Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) 100 Summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Species large enough to meet the nesting requirements for the goshawk. Wildfires and MPB have also contributed to the loss of large mature pine trees in the area. requirements for the goshawk. Wildfires and MPB have also contributed to the loss of large mature pine trees in the area. The proposed action would continue to remove potential nest trees, but would provide protection around the existing nest territory. The possibility of future large-scale, high intensity wildfires does exist for this project area. Development and vegetation treatment of private lands is expected to continue. Any changes to this acreage are not expected to contribute to habitat loss. Incremental impacts from the proposed action are expected to offset some of the potential effects of large wildfires and insect epidemics that result from past, present and future fire suppression. However, because of MPB activity that is already occurring and expected to occur throughout the entire project area, large trees are expected to significantly decrease. Summary 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’. Alternative 2 would provide more dense habitat, and SS4A habitat that may increase more quickly to become suitable nesting habitat, than No Action. The proposed action would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and meet Objectives 221. Mountain pine beetle is expected to reduce habitat, but the effects would be lessened in Alternative 2, because more suitable habitat would remain. Therefore, this species is likely to persist on the Forest. Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects High potential for loss of large tree Potential direct effects. Potential short-term habitat from MPB mortality and disturbance. Potential reduction of preferred wildfire. Reduction of preferred habitat by removing large over-story trees, habitat due to expected MPB caused and possibly removing snags (if within snag mortality. cutting areas or if safety hazards to harvest operations). Would retain more preferred habitat than the No Action. Structural stage 4A, open park-like pine forest, would increase greatly. Increase in prey population may occur from activities that release understory vegetation, thus improving insect and small mammal habitat. Sufficient downed woody material would be expected to remain because of snags falling. Would increase potential for maintaining mature pine habitat long-term by reducing MPB susceptibility and fire hazard. Cumulative Effects Large areas of snag habitat have been made available from insect outbreaks in the Black Hills and the Vestal project area, and large expanses of MPB-killed trees are
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) Note: is also a Forest MIS Summary of Effects on R2 Sensitive Species expected to cover the landscape. However, these ‘open areas’ are not considered preferred flammulated owl nesting habitat. They may improve prey species abundance on a general scale. Mature trees, relatively open, park-like, stands are considered more suitable habitat. Timber harvesting, on public or private lands, that removes mature overstory, and a loss of snags would reduce potentially suitable habitat. Summary 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’. This project is consistent with pertinent standards and guidelines and contributes to Objective 221. However, due to the low occurrence of this species on the Forest in relation to the amount of potentially suitable habitat, no alternative is likely to affect the colonization by or establishment of flammulated owls on the Forest. Alternative 1 No Action Increased habitat in the short-term due to expected MPB activity. MPB risk and wildfire risk is very high. If wildfire were to occur, more habitat in the short-term would be available because of their association with burned areas. Has greatest potential for increase in woodpecker habitat in the shortterm, but has greatest decrease in dense habitat types that are used when no burned or MPB habitat is available. Snags would increase due to natural mortality. Past wildfires and past and existing MPB infestations have created habitat throughout the Forest and project area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 Proposed Action In the short-term, habitat would be provided as MPB caused mortality continues. Treatments to reduce MPB risk are expected to result in less mortality than No Action. Reduced fire hazard. Proposed actions are expected to retain more mature, dense stands (SS4B, 4C and 5) than the No Action. Snags would be plentiful in the short-term. Potential for accidental removal of snags/cavities being used by woodpeckers. Prescribed burning may destroy snags, but may also create snags. Greatest potential to create future (long-term) nest snags for this species. May disturb nesting woodpeckers if harvest occurs during nesting season, expected to be a short-term impact. 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 blackbacked 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 101
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:
Page 71 and 72: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 121: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?