13.08.2013 Views

Environmental Assessment

Environmental Assessment

Environmental Assessment

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3<br />

Species Habitat<br />

American marten concentrations of down logs in mature forest<br />

Ponderosa Pine Habitats – Alternative 1, No Action, does not address any of the conservation strategies<br />

recommended by either of the landbird conservation strategies. No management actions are proposed<br />

under this alternative that would reduce the risk of damage or loss of these habitats from uncharacteristic<br />

wildfire or bark beetle epidemic. Recovery of habitat, particularly late seral habitat, would take decades.<br />

Both action alternatives address management strategies, specifically thinning and prescribe fire, for these<br />

habitat types. Neither alternative would harvest snags except for reasons of safety. Neither would<br />

remove trees larger than 21 inches dbh. Alternative 2 would close or decommission approximately 19<br />

miles of existing system roads; Alternative 3, approximately 41 miles. Both alternatives include design<br />

criteria and other mitigation measures to prevent the spread or introduction of noxious weeds.<br />

Both action alternatives have the objective of improving forest health. Both would also result in the<br />

creation of single-story LOS stands over the long-term. However, Alternative 2 treats fewer acres than<br />

Alternative 3 and therefore has less of an affect, specifically canopy reduction, on existing stands with<br />

high canopy cover levels than does Alternative 3. Additional discussion on effects in these types of<br />

stands can be found in the following MIS section discussion on the northern goshawk.<br />

In the short-term, 10 to15 years, both alternatives would result in changes in habitat for the focal species<br />

of this type. Habitat for chipping sparrows would increase due to created openings and the thinning of<br />

overstory trees. Long-term, habitat for this species would begin a long, slow decline. Short-term, there<br />

would little or no effect on habitat for pygmy nuthatches and white-headed woodpecker. No snags would<br />

be lost. Long-term, 10 to 15 years and longer, habitat both species would increase in response to<br />

increased tree growth resulting from the thinning and canopies again close. Habitat for the flammulated<br />

owl may increase in quality in both the short and long-term with openings being created (short-term) and<br />

the development of thickets and larger structure (long-term). This species, although identified as a focal<br />

species in mixed conifer but not ponderosa pine, is also associated with ponderosa pine habitats.<br />

This habitat would become more stable as treated stands respond to management activities and the risks<br />

of uncharacteristic wildfire and bark beetle attack are reduced. Fuel loadings would be reduced<br />

potentially allowing for the return of the historic fire regime. In the long-term, the habitat for all of the<br />

associated ponderosa pine focal species would be expected to improve in quality. Both alternatives create<br />

more LOS habitat. There is only a marginal difference in acreage treated between alternatives in terms of<br />

potential LOS habitat so there is no measurable difference between the alternatives for these species.<br />

Cumulative Effects - Ponderosa Pine Habitats<br />

Vegetation and fuel reduction activities proposed or implemented in ponderosa pine stands in adjacent or<br />

nearby planning areas that improve the stability and quality of ponderosa pine habitat and aid in<br />

developing more late-seral, single-story ponderosa pine habitat would provide better distribution of the<br />

focal species associated with this habitat group in conjunction with all three alternatives. Alternative 1,<br />

because there would be no treatments in this habitat group, would not improve the stability or quality of<br />

these habitats nor would it promote the development of late-seral, single-story ponderosa pine habitat. A<br />

limited amount of high quality habitat would remain within the planning area. With the current and<br />

projected levels of risk to bark beetle epidemics and/or uncharacteristic wildfire events remaining in these<br />

stands, a reduction in habitat for at least some of the focal species could occur over the long-term. As a<br />

3-162

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!