Environmental Assessment

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3
High intensity burns, especially in dense, overstocked forest stands, would also be expected to result in
the loss of existing large diameter, mature and old growth ponderosa pine, trees that are resistant to
frequent, low intensity fire. Most existing old growth stands currently contain continuous vertical fuels.
Losses would be attributable both to the intensity of the fire as well as the increased probability of such
fires climbing into the crowns of trees due to the presence of both high fuel loadings resulting in
increased flame lengths and large quantities of ladder fuels.
Given current and likely future fuel loadings, an uncharacteristic wildfire would likely result in the
complete destruction of existing hiding cover as evidenced by the 1996 Skeleton Fire and the 1959
Aspen Flats Fire. Recovery of cover to existing levels would likely take several decades; potentially a
century or more if fire conditions are extreme. This would likely be true for both ponderosa and
lodgepole pine stands.
Action Alternatives
The LRMP has different standards and guidelines for hiding cover for winter and summer ranges with
summer ranges having a higher required percentage, 30 percent versus the 10 percent in required in
winter range (LRMP page 4-58). Outside of the General Forest land allocation (MA-8), only the Pine
Mountain WRHU contains any significant acreage of summer range although much of it is classified as
biological winter range. Additional summer range acres are also found in the Pumice Springs OGMA.
All of these acres are located within the MA-9 and MA-15 land allocations (scenic views and OGMAs).
The MA-8 allocation (general forest) is dominated by black bark pine stands, which according to the
LRMP, have a requirement of 10 percent of the acres in an untreated state (WL-54, LRMP page 4-58)
within treatment units. Again, all numbers are approximate and small differences between numbers,
particularly acreages, may occur due to a variety of reasons described in Chapter 1, including rounding
of numbers; use of different data sets between analyses; differences in the parameters of the data
request; and mapping differences.
Alternative 2 (Hiding Cover): Based on existing 26,549 forested acres, Alternative 2 would reduce
hiding cover from 5,745 acres to 2,390 acres (Table 3-8). This would drop hiding cover from the
current 11 percent of the planning area acres to 4.1 percent. Considering only the forested acres that are
capable of providing cover, the level of cover drops from the current 21 percent to 8.4 percent. This is
below the LRMP standard and guideline of 10 percent of the acres in winter range being hiding cover
(LRMP page 4-113). It also is below the cover percentage for summer range, which is 30 percent
within Implementation Units. Within treatment units in black bark pine stand located in summer range
areas, the standard for hiding cover is 10 percent retained in an untreated condition. Treatment units in
these types of stands would meet this cover standard because 10 percent of the treatment units would be
retained as untreated patches within the treatment unit boundaries on Pine Mountain
Alternative 3 (Hiding Cover): Alternative 3 reduces current cover levels by approximately 2,899 acres
or 50 percent, to 2,846 acres. After treatment, 10.7 percent of the suitable or potential habitat acres
(i.e., forested for entire project area) would contain hiding cover. In contrast to Alternative 2,
Alternative 3 retains 20 percent of each treatment unit in an untreated state. This would exceed the
LRMP standard within treated black-bark stands [i.e. 10 pecent minimum], which are present only in
the General Forest management areas.
Alternative 3 does not comply with S&G WL-54 for summer range in IU #52 and #57. Proposed
treatments reduce hiding cover levels below 30 percent in the MA-9 (Scenic Views) and MA-15 (Old
Growth) allocations in IU #52 on Pine Mountain and in the MA-15 allocation in IU #57 in the Pumice
Springs area. A non-significant plan amendment is proposed to waive the hiding cover requirement for
these two implementation unit areas to permit proposed treatments to be implemented.
3-16