, extensive tracts of land with large diameter ponderosa pines are limited. Past, ongoing, and future vegetation management actions on federal land tend to focus on reducing beetle and wildfire risk and/or promoting ponderosa pine and large tree habitat (e.g. Lava Cast: approximately 7856 acres and Fuzzy: approximately 16,000 acres). White-headed woodpecker habitat is expected to increase over the landscape in time (an approximate 26 percent increase due to vegetation management objectives in Opine, Fuzzy, and Lava Cast projects). Because each of the alternatives either does not remove snags or trees >21” (i.e. potential white-headed woodpecker habitat), no cumulative effects to white-headed woodpecker populations are expected. In the long-term, due to shifting emphasis in vegetation management to accelerate the development of LOS ponderosa pine habitat and management of higher snag densities, habitat for the white-headed woodpecker is expected to increase (i.e. particularly SS7 single-story LOS). As habitat develops for this species, so does habitat for nuthatches, owls, and other secondary cavity nesters. The Opine project will treat approximately 2059 acres (35 percent of SS6 and 33 percent of SS7) of ponderosa pine habitat in stages 6 and 7 by Alternative 2 and approximately 2560 acres (44 percent of SS6 and 37 percent of SS7) by Alternative 3. The treatments will reduce the risks to these habitats for epidemic insect/disease impacts and/or catastrophic wildfire, while promoting larger trees. Likely trends are that populations of white-headed woodpeckers would increase. Under the action alternatives, large snag habitat would develop the soonest over the next few decades with populations likely increasing. Cumulatively, the action alternative effects on nesting and foraging habitats will not lead to a trend toward federal listing for the white-headed woodpecker. Hairy Woodpecker – Bull et al’s 1986 reported hairy woodpeckers use both lodgepole and ponderosa pine habitats and a variety of snags sizes. This species would be in mature stands and utilize snags greater than 10 inches dbh for nesting and foraging. 3-149
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:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179: 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?