Grizzly Bear 



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 and insect 

 mortality would increase over time. If this type of fire occurred it would likely result in a short- 

 term (15-20 year) cumulative negative effects to grizzly bears because of reduced visual 

 screening and hiding cover, which are important habitat components to grizzly bear security. 

 Risk of negative effects from direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to grizzly bears under this 

 alternative is low. 



Alternatives B, C, and D--Harvest 

 Project and Analysis Areas 



Within the project area, for all proposed action alternatives, only two harvest units, a 73 acre 

 stand replacement harvest unit in Section 5 (present in Alternatives B and C), and a 17 acre stand 

 replacement harvest unit in Section 8 (present in all action alternatives), would create openings 

 that would be >600 feet from hiding cover. The 73-acre stand replacement unit would be 

 approximately 1,300 feet wide, and the 17-acre unit would be approximately 670 feet wide. 

 Because these two harvest units are predominately lodgepole pine and behind locked gates, the 

 units would regenerate to provide grizzly bear hiding cover within 15-20 years, and grizzly bear 

 vulnerability would not be as great as it would be if motorized access to the area were 

 unrestricted, due to the proposed harvest of these 2 units. 



Common to all action alternatives are travel corridors >100 yards wide along 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 for hiding and visual screening cover, as well as grizzly bear forage species. Retention 

 of these areas would benefit grizzly bears. 



Each action alternative would construct between 4.38 and 5.06 miles of new road, and between 

 0. 1 and 0.3 miles of temporary road, as well as reconstruct 2. 1 8 miles of road (Table 4-8). The 

 proposed road construction activities would not increase open road densities within the project or 

 analysis areas because the activities would occur behind locked gates to restrict motorized access. 

 Proposed activities would, however, increase total road densities within the project and analysis 

 areas (Table 4-8). 



92 



