Environmental Assessment

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3
an untreated state. Untreated areas would range in size from 0.5 to approximately six (6) acres in size
and include dense thickets and other unique habitats such as rock outcrops. The thickets would provide
a combination of thermal and hiding cover. Untreated areas would be retained around unique habitats
to help retain the habitat characteristics for the species using those habitats. Both alternatives would
meet the standard for treated black bark pine stands.
In the long-term, more than 10 years, the impacts of both insects and wildfire on hiding cover would be
expected to be less under both Alternatives 2 and 3 than no treatment under Alternative 1. Harvest
treatments, including both commercial and non-commercial thinning, and fuel reduction treatments that
include the removal of all or most of the understory trees reduce stocking levels thereby helping to
maintain or improve both individual tree and stand health and vigor. The residual trees are more
resistant to insect attack and more likely to survive attacks if they occur. Alternatives 2 and 3 would
also remove or break up both vertical and horizontal fuel loadings, reducing the risk of a high intensity
fire, reducing flame lengths, and reducing the risk of a ground fire climbing into the overstory canopy.
Wildfire could eliminate or reduce cover and browse on large continuous blocks of landscape. By
breaking up fuel continuities, reducing or eliminating ladder fuels, and fuel loading the intensity and
risk would be lower. The risk of a crown fire would be reduced by reducing or eliminating ladder fuels
and reducing fuel loadings. Existing large diameter, mature, and old growth aged overstory trees are
more likely to survive fire events due to the removal of vertical fuels. This would result in the retention
of more existing habitat for old growth dependant species. Structural diversity would be maintained.
Losses of cover and browse would be localized and small in area. The resultant vegetation mosaic
would provide an increased resiliency to future disturbance and provide a diversity of habitats for a
wider array of wildlife species. Low intensity fires would also be more likely to retain more hiding and
thermal cover.
Alternative 2 and 3 (Forest Plan Consistency): Neither action alternative would meet the LRMP
standard and guidelines of 30 percent requirements for hiding cover in non-black bark stands for
summer range hiding cover areas, and particularly not on Pine Mountain. Implementation Unit (IU) 52
on Pine Mountain includes no lands outside of the planning area. Summer range (Figure 3-2, see next
page) is only located in the scenic views (MA-9) and old growth (MA-15) land allocations. Hiding
cover in this IU would decline from the current 36 percent to four (4) percent under Alternative 2 and to
6.5 percent under Alternative 3, which includes the retention patches (i.e. 10 percent, Alternative 2; 20
percent Alternative 3). Recovery to pretreatment levels would likely take up to several decades under
Alternative 2 and longer under Alternative 3.
Implementation Unit 57 contains lands both within and outside of the planning area boundary.
Reference Table 3-10 for treatments in Implementation Units. The portion of the IU outside the
planning area is designated as General Forest (MA-8). Hiding cover in this IU would decline from the
current 29 percent to 27.8 percent under Alternative 2 and to 26 percent under Alternative 3. A nonsignificant
forest plan amendment (Amendment #2) is proposed that would waive the hiding cover
requirement for stands located in summer range areas on Pine Mountain and Pumice Springs.
3-18