between cutblock edges <328 yards, and no more than 14% of the entire winter range should be 

 logged during any 30 year period. Within the analysis area currently there are approximately 

 1,666 acres of the 13,383 acres of moose winter range (roughly 12.4%) in regenerating stand 

 replacement harvests. The proposed stand replacement harvests would increase this amount from 

 1% (Alt. D) to 1.5% (Alt. B). While moose habitat requires interspersion of mature forest (i.e., 

 cover) with forage-producing clearcuts to produce quality cover and forage availability (Euler 

 1981), sufficient overstory cover would be required to maintain winter shelter. There is low risk 

 that the proposed stand replacement harvests under all action alternatives would damage moose 

 winter range habitat. 



The proposed action alternatives also provide for mixed severity and low intensity harvests 

 within the project area (see Table 4-5 for acreages). Low intensity harvests would be designed 

 to thin 2 to 6 inch dbh stands of lodgepole pine to a 10 to 12 foot spacing. Currently, the low 

 intensity harvest stands have approximately 1 ,000 stems per acre and have closed canopies. 

 However, such stand structure effectively prohibits establishment of a well-developed shrub layer 

 that would benefit moose winter range forage. While the proposed thinning would open the 

 canopy of affected stands, it would also allow sunlight to stimulate forb and shrub development 

 on the forest floor, producing potential forage for moose. Additionally, all proposed actions are 

 located >100 yards from riparian zones within the project area (Beaver Creek in Section 5, Bear 

 Creek in Section 8, Huepeck Gulch in Section 17, and Arbuckle Gulch in Sections 21 and 28). 

 Such areas are higher in percent shrub coverage and have lower tree densities than surrounding 

 uplands, which make them likely avenues for moose travel corridors within the project and 

 analysis areas (Van Dyke 1995). While proposed actions of low intensity harvests could produce 

 winter forage for moose, the most effective use of affected stands by moose would likely be to 

 provide shelter from snow. In mountain areas, such as the analysis area, moose move down to 

 overwinter in river bottoms (i.e.. Upper Willow Creek) vegetated with preferred foods, such as 

 willow. Thus, moose would be more likely to seek shelter from abundant snows within closed 

 canopied forest and venture into creek bottoms to forage on willow than to seek refuge and 

 forage within dense lodgepole stands proposed for low intensity harvest. As a result, within the 

 project area, proposed low intensity harvests would likely have a low to moderate risk of 

 negative effects on moose winter range because proposed low intensity harvests would reduce the 

 amount of closed canopied forest within the project area to between 47% (Alt. C) and 69% (Alt. 

 D) and would be within 1 mile of foraging habitat along Upper Willow Creek. Within the larger 

 analysis area, proposed low intensity harvests would likely have a low risk of negative effects to 

 moose winter range due to the greater abundance of closed canopy forest within 1 mile of Upper 

 Willow Creek in the analysis area. 



Proposed mixed severity harvests would remove lodgepole pine from the affected stands, and 

 favor ponderosa pine and Douglas fir as leave trees. This proposal would leave 10 to 70% of the 

 overstory in the affected stands (DNRC stand level inventory data). Through the proposed 

 removal of portions of overstory within the affected stands, forb and shrub growth within these 

 stands would be stimulated, which would benefit moose. However, as winter range habitat, the 

 proposed mixed severity harvests could further reduce the amount of closed canopy forest 

 required for shelter from abundant snows that are in close proximity to foraging habitat (i.e.. 

 Upper Willow Creek). Thus, within the project area, proposed mixed severity harvests, in 

 89 



