Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 80 Summary of Effects on MIS species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed action would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Under both alternatives, there would be adequate habitat for maintaining populations for beaver. Alternative 1 No Action In time pine seedlings may provide additional hiding cover along some roads. If existing MPB activity continues foraging habitat would be expected to increase significantly, however thermal cover would decrease. Screening/hiding cover would remain adequate. Fawning cover would be expected to increase as a result of increased downed material (eg. logs, shrubs, forest floor debris) from MPB killed trees. Potential for shrubs and hardwoods to increase, but the presence of livestock would increase forage competition with big game. No change to existing open road density would occur. Adverse cumulative effects may occur. Forage is expected to increase, but MPB activities may decrease hiding and thermal cover. Activities from recreational use and private land management would also reduce habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 Proposed Action Short term disturbance and displacement expected from vegetation treatments. Screening cover may be reduced along some roads, however much of the screening cover is due to topography rather than vegetation. Design criteria are included to retain at least 20% screening cover along all arterial and collector roads, resulting in Guideline 3203 being met. Hiding/thermal cover would be expected to decrease from existing condition due to MPB activity. However, proposed activities are expected to retain more hiding/thermal cover than the No Action. Open road density would remain similar to No Action. Total road miles would be increased by one mile; however this road would remain closed to the public. Foraging habitat would be expected to increase as a result of proposed activities and expected MPB activities. Shrubs, hardwoods and meadows may improve habitat enough that deer population may increase in number within the project area, but may move outside of the project area to seek denser pine stands. Cumulative Effects Would add to positive effects of past prescribed burns and timber harvests by increasing diversity of forage, and increasing early successional vegetative stages. May slightly reduce screening cover, and would greatly reduce thermal cover. Potential to decrease winter habitat for big game species. Expected to add to disturbance by OHV and recreation use. Activities from recreational use and private land management would also reduce habitat. Summary Screening cover would be provided at levels noted in Guideline 3203 on all arterial and collector roads within the project area. Monitoring data suggests habitat is not limiting population growth of deer and the Forest is meeting Objective 238a. Neither of the alternatives would contribute to a Forest-wide loss of summer habitat, therefore, the alternatives would contribute to attainment of Objective 238a. However, because of the current MPB infestation along with treatment, the proposed action is expected to lessen cover habitat, which is important during hunting season and winter for deer and other big game. Adequate habitat across the Forest would
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides articus) Note: Also R2 Sensitive Species Summary of Effects on MIS allow for the attainment of Forest Plan Objective 217 (USDA Forest Service 2005a and 2006a). 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 species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed action would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Existing spruce would remain. No direct effects are expected from project Mountain pine beetle activity is activities. No project activities are proposed expected to continue throughout the in spruce habitat; some sanitation may occur. project area, which may result in an Vegetation treatments adjacent to spruce increase in spruce. sites or skid trails running through spruce may temporarily disturb/displace individuals. Cumulative Effects No adverse cumulative effects No adverse cumulative effects expected. expected. Summary The potential habitat available in the project area is on a small scale when compared to Forest-wide potential habitat. This would mean that the Forest-wide habitat trend, population trend and Objective 238c would not be influenced by the Vestal proposed action. As a result, golden-crowned kinglets are likely to persist on the Forest. Adequate habitat across the Forest would maintain a viable population of golden-crowned kinglets (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. lll-263). 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 species if pertinent Forest standards and guidelines are followed. The proposed action would meet these standards and guidelines. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action Expected MPB activity would provide for an increase in habitat in the short-term. The risk of standreplacing fire would remain very high. Wildfire would provide more habitat in the short-term. This alternative would provide the greatest potential for increase in woodpecker habitat, short-term. However, it would also result in the greatest decrease in dense habitat types that are used when no burned or MPB habitat is available. It would be expected that structural stages would transition to earlier successional stands (SS1, 2, 3A) Direct and Indirect Effects In the short-term, habitat would be provided as MPB caused mortality continues in the project area. However, actions to reduce MPB risk are expected to result in less mortality than Alternative 1, No Action. The potential for large-scale fire is reduced in this alternative. This alternative is expected to retain more mature, dense stands (SS4B, 4C and 5) and more SS4A, which would become future dense stands more quickly than the No Action alternative. Treatments would be expected to retain more large trees for future snags versus the No Action alternative. Short-term impacts include: abundance of snags, potential for accidental loss of 81
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:
Page 51 and 52: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 101: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
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?