Environmental Assessment

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3
The CWM component of marten habitat may increase under this alternative. Retaining dense stands of
relatively small diameter trees (8 to 12” dbh), retains the high risk of tree mortality in these stands. This
would increase CWM levels and favor marten habitat. The development of large CWM structure used for
denning would continue to be slow and levels would remain low.
Due to potential habitat for this species being currently limited within the project area, this alternative
would have little effect on potential marten populations. Due to the degree of beetle-mortality risk in the
existing stands, marten populations may increase from the influx of coarse woody material.
Retaining the existing condition of potential habitat within the planning area may initially provide more
habitat for marten populations. In the long–term however, retaining a high level of risk to these stands
may ultimately decrease marten habitat on the landscape as a result of a large wildfire. This also
increases the risk of losing existing habitat quickly and thereby resulting in a decreasing trend in marten
populations.
Under both action alternatives, the short-term effects would be the decrease in habitat due to the opening
of the canopy, the loss of the early recruitment of CWM by improving the health and vigor of the residual
trees and reducing the risk of mortality associated with insect attack, and the incidental loss of both
downed CWM and snags from fuel reduction activities. The incidental loss of existing CWM and snags
would be minimized, but not eliminated by the application of mitigation measures under both alternatives.
Long-term, thinning would result in larger structure and more resilient stands that would provide more
stable habitat for this species. Vegetation treatments within some lodgepole pine stands under both
alternatives that are currently identified as potential habitat have as a specific objective to develop LOS
characteristics. Treatments under both alternatives would result in increases in potential habitat leading to
a trend of increasing marten populations. However, these are expected to minimal given the already low
levels of potential habitat.
Alternative 3 treats more acres of potential habitat than does Alternative 2, 804 acres of lodgepole pine
stage 4-7 LOS (15 percent) versus 709 acres (13 percent) of stages 4-7 LOS. Therefore it is expected that
Alternative 3 would produce more and higher quality, stable habitat at a faster rate than does Alternative
2. Although Alternative 3 treats more acres, Alternative 2 minimizes the short-term negative effects
(fewer acres of habitat remaining after treatment) while also providing long-term benefits.
Both action alternatives are expected to result in a stable to increasing trend in marten populations. There
is no measurable difference between these two alternatives given the relatively equal number of acres
treated.
Implementation of the action alternatives would contribute more potential habitat on the landscape in the
long-term, but a decrease in the amount of potential habitat in the short-term. Treatments would also help
to increase the resiliency of the habitat to uncharacteristic wildfire events resulting in more stability in
habitat across the landscape. Population trends would likely remain either stable or potentially exhibit an
increasing trend.
Implementation of the No Action Alternative in the four planning areas (Lava Cast, Sunriver HFRA,
South Bend HFRA, and Long Prairie) would initially retain and potentially provide more habitat for
martin populations. However, stands that currently contain habitat or potential habitat are also at high
risk for loss from wildfire. Such an event, or series of events, could result in a decrease in the amount and
distribution of habitat. Fuel treatments in shrub habitats would have no cumulative effect under any of
the alternatives. Shrub habitats do not provide habitat for martin or their prey species.
3-156