Final Environmental Impact Statement

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Beaver (MIS) The beaver was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely on a variety of riparian and hardwood forest conditions to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005a). In the project area, there is an active colony at Bismarck Lake; another active colony is close to the project area up Sylvan Lake Road. Baseline beaver surveys were conducted on the Forest in the fall of 2004. The species was most commonly found in the Bearlodge Mountains and central Black Hills (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Forest-wide, long-term beaver population trend has increased since heavy trapping has decreased, but it is less than its potential. The current distribution of beaver is reduced based on the number of inactive beaver sites that were observed (during monitoring efforts in 2007), especially in headwater streams, where water and/or a suitable food supply is lacking (USDA Forest Service 2008). In addition, Forest-wide, the long-term trend in beaver habitat is one of decline. The reduction in beaver activity that occurred from heavy trapping likely caused a lowering of water tables and a subsequent loss of willows and other riparian vegetation (Parrish et al. 1996). This, in conjunction with other factors, has reduced the quality and quantity of riparian willow habitat in the Black Hills following European settlement. The amount of aspen and other hardwoods on the Forest has also declined (USDA Forest Service 2005b). White-tailed Deer (MIS) White-tailed deer were selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely on a variety of forest conditions, including the presence of understory shrubs, to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005a). White-tailed deer in the Black Hills require a diversity of habitat types. Juxtaposition between cover and forage is crucial year-round. Hardwood stands, which provide abundant forage combined with screening cover, were best predictors of white-tailed deer diurnal, summer use (Stefanich 1995). Peak use of dense aspen habitats with dense, tall shrub cover indicated importance as fawning habitat in the northern and central Black Hills (DePerno et al. 2002). Summer nocturnal habitat use is significantly different with use of open habitat types of meadows, riparian areas, and/or open pine relative to proximity of dense cover (Stefanich 1995). Wet meadows, riparian areas, and open stands of ponderosa pine also provide quality forage. Management actions that increase habitat and structural diversity across the Forest would better meet necessary forage and cover requirements for deer. The primary limiting factor for white-tailed deer in the Black Hills may be a lack of desirable shrubs for food and cover (DePerno et al. 2002). Another factor that can affect deer habitat is road construction and road density (SAIC 2003). Habitat trend at the Forest-level suggests that summer habitat trend is increasing, and winter habitat trend is stable to slightly decreasing (USDA Forest Service 2005b). The Forest is meeting Objective 238a, with regard to summer habitat, but the Forest may not be maintaining winter habitat, although the decline might not be significant (USDA Forest Service 2009). 52
Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 During field surveys, deer were often observed throughout the project area. The high amount of meadows (mostly on private land) and SS4A pine stands have provided areas for foraging, although shrubs are lacking in Vestal. Also, much (42%) of the project area is in big game winter range, which contains seasonal motorized use closure areas. The project area contains approximately 2.2 mi/mi 2 of roads (includes Forest Service and county roads), with open road density at approximately 1.5 mi/mi 2 . In Management Area 5.4 (Big Game Winter Range) only, road density is higher at approximately 5 mi/mi 2 . However, seasonal road closures from December 15-May 15 reduce open road density during this time to approximately 2.2 mi/mi 2 . Big Game Screening Hiding or Screening cover is defined as: being able to hide 90% of an adult deer or elk from human view at a distance of 200 feet or less. There are 12 collector and arterial roads in the Vestal project area where the screening cover guideline (Guideline 3203) applies. Currently adequate screening cover is provided by vegetation or topography on all collector and arterial roads (Table 34). Table 34. Current Screening Cover in the Vestal Project Area on Forest Service Land Road Numbers Functional Class Percent Screening Cover 285 Collector 50 653 Collector 80 286 Collector 70 284 Arterial 50 297 Arterial 65 336 Collector 20 337 Collector 48 343 Collector 46 342 Collector 55 344 Collector 60* 345.1 Collector 65* *Screening cover along these roads provided mainly by vegetation. Golden-crowned Kinglet (MIS) The golden-crowned kinglet was selected as a Forest MIS to evaluate the effects of Forest Plan implementation and natural change on the ability of the Forest to support species that rely on a variety of conditions in spruce habitat to meet their needs (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Habitat for the golden-crowned kinglet has increased over the long-term and is exceeding the Forest-wide target of 20,000 acres (Objective 239) (USDA Forest Service 2010). Forest monitoring results show that kinglet relative densities were highest in 2005 (white spruce) and showed the lowest densities in 2007. Relative densities rebounded in 2009 in both late successional and white spruce habitats (USDA Forest Service 2010). Goldencrowned kinglets were also found in northern ponderosa pine, montane riparian and foothill riparian habitats; however, white spruce was present at some level within each one of these (Beason et al. 2006). 53
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: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 73: Vestal Final Environmental Impact S
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?