other than potential efforts to improve the somewhat limited availability of 

 security cover (Henderson and Hillis 1998). Private land management 

 activities are not likely to change on the majority of the Analysis Area. 

 Selection of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) could result in 

 increased potential risk to winter habitat if fire risk were to increase as a result 

 of increasing stand density within the Project Area. However, the close 

 proximity of fire suppression resources and the high priority of fire 

 suppression resulting from the presence of occupied residences in the Analysis 

 Area greatly reduces the likelihood of extensive fire disturbances. 



4.3.13.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No 

 Action) 



There would be no cumulative effects in the short term, and only a very minor 

 possibility of increased adverse cumulative effects in the future. 



4.3.13.3 Alternative B: Harvest - Direct and Indirect Effects 



If Alternative B: Harvest were implemented, canopy cover and stand structure 

 would be reduced within treatment units in the Project Area and 

 approximately 2.5 miles of new roads would be built thereby increasing road 

 densities. However, the no-harvest area along Deadman Gulch and a major 

 side draw would be valuable as white-tailed deer winter cover since it is 

 adjacent to south-facing slopes and would be important in severe winter 

 conditions. In addition, the no-harvest zone along the main ridge would 

 facilitate movement of animals and the untreated areas in the southeastern 

 portion of the harvest parcels would result in the retention of winter cover 

 values there. Also, the retention of large ponderosa pine trees, creation of 

 small open areas where dwarf mistletoe would be removed, and the moderate 

 retention levels in the thinned areas would result in the maintenance of some 

 level of winter cover and an improvement in winter forage values. Over time, 

 crowns would expand within the treatment area and average tree size would ' 

 increase resulting in improvements in snow intercept and thermal attributes in 

 the Project Area. 



Although roads would be built to access this Project Area, all roads would be 

 behind the main access gate shown in Project maps and mentioned in the 

 Effected Environments section above. Therefore, it is unlikely that the new 

 roads would affect the unique security attributes due to restricted vehicular 

 travel in the project area. 



The proposed treatments would decrease the competitive stress due to high 

 stocking levels, thereby reducing the risk of insect infestation and resultant 

 fire. This could result in more stable winter cover conditions. Therefore, 

 implementation of the Alternative B: Harvest would have minor short term 

 direct and indirect negative effects on big game, but could result in some long 

 term benefits to deer and elk in the Analysis Area. 



Deadman Gulch Timber Sale Environmental Assessment 4-23 



