through stimulation of forage production for deer, elk, and moose that reside within the project 

 and analysis areas. 



Road densities likely have some influence on wolf security. 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 2. 18 miles of reconstructed road (Table 4-8). Proposed road construction 

 activities would not likely influence wolf security because open road densities within the project 

 and analysis areas would not be increased 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). 



Finally, 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. Thus, among the action 

 alternatives. Alternative D would have the least effect on wolves because it constructs the least 

 amount of road and removes the least amount of timber through stand replacement harvest. 

 Overall, each action alternative has a low risk for negative direct, indirect, and cumulative 

 negative effects to wolves. 



Black-backed woodpecker 



Alternative A—No Action 

 Project and Analysis Areas 



The analysis area for the black-backed woodpecker will encompass the project area and extend 

 for a one-mile radius from affected DNRC parcels. Under the no action alternative, no change 

 from current conditions are expected. However, current stand densities are likely to persist and 

 may attract an insect infestation or increase the risk for stand replacement fire. High tree 

 densities often promote conditions considered desirable by forest insects because the increased 

 competition from trees also increases the stress individual trees experience, making them 

 vulnerable to infestation by insects. High tree densities also increase stand replacement fire risk 

 due to the presence of ladder fuels and downed wood. Both insect infestations and post-fire 

 stands are considered desirable to black-backed woodpeckers because of abundant food sources. 

 Thus, over time, no action may benefit black-backed woodpeckers. 



Alternatives B, C, and D— Harvest 

 Project and Analysis Areas 



Black-backed woodpecker populations appear to do best where wood-boring insects are 

 increasing and in post-stand-replacement fire habitat (Setterington et al. 2000). Currently, 

 neither condition exists within the project or analysis areas. However, currently 70% of the 

 analysis area and 100% of the project area consist of dense lodgepole pine stands that could be 

 subject to insect infestation as a result of overstocking within the stand over time. Additionally, 

 as a result of current stocking within the project and analysis areas, stands would be subject to 



94 



