Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Based on the dead wood analysis, there is habitat for this species across the planning area and landscape. There are no identified short-term direct or indirect effects on this species or its habitat under Alternative 1. Uncharacteristic wildfire events and bark beetle epidemics are likely to reduce or eliminate habitat for this species in both the short and long-term. Long-term, the retention of dense stands with the resulting slow diameter growth may delay the development of larger snags that provide nesting habitat for this species. No trees 21 inches dbh or greater or any existing snags (except those for safety reasons) would be removed under either Alternative 2 or 3. Alternative 2 proposes to treat approximately 2,059 acres of ponderosa pine habitat including 35 percent of the acres in structural stage 6 and 33 percent in structural stage 7. The number of acres increases to approximately 2,560 acres with 44 percent of structural stage 6 and 37 percent of structural stage 7. In lodgepole pine habitat, Alternative 2 would treat approximately 709 acres or 13 percent of the acreage in structural stages 4-7; alternative 3 would treat approximately 804 acres or 15 percent of structural stages 4-7. 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 remove habitat. Management actions would not remove existing habitat, i.e. snags. Current and future treatments would utilize thinning from below and would be expected to result in the development of larger diameter trees (and ultimately snags) faster than no treatment alternatives. As a result, habitat would be developed and be more widespread across the landscape. Populations would be expected to remain stable. Alternative 1 would also result in the development of additional habitat although at a slower rate than the action alternatives assuming there is no large scale bark beetle epidemic and/or uncharacteristic wildfire event. It would create a gap in the landscape with different qualities, quantities, and distributions of habitat than would likely result in treated areas. The risk of loss of existing and potential habitat would remain high; uncharacteristic fire and/or bark beetle epidemics could result in a short-term flush and a long-term deficit in habitat. In the short-term, both alternatives would remove potential nest trees (16 to 21 inches dbh). Both alternatives would also reduce canopy closure levels below the average (39 percent) for this species. As noted in the previous discussion for the black-backed and white-headed woodpeckers, it is unlikely that future management activities would maintain the high canopy closure levels indicated for this species given the risk of bark beetle attack and subsequent loss of that component of the habitat. It is also unlikely that most of the sites in the planning area are not capable of sustaining those levels without accepting the high risk of bark beetle attack and/or uncharacteristic wildfire events. Long-term, both alternatives are more likely to result in developing better habitat more quickly than Alternative 1 due to the residual trees responding to the thinning. Both would also produce more and larger diameter trees more quickly. Hairy woodpeckers utilize both lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine habitats in a variety of seral stages. Moderate sized snags are required for nesting. There are significant amounts of hairy woodpecker habitat in the project area and adjacent lands presently. Snags are variable with localized concentrations. Because neither the alternatives nor any ongoing or reasonably foreseeable project proposes to cut snags, cumulative effects (i.e. additive removal of snags) will be rare, incidental, and not useful or relevant to making an informed decision between the alternatives. The Opine project will treat approximately 2059 (35 percent of SS6 and 33 percent of SS7) acres of ponderosa pine habitat in stages 6 and 7 by Alternative 3-150
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 2 and approximately 2560 acres (44 percent of SS6 and 37 percent of SS7) by Alternative 3. The project will also affect approximately 13 percent (709 ac.) of the lodgepole pine (stages 4-7) with Alternative 2 and approximately 15 percent (804 ac.) with Alternative 3. All treatments are thinning from below to reduce stress on the overstory, which will improve tree size and subsequently snag size in the long-term. As discussed for the white-headed woodpecker, in the long-term, habitat over the landscape would develop and become more widespread than currently exists. Cumulatively, the action alternative effects on nesting and foraging habitats will not lead to a trend toward Federal listing for the hairy woodpecker. Williamson’s Sapsucker – This species often utilizes ponderosa pine habitat but, unlike the whiteheaded woodpecker, will also utilize mixed conifer habitats. The planning area only contains ponderosa pine habitat and the incidence of this species would be extremely rare. Citing Bull et.al., notes that this species utilizes both dead and live trees for foraging but selects large snags, with diameters greater than 20 inches, for nesting. Habitat quality and location for this species is similar to that of the white-headed woodpecker. Information developed through DecAID analysis indicates that this species utilizes habitats that contain a greater density of snags, densities of which are currently lacking in the planning area. Habitat is currently being provided at less than the 30 percent confidence level and is also limited by the lack of large diameter snags. Alternative 1 would likely have no short-term direct or indirect effects on this species or existing habitat. 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. 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. Alternatives 2 and 3 would not remove any trees 21 inches or larger nor would they remove any existing snags except those presenting a safety hazard. As a result, there would be no measurable change in those components of nesting and foraging habitat for this species in the short-term. Both alternatives propose thinning to reduce stand densities and reduce the risk of bark beetle attack and uncharacteristic wildfire. Over the long-term, thinning would increase growth rates thereby increasing tree diameters and producing both larger trees and future snags at a faster rate than would be accomplished under Alternative 1. Thinning also reduces levels of canopy closure, particularly in the short-term. Nesting habitat has an average canopy closure of 60 percent, a level far in excess of current levels across most of the planning area. As noted in previous discussions of other woodpecker and cavity nesting species, thinning is expected to reduce canopy closure levels to an average of approximately 20 percent with a range of 12 to 32 percent. As a result, stands with optimum nesting habitat would remain limited, but be more common on the northern aspects of buttes or in more moist areas. Retention patches coupled with untreated stands would help to maintain foraging habitat in both the short and long-term. With the exception of vegetation and fuel reduction treatments, none of the current, on-going, or reasonable and foreseeable actions would have any cumulative or significantly cumulative effects under any of the three alternatives. Cumulative effects associated with past, present, or future vegetation and fuel reduction treatments in adjacent planning areas would also result in no cumulative effects except for the following. 3-151
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:
Page 180 and 181: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 252 and 253: AGENCIES AND PUBLICS CONSULTED CHAP
show all

Environmental Assessment

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?