operations related to this proposed action, both fire-killed and insect- 

 killed timber harvest, should grizzly bear activity be documented. Due 

 to the current absence of grizzly bear activity within the analysis area, 

 and no net increase in open road densities, there would be low risk of 

 cumulative effects to grizzly bears as a result of the proposed action. 



4.3.3.1.2 Gray Wolves 



4.3.3.1.2.1 Alternative A: Deferred Harvest (No Action) 



Three wolf packs are known to have activity centers in or near the 

 project area. Additionally, the aiea is known to be used by deer, elk, 

 and moose. As the vegetation gradually recovers from the effects of 

 the fire, succulent and highly palatable vegetation will be produced 

 that would be heavily utilized by deer, elk, and moose, which may be 

 attractive for foraging by wolves. Thus, there would be low risk of 

 direct or indirect effects to wolves as a result of this alternative. 



4.3.3.1.2.2 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A: Deferred 

 Harvest (No Action) 



Use of the analysis area by wolves is known to occur (J. Fontaine, US 

 FWS, personal communication, September 2003). With the effects of 

 the recent Fish Creek Complex Fires, the area affected by the fire will 

 gradually recover with succulent and highly palatable vegetation that 

 would be heavily utilized by big game. Much of this area does not 

 contain open roads. However, with the proposed Fish Creek Road 

 project. Thus, there would be low risk of cumulative effects to wolves 

 as a result of this alternative. 



4.3.3.1.2.3 Alternative B: Harvest 



Within the context of 2,614 acres burned on School Trust land, the 

 proposed action would harvest fire-killed trees on approximately 1,314 

 acres, much of which was stand replacement fire. Such action would 

 reduce hiding cover for wolves through removal of tree boles. While 

 areas that experienced stand replacement fire currently have open 

 understories, devoid of forbs and shrubs, tree boles do inhibit sight- 

 distance, thusly providing hiding cover (McTague and Patton 1989). 

 Much like Alternative A: No Harvest (No Action), the affected area 

 will be gradually re-vegetated through natural succession. Thus, under 

 the Alternative B: Harvest, hiding cover will likely be replaced in 

 approximately 20 years through natural vegetative succession. 

 Additionally, the proposed timber harvest is not located within 1 mile 

 of a known wolf den or rendezvous site. Thus, fire-salvage operations 

 would likely have little direct or indirect effect on wolves. 



Fish Creek Salvage Environmental Assessment 4-18 



