16,000-acre winter range). Timber 

 harvests would not prevent big 

 game movement through the area . 



Cumulative Effects 



• Cuutiilative li^ffect* qfJVo^lction Alternative 

 »1on Big Game Winter Range 



Under this alternative, no changes 

 are anticipated in thermal cover 

 and snow intercept. Stands across 

 Stillwater State Forest are still 

 providing thermal cover and snow 

 intercept for elk and moose. The 

 general trend within Stillwater 

 State Forest is conversion to 

 mature forests, reducing forage 

 production while increasing 

 thermal cover for elk and moose. 



• Cumulative ^ffectit qf Action , llternative B on 

 Big Game Winter Range 



Under this alternative, thermal 

 cover would be largely removed 

 from 246 acres. Harvesting has 

 occurred elsewhere in the winter 

 range on Stillwater State Forest. 

 Big game winter range has been 

 reduced by 505 acres with the 

 Good/ Long/ Boyle Timber Sale 

 Project, 213 acres with the Taylor 

 South Timber Sale Project, and 684 

 acres with the Chicken/Werner 

 Timber Sale Project. The proposed 

 reduction in thermal cover would 

 be additive to these other 

 reductions in thermal cover and 

 snow intercept . 



Mitigation Measures Included: 



• Retain patches of dense vegetation 

 in harvest units within elk winter 

 range when possible to provide 

 some thermal cover/snow intercept 

 capacity. 



• Reclose roads and skid trails 

 opened with the proposed 

 activities to reduce the potential 

 for disturbance from unauthorized 

 motor vehicle traffic. 



Issue - Elk Security 



There is concern that timber- 

 harvesting activities associated 

 with this proposed project could 



have adversely affected elk and 

 other big game security. 



Existing Environment 



Timber harvesting can increase elk 

 vulnerability by changing the size, 

 structure, juxtaposition, and 

 accessibility of areas that provide 

 security during hunting season 

 iHillis et al. 1991). As visibility 

 and accessibility increase within 

 forested landscapes, elk and deer 

 have a greater probability of being 

 observed and, subsequently, 

 harvested by hunters. Because the 

 female segments of the elk and deer 

 populations are normally regulated 

 carefully during hunting seasons, 

 primary concerns are related to a 

 substantial reduction of the male 

 segment and subsequent decrease in 

 hunter opportunity. The presence of 

 fewer males at the beginning of the 

 hunting season reduces the odds of 

 any given hunter to see or harvest 

 such an animal throughout the 

 remainder of the season. 



It is expected that when elk 

 security is substantially 

 compromised effects to deer can also 

 be expected (albeit to a lesser 

 degree than for elk) . As with elk, 

 the greatest effects on deer 

 security to occur would be expected 

 to be within the male segment of the 

 populations . 



Cumulative effects to elk security 

 were analyzed on the contiguous 

 Stillwater State Forest. 



Direct and Indirect Effects 



• Direct and Indirect lilffect* nfJVo-. Iction 

 Alternative A on Elk Security 



Under this alternative, no changes 

 in elk security cover are 

 expected. Existing cover would 

 continue to provide intact blocks 

 of security habitat. Timber 

 stands would continue advancing to 

 climax plant species. No 

 alterations in cover would occur 

 that would increase elk 

 vulnerability during the elk 

 hunting season. No changes are 



Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis 



Page E-25 



