returning skidding large pieces of slash. 



Regarding old growth stands and components. Alternative A would have the fewest negative 

 effects, because no road would be built and post and rail thinning would not occur. Alternative 

 D would likely have the next fewest negative effects, because although more road miles would be 

 built, less area would be entered with post and rail thinning, no old growth harvested and the 

 ditch would not be repaired. Less thinning means less necessity for sawyers to fell snags or snag 

 recruits for safety or logistic considerations. Alternatives B and C would be fairly similar 

 regarding old growth resources. 



Thinning would occur in Lodgepole pine stands that are not less than 90 years old. In general, 

 because only small trees would be removed, post-and rail thinning would have no negative direct 

 and cumulative effects to old growth stands and components in the project and analysis areas. 



Cumulative Impacts 



Alternatives A & D 



Unharvested areas within the analysis area do contain old growth habitats and components. 

 Given the large amounts of unharvested and unroaded area in the analysis area, there would be 

 small cumulative negative effects to old growth stands and components by any proposed action 

 alternative. Alternative D, like A, does not propose to harvest any old growth. 



Under both of these alternatives, stands which meet the Green et al. definition of old growth 

 would be eliminated from any harvesting or road construction. In Chapter 3, Table 3-8, we 

 talked about the current age class distribution and how it is skewed toward older stands when 

 compared to the data from Losensky (1993). Losensky's data indicates that approximately 4% of 

 the lodgepole pine stands within this climatic zone should be classified as old stands. >141 years 

 old. Approximately 10% should be 101-140. Currently within the Anaconda Unit there are 

 13.4% old stands and 32.5% in the 101-old stand age category. We are substantially lacking the 

 younger age class category, age 1-40, which should comprise 34% of the State's lodgepole pine 

 stands comprises only 9.8%. 



Alternative D would allow harvesting in the 41-100 and 101 old stand age categories, which 

 would move a portion of the older stands into the 1-40 age group. This movement would 

 improve stand stability while reducing their susceptibility to insect and disease attack. 

 Alternative A would not authorize any harvesting; consequently there would not be a change in 

 age class distribution. Both Alternatives A and D would retain all stands meeting the Green et al 

 (1992) definition of old growth. This would continue the high susceptibility of these stands to 

 insect and disease attack, reduce stand stability and increase their susceptibility to stand replacing 

 fires. Acreage of old growth would be maximized while younger age classes, 1-40, would be 

 minimized. 



106 



