Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Brown Creeper (Certhia Americana) 82 Summary of Effects on MIS Snags would increase and be abundant due to natural mortality. Past wildfires and past and existing MPB infestations have created habitat throughout the Forest and project area. snags/cavities by proposed fuel or harvest treatments, prescribed burning may destroy some snags and may create some snags, disturbance of nesting woodpeckers if harvest occurs during nesting season. This alternative has the greatest potential to create snags for the long-term. Cumulative Effects Continued MPB activity throughout the forest and project area would continue to provide habitat for this species. Fuel (fire) management treatments would reduce habitat potential for this species. Privately owned lands within and adjacent to the project area may also provide suitable habitat for the black-backed woodpecker. Fire-hazard and MPB reduction activities are likely to increase on some of these lands in effort to prevent loss from wildfire. Cutting of snags for fuelwood may reduce the number of snags. This could result in a loss of habitat, but the amount of area within these private lands is relatively small compared to what is on the forest (USDA Forest Service 2008). The indirect effects mentioned above would be an incremental impact additional to those on private lands. Summary Alternative 1 has the greatest potential for increasing woodpecker habitat. Alternative 2 may decrease preferred and/or potential habitat, but would not affect the habitat or population trend Forest wide because of providing for Objective 211 (snags). Snags are not allowed to be cut unless deemed a safety hazard or within designated firewood cutting areas. The project area is only a small portion of the currently available habitat, new habitat acres are currently being created across the Forest. Both alternatives ‘may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing’. Habitat conditions would be provided, consistent with Objective 238b. The proposed action alternatives would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines; therefore this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Spruce habitat would remain at 42 Timber harvest and prescribed burning may acres. Mountain pine beetle caused destroy nests. Vegetation treatments may mortality would substantially reduce temporarily disturb individuals. Expected preferred habitat in pine (SS 4B, 4C MPB activity may reduce habitat resulting and 5) throughout the project area. in displacement of individuals to more This change in habitat is expected to suitable habitat. impact the brown creeper by causing Risk of MPB infestation would be reduced. displacement of individuals to more More preferred habitat would remain than in suitable habitat, which may be Alternative 1, as pine SS 4B, 4C and 5. outside of the project area. In More SS 4A would remain and would be addition, the high fire hazard is a expected to develop into preferred habitat in
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Summary of Effects on MIS threat to brown creeper habitat. This alternative is expected to increase the risk of habitat fragmentation and loss from stand replacing fire and mountain pine beetles for this species. MPB activity would decrease habitat. Additionally, vegetation treatments on private land may also reduce habitat for this species. Habitat fragmentation is expected. the long-term. Fire hazard is also substantially reduced, increasing the potential for retention of preferred habitat. Cumulative Effects Would add to preferred habitat reduction within the project area, however with lack of treatment habitat may be lost to fire or MPB. Additionally, vegetation treatments on private land may also reduce habitat for this species. Habitat fragmentation is expected. Summary Both alternatives retain 42 acres of preferred spruce habitat. However, Alternative 2 would retain more mature and late successional stands and therefore, results in the most potential for preferred habitat for the brown creeper. Both action alternatives would reduce SS4B from the existing condition; however treatment would reduce MPB risk and fire hazard. Habitat would be maintained and the project meets Objective 238a. The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines; therefore this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Existing 431 aspen acres would be Potential for individual mortality from expected to remain. Habitat may vegetation treatments. Short-term improve due to expected MPB displacement, but individuals are expected activity resulting in an increase in to return after implementation. hardwoods due to pine mortality. Hardwood treatments would increase and Fallen dead trees may provide enhance habitat, with potential to increase increased cover. population. Other vegetation treatments would benefit habitat by removing pine. Fallen or hinged trees may provide an increase in cover for this species and for suckering hardwoods. Prescribed burning could cause mortality in aspen, negatively affecting habitat; conversely, it may stimulate aspen regeneration, positively affecting habitat. Mountain pine beetle caused mortality in pine stands could benefit this species by opening up hardwood stands and slowing down pine encroachment. Cumulative Effects Would not have adverse cumulative Would help offset negative impacts from effects. past activities. Future hardwood treatments would continue to improve habitat. Summary Because of proposed hardwood release and hardwood conversion treatments, the proposed action is expected to be more beneficial to ruffed grouse than the No Action alternative. However, because of MPB activity killing pine, hardwoods may 83
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:
Page 53 and 54: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 103: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
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?