Alternative B will result in 4.2 nules more 

 of total roads, but 5.1 miles less of open 

 roads, and an average open-road density 

 of 2.13 miles per square mile. These open- 

 road densities would result in elk habitat 

 effectiveness changing from the current 

 ' 39% of potential to 47%. 



Although there is some improvement in 

 ■« habitat effectiveness for much of the year 

 with both action altemahves, including 

 hunting season, it is likely that snowmo- 

 i bile use would occur on the slight increase 



of roads within the winter range thermal 

 '■■: cover. 



The proposed cabinsites are near current 

 centers of recreational activity and should 

 not appreciably affect habitat effectiveness 

 as measured by open roads or loss of 

 hiding cover. 



• Hunting Objectives 



No-AcnoN Alternative 



The No- Action Alternative would allow 

 open-road densities to continue at a high 

 level and hiding cover to cover most of the 

 landscape. The elk populahon would 

 remain fairly vulnerable to exploitation 

 * because of the amount of access. 



Action Alternatives A and B 



The proposed project is probably slightly 

 beneficial for DFWP's elk goals. Open-road 

 density would be reduced slightly, while 

 hiding cover would continue to dominate 

 the project area. This would be favorable 

 for the population. To some degree, 

 closures for snowmobiles would probably 

 offset the increase in total roads on the 

 winter range. 



Cabinsites may affect elk populations 

 indirectiy by serving as originating points 

 for snowmobile recreation on their winter 

 range. - ^--- 



nm 



'^'>i 



• Bull Elk Vulnerability 



No-AcnoN Alternative 



The No- Action Alternative would result in 

 a continuation of high vulnerability 

 because of the amount of access to hunters 

 and the high density of open road. 



Action Alternatives A and B 



An analysis of security cover fitting the 

 Hillis Paradigm (forest cover blocks .5 

 miles or farther from roads and 250 acres 

 or larger in size) indicates that after road 

 cor\struction and logging, the area would 

 continue to fail to provide areas fitting the 

 criteria for blocks of cover that can provide 

 quality security areas during hunting 

 season. The existing 80-acre amount that 

 has cover that is beyond the .5 mile 

 distance from roads would be expanded to 

 83 acres for Alternative A and 2 areas 

 totaling 218 acres for Alternative B. The 

 potential for elk security would continue 

 to be reduced by the large amount of road 

 access in the area. 



Patches of cover in the project area would 

 still be continuous, except for the open 

 roads causing their subdivision. 



Cabinsite leases would not affect bull elk 

 vulnerability except indirectly by 

 potentially serving as hunting camps that 

 may attract more hunters to the area. 



MULE DEER 



No- Action Alternative 



The No- Action Alternative would allow 

 thermal cover to continue at current levels. 

 Currently, winter thermal cover is 34% or 291 

 acres of mule deer winter range. 



Action Alternatives A and B 



Winter range is the primary concern for 

 managing mule deer habitat. Mule deer 

 would be affected in similar ways to that of 

 elk, including the extra energy drain from 

 snowmobile-induced movement in snow. 



W^ir 



Stillwater State Forest • Beaver Lake Timber Sale Project 



