Grizzly Bears 



1 . Direct and Indirect Effects 



No Action Alternative : This alternative is not expected to result in any changes in 

 disturbance to grizzly bear habitat, or the use of this habitat by grizzly bears. 



Action Alternative : Timber harvest activities would result in additional road 

 construction, vegetation manipulation, and prescribed burning, which could affect grizzly 

 bear habitat. Due to the snow conditions, the harvest activities would occur during the 

 non-denning season. During the harvest activities, grizzly bears could be displaced if 

 they were using the project area. However, any displacement is expected to result in 

 negligible effects to grizzly bears, because the habitat in the project area does not appear 

 crucial to bear use, the project would occur during a season (summer-early autumn) when 

 habitat is most available and it is likely that adjacent areas with limited disturbance would 

 be available during the project. 



Road use and construction could disrupt grizzly bear use of the project area. Under this 

 alternative, 2.2 miles of new road would be constructed through the center of Section 16. 

 Other existing restricted (gates and berms) roads would be used during implementation of 

 this proposal and the associated follow-up treatments (burning, planting). Following use, 

 the restriction devise used on currently restricted roads would be reinstalled. These 

 restrictions are expected to limit disturbance to grizzly bears after completion of the 

 project, resulting in a short-term disturbance (< 3 years), but a long-term negligible 

 affect. 



Timber harvest and follow-up activities could alter grizzly bear habitat. Timber 

 harvesting and subsequent prescribed fire would remove vegetation cover, while 

 enhancing foraging plants. Cover would be retained in unharvested stands and in 

 unbumed patches. Forage would be enhanced throughout the harvest units by increasing 

 sunlight, nutrients, and plant response to prescribed burning. Cover would be retained 

 around riparian areas and along creeks. In Section 4, harvests would not alter the 

 distance to cover because the regeneration units proposed for seed tree removal are 

 providing or near to providing adequate hiding cover. Li Section 16, foraging plants, 

 especially huckleberry, could be reduced if the prescribed fire bums too hot and damages 

 the root crowns. Efforts in planning and ignition patterns could reduce the risk of a hot 

 fire. Overall, the proposed project is expected to produce minimal positive effects to 

 grizzly bear habitat. 



2. Cumulative Effects 



No Action Alternative : This ahemative is not expected to alter grizzly bear use of the 

 area. 



39 



