Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 American marten (Martes americana) 98 Summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Species numbers. Summary The determination of ‘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’. The No Action alternative would have ‘no impact’. The Forest is meeting Objective 237 which prompts the Forest to manage for 200-300 acres of prairie dog towns in at least 3 different towns (USDA Forest Service 2009). The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The Forest is conserving and enhancing habitat for this species and is contributing to Objective 221. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects No direct effects. MPB activity Possible direct effects on individuals. would reduce preferred dense mature Impacts to marten from any logging habitat, but may also increase down activities would mainly be in stands woody material. Preferred spruce adjacent to occupied habitat. Potential for habitat would remain. short-term displacement. No change to spruce stands. Treatments and MPB caused mortality would reduce the amount of dense pine stands and could reduce prey habitat and future downed woody material desired by marten. However, it is expected that downed woody material already present would not be moved and would remain in those areas, and MPB-killed trees would fall, creating sufficient downed material. In addition, treatment to pine adjacent to spruce stands is expected to reduce, in the long-term, the wildfire risk to spruce habitat. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects from MPB Very little marten habitat occurs on forest. caused mortality on private lands. Cumulative effects from vegetation Vegetation treatments and management actions that remove spruce, development on private lands may drastically reduce forest canopy, or remove also add to impacts. large down woody debris would reduce available habitat for the species. Recreation in suitable habitat may have and may continue to impact the American marten. Where private lands include high quality habitat, it could be subject to low-density development (e.g., rural residences). Landowners may be conducting thinning activities to protect their homes and viewshed from MPB and/or high fuel loading. Furthermore, they would not likely apply any mitigation to minimize effects to marten. Due to the combination of these factors, habitat on the Forest would likely become more important. Summary The 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’.
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Species Little preferred spruce habitat is contained within the project area. The proposed action would retain more dense, mature habitat than the No Action alternative. However, the proposed action proposes treatments to improve stand health and reduce the risk of wildfire, thus, retaining more acres of dense, mature trees for connectivity. The proposed action contributes to conservation of marten habitat (Forest Plan Objective 221). The proposed action would meet these standards and guidelines. Fire suppression during the last century has allowed spruce to increase in abundance and density in the Black Hills. The Forest is conserving habitat for the American marten (USDA Forest Service 2010). Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Expected MPB activity would create No direct effects are expected. Individuals snags for roosting by killing large may be displaced temporarily. trees; these snags are expected to Mountain pine beetle are expected to kill remain for only five years. Potential large trees creating snags for roosting, but to long-term future roosting trees would a lesser degree than No Action. Therefore, be reduced due to MPB caused the potential to maintain large trees for mortality of large trees. future roosting sites is improved over No Action. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects expected MPB Incremental impacts to habitat quantity are caused mortality continues on private expected to be minimal because direct and lands. Treatments to reduce MPB indirect impacts are expected to be minimal; risk on private lands would also however, there may be some incremental remove roosting trees. impacts from disturbance and from MPB activity killing roosting trees. Summary Both alternatives would have ‘no impact’ on the bald eagle. This project would be implemented consistent with any of the relevant standards, guidelines that protect bald eagles or provide for eagle habitat, and contributes to Objective 221. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 1 No Action No direct effects. Expected MPB activity would reduce nesting habitat, but increase foraging habitat. High fire hazard remain and is a threat to suitable nesting habitat. Some prey species would benefit by increasing grasses and forbs (cover and food source) or young-forest conditions, while other prey species that favor a mature over-story may decrease. Past timber harvest has contributed to the loss of large mature trees, and blocks of mature, dense forested stands have been reduced in size so that they are no longer considered Direct and Indirect Effects No direct effects to known nests, potential for direct effects to unknown nests. Would enhance and protect goshawk nesting areas by reducing MPB risk and fire hazard. Would retain more suitable nesting habitat than No Action. Increase in foraging habitat. Some prey species could be adversely affected as well by removing canopy, snags, down woody material and ground cover. Similar impacts to prey species as No Action. Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest has contributed to the loss of large mature trees, and blocks of mature, dense forested stands have been reduced in size so that they are no longer considered large enough to meet the nesting 99
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:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 119: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
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?