Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Demand Species Rocky Mountain Elk (Demand Species) Alternative Effects Summary The No Action alternative would increase early successional vegetative stages the most, which would provide more forage for elk. The proposed action would provide more SS 4B, 4C, and 5 (although on a small scale), which is needed for cover. Additionally, more SS 4A, which would be expected to become cover in the long-term, would be created and would provide for more cover in the long-term. The proposed action implements treatments that may conserve larger trees that hopefully remain in groups that could provide potential cover, even if it is a 4A stand overall. The proposed action includes prescribed burning which may decrease hiding and calving cover, which is limited in areas of the project. However, prescribed burning may increase forage quantity and quality for elk. Aspen acreage is increased through the proposed action due to hardwood conversion. An increase in forage with a similar decrease in cover is expected with both alternatives, although the proposed action would retain more dense habitat conditions. Screening cover along the arterial and collector roads would be sufficient under either alternative because of topography, although the proposed action includes some design criteria to retain small trees along certain roads after vegetation treatments have occurred. Guideline 3203 is currently being met on all arterial and collector roads within the project area and would be met following implementation. Miles of open road does not change by alternative. Assuming Forest Plan standards are met, both alternatives would allow the Forest-wide elk population to remain stable, and would allow for the attainment of Forest Plan Objective 217. Cumulative Effects The No Action alternative would not have adverse cumulative effects on this species as no direct or indirect effects would occur. Many of the private land in-holdings in the project area are currently used for summer livestock grazing and the grass is considered livestock forage. By the end of the grazing season, little usable herbaceous cover remains on these private lands. Livestock grazing on the Forest lands also affects habitat for elk by decreasing forage in riparian areas and meadows, thereby resulting in competition between livestock and wild ungulates. Habitat loss or degradation adds cumulatively to other effects influencing elk in the project area. Fire suppression and forest succession have increased the amount of pine across the landscape and decreased meadows, riparian areas, and hardwood stands over the last 100 years. Logging, thinning, pine beetle activity, prescribed burns and wildfires have resulted in a general increase in preferred forage habitat over time. These activities have opened up the pine overstory creating openings, enhancing and expanding hardwood understories and riparian areas. However, these same activities have decreased cover. Roads within the project area are used for multiple uses (e.g. ranchers, allotment monitoring, weed control, recreational use, logging, etc.). Disturbance and potential road 106
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 kills from vehicular traffic may occur on system roads as well as roads through the county and private land. Hunting directly affects elk in the project area. Indirect human disturbance due to hunting also reduces habitat security for native ungulates. There are foreseeable future activities that may impact elk cover and forage within and adjacent to the project area. These activities include thinning, prescribed burning, hardwood release, hardwood regeneration and pine encroachment treatment. All of these activities would be expected to increase the amount and diversity of forage available for elk while reducing cover. Merriam’s Wild Turkey (Demand Species) Alternative Effects Summary Loss of habitat under both alternatives is expected with the MPB reducing cover and roosting habitat. Additionally, under the proposed action, there could be direct effects from project activities and incremental impacts from disturbance. However, the proposed action provides vegetation treatments that are expected to maintain dense habitat (SS 4B, 4C, and 5) for roosting and winter, although it may not be sufficient to maintain a large population of birds. Foraging habitat would be sufficient with both alternatives. The proposed action is also expected to retain more mature pine stands in the form of SS 4A than the No Action alternative, due to the reduction of MPB susceptibility. These SS 4A stands are expected to develop into dense, mature pine stands much more rapidly than stands which are converted to SS 1 or SS 2. Design criteria is included to retain turkey roost trees as noted in guideline 3205. Cumulative Effects Past timber harvest, wildfires, livestock grazing, recreation and drought have impacted the turkey populations in the project area, and these activities would likely continue. Spring weather is probably the single most significant factor in determining turkey populations. Hunting pressure can also affect population levels. Livestock grazing in conjunction with or independent of drought can reduce herbaceous vegetation, which is important in maintaining a high quality summer brood habitat (Rumble & Anderson 1996). These activities would likely occur on private lands as well. Private lands would likely continue to be developed, some of which may include roads. All may affect turkeys through direct mortality, modification of behavior, habitat alteration, spread of exotics, and disturbance. Additionally, private lands would continue to be thinned to reduce the threat of MPB. No adverse cumulative effects are expected under the No Action alternative. Migratory Birds Golden Eagle (Migratory Bird) Contiguously forested habitats, which currently make up a large portion of the Vestal project area, are not preferred by golden eagles, but they may be included in a home range if suitable nesting or foraging habitat is intermixed. The Vestal project area contains limited areas, although present, e.g., Buckhorn Mountain, of rim-rock outcrops 107
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:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 127: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
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?