Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Little Snowy Restoration Project Big Game Report 3 security habitat is derived from Forest

Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project

Big Game Report

Prepared by:

Scott L. Reitz

Wildlife Biologist

TEAMS Enterprise

For the:

Musselshell Ranger District

Lewis and Clark National Forest

/S/Scott L. Reitz March 6, 2013

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of

program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)

720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Little Snowy Restoration Project Big Game Report

i

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Status and Background ............................................................................................................ 1 Forest Plan Direction ............................................................................................................... 1

Affected Environment ..................................................................................................................... 2 Elk ............................................................................................................................................... 2

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 2 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................. 5 Species Ecology and Background ........................................................................................... 5 Project Area Conditions .......................................................................................................... 6

Deer ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 11 Species Ecology and Background ......................................................................................... 12 Project Area Habitat .............................................................................................................. 13

Environmental Effects ................................................................................................................... 14 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 14 Direct and Indirect Effects ........................................................................................................ 15

Elk ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Deer ....................................................................................................................................... 29

Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................... 31 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 33 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans....... 35

References ..................................................................................................................................... 35

List of Tables

Table 1: Montana Open Road Density Guidelines .......................................................................... 4 Table 2: Winter Elk Counts in the Snowy Elk Management Unit

1 ................................................. 7

Table 3: Average Change in Elk Numbers in the Snowy Elk Management Unit1 .......................... 7

Table 4: Existing Elk Habitat Summary .......................................................................................... 8 Table 5: Existing Cover and Security by Analysis Area ................................................................. 8 Table 6: Existing Cover and Security by Compartment .................................................................. 8 Table 7: Existing Deer Habitat ...................................................................................................... 13 Table 8: Alternative Treatments .................................................................................................... 16 Table 9: Wildlife Project Design Features .................................................................................... 17 Table 10: Open Road Density by Analysis Area ........................................................................... 21 Table 11: Hunting Season Security by Alternative ....................................................................... 21 Table 12: Effective Hiding Cover

1 ................................................................................................ 24

Table 13: Habitat Effectiveness (Summer Range Security)1 ......................................................... 25

Table 14: Alternative Elk Security ................................................................................................ 25

List of Figures

Figure 1: Existing Elk Habitat ....................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2: Existing Deer Habitat ..................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3: Alternative 2 Elk Habitat ............................................................................................... 23 .


1

Introduction

Status and Background

The Lewis and Clark National Forest (LCNF) Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986, page 2-

37) identifies elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, black bear, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, and

mountain lion as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the category of Commonly Hunted

Wildlife. Bighorn sheep and mountain goat do not occur within the Little Snowies (LS) project

area. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) (MFWP 2011a) lists black bear, whitetail deer,

mule deer, and elk with a state rank of S5, and mountain lion with a state rank of S4. Definitions

of the state ranks are as follows

S5 – Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range). Not

vulnerable in most of its range.

S4 - Uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range), and usually

widespread. Apparently not vulnerable in most of its range, but possibly cause for long term

concern.

The five species of big game MIS found within the Little Snowy (LS) mountains utilize a variety

of habitats, although many of their preferred habitats and food preferences overlap. Of the five

species of commonly hunted big game in the LS project area, elk and deer populations are the

most closely monitored (due to their value as a game animal), and some of the most researched

(Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study of 1970-1985, Starkey Experimental Forest). In

addition, habitat needs for elk and deer cover the range of habitats for the other species. For these

reasons, this report will use elk and deer as a surrogate to discuss habitat impacts for all big game

MIS species.

Forest Plan Direction

The goals, objectives, standards, management practices and monitoring and evaluation

requirements comprise the Plan’s management direction (USDA Forest Service 1986). The

following is a summary of Forest Plan goals, objectives and standards related to big game.

Programs will be conducted to provide for huntable and trapable populations of small

game and furbearers and viable populations of other existing wildlife and fish

species.(USDA FS 1986 p. 2-5).

To maintain elk habitat an annual program of habitat improvements will be conducted.

Emphasis will center on prescribed burning on the winter range and a road management

program to decrease human disturbance (USDA FS 1986 p. 2-6).

With the exception of riparian zones that are listed as Management Area (MA) R, all of the

LS Mountain restoration project occurs in Management Area “T”, as defined in USDA FS

1993a. The following is a discussion of Forest Plan direction for MA’s T and R related to big

game.

Management Area T


2

Emphasis includes providing a mosaic of different vegetative successional stages for

habitat diversity within a ponderosa pine forest to ensure the welfare of a variety of

indigenous wildlife and plant species (USDA FS 1993a p. 2).

While elk and their habitat are important, due to their uniqueness on the LCNF, other

wildlife such as white-tail deer and turkey rank higher (USDA FS 1993a p. 2).

Management will provide for quality habitat for white-tail deer, turkey, old growth and

snag dependent species. Hunting and viewing wildlife will be important features of the

area.

Standards include maintaining or enhancing important wildlife habitat, big game winter

ranges, calving/fawning areas, raptor nest sites and significant nongame habitat (USDA

FS 1993b p. 3-96). Specific management includes:

o Maintain effective hiding cover percentages by timber compartment at an

average of 40 percent with a minimum of 35 percent (or the natural level if less

than 35 percent) for any individual sub-compartment (USDA FS 1986 pp. 22-23.

Exceptions to these percentages are permissible if a benefit for wildlife is

demonstrated (USDA FS 1993b).

o Maintaining areas free from motorized use will be positively managed through

area and road restrictions and other necessary controls on resource activities

(USDA FS 1986).

Management Area R

Maintain or enhance important wildlife and fish habitat. Important habitat includes; T&E

species habitat, big game winter ranges, calving or lambing areas, migration routes, elk

summer-fall ranges, raptor nest sites, and significant non-game wildlife habitat.

Affected Environment

Elk

Methodology

The methodologies used to assess elk habitat were developed largely to measure elk vulnerability,

which is the relationship between elk and land management practices, combined with the demand

for elk hunting and non-hunting experiences. Also elk vulnerability varies by season and the

discussion of existing elk habitat and environmental effects focus on changes on summer range

(non-hunting season) and security habitat (hunting season). Forest Plan direction related to

evaluating elk habitat is summarized above. Specific measures used to assess potential effects to

elk include changes in elk hiding cover, habitat effectiveness (non-hunting season), elk security

(hunting season) and open road density. Also elk are analyzed as multiple scales and the analysis

area varies by the habitat value or criteria analyzed. Specific areas analyzed as well as a more

detailed description of the individual measures used to evaluate elk habitat are discussed below.

Elk documentation is based on elk herd unit information provided in the Montana Fish, Wildlife

and Parks elk management plan (MFWP 2004) and subsequent winter surveys (MFWP 2008,

Winter Survey Summary 2011.xls). Baseline habitat including summer and winter range and


3

security habitat is derived from Forest GIS data, which is based on Region 1 VMAP data. As

described in USDA FS (2009), elk hiding cover is based on percentages of PI types which meet

the cover definition as determined by the Montana Cooperative Elk/Logging Study (Elk/Logging

Study). Road density information is derived from the LCNF INFRA database.

Montana Cooperate Elk-logging Study Recommendations

The recommendations of the Elk-Logging Study are found in Coordinating Elk and Timber

Management – Final Report of the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study 1970-1985 (Lyon et

al 1985). The management recommendations are reprinted in Appendix F of the Forest Plan

(Appendices F-1 to F-10). Beginning in 1970 interagency cooperative research on the relationship

between elk and logging activities in western Montana was begun. Research was directed by a

committee of individuals from the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; University of Montana;

USDI Bureau of Land Management; and Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. The

recommendations from this collaborative group were directed toward minimizing adverse effects

on elk populations from timber sales and are discussed below.

Effective Hiding Cover

The Forest Plan requires an analysis of effective big game hiding cover. Management Area T

standards further state that effective hiding cover will be maintained on a minimum of 40 percent

of each compartment with a 35 percent minimum for each sub-compartment, unless exceptions

result in a demonstrated benefit to wildlife.

A full description of the methodology for completing the big game cover analysis is found in

USDA FS (2009). The Forest Plan (USDA FS 1986, Glossary page 5) states that effective hiding

cover is based on percentages of PI types which meet this definition as determined by the

Montana Cooperative Elk/Logging Study (Elk/Logging Study). The Elk/Logging Study

measured effective hiding cover in the field using a cut out of an elk (USDA Forest Service 1982,

pages 72 to 89). Stand characteristics were noted where hiding cover measurements were taken.

The study then developed rules that equated PI types (from stand characteristics) to effective

hiding cover percentages. Effective hiding cover for the analysis area is determined by

multiplying the acres of each PI type by the percent cover in the Montana Rule, adding up the

acres with cover, and dividing by the total acres in the analysis area.

Effective hiding cover is analyzed based on direction in USDA FS 2012, which summarizes the

Forest process used to evaluate big game cover. As described, for areas such as the Little Snowy

Mountain Restoration (LS) project that occur near the Forest boundary, much of the affected

watershed(s) include elk winter range and large amounts of private land. As a result and in order

to focus analysis on elk summer/fall habitat, the HUC 7 watershed that contains the majority of

the summer habitat within the project area is utilized to assess hiding cover. For the LS

restoration project watershed 10040202010101, which totals approximately11,270 acres is used

to evaluate effective hiding cover. Additionally, in order to evaluate Forest Plan compliance for

MA T (described above), effective hiding cover is also evaluated across the project area and by

compartment and sub-compartment.

Security Habitat (Hunting Season)

Elk Security is defined by Lyon and Christensen (1992) as “the protection inherent in any

situation that allows elk to remain in a defined area despite an increase in stress or disturbance

associated with the hunting season or other human activities.” When security is inadequate, elk


4

become increasingly vulnerable to harvest. Hillis et al (1991) provided guidelines for managing

elk security and limiting elk vulnerability during the hunting season. The key concept is to

provide secure areas for elk during the hunting season where they are less vulnerable to harvest.

Secure habitats are defined as non-linear areas of hiding cover greater than 250 acres in size and

greater than ½ mile from an open road. Hillis et al (1991) generally recommend that secure elk

habitat should comprise greater than 30 percent of an analysis area. However it was also noted

that this 30 percent recommendation should be used with caution and local considerations such as

vegetative characteristics should be used when evaluating elk security. Access to private land is

also a consideration and Burcham et al. (1999) concluded where posted private lands occur within

a herd unit, many elk may move to private land during the hunting season, regardless of the

availability of large blocks of security on public lands.

Elk security is evaluated across watershed (7th order HUC 10040202010101), as well as across

the project area.

Road Density

Management Area

The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986, pages 3-3 to 3-100 and summarized in Appendix O)

specifies road management direction by Management Area. The Little Snowy project area occurs

within Management Areas T which includes direction to provide a low level of public access,

which is defined as up to 1.5 miles per square mile. In the Little Snowies Vegetative Management

and Public access Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 1993a) and

Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1993b), the density of roads open to motorized vehicle

travel was analyzed across the entire Management Area. The Record of Decision shows that the

standard was met for Management Area T (USDA Forest Service 1993b, page 10).

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Policy

The Montana Fish and Game Commission Policy is concerned with public access during the

hunting season, and applies to roads open from October 15 through November 30. Because elk

exhibit a flight response to motorcycles and ATVs similar to their response to full-sized motorized

vehicles, and because motorized trails allow public access, the miles of motorized route (road and

trail) open from October 15 through November 30 was calculated. The road policy further

recommends that an analysis area of a timber sale boundary or a compartment be used and open

road densities were calculated for the three compartments that make up the project area including

compartments 601, 602 and 603. Specific recommendations are included in Table 1. State

guidelines also recommend that calving grounds and nursery areas should be closed to motorized

public use during periods of peak use by elk and all winter range areas should be closed to

motorized public use between December 1 and May 15.

Table 1: Montana Open Road Density Guidelines

Existing Percent Hiding Cover1 Road Density Range

80 0.0-2.4 mi/mi2

70 0.0-1.9 mi/mi2

60 0.0-1.2 mi/mi2

50 0.0-0.1 mi/mi2

1Hiding cover is defined as any timber stand with 40 percent or more crown canopy coverage.


5

Habitat Effectiveness (Non-hunting Season Security)

Habitat Effectiveness refers to the percentage of available habitat that is usable by elk outside the

hunting season (Lyon and Christensen 1992). Based on recent scientific findings (Wisdom and et

al 2005) all motorized routes (including ATV and motorcycle trails) open during the period from

June 30 to August 31 were used to calculate habitat effectiveness. While the Forest Plan (USDA

Forest Service 1986) does not include a standard for habitat effectiveness, Christensen et al

(1993) recommends that habitat effectiveness in areas where elk are one of the primary

considerations such as the Little Snowies should be 50 percent or greater (i.e. an open road

density of approximately 1.85 miles per square mile).

Lyon (1983) recommends that an analysis area should be at least 3,000 acres and Habitat

effectiveness is evaluated across the project area, as well as the 7th Order HUC, or watershed.

Habitat Effectiveness in Hunting District 530, which encompasses the Little Snowies Project

boundary, was not determined for the Little Snowies Vegetative Management and Public Access

(travel management) decision (USDA Forest Service 1993).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects (CE) are evaluated by looking at past, present and foreseeable future activities

that could adversely affect big game when considered cumulatively over time. The primary

factors of change include timber harvest, insect and disease related tree mortality, private land

activities, and grazing. A complete list of past, on-going and future activities can be found in the

project file.

Spatial Boundary

The cumulative effects analysis area includes; 1) all lands within the project area, 2) all lands

within approximately 0.75 miles of the project boundary and 3) portions of the 7th order HUC or

watershed that falls outside of the ¾ mile buffer. This area totals approximately 28,700 acres and

was selected because 1) it includes all lands affected by treatment, 2) it is large enough to include

areas utilized throughout the year by elk, without including large amounts of non-forested winter

range, 3) forested conditions in this area are characteristic of the surrounding landscape and 4),

this area can be used to evaluate private land influences that may affect distribution and use of the

area by elk.

Temporal Boundary

Effects of past actions are included in the 2011 baseline conditions discussed, whereas most

future effects go out for approximately 10 years from the time the project begins implementation,

which is the period of time when all of the proposed treatments are expected to be implemented,

as well as the time when future projects can be reasonably predicted.

Species Ecology and Background

Elk are considered habitat generalists that are mobile, adaptive and wide ranging. They occur in a

variety of habitats ranging from high mountainous areas to highly managed forests to cold deserts

(Slovlin et al 2002). Elk prefer early successional plant communities that result from

disturbances. They also use coniferous forests and interspersed openings such as alpine

meadows, open parks, aspen parklands or brushy regenerating forest (USDA FS 2011b). Summer

range includes upper-elevation lands that elk typically migrate to in summer following snowmelt.

New grasses and forbs within forested communities provide the necessary summer food and


6

cover requirements for elk. In addition, some research indicates that the quality of summer range

is one of the more important variables when determining annual variation in herd growth.

Winter range includes lower-elevation lands that provides hiding and security cover. Densely

wooded lowlands and north/northeast-facing slopes provide valuable hiding cover, whereas drier,

more open south/southwest-facing slopes provide available forage. Since human disturbance

causes elk to expend more energy, lack of disturbance is also an important factor associated with

good winter habitat (NRCS 1999).

Transition range is used by elk when migrating between summer and winter range, and is

commonly made up of habitats such as Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, aspen and other communities

intermixed with grassland or shrub communities. These transitional range habitats provide forage

needed by elk to build fat reserves in the fall and to support calving in the spring. Since winter

range forage quality is typically poor, transitional range can be extremely important in sustaining

elk populations (NRCS 1999).

Maintaining elk security requires adequate hiding cover be available and human disturbances

minimized during both hunting and non-hunting seasons. Security areas provide protection from

predators and enables individuals to safely rest periodically throughout the day. Security and

hiding cover are most important during calf rearing and hunting seasons. Also fallen logs and

woody material on the forest floor is important for providing what is frequently the only cover

available for newborn calves. Elk are not particular about the types of vegetation that provide

security, as long as it conceals the animals.

Elk require water on a daily basis and consume it from open water sources such as springs, lakes,

wetland ponds, rivers and streams. Riparian areas can also be important and studies in Montana

(Marcum 1975, 1976 In Thomas 1979) indicate that elk make disproportionate use of areas within

1,050 feet of water.

Project Area Conditions

Elk Populations and Use

Montana is broken down into 35 EMUs that were established based on similar ecological

characteristics, with each generally encompassing the yearlong range of a major elk population.

The LS project area is included in the Snowy EMU, including lands within Hunting Districts

(HD) 530 and 411 as defined in the Montana Elk Plan (MFWP 2004).

A large portion of the occupied elk habitat within the Snowy EMU is comprised of privately

owned land, which has the majority of the year-round elk use, although a network of NFS roads

in the Little Snowy Mountains provides good access to public land. The elk population objective

within this portion of the Snowy EMU is 800 animals (MFWP 2004). Tables 2 and 3 display

winter survey numbers and the three year running average of the winter survey data within the

Snowy EMU respectively.

During the winter of 2002-2003, 874 elk were observed in the Little Snowy Mountains and

observed elk numbers throughout this EMU had steadily increased and almost doubled in 10

years, with the most significant increases in the Big and Little Snowy Mountains (MFWP 2004).

Winter surveys in 2008 documented 2,248 animals, which is over twice the population objective.

While surveyed elk numbers in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 were down, not all areas were surveyed


7

(See Table 2) and elk numbers were still over twice the objective in 2011. Although numbers are

variable across the EMU and access influenced elk numbers (MFWP 2011a).

Table 2: Winter Elk Counts in the Snowy Elk Management Unit1

Hunting

District

Objective 2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-

20082

2009-2010

2010-2011

411

800

713 771 739 812 1,114

511 121 12 68 25 27

530 745 760 924 883 1007

Total 1,579 1,543 1,731 1,720 2,248 1,5983 1,784

3

1 –Counts based on post-season aerial trend (Winter) surveys

2 – No surveys were conducted for 2008-2009

3 – Surveys included hunting districts 411 and 511, but not 100 percent of all areas

Table 3: Average Change in Elk Numbers in the Snowy Elk Management Unit1

Objective Range 2004-

2006

2005-

2007

2006

-2008

2007-

2009

2008-

20010

2009-

2011

800 640-960 1,617 1,664 1,899 1,984 1,9232 1691

2

1 –3 year Running Average,

2 - Surveys included hunting districts 411 and 511, but not 100 percent of all areas

The most significant management challenge related to meeting harvest and population objectives

is to increase hunter access on private land. However at current hunter numbers and access levels,

increasing the quantity and or quality of elk habitat on public lands is necessary if elk are to be

drawn off the large privately owned ranches and hold them. Management objectives include 1)

habitat manipulation on public lands to encourage elk use, 2) utilize prescribed fire and timber

harvest where appropriate to enhance elk habitat on public lands 3) provide for increased elk

security on public land, 4) protect and enhance elk winter range including increasing the

availability of forage on public land (MFWP 2004).

Elk are common across the project area, with most use occurring from spring through fall. Elk

foraging during this period is associated primarily with interior bunchgrass communities

interspersed with forest. Elk use is heaviest (moderate to heavy) on the spring range along

breakland/foothill habitats and along the southern edge of the project and CE analysis areas.

Otherwise elk use is light to moderate, with locally use associated with grasslands and aspen.

The availability of bunchgrass habitats along the southern margin of the analysis area is also

considered elk calving habitat (USDA FS 2009).

Elk Habitat

As described above, elk are evaluated at multiple scales including the project area, watershed and

cumulative effect (CE) area. Table 4 summarizes existing landcover, ownership and seasonal

range conditions within these areas, whereas Tables 5 and 6 summarize Forest Plan and Montana

Elk Logging Study compliance related to elk cover and security discussed above, whereas Figure

2 displays existing habitat conditions.


8

Table 4: Existing Elk Habitat Summary

Characteristic (units)

Analysis Area Boundary

Watershed Project

Area

CE

Area

Units % Units % Units %

Landcover

Conifer (acres) 9,154 81 12,689 86 21,607 86

Aspen (acres) 34 <1 49 <1 155 1

Grassland/Meadow (acres) 2,032 18 1,920 13 6,532 23

Shrub (acres) 35 <1 71 1 307 1

Ownership

National Forest (acres) 7,024 63 13,098 89 13,505 47

Private (acres) 3,828 34 1634 11 14,723 49

Bureau of Land Management (acres) 111 1 5 <1 434 2

State of Montana (acres) 309 3 0 0 504 2

Total Size (acres) 11,272 100 14,737 100 28,717 100

Canopy Closure1

Closed Canopy (>=40%) 7,781 69 10,795 73 17,335 62

Open Canopy (<40% 3,492 31 3,942 27 10,982 38

Seasonal Range

Elk Summer Range (acres) 11,272 100 13,723 93 25,537 89

Elk Winter Range (acres) 0 0 1,014 7 3,180 11

1 – Forested stands only

Table 5: Existing Cover and Security by Analysis Area

Category Recommended

Existing

Condition

Meets

Recommendation

Watershed Project

area

CE

Area Watershed

Project

area

CE

Area

Security Habitat 30 percent 13% 7% 12% No No No

Habitat Effectiveness 50 percent 62% 56% 64% Yes Yes Yes

Effective Hiding Cover1 40 percent 38% 38% 38% No No No

Hunting Season Security

2

See Table 1 69%

0.9 mi/mi3

73%

1.3 mi/mi3

62%

0.7 mi/mi3

Yes Yes Yes

1-Hiding cover based on PI value

2 – Hiding cover based on canopy closure

3 - Open road density of all roads

Table 6: Existing Cover and Security by Compartment

Value Measure Recommended 601 602 603

Hiding Cover1 (%)

Hunting Season

Security See Table 1

78 69 70

Open Road Density (mi/mi2) 1.0 1.6 1.3

Meet Recommendation Yes No Yes

Effective Hiding Cover 2(%) Non-Hunting

Season Security 40%

393 38

3 36

3

Meet Recommendation No No No


9

1 – Hiding cover based on canopy closure

2 – Hiding cover based on PI value

3 - Although not displayed, not all sub-compartments meet the 35% recommended threshold

4 – Road density based on FS roads

Summer and Winter Range

Elk summer range occurs on all of the watershed and 93 percent of the project area with most of

the analysis areas consisting largely of ponderosa pine communities interspersed with meadows

and grasslands. Predominantly aspen stands and shrub openings also each occur on approximately

one percent of the area, and smaller aspen inclusions are scattered throughout. Within forest

communities closed canopy (>40 percent crown closure) conditions predominate. The watershed

contains a much larger private land component and due private lands along Willow Creek, a

larger non-forest component. The absence of fire has resulted in increased conifer regeneration,

resulting in a progression from single-storied to multi-storied stands and a reduction in

openings/grasslands within all areas. So while elk cover conditions have increased, available elk

forage conditions have been reduced.

Historically (e.g. 1885) open ponderosa pine savannahs occurred on approximately 70 percent of

the Little Snowy Mountains, whereas dense ponderosa pine stands were restricted to two percent.

Due to the absence of fire and conifer encroachment by 1990, savannah habitat had been reduced

to six percent, whereas dense ponderosa pine stands had increased to almost 60 percent (USDA

FS 1992). These trends have continued and have resulted in increased understory cover and a

widespread reduction in preferred herbaceous and shrub forage species within forested stands.

Meadows and grasslands occur on approximately 18 and 13 percent of the watershed and project

area respectively including large meadows on summer and winter range, as well as numerous

small meadows interspersed throughout forested stands. Historically, perennial bunch grasses

dominated these meadows along with a well-represented shrub component interspersed

throughout. However as conifers invaded, they began to kill back the grass component, and

reduce shrub diversity. Today analysis area meadows are declining and conifer encroachment has

expanded to a level where much of the shrubs have been lost and a juniper monoculture

dominates the understory in many stands.

Aspen historically occurred on over 400 acres of the Little Snowy Mountains. However due to

conifer encroachment by 1990 aspen had declined by almost 40 percent (USDA FS 1992). While

small aspen inclusions within conifer stands are common and some young aspen has been created

from past harvest, due to continued conifer encroachment, overbrowsing by deer and elk, and

susceptibility to insect and disease, aspen has continued to decline. (USDA FS 2011a). In the

absence of future disturbances that would control conifer and promote aspen regeneration, this

decline is expected to continue.

Elk winter range occurs on approximately seven percent of the project area along its southern

boundary, with most of it occurring on private lands (See Figure 1). Due to fire suppression and

conifer encroachment, like summer range, cover conditions on elk winter range are increasing

while winter range foraging habitat is being reduced. Transition habitat, or spring/fall range

occurs largely on NFS lands adjacent to winter habitat.

Hiding Cover

The Forest Plan requires that EHC be maintained on a minimum of 40 percent of each

compartment and 35 percent of each sub-compartment. As shown in Table 6, none of the three

project area compartments contain the 40 percent minimum. When evaluated by sub-


10

compartment, 16 of the 20 sub-compartments meet the 35 percent minimum whereas four do not.

While there is no Forest Plan standard for EHC by analysis area, as shown in Table 5, EHC also

falls below 40 percent when viewed across the project area, watershed or CE area.

Security Habitat

It is recommended that at least 30 percent of the project area or watershed contain security habitat

or lands greater than ½ mile from an open road. Due largely to the open road density on NFS

lands, as well as open roads on private along drainages, available security habitat currently falls

below this recommendation within all analysis areas. As can be seen from Figure 1, existing

security habitat occurs mainly along the perimeter of the project area, although a 1,300 acre block

occurs south of Willow Creek in the center of the project area.

As described above, elk security and vulnerability are also assessed by looking at the relationship

between hiding cover and road density during the hunting and non-hunting seasons. As shown in

Tables 5 and 6, habitat effectiveness or non-hunting season security exceeds the 50 percent

recommendation, whereas hunting season security complies with Montana Elk Logging Study

guidelines for all analysis areas.


11

Figure 1: Existing Elk Habitat

Deer

Methodology

Due to the variety of forest and non-forest communities utilized, virtually all of the LS restoration

project area provides suitable deer habitat. As a result existing deer habitat is summarized by

cover type and size class or successional stage which were identified using R1 Vmap data. Like

elk, effects are evaluated by looking at changes in forage conditions on summer, winter and


12

transition range and possible changes in herd health and recruitment. For the purpose of this

analysis, available deer cover is expected to be similar to that described for elk.

Both white-tailed and mule deer are evaluated across the project area. This area was selected

because; 1) it includes habitat utilized year-round by deer, 2) it includes all lands proposed for

treatment and 3) conditions are representative of those across the landscape.

Species Ecology and Background

Deer utilize a variety of forest and non-forest communities, although the composition of deer

diets reflects the availability of vegetation types and plant species within its home range. Also

both mule deer and white-tailed deer will seek out high quality, easily digested plant material

(Mackie et al 1998). White-tailed deer are primarily browsers during summer and autumn,

although grasses were selected in the spring, while forbs were utilized in summer and fall. As

meadows and low elevation sites begin to dry and forage matures, deer often move to higher

elevations (Mackie et al 1998). Whitetail deer generally use drainages and riparian bottoms with

denser vegetation on both summer and winter range (MNHP 2011). Winter habitats selected by

whitetails are often characterized by an interspersion of forested riparian areas and diverse, sub-

climax coniferous forest. These habitat complexes are located in foothill and lower valley areas

and provide overhead cover to maintain the snow and thermal conditions whitetails require, while

also providing an opportunity to forage (Mackie et al 1998).

Mule deer are found in the mountains and foothills of Montana, being widely distributed in forest

and subalpine habitats in summer and moving to low elevation, open, shrub covered hillsides in

the winter. Browse from shrubs is an important year-round food source, although some use of

forbs occurs in the summer. Grass is only a minor part of the diet of mule deer (MNHP 2011). As

a result they use a wide variety of habitats from open to dense montane and subalpine coniferous

forests, aspen, shrub communities and brushy areas. In summer they are widely distributed in

forest and subalpine habitats, and in winter use lower-elevation, open, shrub-dominated areas

(MNHP 2011).

Optimum mule deer habitat contain a mixture of forage and cover habitat that is well interspersed

and generally, a mixture of 40 percent cover and 60 percent forage is considered optimum

(Thomas 1979; Knight 2011). Available cover should include a combination of hiding, thermal

and fawn rearing cover. Because deer cover and forage requirements are very similar to elk, the

discussion of preferred hiding cover and forage for elk, would also apply to mule deer. However

because deer are smaller, the height and density of vegetation suitable for cover (hiding and

thermal) would be less than that required by elk (Thomas 1979). Also like elk, deer require water

(particularly on summer range) (Julander 1966 in Thomas 1979) and optimum habitat occurs

within approximately 0.5 mile of water (Mackie 1970 in Thomas 1979). Consequently riparian

areas can be particularly important.

While deer numbers and herd health are affected by a number of factors, forage is often most

limiting on carrying capacity (Knight 2011), particularly on mule deer winter range. Equally

important to forge quantity is forage quality and reproduction and animal condition is best

maintained if high quality (i.e., nutritious and palatable) forage is available. As a result, a

combination of herbaceous and woody vegetation needs to be available. Due to the importance of

browse, it is important to maintain a component of younger shrubs since older shrubs become

decadent, and late summer and fall habitats are important for over-winter survival and fawn

production.


13

Project Area Habitat

As described above, mule and white-tailed deer habitat is evaluated across the project area and

existing habitat is summarized in Table 7 and displayed in Figure 2.

Table 7: Existing Deer Habitat

Habitat Project Area

Acres %

Forest 12,737 86

Non-forest 2,000 14

Mule Deer Winter Range 2,071 14

Mule Deer Summer Range 12,666 86

Forested Size Class1

<4.9 inches dbh 508 4

5-9.9 inches dbh 6,720 53

10-14.9 inches dbh 4,855 38

>=15 inches dbh 606 5

1 – percent of forested habitat

2 – The entire project area is considered year-long habitat for white-tailed deer

Deer summer range occurs primarily as conifer forest (86%), with approximately 73 percent

having a relatively closed canopy (See Figure 2). However meadows and grasslands are

interspersed throughout the area and overall the area provides a diversity of habitat conditions.

While much of the analysis area is utilized year-round by deer, mule deer winter range occurs on

approximately 14 percent of the area. This includes south-facing slopes as well as lower elevation

meadows/shrublands and open conifer stands. On average, it is estimated that the mule deer to

white-tail deer ratio on NFS lands within the Little Snowies is about 70:30. White-tail use the

South Bench area the most, which is on the northern edge of the project area near hardwoods on

north aspect slopes going down to Flatwillow Creek. Some white-tail and mule deer wintering

also occurs on NFS lands some years, depending on snow conditions (Tom Stivers personal

communication). Also browse availability increases and available shrubland/meadows and open

canopy forest increases on deer winter range.

Like elk, the increased conifer encroachment is increasing understory cover, while decreasing

shrub, herbaceous and hardwood (aspen) forage across the analysis area. Mountain Pine Beetle

(MPB) mortality has been increasing in the northern third of the area. While there is likely to be

localized increases in forage in areas where the canopy has been opened up through MPB

mortality, this increase would be short term due to the development of regenerating conifer.

Montana’s deer populations are variable. While whitetail deer are numerous north of the analysis

area, mortality related to epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) has been occurring along the

Musselshell River and its tributaries to the south. Also mule deer numbers have been reduced for

the last two to three years due to severe winter weather and a wet spring, which have reduced

fawn recruitment (MFWP 2011b).


14

Figure 2: Existing Deer Habitat

Environmental Effects

Methodology The methodology used for analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects is described above.

Information used in the effects analysis includes aerial photographs, stand exam data, Northern

Region Vegetation Mapping Project (R1-VMAP) data, field surveys and photos, data collected


15

from project field visits and cited research literature. Because this assessment involves a multi-

scale analysis, Geographical Information System (GIS) coverage’s and data sets for vegetation

stand and landscape characteristics, past management activities, wildfire activity, and FVS

modeling were collectively used to assess anticipated effects.

Changes in EHC were determined using the procedure outlined in the big game cover analysis

process (USDA FS 2012). As described, habitat categories are determined largely from stand

height and stocking. Affected stands were modeled using FVS and stand conditions were

predicted for various points in the future. Modeled parameters included live and dead (snags)

trees per acre by size class and canopy closure. For the purpose of this analysis, stands with >70

percent canopy closure were considered well stocked stands, sites between 40 and 69 percent

canopy closure were considered moderately stocked stands and sites with <40 percent canopy

closure were considered poorly stocked stands. Changes in EHC were based on the post-

treatment stocking conditions and the vegetation classification descriptions in USDA FS 2012.

For example a well-stocked stand (>70 percent) that had a post treatment canopy closure of less

than 40 percent, was changed to a poor stocking condition, whereas a post-treatment stocking of

between 40 and 70 was given a moderately stocked Pi cover value. In addition, and in order to

better reflect understory changes, the Pi value was reduced another category on sites that received

a mastication or hand treatment.

Changes in Montana Fish and Game hiding cover (based on canopy closure) were determined by

subtracting the total acres by compartment that fall below 40 percent canopy cover in the year

2016 (based on FVS modeled outputs) from the existing compartment total of lands with >40

percent canopy cover.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Elk

Alternative 1 (No Action)


Road Density and Cover

Because there would be no treatments under this alternative, open road densities and habitat

effectiveness would be unchanged. Similarly, changes in elk hiding cover would only result due

to naturally occurring disturbances. However MPB mortality is expected to occur on

approximately 5,000 acres and of this, 4,256 acres are in a high hazard category. As a result it is

estimated that ponderosa pine mortality would occur on 70 percent of the trees in the 5.0 to 9.9

inch size class and 80-90 percent of the 10 inch dbh or larger trees and that elk hiding cover

would be reduced on the affected acres (29 percent of the project area). This reduction would

vary over time and in the short-term (@10 years) standing dead trees would continue to provide

cover. However as trees die, the large amount of jack-strawed downed wood would reduce access

for both elk and deer. Additionally over the long-term (>10 years) overstory conditions would be

reduced and in areas where mortality is concentrated, it is likely that affected stands would be

poorly stocked, reducing EHC. The actual changes due to beetle activity are dependent on

weather and cannot be accurately predicted at this time. However due to the reduced stocking

and access, elk hiding cover and use would be reduced under this alternative.


16

Wildfire Risk

Due to the continued suppression of fire, increasing levels of ladder and surface fuels and

considering that MPB mortality would continue to increase dead wood (84-92 percent of the

ponderosa pine stands in a high hazard rating, (USDA FS 2011b), the risk of wildfire would

increase. If wildfires occurred, approximately half of the project area would experience flame

lengths greater than 4 ft. in height and the likelihood of crown fires would be between 57 and

75% depending on moisture and wind conditions. As a result, the likelihood of a high intensity

stand replacing wildfire is greatest under this alternative.

Forage Availability

While there would be some increase in forage as trees die and open up the canopy, any increases

in herbaceous vegetation would be short-term in nature (5-10 years) due to conifer encroachment

in the understory. Similarly herbaceous forage in openings would continue to decline. So while

forage would be largely unchanged in the short term, in the absence of large stand replacing

disturbances and with continued conifer encroachment, it is expected that herbaceous (grasses

and forbs) vegetation and shrubs utilized by both elk and deer would continue to decline.

Historic Vegetation

In general under this alternative, forest conditions described in the existing condition section

would persist. These conditions have led to a shift from historic conditions, including increasing

stand density, loss of openings and grasslands, a shift in composition from ponderosa pine to

Douglas-fir, a reduction in aspen. Collectively these changes have resulted in a more

homogenous landscape. Effects to elk include increased cover and a continued decline in forage,

which would displace elk in some areas and affect local distribution and use.

Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3)

Treatments

Treatments proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 are displayed in Table 8, whereas a description of

the treatments is provided below. Anticipated effects of the action alternatives are based on

implementation of project design features (PDF’s) which are designed to reduce potential impacts

to elk and other wildlife. Project PDF’s are summarized in Table 9.

Table 8: Alternative Treatments

Treatments Alt 2 Alt 3

Ac. %2 Ac. %

2

Activity

Burn Only 4,190 32 6,792 51

Hand Treat and Burn

1,318 10

4,742

39 Hand Treat, Pile and Burn 246

Hand Treat and Pile 47

Mastication 2,101 16 0 0

Mechanical Removal 5,250 40 0 0

Total Treatment 12,859 98 11,827 90

Total Burning 4,739 36 11,780 89

Objective

Dry Ponderosa Pine Restoration 11,873 90 10,691 81


17

Treatments Alt 2 Alt 3

Ac. %2 Ac. %

2

Meadow Restoration 7561 6 960

1 7

Aspen Enhancement 2241 2 175

1 1

1 –includes additional acres under dry pine restoration

2 – percent of NFS land within the project area

Table 9: Wildlife Project Design Features

Reference Design Feature Unit Target

Species/ Habitat

Snags and Wildlife Trees

Plan 2-35 Retain all soft snags unless they pose a safety or fire hazard. All

PDF

Due to the importance of large diameter hard snags for wildlife, with the exception of trees near roads, trails or high use recreation sites, or where public or operator safety and facility protection is necessary, all snags greater than or equal to 20 inches dbh should be retained. In areas of concentrated mortality retain a minimum of 2, 20 inch dbh or larger snags per acre.

All

Snag Dependent

Wildlife

Plan 2-36 Where feasible, protect snags >20 inches dbh that do not provide a safety hazard by clearing brush or duff away from the base of the tree.

All

Plan 2-35

Within Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine sands, retain a minimum of 158 snags/100 acres with a minimum dbh of 10 inches. Larger diameter snags are preferred when available. . Final snag numbers will be assessed following burning to include delayed prescribed burn mortality.

Identified during implementation

Plan 2-35

Within Aspen/Riparian stands, retain 300 snags/100 acres with a minimum diameter of 6 inches. Larger diameter snags are preferred when available. Final snag numbers will be assessed following burning to include delayed prescribed burn mortality.


Plan 2-36 In order to reduce cutting for firewood, snags should be retained away from roads.


Plan 2-36

Leave large diameter (>16 inch dbh) deformed, cull and spike-topped trees during harvest to provide future wildlife trees. These trees should be girdled or killed so that they stop producing seed.

See Snag Retention Map

Plan 2-35

To

2-36

Retain snags and wildlife trees in clusters or groups whenever possible rather than uniformly across the area. Locate wildlife trees adjacent to natural openings or aspen, near water or in valley bottoms whenever possible

All Units

Plan 2-36 Utilize timber sale contract “C” clauses to protect snags and dead wood.

All Units

Downed Woody Debris and Understory Diversity

PDF When available in dry ponderosa pine habitats retain up to 5 tons per acre downed woody debris, with material greater than 3 inches dbh being preferred.

See DWD Map

Wildlife Dependent on

Downed Wood

PDF When available in forest types other than dry ponderosa pine retain a minimum of 10 tons per acre (when available) downed woody debris. Material greater than 3 inches dbh is preferred.

See DWD Map

PDF When present on the site and where feasible maintain 2 down logs per acre at least 12 inches in diameter (at large end) and 2- feet long.

All Units


18


Species/ Habitat

Roads and Skid Trails

PDF

To retain habitat for snag dependent species and species dependent on large diameter trees, new road corridors would be located to avoid large diameter trees and snags to the extent possible.

All Temporary Roads

Snag Dependent

Wildlife

PDF All temporary roads constructed would be closed to public use (e.g. gates or barricades) during implementation and obliterated immediately following use

All Temporary Roads

Wildlife Sensitive to Disturbance

Burning, Mastication and Hand Treatment

PDF Where feasible and when consistent with fuel reduction objectives, use control lines and/or firing techniques to maintain pockets of native understory shrubs

All Burn Units Big Game and

Understory Diversity

PDF

Due to the importance of understory hardwood shrubs for wildlife, and when consistent with fuel management objectives, strive to retain 30 to 50 percent of the existing hardwood shrubs. To the extent possible, shrubs should be maintained in a patchy mosaic across the site.

All Mastication and Hand

Treatment Units

Big game and Understory Diversity

Wildlife

PDF

Recommendations from the final report of the Montana Cooperative Elk-logging study would be implemented during timber harvest activities. Applicable design features include:

Logging activity would be confined to a single drainage at a time with all work completed in the shortest time frame possible.

Logging operations would be prohibited during the first two weeks of the general rifle season in order to maintain big game habitat capability and hunting opportunity.

All temporary roads would be closed to public use..

Recreational use of firearms would be prohibited for anyone working within an area closed to the general public.

Road construction would not occur within elk winter range.

Forest adjacent to winter foraging areas would be retained.

Timber harvest on winter range would be scheduled outside the winter use period (See PDF Map).

All Units

Elk

PDF

In order to reduce wildlife avoidance of, and hunting mortality in areas and when consistent with fuel reduction objectives, adequate vegetative cover should be maintained along open roads in areas with documented deer and elk use. These areas, and the vegetative cover to be left, would be identified during layout by the fuels specialist and District wildlife biologist.

To be identified during layout

PDF

If elk calving or nursery areas or deer fawning areas are identified prior to or during project implementation, these area would be protected. This would be from late May through July unless surveys indicate areas are no longer used... These areas would be determined annually through coordination with the MFWP and the district wildlife biologist

To be identified during layout

Elk and Deer


19


Species/ Habitat

PDF

Within active goshawk territories, maintain a 40 acre (minimum) no activity buffer around known nests. Restrict ground disturbing activities inside Post-fledgling Areas between April 15

th and

August 15th to protect goshawk pair and young from disturbance

during the breeding season until fledglings are capable of sustained flight.

See PDF Map

Goshawk

PDF If raptor nests are identified during project implementation, a wildlife biologist would be contacted and appropriate buffers and Limiting Operating Periods established

All Units

PDF

If any threatened, endangered or sensitive species are located during project layout or implementation, a wildlife biologist would be notified. Management activities would be altered, if necessary, so that protection measures can be taken.

All Units TES Wildlife

Mechanical Treatments (Alternative 2 Only)

Mechanical treatment or thinning would only occur under Alternative 2 and is designed to create

more open stand conditions composed of predominantly ponderosa pine, or to a lesser extent

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir on the cooler sites. Trees would be distributed in even-aged

groups or scattered individuals that form an uneven-aged forest condition. Since restoration

objectives include providing large diameter trees, thinning would only remove trees between 7

inches and 17 inches dbh.

Because treatment would increase light to the forest floor an increase in herbaceous and

understory diversity would occur on the site. While there may be an immediate (1-2 years)

decrease in forage following harvest, a large increase would occur within 2-3 years and would

last over the long term (e.g >10 years) (Wisdom et al 2004). Conversely, there would be a

decrease in cover until woody understory vegetation is established on the site (>10 years).

However because the DFC is to restore the open stand conditions that occurred historically, there

would be a long-term reduction in cover on all sites. Conversely over the long-term treatment

would improve the health and vigor of remaining trees and increase resistance to insects and

disease and promote the growth of large fire resistant trees.

Burning (Alternative 2 and 3)

Prescribed fire would be used to meet restoration objectives and restore fire to the landscape.

Underburning would be accomplished by applying low to moderate intensity fire using hand,

mechanical or aerial firing methods. Units would be prescribed burned to reduce fuels, kill small-

diameter undesirable trees and prepare sites for natural regeneration.

Burning intensity would not be uniform and treatment areas would have a mosaic of burned and

unburned lands due to variations in site conditions. On average and based on past treatments, it is

estimated that approximately 80 percent of the treatment area would be burned, with fingers and

pockets of unburned areas occurring on approximately 20 percent of the unit. The amount and

uniformity of burning would vary by forest type and topographic position. For example, south-

facing slopes, plateau tops and drier forest types would likely experience a higher percentage of

burned area. Burning intensity would be reduced in riparian areas, on northern exposures and

within portions of units containing more mesic sites due to higher moisture conditions and lower

slope position.


20

Herbaceous vegetation would increase within the first year of treatment and continue to provide

increased levels of forage for up to 30 years. Within five years woody vegetation would start to

become established on the site and shrub diversity would increase. Because stands would be

characterized by more open conditions, cover would be reduced on all sites. Conversely

understory diversity including increased shrubs (Ritchie 2005 fuels report), herbaceous vegetation

(grasses and forbs) and aspen would occur over the short (< 5years) and long term. Because

treatments proposed under Alternative 2 result in more open understory and overstory conditions,

it is expected that both the amount and diversity of forage would increase the most under this

alternative.

Mastication (Alternative 2 Only)

This treatment uses a tracked or wheeled machine that shreds or chips shrubs, small trees and

down material up to 4 inches in diameter. As a result treatment would remove most of the

understory vegetation and reduce elk cover. Conversely because the existing dense conifer would

be reduced, herbaceous vegetation would increase both in the short and long term. Also because

this treatment is used in combination with burning, shrub diversity would increase within

approximately 10 to 15 years. Additionally, PDF’s are in place that would maintain a shrub

component on sites treated.

Hand Thinning or Pre-commercial Thinning (Alternatives 2 and 3)

Hand thinning would involve removal of trees 7 inches dbh or less. Felled trees and shrubs would

be limbed, lopped and bucked up so that slash would lie close to the ground with hand tools or

chainsaws to create the desired spacing. Objectives of this treatment include removal of

encroaching conifers and may be used as an individual treatment within a stand or in combination

with commercial thinning. Effects include a reduction in elk cover and a short and long-term

increase in elk forage (herbaceous vegetation and shrubs), with the greatest increase in forage

occurring under Alternative 2.

Handcut, Pile and Burn (Alternatives 2 and 3)

Hand cut, pile, and burn is a type of prescribed burning in which downed fuels, natural fuels,

brush and heavy accumulations of litter would be piled by hand and burned during conditions

when risk of fire spread is low and when smoke would be adequately dispersed. Handpiles would

be up to 6 feet high and 8 feet in diameter and would be placed as far from the canopy drip-line of

trees as possible to prevent scorch. In a number of settings, such as meadow restoration areas,

this treatment is prescribed, but the area actually treated would be much less than the total

treatment acres displayed in Table 3. Effects would be similar to those described under hand

thinning.

Alternative Changes

Road Density

Forest Plan Road Density

Road density is evaluated by looking at changes in open road densities by MA and compartment,

which is displayed in Table 10. Because all temporary roads would be closed to public access,

there are no changes in open road density under any alternative. Management Area T direction

includes providing for a low level of public access, which is defined as up to 1.5 miles of open

road per square mile. Because open road density within MA T would be maintained at 1.3

miles/mi2, all alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction (USDA FS 1993b).


21

Table 10: Open Road Density by Analysis Area

Analysis

Existing Road

Density

(mi/mi2)1

During and Post Implementation

Road Density – All Alternatives

(mi/mi2)

Management Area T

(Project Area) 1.3 1.3

Watershed 0.9 0.9

Compartment 601 1.0 1.0



1 –open roads under all ownerships

Montana Fish and Game Road Densities

Table 11 summarizes alternative changes in road density and hiding cover. Based on existing

hiding cover and open road densities, compartments 601 and 603 currently meet

recommendations, whereas compartment 602 falls below recommendations. Changes in hiding

cover under Alternatives 2 and 3 result from treatments that reduce canopy closure below 40

percent. Because less than 200 acres would be reduced below 40 percent, there would only be a

two percent change under Alternative 3, including a one percent reduction in compartments 601

and 602. Additionally because there is no new road construction under Alternative 3, open road

densities would not change and recommendations would be unchanged for all compartments.

Because Alternative 2 takes a more aggressive approach to achieving the Desired Future

Condition (DFC) for the Little Snowies, approximately 2,500 acres would be reduced below 40

percent canopy closure. Of this, 1,896acres (75 percent of total) occurs in compartment 601,

whereas 335 and 266 occur in compartments 602 and 603 respectively. Restoration treatments

were greatest in compartment 601 because these lands are characterized by higher stocking

conditions and greater MPB morality. Also it is expected that without treatment, future MPB

mortality would be increased, including a reduction in medium and large diameter trees (e.g. >10

inches d.b.h.). As a result, under Alternative 2 cover would be reduced the most in compartment

601. Because cover would be reduced below 60 percent in compartment 601 and below 70

percent in compartment 603, neither compartment would meet Montana Fish and Game

recommendations. Also compartment 602 would continue to fall below recommendations and it is

expected that these conditions would occur over the long-term (>20 years).

While there will be a small reduction in hiding cover under Alternative 3, there would be no

change from the existing condition in terms of compliance with Montana Fish and Game

recommendations.

Table 11: Hunting Season Security by Alternative

Criteria 601 602 603

Existing

Hiding Cover2 78% 69% 70%

Allowable Rd Density 0-1.9 0-1.9 0-1.9

Route Density3 0.2 1.4 1.3

Meets Recommendation1 Yes No Yes

Alternative 2



22

Criteria 601 602 603



Meets Recommendation1 No No No

Alternative 3




Meets Recommendation1 Yes No Yes

1 – See Table 1

2 – Hiding cover based on canopy cover (Montana State guidelines).

3 – Route density based on total open FS roads


23

Figure 3: Alternative 2 Elk Habitat

Effective Hiding Cover

As described under methodology, EHC is evaluated by watershed and compartment, which is

displayed by alternative in Table 12.


24

Table 12: Effective Hiding Cover1

Analysis Area Recommended

Effective Elk Hiding Cover

Existing Alternative 2 Alternative 3

% % %

Watershed

40%

38 33 36

Compartment 601 39 34 37



1 – Hiding cover based on Pi value

Effective hiding cover is currently below recommended guidelines and would be further reduced

under both alternatives. Because Alternative 2 proposes both mechanical removal and

mastication, it would result in the greatest reduction of EHC, with the largest reduction occurring

in the northern half of the project area (Compartment 601) and watershed. The Forest Plan also

requires that a minimum of 35 percent EHC be maintained in each sub-compartment. Currently,

all but four sub-compartments meet this standard. Post-implementation six and four sub

compartments would fall below this threshold for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively.

The Forest Plan EHC standard is to be maintained, unless a benefit for wildlife can be

demonstrated (USDA FS 1993b) or if the natural levels fall below the cover threshold (USDA FS

2012). Open ponderosa pine communities historically occurred on 70 percent of the Little

Snowies and have declined by 85 percent from historic conditions. Similarly, historical vegetation

included a larger meadow/grassland (15 percent) and aspen component (USDA FS 2011b).

Conversely, dense conifer stands have increased from 2 percent to 60 percent of the area.

Collectively for these reasons, when compared against historic conditions, elk cover is much

higher today, whereas the amount and diversity of elk forge has been reduced. Also, while the

EHC under Alternative 2 falls below Forest Plan standards, it provides cover conditions that are

closer to historic or natural cover thresholds.

So while EHC would be further reduced below Forest Plan standards, considering that; 1)

resulting levels of cover better mimic historical conditions, 2) treatments would maintain or

improve existing aspen and promote shrub and hardwood diversity and abundance, 3) treatments

would stop conifer encroachment into meadows and increase the availability of grasses and forbs,

and 4) treatments would reduce the likelihood of stand replacing wildfire, Alternative 2 would

provide demonstrated benefits to wildlife and approach natural levels of cover. Consequently both

alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction related to EHC.

Habitat Effectiveness

As described above, habitat effectiveness considers roads that are open between June 30 and

August 31 and evaluates security during the non-hunting season. It is based on miles of road and

motorized trail open during this period that is identified using data from the FS INFRA database.

Also as described above it is recommended that a habitat effectiveness value of 50 percent be

maintained for the Little Snowy Mountains.

Currently both the watershed and project area exceed the 50 percent habitat effectiveness

recommendation. Because no new roads are proposed habitat effectiveness would be unchanged

under Alternative 3. However because Alternative 2 proposed 18.9 miles of temporary roads,

habitat effectiveness would be reduced during project implementation as shown in Table 13.


25

While 50 percent effectiveness would be maintained across the watershed, within the project area

effectiveness would be reduced below 50 percent during implementation (approximately five

years). However with implementation of PDF’s that limit harvest within a single watershed,

secure areas would be available for any animals affected and potential impacts would be reduced.

As a result and considering that all temporary roads would be closed and obliterated following

use, there are no long-term impacts to elk security during the non-hunting period.

Table 13: Habitat Effectiveness (Summer Range Security)1

Analysis Area Rec. Existing Alternative 2 Alternative 3

During

Implementation

Post

Implementation

During

Implementation

Post

Implementation

Watershed 50%

62 56 62 62 62

Project Area 56 48 56 56 56

1 – Road miles based on roads with the attribute layer

Security

As described under methodology, security areas are lands that are greater than ½ mile from a road

that is open to hunting and contains greater than 40 percent canopy closure. These areas provide

secure areas for elk to move to and limit their vulnerability to hunting related mortality. Changes

in elk security for the watershed, project area and CE area are displayed in Table 14. There would

be no change in elk security under Alternative 3. However because 307 acres of existing elk

security would go below 40 percent canopy closure under Alternative 2, there would be a

reduction within all three analysis areas (see figure 3). While it is generally recommended that

secure elk habitat make up 30 percent or more of an analysis area, this guideline should be based

on site specific conditions. For example, although all areas will continue to fall below 30 percent,

it would be expected that elk would utilize secure areas that occur on posted private land.

Table 14: Alternative Elk Security

Analysis Area Existing Alt 2 Alt 3

Ac % Ac % Ac %

Watershed 1,491 13 1,128 10 1,491 13

Project Area 1,039 7 675 5 1,039 7

CE Area 3,376 12 3,012 10 3,376 12

Direct Effects

Direct effects to elk can occur in the form of disturbance during treatment, increased mortality

due to changes in hunting/non-hunting season access and increased visibility, or reduced

reproductive success resulting from increased calf mortality or changes in habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Because big game are highly mobile direct mortality from burning or harvest is unlikely and fire

related mortality has little influence on populations (Smith 2000). Also it is expected that elk

would move away from any sites proposed for harvest or understory treatments and as a result

direct effects include largely short-term behavioral avoidance of the site. However PDFs limit the

amount of disturbance from harvest to a single drainage and would ensure that some elk cover is


26

maintained on all sites. As a result and considering that >50 percent cover would be maintained

across the project area (See Table 11), adequate habitat exists to support any displaced animals.

Alternative 2

Because Alternative 2 would reduce elk security habitat, result in a short-term decrease in habitat

effectiveness during project implementation, and reduce EHC, the likelihood of elk mortality

during both the hunting and non-hunting seasons would increase. Also seasonal distribution and

use of the area would change due to road and cover changes, as well as changes in cover.

Wisdom et al 2004 looked at the effects of timber harvest on elk and found effects on elk

movement’s variable. Elk initially responded to timber harvest by shifting distribution, although

they found no evidence that elk avoided harvest units. The mainline roads received a high

frequency of log truck traffic during implementation and it is possible that elk became habituated

to this form of predictable, consistent traffic. This is in contrast to the less predictable and more

diverse forms of motorized traffic that occur when roads are open to the public and that

presumably contribute to elk avoidance of these roads. As a result, and because all roads would be

closed to the public, it is expected that any displacement during treatment would be short-term in

nature and it is expected that elk would continue to utilize treatment areas following

implementation.

Wisdom et al 2004 also found that while animal performance did not appear to change in

response to timber harvest, the post-harvest landscape increased hunter success, suggesting that

increased visibility and access associated with timber harvest increased the vulnerability of elk to

being harvested. He also found that hunter success increased by approximately 10 percent during

and post-harvest and suggested that in order to reduce mortality: 1) that elk security areas be

maintained, 2) that motorized access be restricted, and 3) that timber harvest activities be planned

in time and space so that a mosaic of seral stages are maintained to provide a variety of foraging

conditions for elk.

The second two recommendations by Wisdom et al (2004) are achieved under this alternative

because the combination of burning, harvest and understory treatments are expected to result in a

mosaic of vegetation conditions increasing available forage and because all roads would be

closed to public access. Also because elk would be expected to utilize security habitat on adjacent

posted private lands as well as on remaining habitat on NFS lands, security habitat will continue

to be available. However in order to better maintain elk security habitat and reduce a long-term

reduction in security habitat, the following Project Design Feature is recommended during

implementation:

In order to maintain elk security habitat on NFS lands and ensure that security habitat is

maintained in all affected watersheds, a minimum of 40 percent canopy closure will be

maintained within stands (215 acres) that occur within Security habitat between the Five

Mile Coulee and Posey Spring drainages as shown on the map in Appendix A.

With implementation of this PDF, 90 percent of the existing watershed security habitat will be

maintained (vs. 76 percent without it). Also with implementation of this PDF, recommendations

by Wisdom et al (2004) will be better achieved.

However with or without implementation of the above PDF, both action alternatives include a

number of PDF’s designed to reduce impacts to elk (See Table 10), including those that would 1)

retain cover along open roads, 2) retain an understory shrubs component 3) retain large woody

debris on all sites treated 4) limit harvest to a single drainage at a time, 5) restrict activities in elk


27

winter range and 6) protect elk calving areas. Finally burning would occur in a mosaic leaving up

to 20 percent of the site unburned. Collectively for these reasons, it is expected that any increase

in elk hunter mortality would be reduced and that cover would continue to be available within

treatment areas throughout the year. As a result it is expected that any increased mortality would

be localized, and would not be expected to result in long-term changes to local populations.

Additionally, forage conditions would be improved across the landscape, and it is expected that

elk reproduction would be maintained.

Alternative 3

Because total and open road densities would not change under alternative 3, and because there

would be little change in Montana Fish and Game recommended hiding cover (based on canopy

closure), there would be no change in security either during or outside the hunting season.

Similarly, the availability of security habitat would be unchanged. However alternative 3 would

result in a in a small reduction in EHC and reduce understory vegetation on sites proposed for

treatment. As a result, the risk of mortality is increased. However like alternative 2, PDF’s are in

place to retain cover on sites treated. Also approximately 6,800 acres (57 percent of sites

proposed for treatment) occur as burn only units where untreated habitat would be maintained on

all sites. Collectively for these reasons, the likelihood of increased elk mortality is reduced from

that of alternative 2 and there are no changes in elk reproduction anticipated, nor is it expected

that mortality would be high enough to influence local elk populations.

Indirect Effects

Cover and Forage

The following is a discussion of changes in elk cover and forage that would be expected to occur

from the proposed treatments. Anticipated changes in elk cover are displayed in Tables 11 and 12,

whereas security habitat changes are displayed in Table 14

Harvest in combination with burning and understory treatments (mastication and hand treatment

would remove live trees as well as DWD and elk cover would be reduced in treatment sites. The

amount of cover reduced is reflected in Tables 11 and 12. An exception to this would be riparian

management areas or lands within 100 ft. of a perennial or intermittent stream and in portions of

the burn only units that remain unburned (approximately 4,200 acres and 6,800 acres of

Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively).

Timber harvest is likely to cause an immediate but short-term (1-2 year) decline in forage

availability in the harvest units, followed by a large increase in forage that may last 10 years or

longer (Wisdom et al 2004). So in addition to providing historical levels of cover, proposed

treatments are also expected to improve habitat for big game by promoting forage diversity and

availability. For example, prescribed fire is routinely used to create or enhance elk habitat and

has been shown to rejuvenate aspen stands, encourage early spring green-up, reduce conifer

encroachment, increase palatability, reduce the height of browse species and stimulate

regeneration through sprouting of seeds (Jourdonnais and Bedunah 1990; Leege 1979; Weaver

1987 in USDA Forest Service 2011e; Sachro et al. 2005; Van Dyke and Darragh 2007). Fires have

also been found to increase carrying capacity by creating a mosaic of cover and foraging areas

(Martinka 1976 in USDA Forest Service 2011e). Burning in coniferous forest stands has been

shown to increase herbaceous forage fivefold in high elevation conifer habitat in Canada. In this

same study, summer elk carrying capacity increased from eight to 28 elk per 38 square miles,

whereas spring grazing potential increased from 13 to 45 elk per 38 square miles (Sachro et al.

2005). Similarly, burning in shrub and grasslands (up to 815 acres under alternatives 2 and 3) also


28

increases both production and nutritional quality that benefit big game. Finally Van Dyke and

Darragh (2006) found that changes in plant community structure, composition and diversity,

nutritional quality and seasonal availability, all contributed to increased elk use.

While both action alternatives would result in an increase in big game forage, because the

forested canopy would be remain relatively closed under Alternative 3, any increase in forage

would be less than that of alternative 2. Similarly, long-term increases in forage would occur

under Alternative 2, whereas increased forage under alternative 3 are likely to be more short (10

years) term.

On elk winter range, 660 and 622 acres of treatment would occur under alternatives 2 and 3

respectively. Because there is little mechanical removal or thinning (6 acres under Alt. 2), effects

include a reduction in smaller diameter trees on the site, although alternative 2 would reduce

canopy closure below 40 percent on 60 acres or 1 percent of existing elk winter range within the

cumulative effect boundary. Effects of treatment under both alternatives include a reduction in

cover and increase in forage similar to that described above.

Wildfire Risk

The indirect effects of alternatives 2 and 3 would be that following all treatments; (1) potential

fire behavior would be shifted more toward surface fires with a reduction in crown fire behavior,

and (2) fire intensity in term of flame lengths would be reduced over most of the project area

making fire control by direct attack of hand crews more feasible under most conditions. Due to

the reduction in fuels, fire intensity would be reduced under both alternatives and it is expected

that >90 percent of the project area would burn with flame lengths of 0-4 feet. As a result

potential wildfires under most conditions would burn through project area as low-intensity

wildfires and flame lengths would be sufficiently low to enable direct fire suppression by hand

crews. As a result, while fire intensity under alternative 2 is lower, both alternatives would reduce

the risk of high intensity stand replacing wildfires.

Historic Vegetation

Alternative 2

In the short term treatments would move the distribution of forest, grassland and aspen closer to

the DFC. Stand diversity and landscape heterogeneity would be increased (USDA FS 2011a).

The removal of conifer trees around the clones would reduce competing vegetation and enhance

aspen growing conditions (Shepperd et al 2006). Fire would promote aspen regeneration and

lopping and scattering of slash would protect aspen seedlings from browsing (Sheppard 2001).

Collectively these treatments would move conditions toward a properly functioning condition that

is characterized by multi-aged aspen stems and adequate regeneration to sustain the clone

(Campbell and Bartos 2001). Proposed treatments would promote meadow restoration on 756

acres and increase forage on both large meadows and grasslands, as well as promote forage

within small openings interspersed within forested stands.

Alternative 3

Like alternative 2, treatments would move the distribution of forest, grassland and aspen closer to

the DFC, but at a somewhat reduced level. Ponderosa pine and aspen restoration would be

reduced by approximately 10 percent and 22 percent respectively. While there would be a 15

percent reduction in small openings with increased forage within forested stands, restoration of

larger meadows and grassland would increase by approximately 27 percent. Consequently like


29

alternative 2, effects include increased aspen and forage characteristic of historic vegetation

conditions, but at a reduced level from that of alternative 2.

Deer

Alternative 1


There are no activities proposed for this alternative, so there are no direct effects anticipated to

mule or white-tailed deer. Indirect effects to habitat are similar to those described for elk. Decades

of fire suppression have resulted in increased stocking and closed canopied mature forest with

reduced levels of forage and increased cover (Hayden et al. 2008). While recent MPB mortality

has opened up the forest canopy across portions of the project area, many of these areas provide

poor foraging opportunities due to the large amount of downed woody debris (Hayden et al.

2008) and understory conifer. Deer benefit most when there is a mosaic of conditions across the

landscape including areas of forage, escape and hiding cover and travel corridors away from

roads and trails (Hayden et al. 2008). Forage availability and species diversity would continue to

decline or remain low because the landscape would continue to be dominated by mature closed

canopy forest conditions, including encroachment of conifer into aspen and mountain shrub

communities.

As described under elk, hiding cover has been reduced in some areas due to MPB mortality.

Cover is currently well distributed across the project area. While there may be some localized

reductions in areas of concentrated mortality that deer cannot access, hiding cover would continue

to increase and is expected to be widely available. As a result access would be unchanged over

the long-term and there are no anticipated changes in hunting-related mortality or long-term non-

hunting disturbance.

As described under elk, due to continued fire suppression and elevated levels of fuels, the risk of

large-scale wildfire is greatest under this alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3


Effects to deer are analyzed across the project area and as described under affected environment,

the entire project area is considered deer habitat, although use by white-tail and mule deer varies.

While deer require less cover than elk, effects on deer cover are expected to mimic those of elk.

Lands with >40 percent canopy closure currently exists on 73 percent of the project area. Under

alternative 2, this would be reduced to 55 percent, whereas it would be largely maintained (72

percent) under alternative 3. However as described under elk, with implementation of PDF’s (See

Table 9) and considering any burning would occur in a mosaic leaving pockets of untreated lands,

some cover would be maintained within treatment units. Also >40 percent canopy cover would

be maintained on 95 and 100 percent of the mule deer winter range under alternatives 2 and 3

respectively. As a result adequate cover and forage would continue to exist within affected

drainages to accommodate any displaced animals. Additionally because white-tailed deer

concentrate use within riparian habitat and considering treatments within riparian buffers would

be reduced, cover for white-tail deer in these area would be largely maintained.


30

As described under treatment effects, proposed treatments are expected to increase available deer

forage, including increases on summer, transition and winter ranges. For example, in ponderosa

pine stands that typically occur at lower elevations on winter ranges, vegetation can increase from

near zero on closed-canopy stands to greater than 678 pounds per acre in stands with open

canopies. Like elk, forage availability for deer depends on proximity of the created forage to

cover and Hayden et al (2008) suggests that deer forage should be within 600 ft. of cover. While

cover would be reduced, with implementation of PDF’s to maintain cover along open roads and

within treatment units and considering burn units would consist of a mosaic of burned and

unburned conditions, increased deer forage should be largely available both in the short and long-

term.

In addition to increasing the amount of forage available, proposed burning would also increase

palatability and use. For example, while preferences vary seasonally, deer often prefer to forage

in burned vs. unburned areas, which indicates that an increase in plant nutrients and/or preference

usually occurs following fire. Gruell (1986 in USDA Forest Service 2011e) found that surface

fires of moderate intensity following thinning and selection cuts can improve Douglas-fir or

ponderosa pine forests for mule deer by promoting regeneration of crown-sprouting shrubs and

preparing the seedbed for herbs and shrubs. Hobbs and Spoward (1984) found that prescribed

burning elevated the concentration of protein and digestible matter in winter diets of mule deer

feeding in grassland and mountain shrub communities. They also found that effects of fire on diet

quality resulted from changes in the increased availability of species and diet selection rather than

improvement in individual species. Differences in the amount of green grass accounted for much

of the enhancement in diet quality and they concluded that prescribed fire can improve winter

habitat for mule deer.

The size of openings created by burning is also a consideration. Hayden et al. (2008) recommend

maintaining or improving a matrix of forage conditions across the landscape with emphasis on

increasing the variety of forage plants available and a mixture of shrub age classes. They also

recommend that small openings— preferably less than 50 acres on summer range and less than 10

acres of winter range—be encouraged or maintained. Because most of the burning within deer

winter range would be low-severity burning and considering that small openings within a forest

matrix would be enhanced, these winter range recommendations would be largely achieved under

both action alternatives. Finally, because proposed treatments would maintain or promote aspen,

as well as increase herbaceous vegetation and shrubs, both alternatives would increase forage

diversity across the landscape.

While alternative 2 proposes temporary roads to be built then obliterated immediately following

timber removal, because these roads would be closed to public use during implementation and

restored following treatments, any road-related impacts would be short term (5 years).

Consequently human access would be largely unchanged and there are no anticipated long-term

increases in hunting-related mortality, road related disturbance or human access.

North facing slopes going down into Flat willow Creek were identified as an area that received

more concentrated white-tail deer use. There are few acres proposed for treatment in this area

under alternative 3 and cover and forage conditions, including a continued decline in aspen is

expected to continue. Under alternative 2 much of this area is proposed for treatment. While

canopy cover would only be reduced below 40 percent on 49 acres, hiding cover (i.e. lands with

>40 percent canopy cover) would essentially be unchanged. Additionally, proposed treatments

would be expected to improve the aspen and hardwood shrub component and provide a long-term

improvement in forage preferred by white-tail.


31

In summary, while there would be changes in deer cover and forage, when viewed across the

landscape, both action alternatives would create a mosaic of cover and forage conditions that are

preferred by deer. Additionally, both alternatives would improve forage conditions on summer,

winter and transition ranges while maintaining adequate cover over the short and long-term,

although forage availability would be greater and longer-term under alternative 2. Collectively,

treatments proposed under both action alternatives would be expected to maintain deer numbers

over the short term and increase herd health and numbers over the long term.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1

Since 1980, past activities on NFS lands have included approximately 2,500 acres of timber

harvest and 1,700 acres of underburning. Sites harvested have also had fuel reduction treatments

such as burning and slash disposal, as well as reforestation activities such as site preparation and

planting. Effects of these activities vary spatially and temporally and while cover and forage was

reduced immediately following harvest and reforestation treatments, understory structure and the

resulting cover and forage on many of these sites has since been restored or enhanced. Similarly

overstory conditions of many older sites affected by harvest have started to close, whereas more

recent sites still provide more open canopy conditions. More recently 400 acres of underburning

occurred in 2009 in association with the Ashbridge 1-2-3-4-5 project. Also mountain pine beetle

mortality has been occurring across much of the project area. Changes in vegetation conditions

resulting from past activities are reflected in the existing big game habitat conditions.

Other past and on-going activities on NFS lands have included personal use firewood collection,

noxious weed control along roadsides and at scattered locations within the project area, road

maintenance, grazing associated with three allotments, dispersed recreational use and continued

mountain pine beetle mortality. Activities on private land have included largely seasonal

agricultural use and some scattered timber harvest. Additionally there is an estimated 150 to 200

acres of TSI thinning and prescribed fire on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to be

conducted for meadow restoration in the Willow Creek drainage. The following is a summary of

effects of these activities on big game.

Personal Use Firewood – Standing dead trees and downed woody debris would be removed on

lands adjacent to roads open to the public. Effects include disturbance during collection, as well

as reduced cover. However because activities occur along open road corridors, areas affected do

not provide preferred big game habitat.

Road Maintenance – This involves re-surfacing, culvert replacement and Right-Of-Way (ROW)

maintenance (e.g. brushing) of existing roads. Big game habitat would be unchanged and effects

would be restricted to short-term avoidance along road corridors during maintenance activities.

NNIS Treatment – Treatment of non-native invasive plants involves both mechanical and

chemical treatment of target species, primarily along roads, infested riparian areas and

administrative sites. Effects include short-term disturbance during treatment, although long-term

benefits to native vegetation and big game forage would occur due to the control or containment

of non-native species.

Grazing – Grazing has the potential to reduce understory diversity and composition. This could

reduce big game forage, including both herbaceous and woody vegetation. Overgrazing could

also reduce the diversity of preferred species such as aspen, increase the spread of invasive


32

species and result in impacts to streams, riparian areas and water quality. Conversely managed

grazing by livestock can increase the productivity and nutritive quality of forage.

While there may be localized impacts to big game forage from livestock grazing, allotments and

range utilization are monitored and include standards related to retention of herbaceous and

woody vegetation. As a result and considering that grazing use is not expected to change, there

are no significant cumulative effects to big game habitat from grazing anticipated.

Off-forest Activities – Off-forest harvest include continued agricultural use, grazing and some

possible removal of trees. It is not anticipated that existing use would change and there would be

little change in big game habitat conditions. Similarly disturbance related effects would be

largely unchanged.

Dispersed Recreational Use – This occurs largely in the form of hunting and dispersed camping

and would involve temporary displacement of big game from the affected area. Longer term

disturbance is likely from dispersed sites that receive more frequent use. Because most of the

dispersed use is seasonal and occurs in the fall, disturbance is largely short-term. Overall use and

disturbance to big game would be largely unchanged.

Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality – insect and disease related mortality is expected to continue and

many Douglas fir and ponderosa stands are currently in the zone of imminent mortality (USDA

Forest Service 2011e). Under no action, a large portion of the ponderosa pine stands in the project

area could experience a mountain pine beetle outbreak. While this would increase tree mortality,

standing dead trees on site would continue to provide big game cover during the analysis period.

There would also be a localized increase in forage and increased risk of wildfire.

BLM Thinning – Because treatment would involve removal of smaller diameter trees, there

would be a reduction in big game cover. Conversely, treatment would result in increased forage

on the meadow sites, as well as ensure that these sites are maintained over the long-term.

Big game habitat conditions within the CE boundary are displayed in Tables 4 and 5, whereas

existing elk security habitat is displayed in Table 14. Because of the small amount of future

activities anticipated (200 acres of BLM lands), considering that on-going uses are expected to be

largely unchanged and that there would be little change in habitat from on-going or future

activities, deer and elk habitat would be largely unchanged under this alternative. Elk hiding

cover (based on canopy closure) and Effective Elk Hiding Cover would continue to occur on 62

and 33 percent of the analysis area respectively and habitat effectiveness and hunting season

security would exceed recommended guidelines. As a result there are no effects anticipated that

would be expected to result in long-term changes to deer or elk distribution and use of the area, or

affect herd unit numbers or populations.

Alternative 2

Past, on-going and anticipated future cumulative effects are described under alternative 1.

Additionally proposed treatments would affect approximately 45 percent of the analysis area

under this alternative. Activities would reduce elk security by approximately 3 percent and

reduce deer and elk hiding cover from 62 to 53 percent of the analysis area. Conversely forage

availability and the amount and distribution of aspen would be improved. As a result seasonal

use of the area by big game may change in response to these changes. However there would be no

increase in open road densities. Also elk security habitat would continue to be well distributed

across the analysis area. Finally while there may be a likely increase in mortality from hunting,

understory cover would develop on sites treated within 5 and 10 years and any increase in is


33

expected to be short-term in nature. Additionally, PDF’s are in place that would retain cover

along open roads and within treatment units, which are expected to reduce hunting related

mortality. As a result, suitable big game habitat would continue to exist both within and adjacent

to treatment units and there are no effects anticipated that would result in long-term changes in

big game numbers or reduce local populations.

Alternative 3

Under alternative 3, approximately 41 percent of the analysis area would be affected by future

activities. Open road density and elk security habitat would be unchanged and there would be a

small reduction in elk hiding cover (1 percent). Like alternative 2 forage availability would

increase but at a somewhat reduced level. As a result any effects are expected to be short term in

nature, suitable big game habitat would continue to occur both within and adjacent to treatment

units, and there are no changes in big game numbers or a reduction in local populations

anticipated.

Summary

Alternative 1

Under alternative 1 no management activities would be implemented. In general, forest

conditions described in the existing condition section would persist. These conditions have led to

a shift from historic, including increasing stand density, loss of openings and grasslands, a shift in

composition for ponderosa pine to Douglas-fir and aspen to conifer, as well as more of a

homogenous landscape. Risk to insects and stand replacement fire has increased.

Because conifer encroachment would continue, understory cover would continue to increase.

While overstory cover would also increase on portions of the project area, due to anticipated

insect and disease related mortality, it is likely that overstory canopy cover would be reduced on

up to 29 percent of the project area. Conversely forage availability would decrease due to

continued closed canopy conditions and increasing DWD that would restrict access by big game.

However based on the above analysis and the following rationale, effects are not likely to result

in a long-term reduction in elk or deer numbers, nor would they have long-term effects to local

populations.

Total and open road density would not change and there is no anticipated change in

hunting or non-hunting related mortality, nor is there expected to be an increase in human

access.

While below recommended levels, effective hiding cover would be maintained. Also

while it is expected that some stands would fall below 40 percent canopy closure due to

future MPB mortality, big game hiding cover would still be widely distributed.

Forage availability would be largely unchanged in the short-term and adequate to support

big game populations.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 proposes a variety of treatments designed to move conditions toward desired future

conditions including dry ponderosa pine, aspen and meadow restoration. Treatments include

prescribed burning, mechanical and hand thinning and mastication. Treatments proposed would

reduce project area effective elk hiding cover and security habitat within the project area by three


34

percent and two percent respectively, although habitat effectiveness within the 7th order HUC

would be maintained. Collectively anticipated effects are expected to increase the likelihood of

mortality from hunting and possibly alter big game use patterns within the project area. However

based on the above analysis and the following rationale, effects are not likely to result in a long-

term reduction in big game numbers, nor would they have long-term effects to local populations.

Implementation would result in both short- and long-term increases in available forage on

both big game summer and winter range, which are expected to result in a long-term increase

in herd health and numbers. Also alternative 2 would result in the greatest increase in big

game forage and the largest increase in aspen.

PDF’s are in place that would 1) retain cover along open roads, 2) retain an understory shrubs

component 3) retain large woody debris on all sites treated, 4) restrict harvest to a single

drainage and 5) restrict activities in winter range. Also burning would occur in a mosaic of

burned and unburned lands on treatment sites. Collectively for these reasons, it is expected

that any increase in hunter mortality would be reduced and that big game cover would

continue to be available both within sites treated and across the landscape.

Fire suppression and departure from historical conditions has increased the likelihood that

high intensity wildfires would occur and result in long-term reductions in big game habitat.

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in the greatest reduction in future wildfire risk.

It is believed that active management is necessary to address fuel loading, species diversity

and forest health concerns. There is also a need to enhance big game winter range by

increasing forage (MFWP 2004). Collectively, the treatments proposed under this alternative

are designed to address these concerns and the long-term benefits associated with the

increased forage availability and reduced wildfire risk, outweigh the short-term risks

associated with the anticipated reduction in cover.

Alternative 3

Like alternative 2, this alternative moves conditions toward the DFC. However it eliminates

mechanical treatments (thinning and mastication) and increases burning and hand treatments

described above. Also there are no new roads proposed. So while it reduces ponderosa pine,

aspen treatments from that of alternative 2, it maintains existing elk security habitat, minimizes

reductions in EHC and Montana Fish and Game recommended cover. Also although increases in

forage are less than alternative 2, treatments would increase the amount and diversity of forage

across the project area when compared to no action. As a result and based on the above analysis

and the following rationale, effects are not likely to result in a long-term reduction in big game

numbers, nor would they have long-term effects to local populations.

Implementation would result in both short-term increases in available forage on both big

game summer and winter range, which are expected to maintain or improve herd health and

numbers.

There would be no reduction in elk non-hunting security, effective hiding cover or habitat

effectiveness.

PDF’s are in place that would 1) retain cover along open roads, 2) retain an understory shrubs

component and 3) retain large woody debris on all sites treated. Also burning would occur as

a mosaic of burned and unburned lands on treatment sites. Collectively for these reasons, it is

expected that any increase in hunter mortality would be reduced and that big game cover

would continue to be available both within sites treated and across the landscape


35

Fire suppression and departure from historical conditions has increased the likelihood that

high intensity wildfires would occur and result in long-term reductions in elk habitat.

Implementation of alternative 3 would result in a reduction in future wildfire risk.

It is believed that active management is necessary to address fuel loading, species diversity

and forest health concerns. There is also a need to enhance elk winter range by increasing

forage (MFWP 2004). Collectively, the treatments proposed under this alternative are

designed to address these concerns and result in a short-term increase in forage and long-term

benefits associated with reduced wildfire risk, As a result it is expected that anticipated

benefits outweigh the short-term risks associated with the anticipated reduction in cover.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans None of the alternatives currently meet direction to maintain 40 percent EHC by compartment, or

provide 40 percent security habitat. Also four sub-compartments fall below the recommended 35

percent EHC. Security habitat would be unchanged under alternatives 1 and 3, whereas it would

be further reduced by 2 percent under alternative 2. While EHC would be reduced further under

alternatives 2 and 3, due to long-term increases in forage and improved understory diversity,

treatments would result in benefits to wildlife. Also because the natural levels of EHC fall below

the Plan threshold and treatments would benefit wildlife, both alternatives are consistent with

Forest direction (USDA FS 1993b, USDA FS 2012). Alternative 2 would further reduce habitat

effectiveness below the recommended level in the short-term (5 years), whereas it would be

unchanged under alternatives 1 and 3. Also Montana Fish and Game recommendations related to

hiding cover and road density would not be achieved for one compartment (601) under alternative

2, whereas it would be achieved under alternatives 1 and 3.

Forest Plan objectives and standards are described in the introduction section of this document.

While the action alternatives would reduce big game cover, the amount and diversity of big game

forage would be improved. Additionally, suitable big game cover would continue to occur within

and adjacent to treatment units. As a result and because big game populations are not expected to

change, all alternatives would meet Forest Plan direction to provide viable populations of existing

wildlife species (USDA FS 1986) and provide habitat for white-tail deer (USDA FS 1993a p. 2).

Additionally, all alternatives are consistent with National Forest Management Act requirements to

provide for a diversity of animal communities (16 USC 1604((g)(3)(B)); also see 36 CFR

219.10(b): and FSM 2670.12. Finally, all alternatives positively manage roads through

restrictions to control resource activities (USDA FS 1993b) and maintain a low level of road open

road densities. Alternatives 2 and 3 also meet Plan direction (USDA FS 1986, p.2-6) to promote

winter range conditions through prescribed burning.

References Campbell, R.B. and Bartos, D.L. 2001.Aspen Ecosystems: Objectives for Sustaining Biodiversity

In USDA FS 2011a. Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. Silviculture Report. 123 pp.

Christensen, A.G., L.J. Lyon, J.W. Unsworth. 1993. Elk Management in the Northern Region:

Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-303. USDA Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah. 10 pages.


36

Christensen, A.G., L.J. Lyon, and J.W. Unsworth. 1993. Elk Management in the Northern Region:

Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep INT-303. November 1993. 12 pages.

Gruell (1986) In http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/odhe/all.html#17. Accessed

9/1/11.

Hayden, J. G. Ardt, M. Fleming, T.W. Keegan, J. Peek, T.O. Smith, and A. Wood. 2008. Habitat

guidelines for mule deer, Northern forest ecosystem. Mule Deer Working Group, Western

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, USA. 48 pp.

Hillis, J.M., M.J. Thompson, J.E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum, P.M. Dolan, D.W.

McCleerey. 1991. Defining Elk Security: The Hillis Paradigm. Pages 38-43. In: A.G.

Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N. Lonner, compilers, Proceedings of the Elk Vulnerability

Symposium, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana. April 10-12, 1991. 330 pages.

Hobbs, N. T.; Spowart, R. A. 1984. Effects of prescribed fire on nutrition of mountain sheep and

mule deer during winter and spring. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(2): 551-560. In

USDA Forest Service. Database 2011e.

Jourdonnais, C.S. and D.J. Bedunah. 1990. Prescribed fire and cattle grazing on an elk winter

range in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 18(3): 232-240.

Julander, Odell. 1966. Howe mule deer use mountain rangeland in Utah. Utah Acad. Scol, Arts.

And Lett. Proc. 43(2), pp. 22-28 In Thomas, Jack Ward. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed

forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management

Institute, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. September.

Knight, J. 2011. Mule deer management for Montana landowners. Available at Montana State

University Extension Publications. Available at:

http://www.msuextension.org/store/Products/Manage-Your-Land-for-Wildlife. Accessed

9/12/11.

Leege, T.A. 1979. Effects of repeated prescribed burns on northern Idaho elk browse. Northwest

Science. 53(2): 107-113.Available at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceca/all.html#. Accessed 8/15/11.

Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry.

81(9): 592-595.

Lyon, L.J., T.N. Lonner, J.P. Weigand, C.L. Marcum, W.D. Edgek, J.D. Jones, D.W. McCleerey,

and L.L. Hicks. 1985. Coordinating elk and timber management. Bozeman, MT: Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 53 pages.

Lyon, L.J. and A.G. Christensen. 1992. A partial glossary of elk management terms. USDA Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-INT-288. Ogden, Utah. 7

pages.

Mackie, Richard J. 1970. Range ecology and relations of mule deer, elk, and cattle in the

Missouri river Breaks, Montana. Wildl. Monographs. 20, 79 pp. In Thomas, Jack Ward. 1979.

Wildlife habitats in managed forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S.

http://www.msuextension.org/store/Products/Manage-Your-Land-for-Wildlife

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceca/all.html


37

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. Washington,

D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. September.

Mackie, R.J. K.L. Hamlin and G. L. Dusek. 1998. Ecology and Management of Mule Deer and

White-tailed Deer in Montana. Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Wildlife Division, Helena

Montana. Federal Aid Project W-120-R. 198 pp.

Marcum, C.L. 1975. Summer-fall habitat selection and use by a western Montana elk herd. PhD

dissertation. University of Montana, 203 pp. In Thomas, Jack Ward. 1979. Wildlife habitats in

managed forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 553. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife

Management Institute, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. September.

Martinka 1976 In http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceca/all.html # elk.

Accessed 3/15/2012.

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2004. State Elk Management Plan Wildlife Division. Helena

Montana. 397 pp.

MFWP 2008. Winter Survey Summary.

Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. 2011a. Montana Field Guide. Available at:

http://fieldguide.mt.gov/. Accessed 7/22/11.

MFWP 2011b. 2011 Deer Hunting Outlook. Friday September 30. Available at:

http://fwp.mt.gov/news.newsReleases/hunting/no. Accessed 3/19/2012

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2011. Available at:

http://mtnhp.org/SpeciesOfConcern.9/11/11. Accessed 9/11/11.

Natural Resources Defense Council. 1999. End of the Road: The adverse ecological impacts of

roads and logging: A compilation of independently reviewed research. 91 pp.

Ritchie, Martin W. 2005. Effects of thinning and prescribed fire on understory vegetation in

interior pine forests of California. In: Charles E. Peterson and Douglas A. Maguire, Ed.

Balancing Ecosystem Values: Innovative Experiments for Sustainable Forestry. Proceedings,

International Workshop. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. In USDA FS 2011b.

Sachro, L. L., W. L. Strong, et al. (2005). "Prescribed burning effects on summer elk forage

availability in the subalpine zone, Banff National Park, Canada." Journal of Environmental

Management 77(3): 183-193.

Shepperd, W. 2001. Manipulations to Regenerate Aspen Ecosystems In USDA FS 2011a. Little

Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. Silviculture Report. 123 pp.

Shepperd, Wayne D., Paul C. Rogers, David Burton, and Dale L. Bartos. 2006. Ecology,

biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station. In USDA FS 2011a. Little Snowy Mountain Restoration

Project. Silviculture Report. 123 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceca/all.html

http://fwp.mt.gov/news.newsReleases/hunting/no


38

Thomas, Jack Ward. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon

and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No.

553. Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau

of Land Management. September.

USDA Forest Service. 1982. Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study Annual Program Report,

Job V-1, Elk Guidelines Validation. U.S. Department Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern

Region, Missoula, MT. pp. 72-89.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Lewis and Clark National Forest, Great Falls, MT. 597 pages.

USDA FS 1992. Landscape analysis of Little Snowy Mountains. Lewis and Clark National

Forest. Musselshell Ranger District. December 1992. 90 pp.

USDA FS 1993a. Forest Plan Amendment Number 9. Lewis and Clark National Forest.

September 1993.

USDA FS 1993b. Management Area T Management Prescriptions. 6 pp.

USDA FS 2009. Existing/Desired Wildlife Habitat Condition Report for the Little Snowy

Mountains. 8 pp.

USDA FS 2011a. Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. Silviculture Report. 123 pp.

USDA FS 2011b. Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Project. Fuels Report. 74 pp.

USDA FS 2012. Process for analyzing big game cover as required by the Lewis and Clark

National Forest Plan. March 2012. 5 pp.

Van Dyke, F., and J.A. Darragh. 2006. Short and longer term effects of fire and herbivory on

sagebrush communities in South-Central Montana. Environmental Management Vol. 38, No.

3. Pp. 365-376.

Van Dyke, F., and J.A Darragh. 2007. Short and long-term changes in elk use and forage

production in sagebrush communities following prescribed burning.

Weaver, S.M. 1987. Fire and elk: summer prescription burning on elk winter range, a new

direction in habitat management on the Nez Perce National Forest. Bugle: The quarterly

Journal of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. 4(2): 41-42. Available at.

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/ceca/all.html#. Accessed 9/1/11.

Wisdom, M.J., B.K. Johnson, M. Vavra, J.M. Boyd, P.K. Coe, J.G. Kie, A.A. Ager, and N.J.

Cimon. 2005. Cattle and elk responses to intensive timber harvest. Pp. 197-216 in The

Starkey Project: A Synthesis of Long-term Studies of Elk and Mule Deer (M.J. Wisdom, tech.

ed.). Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference,

Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS.

Documents

Little Snowy Mountain Restoration Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Little Snowy Restoration Project Big Game Report 3 security habitat is derived from Forest