SNFPA Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

January 2004

Chapter 2: Alternatives, including the Proposed Action

2.5. Comparison of the Effects of the Alternatives

2.5.2. Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Ecosystems

The greatest effects on the Aquatic, Riparian and Meadow Ecosystems will generally be from either mechanical fuel treatments or catastrophic wildfires. The other potential effects from activities such as grazing, mining, pesticide use etc. will either affect only specific sections of the landscape such as meadows or their effects are constant across alternatives. When the balance between fuels treatment acres and risk of catastrophic wildfire is assessed, alternatives that lower the risk of fire and have medium levels of treatment pose the least risk to aquatic and riparian systems. This means that Alternatives F3, F6, S1, and S2 are expected to pose the least risk of negatively impacting riparian and aquatic ecosystems, Alternatives F4 and F7 an intermediate level; and Alternatives F2, F5, and F8 the highest.

Another consideration is the size of material removed and the retention requirements for forest stands. Erman and Erman (2000), found that large openings negatively affect the microclimate of the riparian zone. This means that alternatives that remove smaller material and require higher crown closures will have a greater benefit to the aquatic and riparian ecosystem. Using these criteria, Alternatives F2, F5, F8, S1 and S2 would have the least impact. However, the risk of catastrophic wildfire, which would have a profound effect on forest openings, is high in Alternatives F2 and F5. Thus Alternatives F8, S1 and S2 would have the least overall impact on long term forest structure surrounding riparian areas.

Other factors such as the requirement for landscape analysis, peer reviews, and special protection for sensitive species are components of alternatives that will provide increased protection for the aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Alternatives F3, F5, and S1 all require landscape assessment. These analyses will provide important context to management decisions and allow decisions to consider impacts to and needs of species outside of the immediate project area. The Conservation Assessments completed under Alternative S1 and S2 will inform management decisions in all aquatic and riparian habitats. It will provide some of the basic information needed to better manage habitats for these species. The creation of Critical Refuges in Alternative F5 and Critical Aquatic Refuges in Alternative F2, F6, F8, S1 and S2 will also provide special protection for sensitive species. The conservation assessments and refuges are important first steps in the development of conservation management strategies for aquatic and riparian dependent species.

Alternative S2 may pose higher short-term risks to aquatic resources because it prescribes larger amounts of mechanical treatments and greater treatment intensities. However, these are expected to reduce long-term effects associated with wildfire. Short-term risks associated with S2 will be greatly reduced through the application of the same Aquatic Management Strategy with similar standards and guidelines. Specifically, landscape and project-level analysis, attainment of RCOs, implementation of proven BMPs and other standards and guidelines, a modest reduction in overall road miles, and improved road conditions are the most important aspects of reducing risks to aquatic resources.

Based on all of the above factors, Alternative S1 best protects the values associated with aquatic and riparian habitats. Alternatives S2, F3 and F6 follow closely. The other alternatives have pluses and minuses in their ability to protect riparian and aquatic values. While Alternatives F4 and F7 reduce the risk of wildfire, they lack specific guidance that would provide protection to aquatic and riparian species. On the other hand, Alternatives F2, F5, and F8 provide protective management measures; they also pose the highest risk of catastrophic wildfire.

Top of page