They are not so easily displaced by traffic on 

 open roads as elk. The mule deer winter range 

 is restricted to 591 acres south of Beaver Lake 

 and overlaps the elk w^inter range. The current 

 winter thermal cover existing on 34% (291 

 acres) of the winter range would be reduced to 

 31% (183 acres) under Alternatives A and B, 

 the action alternatives. This cover is well 

 cormected and well distributed on the winter 

 range. {See Figure III-IO, Mule Deer Winter 

 Range Map). 



The new cabinsite leases would have a similar 

 effect on mule deer as on elk. 



WHITE-TAILED DEER 



No-AcnoN Alternative 



The No-Action Alternative would allow 

 thermal cover to continue at current levels. 

 Thermal cover would improve slowly in the 

 future. 



iBriiiqr. 



Action Alternatives A and B 



Since winter range for white-tailed deer is the 

 most critical element for maintaining healthy 

 populations and thermal cover is reduced by 

 the action alternatives, some effect on the 

 population in the short term is likely. Thermal 

 cover of the 3,076-acre winter range would be 

 reduced under both action alternatives to 35% 

 from the current 44%; 1,221 acres would be in 

 patches 40 acres or larger, a loss of 51 acres in 

 such patches. Usable winter range would 

 continue to be well distributed and well 

 connected under both alternatives. Hiding 

 cover would still be ample after logging, when 

 it is reduced to 87% of the nonlake area in the 

 project area. Increased tree vigor would allow 

 new thermal cover to develop at a fast pace 

 after the initial setback. {See Figure III-ll, 

 White-tailed Deer Winter Range Map). 



Alternative B was designed to accommodate a 

 concern by one or more residents that white- 

 tailed deer breeding habitat might be impacted 

 by a segment of road planned through thick 

 cover near Woods Lake. Although white- 

 tailed deer are known to frequent heavy cover 

 for bedding (Peek 1984), there is no known 



body of scientific work correlating 

 reproductive rates with quantity of thick, 

 breeding-season cover is known. Diversity of 

 cover, however, has been proposed as an 

 important component of white-tailed deer 

 habitat in northwest Montana (Mundinger 

 1981). 



As with elk and mule deer, more cabinsites 

 may affect white-tailed deer populations ^^ 

 slightly through indirect means. 



OTHER 

 OSPREY 



All Alternatives 



No DNRC harvest activities are proposed near 

 the 2 occupied osprey nests located southeast 

 of Beaver Lake; these nests should not be jry 

 affected by the proposed project. No other 

 occupied osprey nests have been observed 

 within the project area in 1998. Because ''^'"^ 

 osprey use a wide variety of structures for 

 nesting, and tree species and surrounding tree 

 density do not affect nest site selection, future 

 nesting opportunities would not be 

 compromised by the proposed project. 



WATER QUALITY AND 

 FISHERIES 



This section discloses the anticipated effects to 

 water resources within the affected environ- 

 ment from proposed activities. Table IV-3 

 displays road and harvesting information by 

 alternative. i 



Primary concerns related to aquatic resources 

 within the affected environment: 



potential cumulative impacts to water 

 quality and fisheries from past and pro- 

 posed activities; K-^ i 

 effects to SMZs, including coarse woody 

 debris recruitment; and, 

 indirectly, impacts to fishing from changes 

 in the transportation plan (resfrictions, 

 obliteration). 



Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 



iiy-15 



