combination with the proposed low intensity harvests, would likely have low to moderate risk of 

 negative effects on moose winter range due to reduction in closed canopy forest within 1 mile of 

 foraging habitat along Upper Willow Creek. Within the larger analysis area, proposed harvests 

 (low and mixed severity) 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, and potential creation of additional foraging habitat. 



Additionally, the proposed action alternatives would construct either 4.38 or 5.06 miles of new 

 road (Table 4-5) behind locked gates. Proposed new roads would have low risk of negative 

 effects to moose habitat because they would not add additional motorized access to hunters. 

 Proposed action alternatives would reduce the amount of closed canopied forest within moose 

 winter range along Upper Willow Creek, with Alternative D removing the least amount of closed 

 canopied forest, and Alternative C the most. However, all action alternatives are designed to 

 facilitate moose travel corridors along Beaver and Bear Creeks, along with Huepeck and 

 Arbuckle Gulches, which are areas with greater shrub coverage and lower tree densities. Thus, 

 due to reductions in closed canopy forest within the project area, proposed action alternatives 

 would likely have low to moderate risk of negative effects to moose winter range habitat within 

 the project area, with Alternative D having the least potential for negative effects, and Alternative 

 C the most. Within the analysis area, proposed action alternatives would create an interspersion 

 of new potential foraging habitat with closed canopy forest and travel corridors. Due to the 

 abundance of closed canopy forest within 1 mile of Upper Willow Creek that is outside of the 

 project area, the proposed action alternatives would likely have low risk for negative effects to 

 moose winter range habitat. 



Threatened, endangered and sensitive animal species. 



Lynx 



Alternative A— No Action 

 Project and Analysis Areas 



With no action, current conditions are not expected to change, with the exception of gradual 

 forest successional changes over time. However, the risk of stand replacing fire along with insect 

 disease infestations would increase over time. Should a fire occur it would likely result in a 

 short-term (15-20 year) cumulative positive effect for lynx because it would create early 

 successional foraging habitat. Unfortunately, a stand replacing fire could also destroy potential 

 denning habitat. Thus, under the no action alternative, creation of early successional lynx 

 foraging habitat would be contingent upon the onset of stand replacing fires or future timber 

 harvests on U. S. Forest Service lands. Risk of negative effects from direct, indirect, and 

 cumulative effects to lynx under this alternative is low. 



Alternatives B, C, and D--Harvest 

 Project and Analysis Areas 



Currently, there are and approximately 835 acres of early foraging habitat available for lynx in 



90 



