amount of snags/acre suggested 

 by Thomas (1979) . Some small 

 declines in foraging and 

 nesting substrate could occur 

 in the project areas, but these 

 changes are expected to be 

 minor and not affect the 

 ability of pileated woodpeckers 

 to use the area. Small 

 openings could be produced 

 under this alternative, but 

 these openings are not expected 

 to affect pileated woodpecker 

 use of the area. 



Cumulative Effects to Pileated 

 Woodpeckers 



• Cutnulative Effects qft/ie JVo^ciion 

 Jlltemative to Pileated Woodpeckers 



No additional reductions in 

 foraging and nesting habitat 

 or movement corridors would 

 occur. 



• Cumulative t^ffects qfthe Jlction 

 t^Uemative to IHleated Woodpeckers 



Nesting and foraging substrate 

 would be removed. This would 

 be additive to the reductions 

 of deadwood by unauthorized 

 firewood cutting in the 

 analysis area, resulting in 

 decreased habitat for pileated 

 woodpeckers. Nesting and 

 foraging substrate are expected 

 to be retained and the loss of 

 dead wood to firewood cutters 

 would be limited due to the 

 increased effectiveness of 

 planned road restrictions 

 following harvesting 

 activities. If the expected 

 amount of dead wood was left on 

 site, the effects to pileated 

 woodpeckers would be minimal . 



BIG GAME 



DFWP delineated major winter ranges 

 for big game species in the State. 

 The project area lies in elk winter 

 ranges. White-tailed deer, elk, 

 mule deer, and moose use the area in 

 the nonwinter period. Typically, 

 moose winter in other areas farther 



away. The big game analysis focuses 

 on elk winter range habitat . 



The elk winter range occupies 733 

 acres of the project area and is the 

 northern finger of an 80,000-acre 

 contiguous winter range. The 

 proposed project would not alter the 

 existing condition of elk habitat, 

 and most of the project area within 

 the winter range would be harvested 

 outside the winter period. 



For cumulative effects, the project 

 area, which approximates the winter 

 home range of an elk herd, was 

 considered. Additionally, this area 

 is a northern finger of the 

 continuous winter range and was 

 analyzed as a separate winter range, 

 with acknowledgement that the entire 

 winter range lies to the south. The 

 cumulative effects area consists of 

 693 acres of State trust lands and 

 40 acres of small private ownership. 



Direct Effects to Elk 



• IHrect Ejects qfthe JVo-^ction Alternative 

 on Elk 



No additional direct effects are 

 expected. 



• Direct Effects off the Jlction Alternative on 

 Elk 



Harvesting activities during the 

 summer and winter of 2 003 could 

 displace elk. The mitigations 

 developed for grizzly bears 

 require timing restrictions for 

 units that incidentally occur in 

 the elk winter range; therefore, 

 harvesting activities in the 

 winter range could occur during 

 the winter period on all but 90 

 acres. However, no timing 

 restrictions tie the harvesting 

 of these acres to any season. An 

 additional 15 acres in the winter 

 range north of the Soup Creek 

 Road are proposed for the winter 

 period. Therefore, 15 to 105 

 acres of winter range could have 

 harvesting activity during the 

 winter period. 



Page E-16 



Wildlife Analysis 



