c) Cumulative Watershed Effects-The proposed harvest and road construction would present 

 a low to moderate risk of cumulative impacts to sediment delivery by disturbing burned 

 soil. The risk of cumulative effects to sediment delivery would be reduced or eliminated 

 by placing erosion control measures in these areas. There is little risk of measurable 

 adverse impacts to downstream water quaUty and beneficial uses occurring as a result of 

 Alternative B. 



d) Soils- Tractor skidding and cable harvest could cause soil disturbance that may result in 

 increased erosion. However, we expect the indirect effea of erosion to be similar to, or 

 not substantially more than. Alternative A. Harvest mitigation measures would maintain 

 soil resources and minimize disturbance impacts by implementation of mitigation 

 measures during project activities. Mitigations include requiring winter harvest on tractor 

 (<40% slope) units, cable harvest of steep slopes and installation of erosion control 

 measures where needed. Retention of coarse (>3" in diameter) woody debris on site would 

 have long term beneficial effects on nutrient cycling, maintain long-term soil productivity 

 and reduce on-site erosion. 



e) Cold Water Fisheries- A majority of the cutthroat trout population in severely burned 

 Deer Creek was extirpated by fire effects of temperature and ash, based on a post fire fish 

 mortahty survey. Fish populations in severely burned Thompson Creek, may also be 

 affected, but are unknown. Fish habitat will be affected by increased water temperatures 

 where high intensity fire removed vegetative shade, imtil riparian areas become 

 revegetated. Implementation of Alternative B would not include logging in the SMZs, 

 thereby maintaining those (burned) trees adjacent to stream channels, which may provide 

 shade and/or coarse woody material until the SMZs re-vegetate. Erosion and sediment 

 delivery will increase in 2(X>4, largely as a restdt of the Fish Creek Complex fires, and 

 amehorate over several years. 



f) Noxious Weeds- Similar or slight increase in noxious weed density smd occurrence 

 compared to Alternative A: No Harvest (No Action) due to soil disturbance and decreased 

 tree canopy. Integrated weed management efforts would continue on the site. Control 

 efforts would promote revegetation and emphasize treatment of any new noxious weeds. 



g) Economics-Implementation of Alternative B will provide approximately $1,300,000 in 

 short-term revenue to the Common School and Public Building Trusts and does not limit 

 the DNRC's options for generating revenue from these sites in the future. 



h) Road Dust- If hauUng of logs on private lands is done concurrent with that on State Lands 

 during times when dust could be a nuisance, dust abatement would be applied by the 

 DNRC, thus lowering the presence of road dust. Speed Umits for logging trucks would be 

 established and enforced on Fish Creek and Wig Creek Roads. 



i) Recreational Site Use- Use of Fishing Access Sites (FASs) in conjunction with this project 

 would be restricted. Contractors may contact Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks to seek 

 permission to utiUze FASs. 



j) Wildlife-The proposed harvest operations present a minimal likeUhood of negative 



impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species. Those potential impacts that do exist have 



