Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 grasslands serve as typical nest sites. They may use the same nest or alternate nests between years (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Golden eagles hunt by soaring-searching and using perch sites to identify prey (Johnsgard 1990). Typical food items include: marmots (Marmota flaviventris), prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), weasels (Mustela spp.), lagomorphs (Sylvilagus and Lepus spp.), rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), and most medium-sized birds (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Golden eagles breed from western Alaska east through Canada, south to Baja California, northern Mexico, west-central Texas, western Oklahoma, Nebraska and the Dakotas. The species winters from south-central Alaska, southern Canada and throughout the western breeding range (Johnsgard 1990). They are considered uncommon permanent residents in western South Dakota (Tallman et al. 2002) and only ten have been detected during recent bird monitoring efforts (Giroir et al. 2007). Golden eagles were observed in the project area during 2008 surveys. Golden eagles are commonly seen feeding on carrion along roads in the Black Hills during winter. Environmental Consequences Snags and Down Woody Material Alternative 1 The No Action alternative would provide the greatest opportunity for increased snag numbers, in the short-term (approximately 15-20 years) and down woody material. This alternative allows forested stands that are denser and more mature to become more stressed and vulnerable to MPB attack and wildfire – variables that can significantly increase snag densities and downed wood in an area. Mountain pine beetle activity in the project area is increasing, and infestations are spreading across the project area, with most tree mortality currently occurring in the northern part of the project area. It is expected that snag densities would increase as a result of MPB caused mortality in the area. However, these snags are expected to break or fall in about 5 years, contributing to an excess of downed woody material. Species that utilize snags and the provided habitat will benefit with this snag increase in the short-term. Alternative 2 This Alternative is expected to increase snags and down woody material in the project area, but not as much as Alternative 1 does in the short-term. Design criteria is included with this alternative to protect existing snags. No snags would be cut unless they are deemed a safety hazard during operations, consistent with Standard 2301. Vegetation treatments, both commercial and non-commercial, have the potential to reduce snags and downed wood. Proposed fuel treatments including mechanical thinning, prescribed burning and deadfall treatment, also have the potential to reduce snags and downed wood. Snags created by fire may stand longer than those created by insect attacks. This alternative also proposes sanitation treatment on all pine stands within the project area. Sanitation removes trees which are infested with MPB and which would provide short-term snag habitat, if left on site. However, MPB are expected to create a large 78
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 number of snags, which generally break and fall within five years. Down woody material would subsequently increase throughout the project area, as these trees fall. This alternative increases opportunities for future large snags in this area. The proposed treatments are expected to retain more mature, live trees on the landscape which may become future snags, because it would reduce potential MPB caused mortality. Because snag densities are currently increasing, and snags would be retained, unless a safety hazard, this alternative would meet or even exceed, in the short-term, Forest Plan Objectives 211 and 212. Cumulative Effects Past firewood cutting, timber harvest, wildfires and fuels management activities have contributed to the loss of snag and downed wood habitat. Fire, insects and other causes of tree mortality continue to create snag/downed wood habitat. Mountain pine beetle activity and potential wildfires would likely increase snags, although MPB-killed trees may only remain on the landscape for five years. Conversely, the current fuelwood cutting policy which allows snags to be removed within 300 feet of many roads in the project area, may cause a decrease in snag numbers, although it would most likely be negligible. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Summary of Effects on MIS The following is a summary of effects to wildlife MIS. A detailed analysis can be found in both the Wildlife and Fisheries Specialist Reports in the project record. Table 36. Summary of Effects on MIS Summary of Effects on MIS Beaver (Caster canandensis) Alternative 1 No Action No direct effects. Habitat would remain intact due to riparian protection at Bismarck Lake. Pine may continue to encroach into riparian habitat. If current MPB activity continues, pine would die and hardwoods may increase, resulting in increased, quality habitat and food sources for beaver. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects No direct effects are expected. Treatments would result in an expected increase in hardwoods, which would benefit beaver habitat. Treatments are expected to increase the amount of hardwoods along riparian corridors. Long term effects could result in improved habitat/food sources and possible population increase. Cumulative Effects Would not have adverse cumulative Would not have adverse cumulative effects. effects. Summary Neither alternative would negatively impact beaver habitat at Bismarck Lake. Proposed harvest and post-harvest treatments that would benefit hardwoods may be beneficial for beaver. Treatment activities would meet Forest Plan Objective 238a. Population viability for this species was evaluated during the Phase II Amendment to the 1997 Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a). The Forest Plan Phase II Amendment determined that population viability across the Planning Area would be maintained for this 79
Page 1 and 2:
VESTAL PROJECT United States Depart
Page 3 and 4:
Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17:
OHV Off Highway Vehicle POL Product
Page 20 and 21:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 99: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
show all

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?