Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Hiding Cover Quality Non- Cover Fuel Treatmen t Prescripti on All Treatments Veg Treatmen t Prescripti on All Treatment s Hiding Cover (Gross Acres) 36 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Net Reducti on w / 10% Retentio n (Net Acres) Totals 5,060 3,395 3-14 Acres Convert ed to Other Type (Gross / Net Acres) Hiding Cover (Gross Acres) 36 Net Reducti on w / 20% Retentio n (Net Acres) Acres Convert ed to Other Type (Gross / Net Acres) (16,396) 0 -- (15,155) 0 -- 11 marginal 4,956 2,911 6 marginal Table 3-9, displays those effects by WRHU and the General Forest sub-unit. The LRMP identifies both mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk as MIS species; the analysis assumes that the requirements for mule will meet the requirements for the few elk in the planning area. Table 3-9 Effects of Vegetation and Fuel Treatments on Hiding Cover by Alternative, Land Allocation, and WRHU Sub-Area Forest ed Acres Existi ng Hidin g Cover Treatment Reduction (Ac.) Post-Treatment Hiding Cover (Ac.) (Ac) 37 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Pct Residual Hiding (Current Pct Cover) 38 General Forest (Summer Range) 782 337 -335 -284 2 53
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 would provide approximately 32 percent of the area in hiding cover. Increases, should they occur, would be more likely to be measurable after 10 years or more. The effects of Alternative 1 on hiding cover would be similar to those described for thermal cover. The quantity, quality, and distribution of existing cover would either remain at or near current levels or could potentially see some degree of increase due to increasing stand densities in the short-term, 10 years. Increases in hiding cover would be expected to be the greatest in areas along forest edges, fringe areas, or in areas with significant levels of existing tree encroachment. Some increases in cover could also be expected in areas where shrub species such as manzanita and ceanothus, which reach heights of 5 to 6 feet, but are currently relatively young and short in height. Long-term, more than 10 years, hiding cover quality and distribution would be expected to decrease, particularly in ponderosa pine stands where crowns “lift” due to reduced light levels and increasing amounts of self-pruning occur. This would result in increased sight distances into those stands. These reductions may, in part, be offset by increased shrub growth and by increased tree mortality associated with increased inter-tree competition and mortality associated with bark beetle activity or disease agents. Standing dead and fallen trees would provide visual screening thereby maintaining or improving hiding cover. In lodgepole pine stands, hiding cover quantity and quality would be expected to increase during the short-term. Increasing levels of overstory mortality associated with bark beetle activity and age would result in increased amounts of regeneration resulting in increased stand densities and decreased sight distances. In some ponderosa pine types that contain lodgepole pine, regeneration of lodgepole would also provide additional visual screening. Although increasing stand densities provide increased screening and hiding cover, increased densities also increase the risk of bark beetle attack and as well as the increased risk of loss due to an uncharacteristic wildfire event. Bark beetle attack would leave all trees standing, and depending on diameter, would likely retain most for at least the first decade. Most would likely fall within the first two decades after death and only scattered larger trees would likely continue to stand beyond that point. Fallen trees would continue to provide at least some cover by breaking up sight distances. Experience suggests that natural regeneration, particularly of ponderosa pine, would be limited and slow on many sites due to the extensive areas of downed wood, relatively low site quality, lack of water, and the reduced availability of a seed source. This would delay the development of a tree understory that would provide replacement cover. Continuous coverage by downed wood could potentially limit movement; discontinuous distribution of downed material would provide both cover and permit movement. Lodgepole pine stands subject to bark beetle attack are more likely to result in rapid and dense regeneration. Cover would be more quickly restored, probably within 10 years. It is impossible to determine when an insect attack or wildfire would impact a specific acre. As stand density and time between fires increase, the probability of such events occurring also increases. Longterm, more than a decade and short of a wildfire, the loss of hiding cover due to bark beetle attack would be expected to be much slower than the loss of thermal cover, which is dependant upon canopy closure. Tree mortality eliminates all or portions of the canopy thereby decreasing or eliminating the thermal cover. In contrast, hiding cover is provided by anything that covers or hides 90 percent or more of an adult deer or elk from a human at a distance of 200 feet. Although the loss of foliage does result in some loss of cover, the standing stems continue to provide cover until they fall. In small to medium sized trees, this cover could be retained up to one or two decades. A wildfire could consume stems or cause stems to fall quickly thereby more quickly reducing hiding cover. Intense wildfires are more likely to consume more and larger stems resulting in much quicker reductions in hiding cover. 3-15
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: ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION - ALTERNATI
Page 48 and 49: ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS - ALTERNAT
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 82 and 83: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 130 and 131: ISSUE 3 - WILDFIRE RISK - DIRECT &
Page 144 and 145:
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
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:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
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?