Disturbance resulting from timber harvest activities can affect bald eagles 

 in nesting sites and winter concentration areas (MBEWG 1991). 

 However, known active nest sites are too distant (over 9.5 miles) to be 

 negatively affected by harvest activities on the Project Area and no known 

 winter concentration or communal roosting sites are located within the 

 Analysis Area. Although bald eagles would likely forage and winter 

 within 0.5 miles of the Project Area, any effects from timber harvest 

 disturbance would be minimal and ephemeral, resulting in only minimal 

 potential effects on bald eagles at the population level. 



4.3.11.1.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B: Harvest 



From a cumulative effects standpoint, there are no additional future 

 projects planned within the Analysis Area and harvesting on adjacent 

 private lands is likely to be rare over the short term (10-30 years) due to 

 the existing low merchantable stocking levels that resulted from intensive 

 past harvesting. Harvesting on federal lands to the north and northwest is 

 unlikely due to management restrictions resulting from the land 

 designation in this area (i.e. Blue Mountain Recreation Area). In 

 summary, there would be minimal to no direct, indirect or cumulative 

 effects to bald eagles as a result of implementation of the proposed 

 harvest. 



4.3.11.2 Grizzly Bears 



4.3.11.2.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) - Direct 

 and Indirect Effects 



If no harvest were to occur within the Project Area, no new roads would 

 be constructed resulting in no change in human access to potential grizzly 

 bear habitats. Cover would not be reduced over the short term, however 

 the continued reduction in stand vigor resulting from inter-tree 

 competition could increase the risk of insect and disease infestations, 

 potentially resulting in a stand replacing fire event that would reduce 

 cover values. However, the high road densities (>3 miles/sq. mile) on 

 private lands dominating the northern half of the Analysis Area and 

 surrounding the Project Area, the low quality of seasonal habitats within 

 the Project Area, the close proximity of human development, the lack of 

 grizzly bear occupancy in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, and the relative 

 isolation of the project and Analysis Areas between major highway 

 corridors greatly reduces the likelihood of use by grizzly bears, and 

 consequently there would be no effects to grizzly bears if the Alternative 

 A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) were selected. 



4.3.11.2.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest 

 (No Action) 



From a cumulative effects standpoint, adjacent private lands would likely 

 continue to be managed intensively for timber production, resulting in 



Deadman Gulch Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 4-14 



