Direct and Indirect Effects 



• Direct and Indirect Liffect qfJWo^lction 

 *1lternative »1 on Pileated XVoodpeckera 



No direct impacts are 

 anticipated under No-Action 

 Alternative A. Shade -intolerant 

 trees would continue to grow and 

 die over time, providing nesting 

 and foraging habitat. As these 

 trees die, replacement shade - 

 intolerant trees would be 

 underrepresented in the stand 

 unless other disturbances 

 influence the stands, allowing 

 for their regeneration. 

 Therefore, a reduction in 

 suitable nesting trees is likely 

 over time. Pileated woodpeckers 

 typically do not nest in 

 Douglas -fir or grand fir; 

 however, they will forage on the 

 boles of Douglas -fir. Under 

 this alternative, stands once 

 dominated by western larch and 

 Douglas -fir would continue to be 

 converted through succession to 

 Douglas-fir, grand fir, and 

 mixed-conifer stands. Thus, 

 habitat sustainability and 

 quality for pileated woodpeckers 

 would gradually increase through 

 time, and then decline. 



• Direct and Indirect Electa qf,1ction 

 .lllernatice li on Pileated M'oodpeckern 



Pileated woodpeckers tend to be 

 tolerant of human activities 

 (Bull and Jackson 1995) , but 

 might be temporarily displaced 

 by the proposed harvesting and 

 road-building activities. 

 Elements of the forest structure 

 important for nesting pileated 

 woodpeckers would be retained, 

 including snags, coarse woody 

 debris, numerous leave trees, 

 and snag recruits. Of the 242 

 acres of pileated woodpecker 

 nesting habitat in the proposed 

 project area, only 4 acres are 

 proposed for treatment (in Units 

 11 and 12) . Within these 4 

 acres, the majority of the 

 midstory and overstory would be 



removed. This could reduce 

 pileated nesting use in this 

 limited area. After the 

 proposed harvesting, 939 

 harvested acres within the 

 proposed project area would be 

 too open to be considered 

 pileated woodpecker habitat. 

 The silvicultural prescriptions 

 would plant western larch and 

 western white pine seedlings in 

 addition to natural 

 regeneration. Recruitment of 

 western larch would benefit 

 pileated woodpeckers in the 

 distant future by providing 

 nesting, roosting, and foraging 

 habitats . 



Cumulative Effects 



• Cumulative li^ffectH qfJ\'o-,1ction 



•llternative *1 on Pileated ^^ 'oodpeckertt 



Under this alternative, western 

 larch and western white pine 

 trees would continue to grow and 

 die over time in the proposed 

 project area, providing nesting 

 and foraging habitats. Through 

 time, conversion of stands to 

 shade-tolerant species would 

 reduce nesting substrates for 

 pileated woodpeckers. Stands 

 elsewhere on Stillwater State 

 Forest are frequently managed 

 for mature western larch, snags, 

 and snag-recruit trees, which 

 benefit pileated woodpeckers. 

 Habitats within these recent 

 harvest units, especially the 

 seedtrees retained in some 

 units, could provide nesting 

 substrates in the long term (70+ 

 years) . 



• Cumulative IJ^ffectn qf. Iction »1lternative 

 li on Pileated Woodjteckers 



Under this alternative, 

 reductions in pileated 

 woodpecker habitat are expected. 

 Existing snags, coarse woody 

 debris, and suitable nesting 

 trees would be retained within 

 the proposed project area; 

 however, future recruitment of 

 these attributes may be reduced 



Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis 



Page E-21 



