Laserfiche WebLink
Coal Methane DraimaRe Projert - Panek 76-24 Wert E!k Aline • PaRe 3-18 <br />\~'ithin the project azea there is little diversity of community types and successional stages. The <br />dominant vegetation type is oakbmsh, within this type there is little diversity in age class. The most <br />pronounced ecotones in the uplands are where aspen and Gambel oak communities blend. The other <br />important inherent ecotones are riparian communities. <br />3.2.1.4 Elk Habitat Effectiveness <br />Roads are undoubtedly the most significant consideration on elk range (Christensen et al. 1993). <br />Relatively sophisticated technologies exist for calculating habitat effectiveness. Christensen et al. <br />(7993) gives several sources of information for habitat effectiveness and the major factors that <br />influence it. Their First recommendation in evaluating habitat effectiveness is to include a road model <br />in the analysis. <br />Some models used to evaluate habitat effectiveness use only open road density (e.g., Lyon 1983). <br />Others include cover and foraging area information. Elk habitat effectiveness is often evaluated for <br />land management project proposals (such as timber sales) using the USFS Region 2 Habitat Capability <br />computer model (HABCAP). HABCAP takes into consideration the amounts of hiding cover, <br />foraging areas, road and motorized trail densities. In accordance with the Forest Plan and the <br />HABCAP model, the road and motorized trail densities are adjusted by established use type <br />coefficients. The Forest Plan contains a road density and use habitat effectiveness table on page III- <br />77 as guidance for open road and motorized trail density. <br />All models examining habitat effectiveness assume the more open roads, indicated by higher road <br />density in the algorithms of the model, cause decreases in habitat effectiveness. Most of the existing <br />road and trail system in the analysis azea aze open to some form of motorized use. Road and trail <br />densities by alternative area are summarized as follows: <br />EXISTING AND PROPOSED MOTORIZED,ROAD AND TRAIL DENSITIES-"g <br />-" - '"~ IN THE ANALYSI5AREA ^.':~a * ~' <br />Current Conditions Existin <br />Project Area 14,730 acres) 7.4 s . mi. <br />Roads/Trails on NF lands 32.2 mi. <br />National Forest Road/Trail Density 4.35mi./sq. mi. <br />Project Alternatives Road Densities Durin Project Road Densities Post• Project <br />Alternative 1 INO-Action) 4.35 mi./sq. mi. 4.35 mi./s . mi. <br />Alternative 2 4.9 mi./sq. mi. 1.7 mi./sq. mi. <br />Alternative 3 4.7 mi./sq. mi. 7.8 mi./s . mi. <br />Alternative 4 4.9 mi./s . mi. 1.8 mi./sq. mi. <br />Alternative 5 4.7 mi./s . mi. 1.9 mi./sq. mi. <br />General direction within the Forest Plan is to "Manage public motorized use on roads and trails to <br />maintain or enhance effective habitat for elk" (F7.MP III-76). Standards and guidelines associated <br />with this direction aze: <br />a.) "Objective level for habitat effectiveness for elk within each fourth order watershed is at least <br />40 percent" <br />b.) "Habitat effectiveness will be determined by evaluating, in combination, hiding and thermal <br />cover, forage, road-density and human activity on roads." <br />A detailed explanation of the model and key assumptions can be found in HABCAP 3.02 <br />PCHABCAP Habitat Capability Model, Rocky Mountain Region, Documentation and Users Guide <br />(USDA Forest Service, 1994). <br />Environmental.9.rrcrrrnent <br />®;IP-/A/urtb (u'G/IU/Ur.J~ JH/OiE~ USFS <br />i/S/Ol rb <br />