range. This is within DNRC's suggested, 

 but not mandated, goal of providing 

 thermal cover on 25% of the winter range. 



All of the existing thermal cover occurs in 

 blocks of 20 acres or larger. This cover 

 would continue to be well connected and 

 well distributed on the winter range. 



The proposed cabinsites are not on elk 

 winter range. However, the cabins may 

 become bases for family snowmobile 

 recreation; therefore, and snowmobiling on 

 the nearby elk winter range could increase. 

 Since there would be additional lessees at 

 the new cabinsites, another anticipated 

 impact would be from the potential in- 

 crease of dogs. It is fairly likely that one or 

 more lessees would have unrestrained 

 dog(s). Big game are displaced from 

 habitat and physically stressed by snow- 

 mobiles and dogs, and if snow conditions 

 are favorable for it, some dogs may kill 

 wintering big game. DNRC would at- 

 tempt to rrunimize the use of snowmobiles 

 on closed roads by posting road closures 

 and planting trees on obliterated roads, 

 and minimize damage to the winter range 

 by free-ranging dogs by posting informa- 

 tive signs. 



Habitat effectiveness 



No- Action Alternative 



The No- Action Alternative would result in 

 continued high densities of open roads and 

 large amounts of hiding cover. Only 6% of 

 the area currently has road densities less 

 than 1 mile per square mile, and 97.5% of 

 the nonlake area provides hiding cover. 

 The current open-road density of 2.88 

 miles per square mile results in an elk 

 habitat effectiveness of 39% of its potential 

 (Lyon 1983). bam la 



Action Alternatives A and B 



Hiding cover would still be ample after 

 logging, when it is reduced to 87% of the ; 

 nonlake area in the project area. There 

 would be more miles of road after both 

 alternatives, but fewer miles of open road, 

 and more of the area (11%) with low open- 

 road densities (less than 1 mile per square 

 mile). 



Alternative A would have 5.5 miles more 

 in total roads, but 4.0 miles less in open 

 roads, and an average open-road density 

 of 2.30 miles per square mile. Open-road 

 densities would change elk habitat effec- 

 tiveness from the current 39% to 46% of its 

 potential. 



TABLE IV-2 - SUMMARY OF ROAD DENSITIES AND RESULTING ELK HABITAT 

 EFFECTIVENESS 



r/i- 



Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 



llV-13) 



