replacement fire and or insect mortality would increase over time and should either event occur 

 would result in a short-term (15-20 year) cumulative negative effect until elk hiding cover would 

 be restored. 



Within the EAA. short-term changes from current conditions are not expected under this 

 alternative, unless there is an insect infestation or stand replacing fire. Currently, there are 

 approximately 10,644 acres (36.6% of the EAA) in elk security habitat, due to the presence of 

 dense lodgepole pine stands and closed roads. However, there are over 2,122 acres of prior 

 harvest activity within the EAA that would be expected to regenerate into suitable elk security 

 habitat over the next 20 years. Such action would increase the amount of elk security habitat 

 within the EAA to approximately 12,766 acres (43.8% of the EAA). However, the risk of stand- 

 replacement fire or insect infestation also increases with time, and could have a negative effect 

 on elk security. 



Alternatives B, C, and D-Harvest 

 Project and Analysis Areas 



Under all three-action alternatives, overstory cover would be reduced through timber harvesting 

 (Table 4-6). Alternative D would reduce overstory cover the least, and Alternative C would 

 remove the most overstory cover. However, through both the low intensity and mixed severity 

 harvests, forage production would likely be stimulated, while retaining hiding cover. This would 

 likely benefit elk because it would reduce energy expenditures during the hunting season through 

 intermixing forage and hiding cover. Over the long term, both low intensity and mixed severity 

 harvests would likely reduce the risk of stand-replacement fire and beetle attack, because each 

 prescription would reduce (1) the density of lodgepole pine (low intensity units) and (2) ladder 

 fuels in stands with ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in the overstory (mixed severity units). As a 

 result, these units could lessen the impact future fires would have on elk hiding cover within the 

 project area. 



Stand replacement harvest units would likely provide both positive and negative effects for elk. 

 Through stand replacement harvesting, more sunlight would reach the forest floor and stimulate 

 forage production that would likely benefit local elk herds. These stand replacement units would 

 also be well interspersed with elk hiding cover and could, as a result, reduce elk energy 

 expenditures in traveling between hiding cover and foraging habitat during the hunting season. 

 However, these harvest units would also produce a short-term (15-20 years) loss of hiding cover 

 for elk until forest regeneration has sufficiently recovered to provide hiding cover. 



Regarding road construction. Alternative D would construct the least amount of new road (4.38 

 miles), and Alternatives B and C would each construct 5.06 miles of new road (Table 4-5). 

 While new road would be constructed under each action alternative, motorized access to the new 

 roads would be controlled by a locked gate on USPS road 4325, which is closed to motorized 

 access throughout the year. The locked gate would be an effective closure to motorized access, 

 thus elk security habitat would not be reduced because new road construction would not increase 

 open road density. 



86 



