Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 restore structural diversity thereby improving and increasing the quality, quantity and distribution of nesting habitat. Retention patches, 10 percent under Alternative 2 and 20 percent under Alternative 3, in treatment units may provide foraging habitat for the woodpecker as trees in those denser patches succumb to stress, bark beetle attack, or other agents. Additional discussion of the effects of each of the alternatives can be found in the following section on MIS species, which includes the black-backed woodpecker. Impacts to other species that heavily utilize these habitats such as the three toed woodpecker, are not likely found within the planning area boundaries but tend to found at higher elevations elsewhere on the District and Forest. Cumulative Effects - Lodgepole Pine Habitats In contrast to ponderosa pine habitats, lodgepole pine habitats are more limited in this and adjacent and nearby planning areas – Lava Cast, Fuzzy, and Aspen. Given the distance between the Opine planning area and the Lava Cast planning areas, this area is not included in the analysis. There are no identified cumulative or cumulatively significant effects identified under any of the three alternatives with vegetation or fuels reduction activities in either the Fuzzy or Aspen areas, both of which targeted treatments in ponderosa pine and only limited treatments in low quality lodgepole pine habitat (Fuzzy only). None of the other activities have identified cumulative effects on this habitat. Cumulative effects to this habitat type are similar to those described under the ponderosa pine habitat. The large lodgepole pine-dominated stands as referred to in the Conservation Strategy are relatively common only in the southern third of the Opine area. (e.g. Potholes area). Although there are risks to maintaining current habitat conditions, cumulatively potential impacts would be likely be minimal in the short-term. Priority Habitats (Shrub-Steppe and Unique) – Alternative 1 has limited impact on these habitats. Insect/disease epidemics that affect adjacent ponderosa and lodgepole pine habitats have no measurable impact on these habitats. With the exception of encroaching pines and juniper, none of the species found in these habitats are susceptible to these disturbance agents. Because no vegetation or fuel reduction treatments would be implemented, continued tree encroachment and increasing canopy cover levels would be expected. No measurable change would be expected in the short-term. Existing vegetation would experience increased competition of scarce resources including nutrients, water, light, and growing space. This would continue the reduction in the quality, quantity, and distribution of shrub, grass, and other herbaceous vegetation in those areas. In turn, this would result in reductions in the populations of species that depend on those plant species for nesting, hiding, foraging, and brood rearing habitat. Historic shrub-steppe, sagebrush, shrubland, and unique habitats would continue the evolution into juniper or pine woodland and ultimately into forest. Wildfire, and particularly uncharacteristic wildfire, could negatively affect these habitats. Uncharacteristic large fires create conditions that favor the establishment/expansion of other species such as rabbitbrush and noxious weeds or other invasives such as cheatgrass. Establishment of cheatgrass, an invasive species, also results in short fire cycles which preclude establishment and maintenance of tall shrubs such as sagebrush and bitterbrush. Recent fire events suggest that current fuel loadings are more likely to result in uncharacteristic effects and impacts, eliminating or greatly reducing the quantity, quality, and distribution vegetation characteristic of these habitats. An uncharacteristic event is more likely to result in the loss of large contiguous areas of habitat in contrast to historic fire events and fuel loadings which were smaller and more localized in area and impacts. The intensity of current fires is also likely to preclude re-establishment and recovery of existing habitats in periods of less than 40 to 50 years or more. 3-164
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Encroachment by pine and juniper would continue in many habitats under Alternative 2, particularly habitats important to wildlife species favoring sagebrush and shrub-grass habitats. No removal of encroaching trees to enhance sage-grouse habitat would be implemented under this alternative. These habitats would continue to slowly transition to juniper or pine woodland and ultimately forest. However, 507 acres would have encroaching trees, particularly juniper nine (9) inches dbh and smaller but also ponderosa pine, removed to maintain or improve conditions range conditions including conditions for a variety of shrub, grass, and herbaceous vegetation. These sites would revert from developing juniper woodland to shrub –steppe, shrubland, or sagebrush habitats. Alternative 3 would reduce the level of tree encroachment on approximately 7,186 acres of historic sage-grouse habitat that would help to maintain existing shrub, grass, and herbaceous vegetation in those areas. It would also remove encroaching trees on approximately 235 acres to improve range conditions. Treatments target junipers less than 14 inches dbh and ponderosa pine less than 16 inches dbh for removal. Treatment sites are sagebrush or other historic shrub sites only; juniper woodland sites would not be treated. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, mitigation measures to protect snags, down logs, green tree replacements, mature shrubs, nesting birds, special/unique habitats, large trees, LOS, dense tree patches, etc. would adequately insure that there are no unacceptable short or long-term negative effects on this large group of species. In addition, the proposed actions would benefit species that are dependent upon large trees/snags, open single-storied old growth forest structure, and herbaceous understory vegetation. Fuels treatments within shrub or shrub-steppe habitats will reduce understories in the short-term. However, in the mid- to long-term the understories should be more diverse and abundant. Plants dependent upon micro-sites under shrub canopies, however, may be adversely impacted by the combination of grazing and fuel treatments. This would only be a concern in regards to focal species for the greater sage-grouse. Alternative 3 has eliminated the units proposed by Alternative 2 that would have had a negative effect upon sage-grouse habitats. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Wildlife Species – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) Species There are no known Threatened or Endangered species present within the planning area boundaries. There are plant (see Botany) and animal species listed as sensitive on the Region 6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List present within the planning area. The effects on these species are analyzed and compared by alternative. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Wildlife Species PETS Species Effect Determination Notes Greater sage-grouse No Impact Determination contingent upon meeting specified PDCs from the programmatic BA American peregrine falcon No Impact Pygmy rabbit No Impact A biological evaluation (Wildlife BE) was completed to assess the impacts of the proposed actions on wildlife species designated as endangered or threatened, proposed for designation as either endangered or threatened, or designated by the Forest Service as a sensitive species. A biological assessment (BA) was not prepared for this project because: 1) it is not a major federal construction project that requires an environmental impact statement; 3-165
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:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195: 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?