some affect on direct wolf mortality, the primary concem would be related 

 to affects on big game populations in the Analysis Area. Not 

 implementing the Alternative B: Harvest would have some minor benefit 

 on wolf prey base, however the high road densities within the Analysis 

 Area, the limited concentrations of big game in the Project Area, and the 

 dispersed but extensive human development in the area immediately 

 around the Project Area would greatly reduce the value of this area for 

 wolves. Therefore, there would be no affect on wolves from the 

 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Harvest). 



43.1 U^ Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Har\est 



(No Hao est) 

 From a cumulati\'e effects standpoint the area around the Project Area is 

 dominated by private commercial forestland that is managed intensively 

 for timber fwxxiuction. This has resulted in high road densities within the 

 Analysis Area and low cover values resulting from dominance of early 

 suooessional forest types. (Juahty winter and spring/summer habitats for 

 deer and elk occur on federal laiKls'to the north and northwest, however 

 these areas are genially secure finxn management due to the existing land 

 designation (Henderson and Hillis 1998). In addition, small private land 

 holdings along the High\^ ay 93 conidor would likely continue to be 

 devekiped for human use, resulting in the potential for future effects to 

 wolf habitaL However, acti\ities within the Project Area would not likely 

 influence these conditions and hence theie is no cumulative effect on 

 wolves from Alternative A: Defened Harvest (No Action). 



4J.11Jl3 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 

 Im pl emen tation of Alternative B: Harvest would result in reductions in 

 cov^ and increases in nnd denaty. However, ynnter cover would be 

 refamed along Deadmai Goldi to mainlain impoftant winter habitats fcH^ 

 wfailD4ailed deer, cower would also be retained adong the ridge to fadlitate 

 big gpne movement, harvesting on the ri(^ and sooib-fiK^ng slopes 

 wooidactiany inocase elk focage avalabifity and thereby inqxove 



od all roads would be effectively closed to piMic 

 Consequently, any potential eflfects on wolves would 

 be mininjye d sinoe big game popaiabons (ije. wolf prey sources) are not 

 fikdy to be gready affected, hi addtfion, the diqiersed but intensive 

 kamaa dewdopmenl in the area immediaiely a djacent to the Project Area 

 ■unlilBketyiednoelbepotelialfiarcatienaveuseby wcrfves. Thevrfore. 

 there woold be littie to no efTccis on wolves as a resuh of in^>lemenling 

 thcHarwesL 



43.1 13A CmmdatKwe ESSttts «r Allcraathe B: Han est 

 C— bii¥e etkebt ii irf fi^, f i iw i tte implrii M n tation of Ahemalive B: 

 iuiiui wama be bbbbm to ■on-cjuneat one to die rxittean at ugh 

 load AerniMOrs and low cover vadues on pdvale bnds douaaataBg ibc 





