'*«'^.

^

rATF DOCUMENTS COLLECTIOI

MAR 1 8 2003

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

1515 E. 6th AVE.
HELENA, MONTANA 59620

W

^
^

^

M
fe

,.?*;

<^

% '^^^^fV%^- .<^

^

^

«#

>*S§^

^

^

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

3 0864 1001 8372 5

Dog Meadow Timber Sale
Project Area Map

<j> o

m^ ■

General
Project
Area ^

Bj.g

^4^

Creelt

Good creek

LEGEND

i^^l General project area

ESI

/'•.,' streams
HH| Lakes
Towns

State of Montana
(DNRC) ownership

Whitefish

/

Columbia
Falls----.

/'\y Highways
0

N

5 Miles

DS 11/02

FINDING

PROPOSED DOG MEADOW TIMBER SALE PROJECT

STILLWATER STATE FOREST

An interdisciplinary team (ID Team) has completed the Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the proposed Dog Meadow Timber Sale Project.

After a thorough review of the EA, project file, public correspondence.
Department policies and standards, and the State Forest Land Management Plan
(SFLMP) , I have made the following 3 decisions:

1. ALTERNATIVE SELECTED - Action Alternative B

Two alternatives are presented and were fully analyzed in the EA:

• No-Action Alternative A, includes existing activities, but does not
include a timber sale.

• Action Alternative B proposes harvesting approximately 8.5 million board
feet (MMBF) of timber over an estimated 939 acres; builds roughly .3
mile of short, temporary jump-up and extension roads, which will be
reclaimed after harvesting activities are completed; and interplants
western larch, rust-resistant western white pine, and a small number of
ponderosa pine in the areas that will be harvested.

I have selected Action Alternative B with the requirement that mitigations
and specifications identified in the EA will be implemented as prescribed.

Alternative B has been selected for the following reasons:

• Action Alternative B meets the Purpose of Action and the specific
project objectives listed on pages I-l and 1-2 of the EA.

• The analyses of identified issues did not reveal information to persuade
the Department to choose the No-Action Alternative prior to this
decision.

• Action Alternative B includes adjustments, modifications, mitigations,
and activities to address concerns expressed by the public, including,
but not limited to:

1) The project was designed to minimize impacts to commercial revenue-
generating activities, primarily winter recreational -use operations,
within the project area by limiting winter hauling to 1 year on
roads permitted for commercial winter recreational use.

2) Harvesting will concentrate in areas dominated by tree species most
susceptible to insect and disease problems (subalpine fir, grand
fir, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, and severely mistletoe-infected
western larch) .

3) Stands classified as old growth were avoided.

4) Concerns over clearcutting were addressed by implementing design
features to reduce the size and impact of openings, and provide
buffers between roads and harvest units.

5) Natural spatial distributions and spatial patterns were considered
on a landscape scale for placement of harvest units.

-1-

6) Stand covertypes and tree age classes, in reference to historic
conditions, were considered at a landscape scale. Treatments were
designed to move the forest toward historic conditions.

7) Harvest units were designed to reduce fragmentation of large
continuous timber stands and considered connectivity for wildlife
species .

8) Existing roads were surveyed to identify surface-drainage problems
that could be improved or eliminated. Those identified will be
addressed as part of the proposed project.

9) Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented.
10) Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) will be protected.

• DNRC is required to administer these lands to produce the largest
measure of reasonable and legitimate long-term return for beneficiaries

(Montana Codes Annotated 77-1-202) . DNRC meets this obligation by
managing intensively for healthy and biologically diverse forests.

• The proposed timber sale project contributes to harvest levels mandated
by State Statute {Montana Codes Annotated 77-5-222) .

SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS - No impacts are determined to be significant.

I find that none of the project impacts are regarded as severe, enduring,
geographically widespread, or frequent. Further, I find that the quantity
and quality of various resources, including any that may be considered
unique or fragile, will not be adversely affected to a significant degree.
I find no precedent for future actions that would cause significant
impacts, and I find no conflict with local. State, or Federal laws,
requirements, or formal plans. In summary, I find that the identified
adverse impacts will be avoided, controlled, or mitigated by the design of
the project to an extent that they are not significant.

• Vegetation - None of the timber-stands harvested by Action Alternative B
are classified as old growth. Although a potential exists for blowdown
in old-growth stands adjacent to harvest units, the harvest units may
also provide an opportunity for a fuel break in the event of a wildfire.
Treatments harvest trees that were infested with bark beetles; retain
trees that are more resistant to insect and disease attacks; retain
species that are less susceptible to root and stem rots; and, regenerate
a tree-species composition that is more diverse. Most of the stands
entered have been entered previously. The proposed harvest will convert
546 acres of overrepresented covertypes (mixed-conifer, subalpine fir,
and lodgepole pine) to an underrepresented covertype (western
larch/Douglas fir) . An estimated 614 acres of 40-to-99-year, 100-to-old
stand, and old-stand age classes will convert to the O-to-39-year age
class. Where available, approximately 2 to 5 snags per acre will be
retained. Four known populations of sensitive plants have been
documented on State trust land near where harvesting activities are
proposed. The meadows, wetlands, and fens where these plants are
located were buffered with retention trees and vegetation to reduce
direct impacts or limit increases in water level.

• Noxious Weeds - Heavy equipment used for sale activities will be washed
thoroughly before being brought on site; disturbed areas will be seeded
with a native grass seed mix concurrently with disturbance. Site-

-2-

specific herbicide spraying will occur prior to harvesting activity on
all haul roads. Monitoring will take place to provide for early
detection and treatment of noxious weed infestations.

Hydrology - Proposed activities are expected to increase water yield in
the Dog Creek watershed by 2 . 9 percent, from 4.9 to 7.8, which is not
sufficient to create unstable stream channels and is well below the
allowable threshold level of 12 percent. Equivalent clearcut acres
(EGA) will increase by 701 from 1,037 to 1,738, which is well below the
allowable EGA of 2,838. Several stream crossings on Dog Greek will be
replaced and will contribute sediment during construction. However,
operational timing, use of sediment fences, and other mitigation
measures will substantially limit the amount of sediment. These
improvements will result in a long-term reduction in sediment delivery
at these sites.

Wildlife - Approximately 93 9 acres of forest canopy will be opened to
varying degrees. However, patch sizes will increase, and connectivity
will be retained through buffer areas; those species that use edge and
open habitats will benefit, and those species associated with old stands
will have reduced habitat. No harvesting will occur within the nest or
primary use area for the Upper Stillwater Lake nesting eagle pair.
Although harvest activities will occur across Highway 93 from Dog Lake
(identified as foraging habitat) , this eagle pair is conditioned to
disturbance by living adjacent to an active railroad and a lake that
receives extensive recreational use. As such, I do not believe
har"/esting will limit their available forage. There will be temporary
disturbance that may impact grizzly bears. However, long-term open and
total-road density will not increase, and considerable hiding cover will
remain. No substantive change in wolf use is expected. Activities are
not proposed within areas of high hare use or potential lynx denning
habitat. Most harvesting avoids habitats typically preferred by fisher.
Only 4 acres of pileated woodpecker nesting habitat will be impacted by
harvest treatments, although recruitment of future nesting trees will be
reduced. Continued widespread use of the forest by pileated woodpeckers
is expected. Some thermal and hiding cover will be reduced for big
game, but the magnitude of these changes is expected to have negligible
impacts to big game survival.

Economics - The proposed project will generate approximately $1,212,600
in net income for the associated trust beneficiaries and $1,675,000 in
total State net income. The level of harvesting represents support for
94 jobs for 1 year with an average estimated income of $3,016,500.

S'oilS - Action Alternative B will impact less than 15 percent of the
harvested areas with these impacts, minimized by use of existing skid
trails and soil-moisture restrictions on timing of operations.
Prescribed mitigation measures will also provide sufficient downed woody
debris for nutrient needs and erosion control. Impacts to soil
resources are within DNRC standards in the SFLMP.

-3-

• precedent getting and Cumulative Impacts - The project area is located on state-
owned lands that are "principally valuable for the timber that is on
them or for growing timber or for watershed protection" (Montana Codes
Annotated 77-1-402) . Since the EA does not identify future State
actions that are new or unusual, the proposed timber sale project is not
setting precedence for a future action with significant impacts.

Taken individually and cumulatively, the impacts of the proposed timber
sale are not significant. The proposed activities are common practices
and none are being conducted on important fragile or unique sites.

The proposed timber sale project conforms to the management philosophies
of DNRC and is in compliance with existing laws, policies, and standards
applicable to this type of proposed action.

SHOULD DNRC PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) ? - No

Based on the following, I find that an EIS does not need to be prepared:

• The EA adequately addressed the issues identified during project
development and displayed the information needed to make the decisions.

• Evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed Dog Meadow Timber
Sale Project indicates that no significant impacts will occur.

• The ID Team provided adequate opportunities for public review and
comment. Public concerns were incorporated into the project design and
analysis of impacts.

Robert L. sandman

Unit Manager

Stillwater/Swan State Forests

January 30, 2003

-4-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT AREA MAP (Inside of front cover)

CHAPTER I - PURPOSE AND NEED

Introduction to Proposed Action I-l

Purpose of the Proposed Action I-l

Proposed Objectives 1-2

Relationship to the SFLMP 1-2

EA Process 1-2

EA Development and Decision Process 1-4

Proposed Schedule of Activities 1-4

Other Environmental Reviews Related to the Project 1-4

Other Agencies with Jurisdiction/Permit Requirements 1-4

Permits That May be Required to Implement the Proposed Action 1-4

Public Concerns 1-5

CHAPTER II - ALTERNATIVES

Introduction II-l

Development of Alternatives II-l

Alternative Descriptions II-2

Proposed Silvicultural Treatments II-6

Monitoring II -7

Proposed Silvicultural Treatment by Unit Number for Alternative B II-8

Summary of Environmental Effects 11-11

CHAPTER III-EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Introduction III-l

Project Area Description III-l

Vegetation (Summary) III-2

Hydrology (Summary) Ill -10

Wildlife (Summary) III-14

Economics (Summary) III-18

Soils (Summary) III-20

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

APPENDIX A - REFERENCES

APPEDIX B-STIPULATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

APPENDIX C-VEGETATION ANALYSIS

APPENDIX D-HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS

APPENDIX E-WILDLIFE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX F-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

APPENDIX G-SOILS ANALYSIS

GLOSSARY

ACRONYMS (Front of back cover)

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER I

PURPOSE AND NEED

r

o

CHAPTER I

PURPOSE AND NEED

o

INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSED ACTION

The Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation (DNRC) , Stillwater
Unit, is proposing the Dog/Meadow
Timber Sale Project. The project
proposes to harvest timber and
improve road drainage and stream
crossings .

The gross project area encompasses
approximately 5,000 acres. The
project area, north of Olney, is
adjacent to Highway 93 and runs east
to the toe of Stryker Ridge. All or
portions of Sections 7, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 32, and 33,
T33N, R23W, and Sections 12, 13, and
24, T33N, R24W, are included in the
project area {see PROJECT AREA MAP
on the back of the front cover) .
The school trusts involved in the
proposed actions include Public
Schools (C.S.), Agricultural College
(Morrill Grant) (A.C.B.), Public
Building (P.B.), and State Reform
School (S.R.S) .

Two alternatives, an action and a
no-action, are being analyzed. If
the action alternative were
selected, an estimated 8.5 million
board feet (MMBF) of timber would be
harvested from approximately 93 9
acres of the analysis area.
Harvesting would be accomplished
using a variety of silvicultural
treatments. The type of treatment
selected for each stand would depend
upon the existing condition and the
desired future condition for that
particular stand. Existing roads
and short spur roads that would be
built for temporary use would access
the proposed harvest units. The

temporary spur roads would be built
to minimum standards and reclaimed
after harvesting activities are
completed. Adding ditch and
surface-drainage structures,
graveling segments of road, and
installing culverts where needed
would improve existing roads in the
project area. All stream crossings
on access roads would be examined to
ensure that they comply with Best
Management Practices (BMPs) ;
improvements would be made as
needed.

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The lands involved in the proposed
project are held in trust by the
State of Montana for the support of
specific beneficiary institutions,
such as public schools. State
colleges and universities, and other
specific State institutions, such as
the School for the Deaf and Blind
(Enabling Act of February 22, 1889;
1912 Montana Constitution, Article
X, Section 11) . The Board of Land
Commissioners (Land Board) and DNRC
are legally required to administer
these trust lands to produce the
largest measure of reasonable and
legitimate long-term return for
these beneficiary institutions
(Section 77--1-202, Montana Codes
Annotated [MCA]) . On May 30, 1996,
DNRC released the Record of Decision
for the State Forest Land Management
Plan (SFLMP) . The Land Board
approved the implementation of the
SFLMP on June 17, 1996. The SFLMP
outlines DRNC's management
philosophy for forested State trust
lands and provides specific Resource

Management Standards for 10 resource
categories .

DNRC manages the forested State
trust lands according to the
philosophy and standards in the
SFLMP, which states:

^Our premise is that the best way
to produce long-term income for
the trust is to manage intensively
for healthy and biologically
diverse forests. Our
understanding is that a diverse
forest is a stable forest that
will produce the most reliable and
highest long-term revenue stream-.
In the foreseeable future, timber
management will continue to be our
primary source of revenue and our
primary tool for achieving
bi odi versi ty obj ecti ves . "

PROPOSED OBJECTIVES

To meet the goals of the management
philosophy adopted through a
programmatic review of the SFLMP,
DNRC has set specific objectives for
the Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project:

• Harvest 6 to 10 MMBF of sawtimber
to generate revenue for the
appropriate school trusts. As
mandated by State Statute 77-5-222
MCA, the proposed harvest would
also contribute toward maintaining
DNRC's sustained-yield
requirements .

• Provide funding for completion of
site improvements needed to
promote long-term water quality
and maintain existing road
systems. Existing roads and
stream crossings in the project
area would be improved to ensure
that adequate road drainage, water
quality, and safety standards set
forth by current BMPs are met .
Specific design criteria may need
to be engineered to address any
known sources of sediment in the
Dog Creek and Meadow Creek
watersheds .

• Implement management activities
that would bring the forest toward
desirable appropriate conditions.
Timber harvesting would be used to

promote biodiversity on State-
owned lands by managing for
appropriate stand structures and
species compositions. Ecological
characteristics, such as landtype,
habitat type, disturbance regime,
and unique attributes, would be
used to determine appropriate
stand structures and compositions.
Harvesting would maintain or
improve the long-term productivity
of timber stands by increasing
stand vigor, reducing incidence
of, and potential for, insect
infestations and disease
infections, regenerating portions
of the stands where overall
timber-stand growth is decreasing,
and reducing the risk for high-
intensity, stand-replacement
wildfires .

RELATIONSHIP TO THE SFLMP

The SFLMP is a programmatic plan
that provides field personnel with
consistent policy, direction, and
guidance for the management of State
forested lands. It contains the
general philosophies and management
standards that provide the framework
for project-level decisions.

The SFLMP guided the planning of the
proposed Dog/Meadow Timber Sale
Project. Its philosophy and
appropriate Resource Management
Standards have been incorporated
into the design of the proposed
actions. The Dog/Meadow Timber Sale
Project Environmental Assessment
(EA) is not intended as a
programmatic or area plan and is
limited to addressing specific
proposed actions in reference to
issues that were identified through
public involvement and
Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team)
input .

EA PROCESS

EA DEVELOPMENT

This EA was prepared in compliance
with the Montana Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA) of 1971. The
intent of MEPA is to foster better

Page 1-2

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

decisions and wise actions by
ensuring that relevant environmental
information is available to public
officials and citizens before
decisions are made and actions are
taken. MEPA requires the State
government to consider environmental
impacts in its decisionmaking
process. MEPA also requires the
State government to inform the
public and other interested parties
of proposed projects, the resulting
environmental impacts, and
alternative actions that could
achieve the project's objectives.

PUBLIC SCOPING

The initial stage of an EA is the
public scoping process, which is
used to:

- inform the public that a State
agency is proposing an action and

- invite members of the public who
are interested in a proposal to
identify issues of concern and,
possibly, suggest alternatives to
components of the proposal .

Three mailings and a field trip with
an individual have taken place; two
mailings were followed by thirty-day
public comment periods. The
mailings are detailed as follows:

• Initial Proposal and Comment
Period

DNRC solicited public
participation in the Dog/Meadow
Timber Sale Project by advertising
in the Whitefish Pilot and Daily
Interlake newspapers on April 26,
2001. Additional public comments
were solicited in a newsletter
describing the Initial Proposal,
which was mailed to neighboring
landowners, individuals, agencies,
industry representatives, and
other organizations that had
expressed interest in the
management activities of
Stillwater State Forest.

The comment period for the Initial
Proposal was open for 3 0 days.
Five letters and 2 phone calls

were received.

• Project-Update Newsletter and
Comment Period

The newsletter of July 9, 2001
provided people on the mailing
list with an update of the Dog/
Meadow Timber Sale Project and
explained the basic concepts of
the proposal and the action
alternative. Concerns raised
during the public scoping of the
Initial Proposal were also
included in this newsletter. The
types of proposed management
activities, their location in the
project area, and a proposed
project time line were identified.

The comment period for this
newsletter was open for 30 days.
One response was received.

• Project -Update Letter

A February 26, 2002 project-update
letter informed people on the
mailing list that work on the Dog/
Meadow Timber Sale Project would
be delayed until completion of
DNRC's Moose Fire Salvage and
Restoration Project Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) .

The ID Team, made up of DNRC
specialists (see LIST OF PREPARERS
AND CONTRIBUTORS at the end of
CHAPTER III) , identified and
summarized issues and concerns
raised during the public scoping.
Based on input from the ID Team and
issues and concerns from the public,
the decision was made to analyze the
effects of a no-action alternative
and an action alternative. The
issues and concerns identified
through both periods of public
comment are summarized in this
chapter. The original comments
received during both comment
periods, a memorandum documenting
the details of a field trip, and the
mailing lists developed for this
project are located in the project
file at the Stillwater State Forest
office in Olney.

Chapter I-Purpose and Need

Page 1-3

EA DEVELOPMENT AND DECISION
PROCESS

Public comments related to issues
that could affect the project were
incorporated into the document.
Upon completion of the analysis, the
EA and Finding will be circulated to
parties who, through a Request for
Information, requested for a copy.
To ensure that adequate
environmental analyses have been
done, DNRC provides a 3 0 -day comment
period for public and internal input
regarding the EA and Finding.

The decisions presented with the
Finding will become recommendations
by DNRC to the Land Board.
Ultimately, the Land Board will make
the final decisions regarding the
proposal .

PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES

If the action alternative were
selected, it is likely that 2 timber
sale contracts will be prepared, one
in the winter of 2003 and the other
at a later date.

The first contract package would be
tentatively scheduled for
presentation to the Land Board in
the spring of 2003, the second at a
later date. If the Land Board
approves the packages, the timber
sales would be advertised for bid.
Harvesting and roadwork under both
contract packages would occur over a
single 4-year period. After
harvesting activities are completed,
site preparation, tree planting, and
hazard reduction would occur.

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
RELATED TO THE PROJECT

To address direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects to resources on a
landscape level, resource analyses
will consider the required potential
effects from past, present, and
future actions to resources within
defined analysis areas. The Taylor
South Timber Sale Project
Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) , completed in 2000, updated

the existing environment in
reference to vegetation in the
coarse-filter analysis area,
accounting for changes that were not
reflected in the stand level
inventory (SLI) . The analysis for
the Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project
uses this information to examine
conditions in the existing
environment .

OTHER AGENCIES WITH JURISDICTION/
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife
and Parks (DFWP) has jurisdiction
over the management of fisheries and
wildlife in the project area. DFWP
is on the mailing list for the Dog/
Meadow Timber Sale Project and has
received the initial proposal,
newsletter, and letter update.

DNRC has an ongoing contract with
DFWP to collect data on Stillwater
State Forest and monitor streams for
existing fisheries habitat and the
presence/absence of bull trout and
westslope cutthroat trout.

PERMITS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO
IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED ACTION

A Stream Protection Act Permit (124
Permit) is required from DFWP for
activities that may affect the
natural shape and form of a stream's
channel, banks, or tributaries.

A Short-term Exemption from
Montana's Surface Water Quality
Standards (3A Authorization) , issued
by the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) , may be
required if:

- temporary activities would
introduce sediment exceeding
natural levels into streams, or

- DFWP feels the permit is necessary
after reviewing mitigation
measures in the 124 Permit.

DNRC is a member of the Montana
Airshed Group, which regulates DNRC
slash burning. DNRC receives an
air-quality permit through
participation in the Montana Airshed
Group .

Page 1-4

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

PUBLIC CONCERNS

Through the public -involvement
process, the public and DNRC
specialists raised issues and
concerns about the project's
potential impacts on the environment.
DNRC used these issues concerns in
developing the project design and
mitigation measures (see CHAPTER II -
ALTERNATIVES) . These issues and
concerns were considered by DNRC when

analyzing the need for developing
additional action alternatives.
TABLE I-l - SUMMARY AND TRACKING OF
ISSUES AND CONCERNS FROM PUBLIC
COMMENTS summarizes issues and
concerns received during the two 30-
day public comment periods and
indicates where these concerns and
issues are addressed in the EA
package .

TABLE I-l - SUMMARY AND TRACKING OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS

RESOURCE
AREA

CONCERN
OR ISSUE

WHERE ADDRESSED
IN EA PACKAGE

Fisheries

Bull trout and westslope cutthroat
trout cumulative effects analysis meet
the minimum Federal and State legal
requirements.

Appendix D - Hydrology
Analysis, page 4

Hydrology/

water

quality

Timber harvesting in riparian areas.

Chapter II - Alternatives, page
II-6; Appendix D - Hydrology
Analysis, page 4 and 5 ;
Appendix E - Wildlife Analysis,
page 6

Identification and mitigation of
existing nonpoint sediment sources
before additional activities proceed
that have the potential to create
sediment sources .

Chapter II - Alternatives, page
II -5; Appendix B — Stipulations
and Specifications; Appendix
D - Hydrology Analysis

The analysis of water quality meets
the legal requirements of the
cumulative-effects analysis mandated
by the Clean Water Act, State water-
quality standards, and MEPA.

Appendix D - Hydrology
Analysis. A cumulative effects
analysis was completed in
compliance with MEPA. All
requirements of the Clean Water
Act are being met.

Cultural
resources

Surveying for cultural resources in
potentially affected areas before
ground-disturbing activities occur.

Appendix B - Stipulations and
Specifications, page 4

Economics

Potential effects of lost timber-
industry jobs and revenues to local
communities if other long-term
revenue-generating opportunities are
considered in lieu of timber
harvesting.

Appendix F — Economic Analysis

Winter timber harvesting and
associated road use affecting
permitted commercial winter recreation
in the project area.

Chapter II - Alternatives,
page II - 3

Opportunity costs and rates of return
if sale costs were invested in other
ways.

Appendix F— Economic Analysis

Chapter I-Purpose and Need

Page 1-5

RESOURCE
AREA

CONCERN
OR ISSUE

WHERE ADDRESSED
IN EA PACKAGE

Economics
(cont. )

The economic feasibility of the roadwork,
logging, and slash treatments associated
with this project.

Appendix F —
Economics Analysis

Soils

Unstable soils in the project area with the
potential for mass movement.

Appendix G - Soils
Analysis, page 1

Quantifying soil compaction and erosion
that occurred in the project area due to
past actions or erosion that may occur due
to planned actions.

Appendix G - Soils
Analysis

The potential effects of proposed
activities on soil productivity and
stability.

Appendix G - Soils
Analysis

Wildlife

The effects of the proposed actions on
habitat-security areas for large mammals
(grizzly bears and Canada lynx) and old-
growth-dependent species (pileated
woodpeckers, goshawks, pine martens, and
fishers) .

Appendix E - Wildlife
Analysis

The effects of forest fragmentation and
changes in connectivity on wildlife and
vegetation resulting from proposed and
previous management and road-building
activities.

Chapter II — Alternatives,
page II -5; Appendix E -
Wildlife Analysis, pages
E-3, E-4, and E-5

The restoration of fragmented habitat
blocks and corridors.

Chapter II — Alternatives,
page II -5; Appendix E —
Wildlife Analysis, page E-

4

Species-specific habitat losses (both
locally and forestwide) .

Appendix E — Wildlife
Analysis

Threatened,

sensitive,

and

endangered

species

The analysis should demonstrate that
species present in the analysis area also
adequately populate the surrounding area.

Appendix E — Wildlife
Analysis

The influence of the proposal on
populations and habitats of threatened and
endangered species (particularly Canada
lynx and grizzly bears) and disturbances to
sensitive species.

Appendix E — Wildlife
Analysis

Vegetation

The impacts associated with clearcutting.

Chapter II - Alternatives,
page II -5; Appendix C —
Vegetation Analysis;
Appendix E — Wildlife
Analysis

The blowdown of trees within and near the
harvest units.

Appendix C — Vegetation
Analysis, page C-11

The successful regeneration of harvest
units.

Chapter II — Alternatives,
page I I -3 and Table II -1
on page II-6; Appendix C —
Vegetation Analysis, pages
C-6, C-7, and C-8

Page 1-6

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

RESOURCE
AREA

CONCERN
OR ISSUE

WHERE ADDRESSED
IN EA PACKAGE

Vegetation
(cont.)

The spatial distribution of existing
and planned harvest units, and the
variation from historic spatial-
distribution patterns.

Chapter II - Alternatives,
page II-5; Appendix E -
Wildlife Analysis, pages
E-3 and E-4; Project File
601, item 3.

The documentation of how historic
occurrence patterns used to make
management decisions were determined.

Chapter II — Alternatives,
page I I -4; Appendix C-
Vegetation Analysis, pages
C-1, C-3, and C-6;
Appendix E - Wildlife
Analysis, pages E-2, E-3,
and E-4

Old growth

Any logging of old-growth areas in the
project area should be analyzed for:

- impacts to the old-growth network;

- justification for not including

these areas in the network;

- fragmentation of and impacts to the
quality of old-growth-associated
wildlife and threatened,
sensitive, and endangered species;
and

- impacts to major components of old
growth as defined by Green ec al.

Chapter II - Alternatives,
page II-3; Appendix C —
Vegetation Analysis, page
C-9; Appendix E - Wildlife
Analysis

Roads/
transportation

Increasing the quantity and density of
roads in the project area.

Chapter II - Alternatives,
page II -5

Existing sediment delivery to streams
from roads.

Chapter II - Alternatives,
pages II-2 and II-4;
Appendix B - Stipulations
and Specifications;
Appendix D — Hydrology
Analysis

Postharvest reclamation and
restoration of roads to preharvest
conditions .

Chapter II - Alternatives,
page II -4; Appendix D -
Hydrology, page D-4

Monitoring

More intensive monitoring of forest-
management activities on State trust
land.

Chapter II - Alternatives,
page II -7; Appendix B —
Stipulations and
Specifications

Air quality

No public comment was received
specifically naming air quality as a
concern. Under the proposed action,
activities that will create smoke and
dust, such as prescribed burning and
log hauling, will be mitigated for.

Appendix B - Stipulations
and Specifications

Chapter I-Purpose and Need

Page 1-7

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER II

ALTERNATIVES

t

o
o

CHAPTER II
ALTERNATIVES

O
f3

INTRODUCTION

Chapter II describes alternatives
for the Dog Meadow Timber Sale
Project and summarizes the predicted
effects of implementing each
alternative. A summary of the
alternative -development process that
occurred on this project is
included. TABLE II -2 - SUMMARY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS summarizes
predicted effects from the detailed
environmental analyses in CHAPTER
III - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS or the
RESOURCE APPENDICES .

DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

The Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project
area was proposed for a timber sale
project in the fall of 1999. The
area was identified for timber
harvesting at this time primarily
because 2 existing stand conditions
are prominent in the area :

• Several relatively large patches
of 40-to-99-year-old overstocked
stands are present. These areas
have low growth rates and the
frequency of mortality and decay
is substantial. Tree mortality in
these areas has created heavy fuel
loading and areas that are at high
risk for high-intensity, stand-
replacement wildfires.

• Also present are areas of densely-
stocked and mature mixed-conifer
stands of shade-tolerant species.
Many of these areas were entered
with timber harvests several
decades ago. The harvests removed
many of the dominant western
larch, Douglas-fir, western white

pine, and western red cedar trees.
The shade-tolerant species that
currently dominate these areas are
highly susceptible to stem rots
and loss of value as wood
products. Due to jackpots of down
fuels and the high-stocking
density of species that act as
ladder fuels into the upper
canopy, many of these stands are
at high risk for high-intensity,
stand-replacement wildfires.

After identifying the project area,
this project was included in the
Northwestern Land Office (NWLO) 3-
year listing of upcoming timber sale
proposals. The listing was sent to
interested parties. The ID Team
began work on the project in the
spring/summer of 2000. The role of
an ID team is to summarize issues
and concerns, develop and define
management options, and, in
reference to issues, analyze
predicted and potential impacts of a
proposal on the human and natural
environment .

Throughout 2000, 2001, and 2002, ID
Team members and other DNRC
personnel were involved in field
reconnaissance and data collection
in the project area. Information
was collected on:

- existing roads to determine needs
to improve surface drainage, ditch
relief, stream crossings, and
safety features;

- timber-stand characteristics, old-
growth characteristics, noxious
weeds, and sensitive plants;

- the type, size, and location of

root disease concentrations;

- specific and general watershed
characteristics; and

- wildlife habitat.

Field data was used to define the
project and analyze the alternatives
and their potential effects. Using
this information within the
framework of the SFLMP and
associated Resource Management
Standards, an initial proposal was
developed. The initial proposal
began the public scoping period.

Public scoping consisted of
newspaper advertisements,
newsletters, and a project update
letter. During two 3 0 -day comment
periods, 6 letters and 2 phone calls
were received. Issues and concerns
received during the two 3 0 -day
comment periods are summarized in
TABLE I-l - SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND
CONCERNS FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS.

Within the context of public
comments, continuing field
reconnaissance, and specific
resource concerns, the ID team
considered the need or benefit of
developing additional alternatives.
The ID Team determined that the
issues directly related to proposed
actions could be addressed through
minor changes in the project design
and/or mitigation. Based on
determination of the ID Team, issues
and concerns did not drive further
alternative development. The ID
Team developed an action proposal.
Action Alternative B, within the
framework of the SFLMP and its
associated Resource Management
Standards .

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS

This section describes No-Action
Alternative A and Action Alternative
B. The decisionmaker may select a
modification or combination of the
alternatives.

• Description qfJVo-^lction .llfernntive . 1

No-Action Alternative A may be
used as a baseline for comparing

the effects that Action
Alternative B would have on the
environment. No-Action
Alternative A is considered a
possible alternative for
selection.

Under No-Action Alternative A, no
timber harvesting, improvements to
existing roads or stream crossings
on access roads, or timber-
management revenue generation for
the appropriate school trusts
would occur in the Dog/Meadow
Timber Sale Project area at this
time. Winter recreation would
continue to occur under commercial
permits. Salvage logging,
firewood gathering, recreational
use, fire suppression, noxious-
weed control, additional requests
for permits and easements, and
other ongoing management requests
may occur. Road maintenance may
occur when funding is available
and equipment is in the area.
Nonpoint- source sediment -de livery
from roads in violation of BMPs
may occur. Seasonal road closures
may be installed to protect water
quality and investments in road
maintenance. Natural events, such
as plant succession, tree
mortality due to insect
infestations and disease
infections, windthrow, down fuel
accumulation, in-growth of ladder
fuels, and wildfires, would
continue to occur. Future
proposed management activities,
including timber harvesting, would
go through the appropriate level
of environmental analyses before
implementation .

Description of.lction ,1lternative R

The ID Team developed strategies
for harvesting timber within the
framework of the SFLMP.
Opportunities for harvesting
timber are identified based on
current and desired timber-stand
conditions. Proposed treatments
were developed that would, in the
long-term, move timber-stand
conditions toward desired age

Rage II -2

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

classes, species compositions,
structures, and stocking
densities. Proposed treatments
would also maintain long-term site
productivity, thereby ensuring the
long-term capability of trust
lands to produce revenue for the
trust.

Action Alternative B proposes to
harvest approximately 8.5 MMBF of
sawlog and stud material over an
estimated 939 acres. Acre and
volume estimates may change due to
streamside management zones
(SMZs), fisher buffers, wetlands,
and other adjustments taken into
consideration during the layout of
the project.

Action Alternative B is designed
to minimize impacts to commercial
revenue-generating activities on
DNRC-managed State lands.
Commercial winter recreational use
has been permitted for more than
10 years under a DNRC Land Use
License in the Dog-Meadow Timber
Sale Project area. The Land Use
License currently includes use of
the McCabe and Skunk Meadow roads,
which are proposed routes for
hauling timber under Action
Alternative B. To minimize
economic impacts to permitted
commercial recreation in the Dog/
Meadow Timber Sale Project area,
the following mitigation measures
were applied in the design of
Action Alternative B:

• Winter hauling on segments of
McCabe and Skunk Meadow roads
would be limited to 1 season.

• Proposed harvesting in areas
requiring use of the McCabe and
Skunk Meadow roads would not be
included in the first year of
timber sale activities. This
would provide the licensee an
additional year to find an
alternate area for use during
periods of log hauling.

• Vegetative screens or buffers
would be maintained between
harvest units and open roads to

minimize visual impacts to
recreational users.

Proposed unit locations and
existing roads are shown in FIGURE
II-l - PROPOSED DOG/MEADOW ACTION
ALTERNATIVE MAP.

Under Action Alternative B, timber
harvesting in the Dog/Meadow
Timber Sale Project area would
occur in:

- large patches of 40-to-99-year-
old overstocked stands and

- densely stocked, mature, mixed-
conifer stands with species
compositions dominated by shade-
tolerant species.

The proposed silvicultural
treatments are designed to
concentrate on areas dominated by
the tree species most susceptible
to insect and disease problems
(subalpine fir, grand fir,
Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine) or in
areas with preexisting insect and
disease problems (mountain pine
beetle infestations in lodgepole
pine or severe mistletoe
infections in western larch) .
Action Alternative B is designed
to avoid harvesting in areas
meeting the old-growth criteria
for the number and size of large
trees as defined by Green et al.

To bring stands toward desired
conditions. Action Alternative B
would utilize various harvesting
methods to emulate naturally
occurring disturbance processes of
varying sizes and intensities.
Regeneration of areas not fully
stocked after harvesting would
focus on establishing vigorous
stands of western larch, rust-
resistant western white pine, and
Douglas-fir. Following timber
harvesting, other areas would
remain fully stocked.

The stipulations and
specifications designed to protect
resources during harvesting and
road-improvement activities are
forms of mitigation measures that

Chapter II-Alternatives

Page II-3

Page II-4

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

would be applied to Action
Alternative B {APPENDIX B -
STIPULATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS) .
These stipulations and
specifications, incorporated into
the Timber Sale or Site-
Preparation contracts, are
enforced during contract
administration. Mitigation
measures that were designed to
reduce impacts on a particular
resource are also discussed in
Chapter III and each particular
resource appendix.

Public comment was received
concerning use of clearcut
silvicultural prescriptions on the
project. To reduce the size and
impact of openings created within
the proposed harvest units, the
following mitigations were
included in the project design:

• Harvest units would have
irregular edges, emulating
natural disturbances.

• The clearcut prescription was
combined with other treatments
to allow for the retention of
individual trees and pockets of
trees to reduce the size of
created openings.

• Units adjacent to open roads
would be buffered by the
retention of additional trees/
vegetation along the road.

Public comment was received that
proposed that natural spatial
distribution and occurrence
patterns be considered when
management decisions are made. A
landscape -level patch analysis was
completed in reference to age
class and covertype (project file
601, item 3) . Covertypes and age
classes, in reference to historic
conditions, were considered at a
landscape level (see APPENDIX C-
VEGETATION ANALYSIS) .
Connectivity, in reference to
wildlife habitat, was considered
in the wildlife analysis for this
project (see APPENDIX E-WILDLIFE
ANALYSIS) . The locations of

harvest units were designed to
reduce fragmentation of large
continuous timber stands of a
particular age class or covertype.
Locating harvest units adjacent to
units that had been recently
harvested and increasing average
size of these harvest units to
better emulate natural disturbance
patterns was incorporated into the
design.

Existing open and closed roads
would be used to access harvest
units. This would reduce impacts
to soil, water quality, and
wildlife habitat and reduce the
sale's development costs.
Approximately 0.3 mile of short
temporary spur roads are proposed
for improved yarding access. The
temporary roads would be reclaimed
to reduce road maintenance costs,
protect specific resources, and
prevent unauthorized motorized use
after harvesting activities are
completed. Surveys of existing
roads have been conducted in the
Dog Meadow Timber Sale Project
area to identify erosion and
surface-drainage problems that
could be improved or eliminated to
prevent sediment delivery to
streams. In a road-development
proposal, sediment-delivery
reduction and the implementation
of BMPs would be accomplished
through a road- improvement
package. Improvements would
include :

- culvert replacements and
upgrades,

- minor road relocation, and

- installation of road and ditch
drainage features, such as drain
dips, open- top culverts, ditch-
relieving culverts, graveling
and grading road surfaces,
armoring existing culverts, and
using slash filters and sediment
fences near stream crossings and
culverts .

The purchaser of the timber sale
would fund the road and BMP
improvements .

Chapter II-Alternatives

Page II -5

PROPOSED S I LVI CULTURAL TREATMENTS

If Action Alternative B were chosen,
several of harvest treatments
(silvicultural prescriptions) would
be required to meet the described
management objectives. Under Action
Alternative B, multiple
silvicultural prescriptions are
proposed for implementation within a
single harvest unit. A variation of
silvicultural prescriptions within a
proposed harvest unit would emulate
the effects of mixed-severity and
stand-replacement fires across the
landscape. Where existing stands
would allow, multistoried forest
structures would be retained to
perpetuate structural diversity.

The preferred tree species for
retention (in order of preference)
would be western white pine, western
larch, Douglas-fir, and western red
cedar. Although none were
encountered during field
reconnaissance of the stands
proposed for treatment, any healthy
ponderosa pine would be retained.

Reserve trees would remain
individually or in clumps within the
harvest units where prescriptions
specify. Reserve trees would
include seedtrees, existing snags,
vigorous trees of various age
classes, and large serai trees that
have a high potential to become
future cavity-nesting sites. To
provide for structural and species
diversity, small clumps of younger
trees would also be retained as
reserve trees.

In some buffer areas adjacent to
streams and wetlands, the potential
for limited harvesting would occur
in compliance with the Montana SMZ
law. Depending on an area's timber
and hydrologic characteristics,
harvesting in SMZs and buffer areas
would be determined on a case-by-
case basis. Some SMZs along
perennial streams in the project
area have been designated as fisher
buffers where timber harvesting
would not occur. These 165- and 83-

foot fisher buffers are designed to
function as wildlife linkage
corridors across the project area.

The proposed silvicultural
treatments would leave approximately
8 to 10 tons per acre of coarse
woody debris (greater diameter than
3 inches) in harvest units following
site preparation and hazard
reduction.

Where available, approximately 2
large snags and 2 large live trees
for snag recruits per acre would be
retained in a clumpy distribution in
harvest units. Silvicultural
treatments that would be applied to
each harvest unit are specified in
TABLE II -1 - PROPOSED SILVICULTURAL
TREATMENTS BY UNIT. Following are
descriptions of the silvicultural
prescriptions proposed under Action
Alternative B:

• Modified Seedtree with Reserves -
Six to eight large western larch,
Douglas-fir, and western white
pine seedtrees per acre would,
individually and in clumps,
provide a seed source, snags and
snag recruits. Reserve-tree
selection is described above.

• Modified Seedtree/Shelterwood with
Reserves - Six to eight large
western larch, Douglas-fir, and
western white pine seedtrees per
acre would, individually and in
clumps, provide a seed source,
future snags, and cavity-nesting
sites. Approximately 15 to 30
trees per acre would be retained
in shelterwood areas.

• Commercial Thin - Forty to sixty
percent of the existing overstory
would be harvested to reduce the
stocking density and improve
growth rates and vigor. The
residual stand would consist of
the most vigorous and largest
diameter trees currently on site.
Serai species (western larch,
western white pine, and Douglas -
fir) would be the favored leave
trees in the stand.

Page II -6

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

• Group-Select with Reserves - Small
openings up to 5 acres in size
would be created in the existing
stand to promote regeneration and/
or release established
regeneration. Seedtrees would be
retained within group-select
openings. Improvement cutting
would be done between openings to
reduce stocking density, increase
the shade-intolerant species mix,
and remove trees that are at high
risk for timber-product value loss
and mortality.

• Combination Clearcut with
Reserves/Commercial Thin/Group
Select with Reserves - This
treatment would vary across a
harvest unit, depending upon the
existing stand conditions.
Varying the prescription across
the unit would help break up the
openings and create irregular
shapes that emulate the variation
of natural disturbances across the
landscape. Areas consisting of
densely stocked lodgepole pine
stands would be prescribed as
Clearcut with Reserves harvests.
Portions of the unit treated with
the Group Select with Reserves
prescription (described above)
would create smaller openings with
larger quantities of seedtrees and
reserve trees present than would
be present in areas treated as
Clearcut with Reserves.
Commercial Thinning (described
above) would be prescribed in
portions of the unit with adequate
amounts of serai species and/or
vigorous, large diameter trees.

MONITORING

DNRC's timber sale administrators
would monitor and administer
harvesting and road construction/
maintenance activities for
compliance with BMPs, the State SMZ
Law, any 124 and 3A permits, and the
SFLMP. The sale administrator would
also monitor harvesting operations
to ensure that the prescribed stand
treatment was occurring within each
harvest unit.

Following harvesting activities in
the Dog/Meadow Project area, the
following monitoring would take
place :

- DNRC personnel would likely audit
the project area for compliance
with the SFLMP;

- DNRC specialists and a State-wide
BMP audit team may audit the
harvest units and haul roads in
the project area for BMP
compliance;

- the harvest units would be entered
into DNRC's electronic calendar
recall system to schedule and
track needed slash disposal, site
preparation, planting, noxious
weed treatment, regeneration
stocking surveys, and
precommercial thinnings; and

- postharvest stand characteristics
in the harvest units would be
recorded and updated in the SLI
database. Annual reconnaissance
reports done by Stillwater Unit
foresters would continue to be
compiled for the Dog/Meadow
Project area.

Chapter II-Alternatives

Page II -7

c

c

X)

tt)

t(-i

M-l

4H

C -H

C -H

tt) C tt)

JJ

x; >, o

x: >, o

X!

>, 0

0

0

T3

u

XJ ^ 0 >H

•H

O M

U rH

U

rH

■H 0)

•H 4)

C

C D

CO tt)

XI

fc

V^ 0) c

V4 0) c

U

0) C

•u c c

JJ C C

Id

o x;

Id 0 >-.x;

3

o

(0 a o

m a 0

(d

PS 0

Ifl M -H

Id M -H

JJ

JJ rH 3

H -»

rH -H

rH -H

rH

■H

>H OJ ft

^ OJ ft

XI

>. o

X! 03 tt) tt)

rH JJ C

H 8

4J

XJ

4J

0) JJ

(U JJ

o

rH

O C ^H 03

Id C >H

^ g

C • OJ

a • IB

c

• a

C m 0) T)

C 03 lU Tl

u

tt) tH

>H 3 rH

VJ Id tt) >,

^1 0) M

v^ <u ^

Vj

0) )H

lU (U JJ 0)

O; ID JJ (U

Id

Pi 0

Id X) tt)

3 rH JJ rH

^ :5
5 M s

0) C 0)

0) C (U

0)

C i)

tn ^ -H X

01 3 -H AS

rH

rH C C

JJ ft 03 rH

■U -H C

■U -H c

4J

-H C

d) XI u

0) X) u

C

•H Id C

Id Jh tt) 3

H << C

tn ft 0) •

m ft tt) ■

OJ

ft OJ •

M HH 3 0

^H UH 3 0

c

• 0

C 0

C tt) 3 IfH

o w n

0) tjl CO

(1) Di w

0)

Di m

0 JJ

0 JJ

u

tt) -H

>H tt) JJ -H

JJ

SSI

3 OJ 0) (U

3 OJ (U <u

3

(U 0) <u

<-* G v>

r-l C 03

tt)

C JJ

tt) G C JJ

C C XI JJ

4J M -H

JJ M -H

U U -H

Id JJ >H

Id JJ v^

JJ

•H Id

JJ -H Id Id

0 H C 0

^ -H U

X5 -rl U

x:

■H V

u a 0) >,

>H C OJ >,

03

ft ^

03 ft rH M

Id C

ft, ^ «

•U J3 >H 0)

4J XI rH 0)

4J

X! rH (U

3 Id JJ rH

3 Id JJ rH

0)

tt)

tt) ft tt)

>.

O H .>

-H s m ft

■H 3 (0 ft

•rl

3 (0 ft

JJ rH M rH

JJ rH 03 rH

3

tt) C •

3 tt) >H C

rH • X: 03

^^ CD

3 u m

3 Jh M

3

u m

Id ft (U 3

Id ft 0) 3

JJ 0) 03

JJ tt) tt)

tt) c o Id

O tJ

C 3

C 3

C 3

C Vh 3 ItH

d >H 3 MH

JJ

■H Ol tt)

JJ -rl JJ 01

Vi 0 M tt)

4J k 4J (U

4J M 4J (U

4J

M w <u

OJ

OJ

C

x: tt) -H

C XI C tt)

-H Id >H

W S

C 0) <ti 0)

C 0) nJ 0)

c

(U cS (U

>. JJ -d JJ

>, JJ -O JJ

Id

3 >H O

Id 3 H Vh

>i JJ rH Id

S n

nj 4J c (^

m 4J c v^

(C

•U C M

rH C C 0

rH C C O

i-{

tt)

rH

rH Id

§

i-H CQ 4J

rH m 4J

rH

CO JJ

-H -H Id C

•n -H Id C

ft

C rH ft

ft C rH

-H ^1 C C X3

ft (U (U

ft 0) a;

ft

OJ (U

U

u

^1 Id 03

SH • Id

V4 tt) >H -H tt)

^^ 3 XI M

>H 3 X! >H

^1

3 X! !h

Id JJ x; w

Id JJ XI 03

>i

tt) V4

>, tt) 03 JH

Id c tt) >;

<U 4J 0)

lU 4J (U

OJ

JJ OJ

6 XI u Id

E XI u Id

rH

JJ 3 tt)

rH JJ Id 3

E O JJ tt) o

4J T3 x;

jj T3 x;

U

-a X!

-H 01 Sh 0)

•H 01 M OJ

rH

03 JJ tt)

rH 03 0) JJ

-H 01 03 C 0

C C C 4J

C C C J->

c

C C JJ

k -H Id >H

V4 -rl Id >H

3

tt) Id ^J

3 tt) iH Id

Jh tt) ttJ -H JJ

M m 0 o

H (0 0 0

M

ITS O 0

a iJ rH Id

ft h:i rH Id

fo

3 C JJ

fc 3 Id C

O4 >H 3 ft 03

§

(U

0)

lU

0)

ti

tt)

tt)

4)

H

i-H

rH

r-i

r-^

^

rH

rH

<-{

H Q ^

»*J "< IJ

-H

-H

-H

-H

-H

-H

-rl

•H

ft - C

ft - c

ft

- c

ft - C

ft - c

ft

- c

ft - c

ft •- c

>-. u

>i v^

>< >H

>i Vh

>1 u

>. u

>- M

>. iH

< N r.

iH M-l 3

rH MH 3

rH

MH 3

rH ItH 3

rH UH 3

t-i

HH 3

rH MH 3

rH MH 3

(B -H XI

(0 -H XI

m

-H X3

Id -rl XI

Id -H XI

Id

-H XI

Id -H XI

Id -H X3

U V-l

u ^

u

IH

U U

o u

o

^1

o u

0 u

-H (0 4J

•H (C JJ

-H

10 JJ

•H Id JJ

•H Id JJ

■H

Id JJ

-rl Id JJ

•H Id JJ

C U 0

coo

C

U 0

COO

coo

c

O 0

coo

coo

ij. § pj

m M ft

m w ft

ro

m ft

Id M ft

Id 03 ft

Id

03 ft

Id 03 ft

Id 0) ft

x; ^

x; M

X!

X

x; M

x: j^

x:

X

x: a

x: a;

H

U T) U

U T3 U

O

Xi o

U TS U

O XI o

o

XI o

O T3 o

0 73 0

H

(u c ra

0) C (C

(U

C iC

0) C Id

0) c Id

0)

c Id

tt) c Id

tt) c Id

CO

2 nj -n

S (0 -n

s

nJ -n

S Id -n

S Id -o

s

Id -n

S Id -n

S Id -rn

o

H £ h

rH

o

o

o

r-

0

HARV

VOLT

(MB

(N

CN

CO

00

en

(M

H

>-l

^

)H

U

M

M

u

^

0

O

O

o

O

0

0

0

u

4J

4J

4J

*J

JJ

JJ

u

2 H

u

u

O

u

u

O

o

0

3 M

m

(0

A

ns

«

Id

Id

<d

>* *

M

^

M

M

M

u

u

V4

H

Eh

Eh

Eh

Eh

Eh

Eh

tH

"^

ft

m

0)

x:

0) 03

X)

XI 3

g

u <u

4J (U

JJ

i) (U

JJ

JJ 0

u >

i) U

•H

M > T)

X!

•H

-H vj x:

x;

3

rH JJ >H 0

rH ft JJ

3

3 Dl JJ

rH ft JJ

§

rH 0)

,-t v

Id T) 4) 0

Id 3 -H

^ -H

Id 3 -H

^

0) m

<u m

0)

w

-H 0) w 3

-H 0 3 03

u

03

JJ 03 3 w

-H 0 3 03

•«;

01 OJ

M (U

OJ

OJ

U 0) OJ M

O M OJ

3

tt)

3 tt) tt)

0 >H tt)

H

^^

^H

iH

^

Vh m >H OJ

iH 01 JJ >
tt) -^ O U

O

t

)H C O Ci

k 01 JJ >
tt) ^^ 0 in

Pi

ft

ft

4J

0) ^, JJ

^

H

3 XI

3 x;

T>

OJ

E C XI rH

E C 0) tt)

Id

tt)

Id tt) tt) tt)

E C tt) tt)

0 4J

O 4-1

(U

to

e -H u 0) -u

E -rl rH 03

0)

03

tt) 03 rH 03

E -H rH 03

M -rH

U -H

0)

0)

O XJ -H XI 3

0 X! tt) ttJ

rH

tt)

rH tt) tt) tt)

0 x; tt) tt)

O 3

O 3

W

>H

U JJ 3 w U

U JJ 03 M

u

>H

U >H 03 i^

U JJ 0) iH

to
pa

(N

in

rH

o

VD

H

M
W

a\

O

in

r~

§ p

<

m

u

<

CQ

<

M

^

H

H

H

CM

m

n

'f

>*

Page II -8

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

C

in

cn

C

U tt)

IB

IB

0

Ss

«

tt) tt)

tt)

tt)

•H

o

X!

j3

x;

iJ M

x:

)H

U

C

JJ

H _

U •

IW

o

•

M-l

u

tn 4J

CJ •

>M

IB

HH

IB UH

M tt)

(8

H B

U t)

0

u

i)

0

M

tt)

^ tt)

0

T3

0

TJ 0

tt) JJ

>H •

a 1

(TJ C

m

c

m

3 U

(0 c

TJ C

TJ C

JJ -H

tt) cn

,-i -H

C

rH

•H

c

rH

>-i tt)

rH -H

B

tt) IB

c

tt) (B C

cn X!

a tt)

M •< g
CS M S

^

a

0 •

ft

0 •

Tl m xi

ft

0

*

>!

• o

.

ij • 0

•

tt) 3

tt) •H

(U

c

•H M

c

-H tn

C

c v^ u

c

-H

in

u x:

tt) -H

cn

U x: tt) -H

CO

3

01 U

4J

M <u

4J (U

V4

(U

4J 0)

u

IT) 3 0

M tt)

4J

tt)

0 u

C JJ

tt)

O U C JJ

tt)

C

tt) tt)

t-J

(U iJ

nS -H

(U

4J

nj -H

tt)

4J

tt) -U

(0

•H

JJ ^1

■H IB

-H

JJ M -H IB

-H

x: u

>H ft

sai

<TJ

JJ -H

U V

JJ

■H

^1 o

4J

> ni i»H

JJ -H

^

u

in nj

ft U

u

CO IB ft )h

o

JJ tt)

cn

M X!

(U <u

tn

X!

0) 0)

tn

tt) 2 0

in Xi

tt)

tt)

C rH

tt)

o

C rH tt)

tt)

-H JJ

r-l

T3

(U S

C ft

0)

3

C ft

tt)

c

tt) 3

c

ft

3

OJ c

ft

3 tt) C

ft

3 CO

IB tt)

li, 55 «
OH,,

lU

3

V m

3

D in

3

■H C

3

tt)

10

C

JJ 0)

cn

C JJ tt)

cn

tt)

U tt)

J<! •

C

Di

C

cn

ft • 0

C

01

JJ Vh

•rl 01

JJ )h -H 01

JJ 3

3 >H

Q .^

O Ol

4J ^

0) d)

•U

U

<U 0)

u

tt) -H

4J U

tt)

tt)

C tt)

x; tt)

d)

c tt) x: tt)

tt)

C

JJ JJ

0 C

C tt)

U 0)

B

V

^^ tt)

c

nJ C 4J

C tt)

u

tt)

IB JJ

3 Vh

tt)

IB JJ 3 >H

tt)

IB T)

IB

O H

4J -H

nj JJ

M

(C

4J

Vl

n)

tn -H (fl •

(0 4J

)H

t-1 cn

)H

rH cn

u

rH C

Z >H

w H

W W

iH tn

f-H 4J

iH

ta

rH 4J

rH

0 ft ^1 tn

,-i to

r-l

JJ

ft tt)

C --i

JJ

ft tt) C rH

JJ

ft <B

tt)

P n

W

ft V

(0

ft

(D

<n

ft

U t) i)

ft tt)

IB

3

U IB

3 ^1 IB

x:

g

>, (U

U 3

)^ M

M

3

u u

U

4) tt) C -H

IH 3

)H

)H

>.

tt) )h

u

>, tt) )H

)H

>.x:

• JJ

^ ^

(U

3 0)

(U

3 (U

tt)

T3 -U tt) u

tt)

3

tt)

rH X!

JJ 3

tt)

rH X: JJ 3

tt)

rH U

tt) 0

4J tJ

jj x:

4J

■o

AJ X)

iJ

C -H 01 tt)

JJ T)

JJ

x;

f-t JJ

tn JJ

x:

rH JJ cn JJ

J3

r-l U

c

3 (0

c c

(0 iJ

c

B

fl 4J

c

O X! tt) ft

C C

IB

jj

3 -H

tt) ta

JJ

3 -H tt) (8

JJ

3 IB

•H MH

fc j:

M m

a 0

H

nj

la o

M

ft 3 v^ tn

M (0

Z

0

fc 3

3 S

0

fc 3 3 a

0

CK rH

ft 0

g

o

(U

0)

(U

tt)

tt)

tt)

tt)

tt)

•REPARAT3
) HAZARD
DUCTION

iH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

r-l

rH

•H

•H

•H

•H

•H

•H

•H

•H

a

ft -

c

ft

• «

c

ft

- c

ft -

c

ft -

c

ft •» c

ft -

c

>,

v^

>.

v^

>. >H

>.

)H

>,

)H

>i >H

>.

)H

i-H

rH <4-l

3

rH

ItH

3

1-1

MH 3

rH 4H

3

iH lt-1

3

rH MH 3

rH MH

3

m

(0 -H

XI

«

■rH

XI

m

■H XI

(0 -H

XJ

IB -rl

XI

IB -H ^

IB -H

^

u

U U

CJ

u

u

^

CJ >H

CJ U

U ^

U Vj

■H

•H flj

u

-H

(tj

4J

rH

OJ 4-1

-H (0

JJ

-H IB

JJ

•H IB JJ

-H IB

JJ

M< H g

c

c o

0

C

o

o

c

U 0

C U

0

C U

0

C CJ 0

C U

O

w a «

n3

0! CO

ft

(0

CO

ft

nJ

tn ft

(0 to

ft

IB in

ft

IB cn ft

IB CO

ft

x:

x:

ii

x:

J<J

x:

X

x;

X

Si

X

x: X

x:

X

o

U Tl

u

o

T5

u

u

T> U

CJ T)

CJ

U TJ

u

U T) O

U TJ

u

H

0)

(D C

m

i)

C

(0

tt)

C (0

tt) c

IB

tt) C

IB

tt) C (B

tt) c

(d

to

s

2 <C

•n

X

IB

•r-l

s

n3 T-t

S IB

•n

2 IB

•n

S <B -n

X (B

•n

w e^

■^

in

HARVE

VOLDl

(MBF

00

o
o

03

in
in

00

00

in

iH

H

C9 ^

■ —

H 2

^

V^

)H

Jh

iH

U

u

M

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Q £

OJ

U

4J

4J

XJ

JJ

Jii

u

JJ

o

o

U

o

o

CJ JJ

CJ

u

u

(fl

(0

(0

(0

(d

IB t-t

IB

IB

(B

vh

v^

»H

^

)H

U O

U

U

^

E-"

H

H

H

E^

Eh CO

JJ

Eh

EH

C

C

C

•H

-H

"-^ -H

I*

x:

--^ X!

x:

x:

^ x:

JS

x:

cn

x: to X!

x:

■u

4J 4J

AJ

OJ

4J JJ

JJ

jj JJ

tt)

JJ tt) JJ

jj

O -H

•H

•H

Tl

U -rl

•H

u

^

•H tt)

•rl

r-i

(U 3

3

3

0

tt) 3

3

rH tt)

3 ^ rH

3

<a

r-l

-V, 0

r-{

-^

IB rH

tt)

JJ (B

it

•H

(U (U

to

i)

tn

tt)

tn 3

tt) t)

CO

jj tn

-H tt)

cn

JJ -rl

JJ en

n

o

ta (U

0)

0)

<u

tt)

tt) V<

in tt)

tt)

3 D

CJ CO

tt)

3 tt) U

3 tt)

K

^

^

>

^

t,

^

> tt)

>H

c;

^l

>H

^

u > u

(H ^1 tt)

^b

P

(U

ft -u

u

4J

jj

^ 4J

ft -u

tt) ft

E

3 TJ

V

73

i)

T)

tt) rH

3 T3

tt)

IB tt)

e 3

x:

IB tt) E

(B tt)

E

0 4)

m

t)

to

tt)

in tt)

0 tt)

tn

t) tn

E 0

jj

tt) cn E

tt) cn

o

Vl 0)

<u

0)

0)

tt)

tt) j2

Vh tt)

tt)

r-i tt)

0 u

•H

rH tt) 0

rH tt)

CJ

O OT

u

W

^

M

)H CO

O cn

u

U M

U 01

3

O >H CJ

U )H

CO

o

rH

00

n

m

H

rH

CO

**

ei

H H

H g

in

VO

t--

CO

o>

O

rH

CQ
o

Chapter JI-Alter/iatives

Page XJ-5

iz;

x:

JC

J3

43

o

U • X-l

U • <*-(

U ■

M-J

O • H-l

IF REGENERATI
N AREAS
REGENERATED

^1 (1) o

k OJ 0

nj OJ

0

V4 (U 0

(fl c

(0 fi

1-1 C

(0 c

-H -H c

t-i -H C

•H

c

iH -H C

ft 0 •

ft 0 •

u

C ft

0

>

ft O •

C -H M

C -H tn

v

u

-H

tn

C -H m

>^ 0) JJ QJ

M 0) JJ flj

JJ

i) (U

JJ

0)

^1 (U JJ <u

(1) jj m -H

0) JJ ns -H

M-l

JJ JJ

m

•H

0) JJ (0 -H

4J -H k U

JJ -H k U

(0

tn -H

M

o

JJ -H V< O

W J! tt) (U

tn ^ (U (1)

(U £

(U

(U

tn x: 0) flJ

(U 3 C ft

(U 3 C ft

X)

3 3

C

ft

(U 3 C ft

3 0) en

3 (U tn

(U

(U

tn

3 OJ to

C cn

C CD

^; •

V C

01

C 01

;thod c

I

BEING

JJ M (U 0)

JJ M 0) 0)

O O)

C M

0)

(U

JJ >^ OJ 0)

C (U h (1)

C 0) J-i tt)

0 c

(C (U

J^

i)

C 0) i^ 0)

(0 AJ v^

a) JJ k

JJ -H

1-1 JJ

u

(ti JJ M

iH en 1-1 jj

iH tn 1-1 JJ

tn JJ

ft CO

t-i

JJ

iH in rH JJ

ft (U m

ft OJ rt

to

<D

m

ft OJ nJ

^^ 3 >^ Vj

M 3 >^ >^

>, OJ

>> 3

^^

iA

k 3 V^ V^

G

0) 3 0)

(U 3 0)

rH >

1— 1

3

0)

OJ 3 OJ

S

■U T) -U J3

JJ TJ JJ J3

iH 1-1

<-> 73

JJ

x;

JJ 73 JJ J3

c c (c 4J

C C (0 JJ

3 m

3 C

(0

JJ

C C (C JJ

M (B g 0

M (0 g O

fa x;

fc (0

!3

0

M nJ !2; 0

»

preparatic
jd hazard
eduction

V

«)

v^

<U

OJ

1-1

.-1

(U

iH

iH

-w

•H

JJ

•H

-H

ft •- c

ft - C

JJ

ft •-

C

ft - C

>, u

>i U

m

>i

M

>i u

rH IM 3

iH M-l 3

u

1-1 M-l

3

rH H-l 3

(0 -H jq

(0 -H ^

to

(0 -H

ja

nj -H 43

u ^^

U V4

o v<

O M

■H (0 4-1

•H (C JJ

Tl

-H rt

JJ

-H «J JJ

c u o

coo

c

c o

0

COG

w 3 '^

H
W

m to ft

(0 tn ft

m

(0 tn

ft

03 to ft

J5 >J

* j«;

X!

X

x: X

U 73 U

O T) O

ft

U XI

o

O 73 O

<U C (0

(U C (C

0

(U c

(0

OJ C nJ

2 m -n

S (C -n

►q

2 m

-n

2 OS -n

E^ u

in

m c ^

H g B«

i 5 a
S p £

VD

H

vo

to

VO

vo

•*
rt

H

o

H

H

in

3 ^

00

§g

V4

0)

OJ

>^

M

S§

0

0

C

0

0

JJ

•H

-H

JJ

*J

p3 H

u

1-1

iH

o

U

2 £3

<fl

^

>,

m

Id

>< *

V4

J.;

M

u

H

M

w

H

H

J3 0)

JJ 0)

■H M

c

g

3 iJ

-H

T) 01

x;

JS

xi

J3

JJ 0) (U

JJ

iJ

JJ

^

0]

H

U QJ s

(U tn U

•H

■H

•H

OJ

^

3

rH

3

?

tt. In

iH -v^ (U

n)

m 0

0) M tn

(U tn

•H

JJ tn

0) to

S 'Q

en (L) 0)

(U 0)

o

3 <u

OJ OJ

0\

ft^^

i^

0}

^^

iS

lO 1-1

3 <U X!

TJ (U

6

(D 4)

73 OJ

CO

0 M JJ

(U tn

6

0) CO

OJ in

..

(^ (U -H

(U <u

0

iH 0)

OJ o>

.. (1)

C3 ^^ 3

M u

u

O k

0] v^

<u tn

1 1)

-1 >H

0 0

M

t. <B

g

o

in

o

ro

c^

tri
n

•0 73
4J 4J

<

to n

Pi

(U lU

H W

H n

<

cq

4J U

p p

f-l

Cl

ro

n

■*

0 0

^

H

fH

H

H

f-4

h. E-.

Page 11-10

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

g

u

I

^

b.
O

I

H
H

9

Xi

tt) u

C

JJ

0

c tt) (d u

to

0

-H

c

in rH 1 -H X} X3 0

<U V

3

tt) tt) 10 4J C>< 4-1

to to

to

flj

to 3 rd tt) in x) w

ro iH (0

T)

4J

U

(dlW 'a3tt)i-HC!4J 4J

<U (U (DC

B

in

tt)

tt) C'd3V44J30W C

u :3 ta -H

m

tt)

x: in

^X)-HCrH -HO tt) ttJ

U "4-1 -H

4J

U

3 (d

UC (du-x!3tn>^ E

c -a tt)

in

0

3

tt)(dtn Cx:3 <dO 4J

■H - ^

b

to

T3 tt)V4-HU tt)tt)fc (d-

>. TJ

»^

C tt)

>,too MCCi-i Din

"O -U -U C T3

tt)

tt)

o o

x)4J(dOi4J(dVj-H(0tt) u i)

^^ -H O (0 iH

XI

4J

-H C

>^-Htt)-H(drHtt)ft 4J^4JCJ

(0 M (U 3

4J

10

4-) (d

(drH(^>X! 4J 0(dC C

b *^

3 nj to « 0

o

4J

•H ^

3mU 4JCtOtt)iJ4Jtt)rH(d

5 P>i

O jj C m 3

M

T) M

o i-> c xs u <u r-i tnoidxi

5 H

trend t
tree mor
dings, i
estation
ections

0

c

0

-H
4J
-H

M
tt)
4-1

1-H

ilar con
or distu
urring.

y trend t
tree mor
adings, i
mber-stan
ecies mix
ung weste
sistant w
d lodgepo
addition
illwater
ve had re
Ivicultur
re distur

>, (0 <*-l "4-1

T3

■H

E -n u

c C 0 c c

ki -ri f-i -H -H

TJ

4-1

•H (d u

cco-Haott)CC4J(d-H-H
iei!-HrH4J 10 >,^i (d-Hcnx: inM-l

<t!

W

in E 0

- to"" (U

1^ N u '0

tt) V< V4

>n 0 (d 0 "H

3 -H -H

•U C E 01 3

iH l»-l M-l

•H -H -H 0

•

(B

M in E V4 Tl > 3

> 4) TJ

(d tt) -H tt) tt)

S^

>, 3 C

JJOltt) t-l WV^TaTJ 10

•S

1-1 4J 01 >^ <0

•

V<rdE 1 00C:CT3'0

•5

rH -H 0 JJ

tt)

Ott)04Jininfteidn5M>.4

%

(0 r-H r-l

to

1
?

EiocoO(dtt)0 4J3iO

H rn

?

^H (0 3 0) rH

n)

-H M.HXI-ltt)4JM0N

o 2

1

<u 4J m x; (8

ttJ

y-iTJ Oi-HOtJ^U 3id

> k tn 4J -H

^

0 • iJ 3 E tt) X!

5:

•

0 O i^

u

^

'O'OOO ET3I0 -in

H £?

E 4-1 C (U

c

^

^!Ctt)OQtOO.HCiOttJtt)

g^

>

OJ 0 -H 4J

•H

*<

io<do>-i (u u :3 -H X iJ u

§

jC TJ (fl

•

•H 3 C -H 1+-I 0 O (d -H

H «

1

4J C to >, E
nJ to r-l
0 U >,

3

1

J^OITJC-HO 30<dVjli4
4J JJ -H tt) T3 4-1 4J

"00^4 tnG,tt)in 4Jx: TJ

^

a; 0) iH (0 T3

O

Ctt) MCW4J4JJJm4J • <u

E O nH 0

3

•

<dintt)tt)0 (dcc 3tt)0

-H c - 3 0

c^iD-H ^itt)(dttJ0tn3

4J 0) tn u 3

X)

in-H (d4J •tt)E4JinVj(d't3

"O rH -H

(^

M 'att)UMC4Jton30itt)tt)

^ m (U 4J d

(0

tt)ErHMtt)3tt)(d-Htt) ^^Vj

(U U > V) 3

N

>03u<4-4UOitt)inin'au

> (U 0) <B 0

OS

tt))-40CBUtt)^tt)-HCCtt)

o T3 >-H axi

Xi

iJM-l 3-H-H 0 V44J MTJ <0-H.Q

T3

Tl

X!

C Tl

4J C

u

(C rH

■H • (d

M

3

in tn in in

(d

> 0

4J tt) iH tt) Xl <H

flj 01 iH

>i 3

0 ^4tt) tt) UC tt)tt)

U tt)

4J

>,V4 0> Ol>^tt)^l>-l 3^4

3 tt) C

•H tt)

iH <4-ltt) C4JX:(dtt) M-l-H

XI >H >H

>H 3

X:E-tt)iH -H 4JrH4Jtt) >»-l

tt) 4J tt)

nJ iH

Dltt)TJX3 (JT3 10X3M

U 4J

» CO

4J ni

-H4Jtt) D1-3tt)-Ctt) tt)C

•

M-l 01

H S

>w >^ >

Xlin4Jtt)CT)T3C01W3X)T13

XI

XI 0 tt) •

0 0

I03-Htt)a)-HCtt) iHTIO

tt)

•-i 3 tt)

E 01

tt)0tt).HA;uv^m-HU4J3idi^

u

3 01 0

to 0

>^4j5(d03 AJwiocoJu
rd ^>0Tl>.tt)Ctt)<d3

3

0 c x: 4J

tt) « iH

XI

3 0 4J 4)

Q S

4J C 3

ttJid 4Jtt)rH^(d34J M-4

tt)

-H -H iH

(0 0 rt

4JiHX:OltOV^4J rH Wtt) -0

>-l

0) 4-1 3 -u

>-i -H in •

(dja c ccai4-i-HCTi

C (d 01

JJ OJ

x; -H tt) -H •- tt) tt) 0 0 in -H tt) j^

tt)

-H >-l X) -H

4J nj >t-i 3

4J4JXJ^44JX>3 X: 4)0.0110

XI

4J 4J tt) E

C 4J 0 c

ft tt)W tJ'0JD14J>-l (d-H

01 C 4J

0) tn -H

oitt)'a>OT3tt)0)3C 1 tt)tt)^i

XI

tt) tt) U >4-l

>^ 0) to 4J

tt)UrHOiHrH01tt)O34J4JM

iH

> U tt) M
h C «4-l (d

V4 (4-4 to C

tt)053U 3Xl>-l>-iO01-HOT)

3

3 C 0 0

>430tt)oio34Jx;E3x:cc

g

(d 0 C 3

O -H rH U

Hoi3k^-H3oioiEH(d^i3-H(d

3

K U -H X3

H

J

u
tn

V

■a

0

c

C V

^

o

nJ -

>.

O

CO
H
PS

'ii

iJ

u
ji J3

^

u

Id u

s?

to

n (d

^

C •

H OJ

M 1

3 J3

Chapter JI-Alternatives

Page II -II

<U (U rH (8

u c

•U XI (0 tt)

rt C Tl ^1 M

c

•H C ^^ ^^

r-i Jh 0) MH -H

01 1

1

XI -H T3 (U (0

•U ft (U 4J 0 MH

^^ 4J CTl

0)

S rH C

C 0 4-) nJ 1 • Jh >,

OJ en C m

Tl

(U 3 (U CO

OJOicnitn E-U cnTJOJrH

4J -H 0) 1

(C

c CO 0 tn-H

ECrHTfOJ -HCOJnJdJXJJJ

fO u nj 0

3 M

X! (fl

Sh (0 3 en

(U-HnJ(U3 4J(UX:rH4J4JC

3 0) V4 OJ 4J

CO

0) (U (U >,

Di>J X cnu4JDiuoa)

rH Jh OJ Jh 1

«.

JJ ^H CO X; rH

rflnJOJ-riOJHttJJ-i 3aJ Vh

rH OJ ft ni 0

-d m

en u 0) oJ m

C4JkE4J-H (l)>,Oftx:JH

•H x;

k QJ

0) c to c

(C m MH q ftxi Q X J-) 3
£3 ojcnirt! ^^oj-HU

4J 4-1 r- 0) 0) •

(S -M

3 -ri CO 0 (0

M • X! x! cn

R 1^

S u

(C 4J

i04JX3Tlcn riTJXl 3

- H 4J jj cn

C h

0 0)

4H C rH <U

jJCcn4JC«J (UCJto cn

C 4J (0

B w

4-1 a
-a

C 4J

0 (d CJ a x;

0 4J

C T3 0) -rl

0 c! m 4J c

eO Q) nJrH-<+H-HjH-HC<U

(UcnjHOioJOicnOftnJ OrH
jHa)0Ccn3(U 3rH(u-Hm

O-HMH-H OftOltJ ftOJCn

<*H4J oJ^aStnucSieJ

0 CO 0) C >irH

0) 4J -H X3 U

01 M (TJ

C 0 E 0) TJ 0)

v c

•H (0 (0 -H -H

■H fa -H CO OJ 01

^^ ns

4J Xi

-H(l)J^(U\4JmO^^.UCJH

Jh X nl -h m

4J U

u - ^^ Td -o

^^>x!tt)^HXl^^(U djjH-Ha)

^ OJ 0 0) ft

(U

3 0) oj m c

(U-HaJ>-Huajhnjjj(U^^
xj-u CC^^>CJa)en>EE

3 .(J Jh ^^ 3 Jh

0) rH

-OCT) <u

U nJ ft u U nJ

x; 0

0) -H rH C ^

jJUCOOoJOCViiUOO-H

U 4J ft C U 0)

E-i 4J

>H a 0 -H 4J

OnJOUOrHU-HnJ3uu4J

0 CO <0 -H 0 >~.

0) 0)

01

M-l C 1 >,

V

en ^

C

0 ^^ 0 U Tl T3 -U

u

m -H

■H

0) 4J -H (U C -H

•H

<u ^

T3

X -U nJ JJ nJ (C V^

Xi

u

C

•Hcn Ccn 30)4-10)

>

\ 3

U 0) TS OJ

0) •

ftE0)nJOO Xl)Hcn>

•

J3

0) en (U E

)H CO

3 3 0) -H E -H m 0)

^

0 c

Tl nj 3 0

4J 0)

^

1 cn Vh XJ TJ Jh x; cn

.ft

u u

(U C en u

en

^

30)T)(0-Hi<C4J4J4J 1

<

m 0)

Tl Sh Vj -H en (U

- cn

S

0-HC T3 (OcnuGTJ

%

rH 4J

rH (U U 4J (C X)

cn n)

•<:

rHUOijJTI -H0)X30)

H ,„

•;

to

3 tH C C rH

3 rH

5

rHOj unj.tnTl-1-1 X

o £

1

C (U

0 -H -H 0 U Tl

0 U

^

OftO)0) eno) oo)-H-

M ^

M 3

3 C CJ 1 rH

(U

5

^Hcnc-nfiiJJHQ)^^4JEen

cS ^

•

QJ

0 T3 0) 3

C 0)

1

■H0-HU3Xiftm 0)

H E?

4J "X}

en u rH X! cn 0

(U 01

X;0)ftM 0)4J rHTJU

Q ^

s

CO c

0) 1 3 -u nj 3

01 (C

>•

ux; fta)<wuTio)3CC

B tK

.5

(u m

ftTl 0 -H

S (U 3 3 - C

0

•

-HUD cn<4H3rHx;En!nJ

H "

•c

3

E U

5

3 4JO)ITJ0)M3-Ufl) XJ

i

M

4J X CO

0 (U

,«

-•Hx;o) 4-)o -ujh

>

- -H

in -H cn - 0 -H

x: Tl

1

~cnx;4JJHJ-)co3-iJTlC3

>f

0) M-l

0) E OJ 0) -H w

t-t

0)JJ3 UU 3rH0)4-)

E 1

> ft E en 3

0 0) S-H CO XI

i-> 0

•

EC Ci:;a)Tle0O3Etn

•H CO

(0

•H 0) C -H -H Jh C 01 x: 0 0) -rl

4J nj

U X5 -U 4J OJ -H

x: TJ

jjEJh -HnJC0i3UTl

rH

4J Sh >h in

3 Jh

jjo)x:titijj-h3 m

!h 01

0) 0) Sh ft 4J

0) nJ

iHnJJJUrH eOCGAJrHO)

0) 3

C Tl > 0) ft CO

E 3

0)0)cnJH30) 0)VHn3ftJ-i

> 0

■H C 0 > 3 -H

0 0

>>HO)njox:>wftx:x:o)-ri

0 Q

ft (C U 0 CO TJ

cn jJ

O-U3rH34J004-)-UjH>4H

Jh TJ T3

-HO) ~^ OJ

-6

cn >4H 4J 01 X! C

V

0) 1 nJ C 4-) -H

4J

Jh G en E -h -h m

U

U 4J (Cj -H rH 3 4J

0)

(B rH 4J TJ 0)

ft

Tl 01 en OJ 0) - Jh

X

UD 0) 3 0) X5 0) cn

0)

-* u G cn en en >,

Ul^lQCTl nJO)JH
OJ^riJrH nJrH 0) 0

0)

u

>, > XI 3 U H 4J

(i

rH C U 0 0 4J CO

0) 0 ^1 • 3 4J 0) M

CO

iJ U (tJ cn 01 M OJ

(U

(0 rHOJcnT3<O0J>

0)

E OJ ft 0) OJ Tl 0

-HX3 C SJH4-) OlrH

a

(0

X M4JU>hCO0J

J3

OTIOJJHfOOJ-H X!

CJ

jHrHJJOJ >rH0)4J

ftpto>'*CftE

0

ftOOJOHOfOGC

2;

i<33uvoucocn-H

i

o

(U
(0

g

C C W

c

■H nj 0)

o

m

'4J

M 0) S

M

ro

0) <U 4J

M

S
1

hang
lass
over

0 tJ u

Page II- I 2

Dog /Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

•

>,

T3 -H a

rH ,H 0) O

3 «j x:

0 3 JJ e -P

3 4J (0 to

C M M u

c 0) 0 01 M

3 M
P M

0 > H-l O 0

■H 0) V4 b

JJ 01 ft

U Tl C (U

(0 rH -H JJ JJ

3 T) C m

0 O C 0) JJ

C U 3 E w

>H <U

O

•

>

>W TJ 01 1-1

4J

u

0 C 0) (0 0)

u

u

OJ JJ C 4J

(U

t)

•73 0} ni Id

>t-i

M-l

C (U C E 3

>4-l

IM

(U U -H 1 rH

(1)

i)

>H 3 E Tl rH

JJ T3 -H 4) •^^

0

0

0) rH (U iJ

s

a

< V4 0) 3 CO

0)

4J

0)

JJ JJ

JJ

0

js

C 01

E

>.

nj t3 nJ

c

CO

JJ (U

T)

jj

^

0) c

0

JJ

(U i-H JJ

(U

Tl

>

0

>

ca

U -H

in

•H

IH 3 -H

CO

C

d) -H

•

0

m iw

C 01

m j-i •

0

c

>

■• XI 0 J3

0)

3

3 JJ

3

Tl 0

(0 (C

-n (Tl 0)

IM

JJ ■

3

(U JJ U (0

>H

MH CO C

C -H

.i

OJ

m

a

8;
1

Tl 0) 01

0

M

0

JJ (C

^*

CO XI

ft

X) 0

•H en

CO

M

. 0 ^1

X! w

(0 l-< T3 U-i

•U 3

JJ

^

(C 0) 0) TJ

0 u

JJ C

c

m

-H

Vj )-4 (U

JJ

U (U O

0)

C U

0 Tl

■C

(u x: en c (U

tn

z m JJ JJ

C <u

ft

l*-l

3 4-)

■H «

'.^

M

01

0) u

JJ

ft rH

ft

>H JJ C (0 X!

<u

3 C en

0 CO

•:

J3

u c u

3 0)

^

3 - 4J >i

TJ

U 0

C

ft 3

ft

U (U JJ

-H

0 (U OJ

o

>

U

T3

u OJ nj

u

V
>

CJ in ft in

(U

(t

(U

0 0

1.

c 0) JJ m

u

• JJ E >H

(U

i

3

C

0 ft Vj

<u c

5

U Tl 3 -H

•r-iTJ

u

JZ

i

■H CO C lU ^

(U

(TJ (U 0

T3 CO

^

OJ

(0

0 (0

01 0)

£

O C M ^4

0)

Tl .H

(0

0) in

§.

(0 -H >H <U

ft

0) Tl 01 P^

rH 0)

-a j3

C Tl •

;5

<a x>

X!

(0 3

•n

Tl

C

T3 0) nJ JJ

en

IH (U (TJ

3 XI

>

^

0)

--1 01 u

m (Q CO

>

73 u m n-t

4J

0

Tl

■H j>;

<U

<^

rH VJ (1) rH

(TJ JJ C 0)

O JJ

1

tn

01

3 C

X! U Tl

•

iH en o

en 3

IT3

> <o

JJ

5

3 O rH 0) (fl

JJ

U (0 JJ

3

C t>^

0)

ca

O 0 (U

U <U >-i

5

3 S

DITD

0 ttJ

nJ

0 c (C x:

c

JJ OJ E (0

O

2 M

X

-H

>

s rH x:

Tl (0

a

0 x; >H 0)

C

C in

in

u u

(U

>

3 -H O JJ >,

nJ

CI rH JJ

in JJ

H

^

4->

iH

m OJ

Tl N

■5

3 4-1 ■-< in

0

IT) u

JJ

ftXl

^^

!$

en r-\

^

(U rH Tl CO

Tl

i

•H

n3

«

nH C (0

•

3 nJ (0

.H

JJ -H

•H

x:

i

Tl T3 1 C rH

ft

-n O (U

<U JJ

>

W

01 >. -

3 -H x:

01 0 l-i (U

(C

in c

C

>. <u

JJ

iH rH 0) -H (0

0 CJ (U >H

0) (TJ

*^

•H

C -H 0)

0

C ^1 3 V4

3

3

m k

^

(0 3 01 -H

(N

IH 3 0)

3 (U

4J

<U

-H iH E

3 V lU

•H Ol -U U

fij

(U

E -H

(U

N 0 h <U JJ

ft 1) 1 JJ

u

•

U

Tl

4J (C -H

tn V^

4J 1 U C

5

m jJ

JJ

ij-i

^

(0 3 (0 >H c

0)

ja en (TJ

in X!

CO

(0

•H

W -H 4J

tn (0 -H

en TJ 3 -H

0

0) in

in

10

•H

XI M -H m

x;

(U 3 3

3 JJ

OJ

tn

(U U

T3 D 4-1

(U i-H V<

"O

x; OJ

0)

Tl (0

4-1

XI >»-l JJ

iJ

XI T3 0 rH

0

•H

<U

TJ

> 0) >^

C 1^

> 0 4J 0)

3

JJ >

^

C

Tl

(U u (TJ T3 en

JJ rH -H rH

•H (0

tJ

B

m

Vj ft (U

(0 U Tl

u en E

0

U

(0 ^1

t-i

^ -H rH XI

>H

3 X -H

X

<u

O

0

m m >

4J C C

(CO 0

i-H

>*-i n3

(C

JJ 0

-H

•H X! M-l -H 3

0

C 0 0 JJ

0 (U

ft

cn

^1

XI 0) o

to -H (0

K 4J m CO

x>

0 XI

K

CO M-l

3

fc 3 0 3 CO

MH

•H 3 C CO

s XI

CO

0

Tl

C

(0 • •

Be

3s

iJ T3 T)

in 0) (U

U 4J

XI (U o

iJ JJ 0)

3 C ft

•

O tt) X

•

w

U d)

JJ

u

0) aj

u

(U

1 ja en

(U

>4-l

T3 4J

IW

<4-l

iH Tl U

in

(U

0 rH (1)

3 t-l

(U

0

0 0 >4-l

o

a:

Z 3 (U

^

N

CJ

jc:

g

c
o

3

.

?!

O

V

0

•H

Ui

<D

V4

JJ tn

H
04

1

01

•a
o

Sensi
plant

Chapter II-Alternatives

Page 11-13

u

(U

,

OJ - 4J

o

01 01 0) 01

Tl OJ

>,

E X5 01 C

Tl

4-1

C >^ 4-1 rt

■H (fl (0 4J (1) (I)

u

0) XI
OJ

rH

(0 4J 4-) 4J OJ C
Jh 01 ^4 tJ OJ T3 0

OJ
■H

01

X! rH 4J Ti c x; XJ

0)

3 O

4J (d

01 0) X! 0 0) x: rH

ft

C (U

U W 0) <U 4J

fl

4J

01 o

OV44JinV44J3(TJ

3

■H >

U < >, E Xl

0)

^

01 k

u

OJ -H

Jh 0 -H in 0 OJ

u

4J X) -H

(0 M 0) (U - rH

>

-H

m 0)

O Tl T)

h 4J

a [14 3 OJ c > u iH

u

C C 4J

4) 0) > 01 a) 3
01 • JJ ^ (C E 0

•r)

4-1

3 x;

in 0) 0)

0 ITJ

■H 01 nJ

0

H

0) 3 -H

4J

4J

OJ OJ

in E

4J OJ C rH C -

> TA

E M-( 01

01 m 3 c -H u

•H

4)

E 0

01 C 3

5

C4JOO0J-H0)rH

01

1-1 M

SB

(U c

T) 0) 3 01 (0 4-)

01

xi

«

c

OJ u

OJ(Tj-HJ^>TlErH

•rl •

01 01 0)

C U rH E ft

c

4J

iH -

•H T3 0)

X! T3

E 4J 4J 4J -H C -H (TJ

01

nj (U 01

(0 M rH C 1 M -H

(U

01 T)

TJ rH X!

4J

0)W(TIC4J34->Jh

4-1 Tl

3 ^

C T3

3 -H (U 4J 0) X3

01

^

0 0)

C 3 4J

OJ

01 Jh O U MH OJ

(TJ OJ

B "

(TJ -H ^^

01 0 -U 0) 01 > 01

0)

>H U

3 O

C 01

(t! Jh 0) U (tJ Jh >

X3 JJ

p w

E > 0

(u 01 CO ja oj o iH

u

E

ft 3

MH 3 M

0 m

C OJ ft 1 X! OJ O

4J 3

1 0 M-l

-H >H (U

o

-H

Tl

0

OJ

(IJ 4J 0 Tl 0) 4J >

o

4J ^

U (0 in 01 o c

MH

4J

4J 0)

MH 4J

a u

E(TJO0)Jh-HO0J

4J 01

01 a 01

(u 4J 0 m itH • 3

c u

O C Tl

0 u

3 u 0) o s x;

01 3

4) C

ft ra XI 01 0

Tl

u

OJ

OJ OJ

-H C

Tl rH 3 E - 4J

0) 0

Vj E -H

01 T) C MH -ri

t)

01

Q)

E >i

01 E 01

4J -H

OJ rH C E

Jh -h

0 m >,

0 4-1 0 01 OJ

>1

(U

>

OJ <-t

OJ OJ (0

(TJ

OJ -H -H >, 0) • (Tl OJ

O X

M-l M 0)

4-) C -H 01 >~, U

OJ

-H

0

O) 4J

U 01 OJ

rH Tl

3 4J 4J E 01 ^ u

in O

01 >
0) 0 t(

G 3 4J (U 4J rH -H

^

u

rt m

>H (0 Jh

3 rH

CO - C 0 Jh 01 3

C

(0 0 Jh >H ^1 (0 4J

tt)

..

C 0)

3 C U

ft 3

OJ 01 3 CJ (0 O Tl

"" .

x; V4 3

rH c 0 o (0 d c

3

ft

IM

(0 V4

0 (0 c

0 0

x:C(TJOojojV40)

x; >,

H 0. 01

ft>i ft Ck ft (0 lU

01

01

H

E 01

01 E -H

ft u

Eh OXIUXI >,ftJ^

4J XI

c

Tl

m

•H

c

«

- OJ

xi m

X) 01 (T5

0)

01 OJ x:

U i)

rH 4J 01 14H

c

Vl ■.

01 1

C E 4J

•H Vj

3 C 0) 0 >H

0)

(TJ T)

C 01

-H -H 0)

S (0

0 3 0) O

x; 0 14-1 (u 4J

4J
(0

,

'*-

T3

0)
3 X5

•H 3
0 Tl 0

T3 4J C x: 4J
0) -H 4J C

51^

C M 4J

rH 01 E E -H

i)

w

.^*

rH

U J^

4J C -rl

8?

OJ Jh (TJ

S

10 0) u

rH (0 4J 0 C

u

c

3

C 3

3 X

m OJ C k rH

1^

> (U

<: 0) x: u to o

X!

0

c

Tl O

4->

01 m 0

■

> 0 0 ft

.t

M-l 0) -n

> o M <u E

4J

-H

5

Tl

OJ 3

>, OJ 01

Tl C

01

1

T3 0 -rl in

"S

0 rH 0

nS -H 0 rH -

4J

s

(U

01

XI E -H

OJ 0

OJ

C 4J OJ •

^

^

• x; x; c rH 4J 0

>1

(0

1

01

U Tl

o n

0) Z Vi

01

(TJ - IT! 01 > 01

W r 1

H W

1

iJVl&rH 3-HOC4J

(0

rH

3

01 OJ

Tl 01

3 0

0

Tl rH C -H OJ

01 <U

mm E u 0)

E

3

•

ft 0)

nJ OJ

in

ft

^

01 rH 3 -H 4J 4J

■H 4J (U

> E - E Tl

ft

01

01 01

OJ - X3

Jh •

Jh

^

4J 3 ft 3 (0 -H

^;

sh (D x:

0 (0 01 0 TI OJ 0)

4J

0

a

-H

■H

U 01

0 xs Xi

3

«!<

C 0 0 0 C 01

•

3 4J

E 0) Jh 4J rH > 01

m

ft

e

TJ Tl

ft Vh >,14H OJ OJ

ft

•

OJ U ft rH

>

(0

i) U V 3 0 3

X!

•c

(d

OJ

01 OJ rH

x; 4J

s;

E rH <n OJ

,s

(U c

>H 4J MH 01 0 Jh

u

4J

t^

0)

V4 01

01 OJ

01 01 u

4J

,a

4J 01 Tl (TJ 0 01

^

0) X! -H

01 14H OJ 3 ft OJ

c

^

v<

o s

OJ 3 ^;

(TJ -H OJ

c

1

(TJ (TJ OJ 0)

X

£) U

>- 3 w E XI

01

m

>

(0

l<H

XI -H

0) rH rH

OJ

OJ OJ OJ - 4J x:

>

01

ft Tl X) (C rH -H

Tl

l-i

^

r-i r-i

^ XI rH

E

•

>H Vj 3 (Tl C 4J

•

Tl C Tl

0 C 0) (0 T)

(U

ft

4J

>1 •

O (TJ

(TJ (TJ 0

0)

4-) (TJ OJ 0)

^ -H C

C « OJ V^ 01 4J rH

01

o

r-l C

4J C 4J

4J U

01

OJ Jh E C

3 (0

(0 > U 0 01 3

3

0)

0)

0) 0

0 01

01 01

(0

OJ TD x; (TJ XI 0

0 4) rH

U 01 -H C ft (U 0

>

-n

> -H

OJ -H 0

C OJ OJ

c

XJ OJ 4J 01

3 01 4J

T3 4J -rl 0 ^ 3

r-i

•H

0

•H 4J

3 4J E

•H XI

(TJ

•H ^ 4J -H 01

(C (U

0 C nJ IH 0

0

4J

Jh

01 lO

C (TJ

TJ OJ

E

U J^ 0) U rH OJ

(U d) 3

xj m 4J 4J ft 14H x;

u

•H

ft

C OJ

•H 0) Tl

-H E Tl

1

-H 3 U OJ XI -H

V4 Jh

rH ttJ -H U

4J

01

OJ u

4J Jh rH

> 0 rH

Tl

XI 4J 3 •!-> (0 U

0) O (U

0) 4J 01 E 0) >H -n

c

c

01

4J O

C O 3

0 O 3

OJ

Jh 01 TJ 0 4J OJ

x: c J3

3 <U <U -H x: 0 X!

0

dJ

x:

X OJ

0 0) 0

Jh OJ O

OJ

OJ -rl 0) Jh 01 ft

H -H 4J

Tl 3 > rH Eh iW 3

u

01

Eh

OJ u

O ^( 3

ftXI 3

3

K Tl Jh ft OJ 01

OJ 0)
rH - Jh 01

O 4J 0 (TJ

•H cm OJ

X! OJ OJ 01 Jh

0) TJ E XI 0) 01 (TJ

01

> OJ "d 4J 4J (TJ

OJ

01 rH (TJ 4J (T3 Jj Tl

^1 OJ

MO30JC4JO10J

3 x;

0 ft 0 M OJ CO X3

OJ 0] 4-1

4J X 3 4J E Tl Jh

x: (TJ

0 0) ft 0 C 3

4J OJ 0

E rH Tl -H 4J (TJ 4J

E 4J

T) -H OJ 3 C 01

m C

•

*

rH c o OJ cr 0 - -H

0 C -H

U

4-)

(0 (TJ 01 S OJ ft Tl

0

o

u

C 01 -H

0) -H Tl •

(D

0)

0 u rH 01 OJ x: 01

E 4J OJ 4J

in

4H

-H -rl (TJ • C > 01 C

0 (TJ c u

>u

HH

4J in Jh Jh -h 0 J^ -H

01 01 01 OJ

0)

01

-r4in0J3X!E0JTl
Tl (TJ C U 01 C OJ

•H -H -r-i
0) 4J 01 0

O

o

t3V<-hU(tJ4J30J

J4 -H OJ Jh

•

2

z

<4JEO3-hO01

(tJ E T) ft

CO

c

c

m

o

(0

•o

»

p

iH

«>

o

N-^

a

«>

g

C
O

(U

>

o

4-1

>

n

M

fO

H —

5

H

£

4J •

0

«

H 4J

■H

89

01 C

X

^

C 0

w —

1

Page XI- 14

Dog/Mea

dow Timb(

=r Sale Project Draft EA

ri

tt) tt)

E 0 Tl 4)

U

> <<H 3

0 AJ 4J rH .

0)

•

-H O TJ

u Tl x; XI J«;

> M

01

4J

IW AJ rH 01 nl 4)

0 (0

T)

rH

ns 4J tt) tt)

C 3 •H 3 4;

u >^

rH

tt)

rH 0) 01 T) x:

4) 4) O rH O V^

tt) 3

3

>

3 rH (0 C iJ

01 O 3 XI rH O

JJ ^1 4J

0

tt)

E 4-1 tt) (0

<a u nJ rH

C (0

.

3

rH

3 3 >H tt) C

ttJ tt) TJ AJ (0 01

V 0 c

(0

U 0 U >H tt) o

M ft 4) 01 0

E U

c:

(0

4J

tt) 0 01

O £ 4) AJ Q

•'^ C

0

E

C

XH tt) TJ E (0 01

C a> 01 C

Tl 4) 0

■l-i

m

tt)

ox: c tt)

•H • IH 4) tt) C

(U 3

u

tt)

01

JJ >, MH -H U

•* «J X U •H

W C -U

•H

u

tt)

4J rH o m 3

•

TJ AJ AJ ^1

•H C

-o

4J

k

C O tt) ^ 4J

E

rH M-l nJ 4) 4)

M-l 4J 0)

c

w

04

3 jj >: c Tl m

4>

3 0 3 3 ft 01

0 C TJ

o

O -H 0 1 tt)

AJ

0 0 1 (c

0 c

u

c

U

E >,rH -H tt) UH

01

3 rH ttJ rH (N tt)

n u lu

-H

(0

(fl (H 4J O

>,

tt) X! 4J rH IH

0) a

D1

tt)

ttJ T3 (0 (0 rH

01

Tl > Eh X( V

O T3 (U

c

(0

c

0) > rH rH IW 0

rH 4) nJ C

o

^1 rH "O

•H

Tl

X! -H 3 rH ^^ M

TJ

tt) rH rH •H

3 3

4J

(TJ

u

iJ rH 0 <0 3 JJ

nJ

•H • rH UH

0 o -

(0

0

0

tt) 3 4J 01 C

0

>, AJ AJ ttJ O TJ

01 S 0)

•H

rH

- TJ 01 O

M

•

C C 3 rH

TJ

X

4J

4) M C i) U

AJ

>H tt) 4) TJ tt)

D1 >, nJ
C t< )^

4)

4J

m

E 4J ttJ -H > 1

01

O

i) U U V r-i -ri

tt)

C

-H C tt) -H C

C

tt)

AJ >H ^1 XI 0 >,

•H tt) 01

^

tt)

c

4J ttJ Vl tt) 4J 0

■H

l«H

(0 3 4) X! 1

•U > ttJ

a

E

•H

E u x: U -H

AJ

tH

3 U Qt<-i 01 M

to -H TJ

•H

(0

(H -H 4J tt) 01

0>

tt)

rH 4) 4)

-H iH

T)

Tl

E

tt) TJ 01 MH O

-H

4) 4J 00 •H IH AJ

X 0) v<

c

tt)

tt)

> tt) 0 0 t^ V-l

X

0

x: x: • AJ x: (fl

W TJ 0

(fl

M

M

O 01 Q JJ tt) tt)

4)

z

Eh AJ r- 01 AJ 3

^

C AJ

^

->. tt)

01

tt)

«*•

0 01

•

C 3

AJ

tt)

rH

M

Ol

•

25

•H 4)

o c

(0

4J

-H

N

m nj

N

(C S M

'C

-H -H

X!

C -H

4J •

.1

c

'C

.^

ft

M-J 4J 4->

4J

(0 01

C 0)

tt) -H

IH (U t)

a

O (0 c

3 rH

"S

ja tt) Q

g

^

tt) X: AJ

5

■u 0

0

01

1) tt)

XI

%

>H >H C

1^

C nJ

i

m cj cj

u

01X1 tn

Tl (0

?

T) -U tt) T3 0

^

1

tt) 4J 3 •

^

1) 01

c

C

tt)

tt) <-i

1

rH C X! -H

5

Dix: tt)

^?5

>

M tt) -0

•H

•H

T) ^

U -H

3 tt) 3 tt) 01 •

>

1

tt) AJ - 01

•

M > rH

U

rH Eh

-H (0

•

0 E U 0 tt)

•

U T3 nl

5

0) tt) 3

>,

cn

3

n) >

3 -H 01 (TJ )h O

s

•

C tt) 4)

•2

O >^ 0

u

0

0

ft m

S

T) 4) MH 4) (T3

•2

(^

VJ -H V< V4

1

0 3

tt)

M

3 •

tt)

,5

ttJ ttJ JJ !h r->

1

.5

tt) x: M u

u u

>

u

j<;

U tt)

V:

V^ 01 -H 3 Tl ft

"C

AJ AJ 3 tt)

j

o. 0 c:

•H

01 01

E

A;

tt) 01 01 C

^.

itH •H u -a

^ 0

1-1

E

tt) -rf

tt) m

^

X! C m M

nJ 3 U

^

rH 73 -H

tt)

0

Tl ^1

ja o

•

AJ -H C 0 O

^

•

O T3

l« C -U

Tl

u

(0

tt)

0 4J > O

•

-XJ rH

^ m <o

MH

Vj Tl

•U X5

- C 01 4J

AJ

tt) AJ 01 3

3 N

4J

01 tt)

0

tt) O >i 01 01

U

E 3 m g

•U C -H

c

01

ft 01

C 01

E -H IH tt) C rH

tt)

•H o x: 3

(0 0 .H

tt)

E

3 (0

c

•rH 4J tt) T3 -H O

MH

AJ )H

C -H -H

E

m

tt)

TJ -rl

4J U > (fl 01 >H

>H

01 0] TJ

w ja

•H

tt)

T) ^1

rH Tl

Ih 3 -H ^^ 01 JJ

tt)

^1 AJ rH

tt) 0 (0

Tl

^

tt) u

3 C

4) Tl rH 01 0 C

tt) T3 •H tt)

J3 )^ JJ

tt)

4J

tt) c

0 3

> tt) tt) ft ^( 0

0

> C C •H

H 4) w

M

0)

C -H

3 MH

O >H TJ 3 U U

2;

O ITJ 3 >

^^ 4J

01

01

C AJ

c

i) c

AJ

•H C

■H

AJ 4) E

C

AJ m tt)

TJ tt)

C E (0 T3

3

0) E

TJ 4) X!

tt) tt) tt) rH

O

tt) 4) •H

rH J3 AJ

U )H 1 3

E

> > TJ •

4) 01 01

TJ (0 4J C O

rt

)H nl tt) 01

•H )H k •

rH 4) rH 01 0 3

A)

nJ x: 01 E

>M tt) 4) N

3 x: ft -H

C

)H

X! rt

*^ > ^

0 AJ 4) >H 01 01

4)

0

1 Tl >»H tt)

>H (0 0 >.

3 M 0 0 4)

E

C

M rH 0 >H

tt) 3 XI

01 ^^ >H

•H

-H

4) 3 AJ

AJ tt)

A) C - 01 W 3

TJ

E

^ 0 >; 01

E 3 01

(TJ J<! 01 rH

C -H C C 01

tt)

3 tt) nJ tt)

4) M 0 -rl (fl

01

0

•H •H O

tt) tt) >

•

E 3 -H TJ -4)

AJ

AJ 01 ^ AJ

•

rH >H ^1 tt)

iJ

-H '0 AJ nj 01 E

4)

tt)

AJ

(Tl O U rH

u

TJ (0 )h 01

x:

^

TJ •H 3 >.

CJ

3 C

tt)

4) 01 rH 01 C rH

AJ

tt) AJ 0 ^J

4)

C 01-H AJ AJ

<w

01 E rH ft-H O

4)

01 •H rH 4)

MH

CO c c

»H

Id itJ 3 01 ^

AJ

>

0 > >

KH

(TJ O 73 4) 4)

t)

4; 4) AJ 01 AJ

E >H 01 Tl 0 C

■ri

E

•H
rH

0 AJ Vl rH

4)

rH Vl U
4) 4) 3 V^ V^

0

O AJ C C IH O

•rl

tt)

V4 U tt) tt)

O

x: x: o 3 4)

z

01 01 -H m U U

rH

-d

D. nJ > Tl

2:

Eh AJ 3 U ft

H
O

g
O

H

4J

cr

1

•H

0)
W

tt)
>

■H

tt)

Water
yield

Chapter II-Alternatives

Page 11-15

(U

OJ

tn OJ

x;

(U

<

OJ tn

C

jj

M

c

u x: (0

■H 0)

01

CO

OJ o

OJ Vh 4J (U

m

H
h

>

0) c

0) (U

tn -H

> <U X) • OJ u

U -H

Tl > -H

^H 01

fB tn

0 x: c to > c u

3 C 4J

(0 0 4-)

u oi

0) tn

CJ jJ (0 JJ O -H c

U 0 U

0 M to

C ^1

>H <U

to u x: -H

U (0

p:; a 0)

■H 0

u u

01 0 JJ <U JJ

0 u -a

e c

M-l

(U u

cjj to > oi-H ona

•H nj ^ c 3 C! .H

•H >, c

■H

T)

TJ 3

X) M-l ^ n)

dJ

rH -

tn

Td OJ ft (0 -H -H 3

1

iH M-l <U

(u T3 x:

3 ^iTI

•H > x; TJ tn O) o

3 (« > -

to rH JJ

0 rH

rH 01

XI -H E -H JJ (B 3

0 M J^

3 3

3 rH

3 C

JJ o sh x; to vh

S JJ (S u

0 M-l

<C

O -H

C -H >H OJ -H 0 m

(C

rH 3 O

k -H

3 3

-HTaM-i^ aj X (n (u

T3 E rH OJ -H

'

OJ 0 - Vj

nj

(U 4-)

C

H

m

U 4J n AJ

C 4J C

> C

C -H

tn (0 tn -H XJ JJ

3

M

4J

C <n

0 C 0

O 1)

O 4J

C c JJ (C >, • -H

A

u

nS C T)

-H 0) -H

U 4J

•H C

O 0) 0 V< rH M C

3

<u

X5 0 >, m

AJ E 4J

0

4J 0

•H XI -rl JJ <U JJ JJ 3

o

<4-l

M -H (B 0

m (u u •

01 ft

U CJ

JJ JJ C T3 C -H JJ

lU

3 4J 3 M

0) 01 0) to

c

3

unvii-'-ivcu

V

4J -H J3 M

to -O Cn-H

O C 0 4-1

•H -

T3 ^
0 4J

3rH3V4tOlH30

T33TlkC>HX}ft

0

-H T3 -H m

(u m vj -H

■H a

U -rl

(l)0a)3033ft

!3

Q (0 K M

iH E ft M

K m

ft 3

pJ3kCJUCJtOO

M-l
0

u

^1 (0 ^H OJ

i)

>i

flj <u 0 x:

m

m

> XI JJ

3

E

0 JJ rH

m

EH

o

H

h

H

(U

U JJ C C rH

>

4J rH .

«*•

en

CJ OJ -H -H XJ

•

Ai%

■H Ol C

«

dJ

01 OJ u x: JJ >H <u

s

E rt 0

.^

"^

-H

•?

c M-l k JJ to (u tn

^

-H (U to

4J

»>

-H MH 0) -H > O

«i

iH (0

•H •

.i
1

XI (0 ft 3 X) 0 ft

i

c

T) (U

C (U

•H rH U 0

5

«

"O iH m

E

3 E

x: >, >, nJ 3 >J

O
H
Pi
H

s

s;

rH (0

IJ -H

S;

rH JJ (U 0 CD ft

5:

1

3 ja (0

:S

^H iJ

1

C 0) Vh IH 3 C

s

0

§:

0

•H > 0 m -H <u

•

^

U k Vj

■

ft u

%;

•H fa to xj x:

5

•

O 0

%

ft (U

^

C JJ (U JJ -H JJ

a

CO

>

to M-l M-l

.c

o >

SI

0 (c x: -H x:

6

•?

4J

§

(U

>?

o

.c

■H 01 • JJ C 01

H

s;

^

U

>

•H (U Dl

^

01

1

JJ OJ >M 3 c c •

i)

t

4J ii C

C flJ

CJ C JJ MH XI -H -H tn

M-l

«>.

•H (C -H

^

-H C

%

3 -H O 3 (0 3 d

<*^

•

> J 01

01 -H

X3 XI M tn JJ O 0

i)

•H nj

(0 rH

(1) rH 3 OJ C rH -H

4J 01 Vj

U CJ

^H3U^lC3-HrHJJ

O

U 0 0

O OJ

0 OJ 0 2 m 0 CJ

2

< Q M-l

fa X)

rt;3toEmEM-<aj

JJ

•H >H

IB C OJ

MH

->>

u

(B (U CN 3 JJ to

0

.

^

3

OJ^HXl -rHXllB •>,4J

X5

CJ

MnJOJtfl 33X3N-H-

to

OJ

Q

O

m cJOJJJCOrHOjiBCtn

3

01

^

0

<U3^I(B r-l U t^J :3 r-i

JJ

c

0

(uxjxicj >;-H(u xjoj 0)

(B

(B

in

•u >,

x:jJaj(B>,(Ujjjj(U3>cxi

JJ

XJ

CO

•5j

(0

JJ U rHOJCOrHXlMaJO

to

CJ

H

(U E

IM CTiJJVH (OJJ rH X)

O

i\

u

COdJnCUO) D tOrH

0)

0)

H

c

c to

•H XlC^dJ jCa)C!S(UC3

X!

XJ

h

1

m (U

OJ Sh>,JJX1-HP3C00

JJ

Pk

XI r-l

>,tQX3>iVHN •H-H3

JJ

H

^1 01

JJ 3rHrH 3 (BM-IJJ >,jHrHJJ

JJ

o

3 <C

•H 3<ucJ^JooJJa)ttJmto

iB

c

H

4J 0)

>)hOJJ C-H;>imkx3

x:

CJ

to

•H(03lB -OJJJ tn>,(B(U(B

JJ

XJ

H

"5

■H -a

jjo) E<ux:crHC>HXifto

rH

Pi

Tl M

UXlk-HSHJJajrHOJJJ 0^H

0

3

H

■

It)

(B (UXO CJ-HXICOVO

to

o

a

CO

V4 XI

jJ>0OM-ik3 cn-.x3

3

4J

0

JJ

xJooiH ooj x3x)cjia)a)

X)

s

U

C 01

CJ

dJOJClft^i ft-lBCtHlHJJ

(U

XI

•ft

(U

■H C

(1)

tOM-l ftJJJJ JJOiB OU

JJ

(B

1

M-l

e -H

M-l

(BMH01<B-HCO-HVh jjm-i-h

u

0

M-l

01

M-<

ojiBC >H(i)inai>;<BttJ>H

3

>H

?J

<U

(u m

OJ

U •hVj3U 3CQJ MJJ

XI

g u

u >,X3 aJu^ixJX3a)(ua)(i)to

c

OJ

0

0 0

0

C(0-H>ajajC3ftMkx:aj

o

x;

1

25

CO M-l

13

HEKOMft(BCOOU(OJJ>H

u

JJ

H

o

-,.

>1

g

1

(U J.

J

N

o

i

T3 iH t

^

N U

CO

rH Ol (

D

H m

H

(0 (C C

J

U <D

PS

m i) ~-

'

O X)

Page 11-16

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

u

0)

10

x:

4J

OJ JJ

•H 01

a>

(U

c x: OJ

J3 C

XI

XI

•H JJ rH X3

(d -H

n) JJ

n

JS 01

T)

TJ

r-1 0) C W -H OJ

H

(C

M

M

(0 XI -H 3 iH

tJ

01 >^

3

3

•H u n

H

C 0

O

0

JJ TJ M OJ M M

h

•H M-i in

3

3

c iH OJ fl 0)

OJ 3 ^4 E V< >H

t-*

C -H

H

5 c

(U -H 0)

01

JJ

CO

JJ

JJ 0 0 -H 0 OJ

0 3 (TJ H m .5

^

TJ E

o

u

C -H

(U

(U

jj [^ OJ r- -H

H

C 0 4J

M-l

4-1

C (TJ VD rH 0\ Eh

1

Improvement i
and a reducti
habitat over

TJ

(1)
JJ
nJ

a

-H

o

•H
JJ

c
m

(U

>

JJ

ns •

-H u
3 O
E C
3 -H

O E

JJ
u

0)

4-J
4-1
<U

0

2!

Cumulative ef
minor.

•

JJ

u

(U
4-1
4-1

(U

A reduction i
denning habit
addition to 1
Good/Long/Boy
Project and 5
Taylor South
Project.

TJ

iH

0)

^

iH « •

^

ra

•>

»-i

•

3 4J TJ

E ^^

•

3

!;

0 m tt)

85

.

i

aq

U 0

3<'

u

JJ

en

3 -u u

^

01 TJ

.^

TJ (U 4-1

.ft

0)

(fl

r-i

0

^

<

•H 3

C OJ

■5

nH x; <

■5

x;

JJ

(0

rH

•^

to

§

>i J3 T3

■c

•H C

%

c

3 JJ >,

&

CO

•H

c

u

^
>

E

JJ (Q 0)

6

01 -H

?

%

0 V

?

•H

XI

0

i

-H x; ^^

^

(0 «

5

T)

%

3 >H ■ Vj

J

4-1

(tJ

-H

c

<^

s

i-i

t:

Vi JJ

S

rH

s.

dJ (U ft

s

x:

JJ

3

s

^

(d 01 <u

^

0 0)

^

3

4!

<U E m

^

c

•H

0

;S

•

3 C .O

$

4-1 k

•

0

s

E E nJ C

•

-H

.H

TJ

u

>

%

tr-H

^

S;

3

^

(C 3 0) -H

«

OJ

X)

u •

•

.5

01 T3

1^

TJ tt)

,s

t^

01 M ^-1

^

.a

0)

>

m

>.

5

H

g

H

c

JJ m «H

C XJ

c

<u

.5

U (U

3

C

CO

rt

TJ ft

.«

i

ni v^ 3

m

^

01

01 (U 0) to

CJ

-i

nJ

>H

x:

c 0

•?

^»

JJ o o

X;

TJ

<>

(0

t

•H I-H TJ OJ

o

^

i)

JJ

JJ

lO c

^

^

•H fa 3

S

>>■-*

i

^^

«5!

X5 -rH OJ

0

i

U

•H

(0

ja

•

JJ 3

0

•

x; TJ >H

u

TJ

3

X! U

.

m

■H 0

*;

4-1

V^ 3 rH u

>.

c

C

JJ

m

x; • dj

> 3

0 3 C

m

•H

nJ

k

3 JJ

JJ

0) E

•H

0) (U

4-1 (I) 0 -H

E

3

0 tn

u

01 CO -H

JJ iJ

E M

m 3

u

01

0

u i)

OJ

c m JJ

o m

(TJ OJ

(u m JJ

m

0

C

U

01 Sh

4-1

•H (U

(U JJ

01 (U

oi (u >H x:

0)

c

•H

0

0

4H

C ^1 Jh

C -H

u

(0 V-i dJ 01

>

•w

C

0) 4-1

OJ

C U (U

C XI

01 o

^^ O > -H

iH

E

c

>,

lU

(U c >

0 (0

-H (U

0 C 0 rH

0

0)

m

M 4-1

0

•s,,

Q -H o

u x;

03 TJ

fa -H cj m

3

< T)

E

JJ 0

2:

T3

to

u

1

rH

CO <u k CO

3

3

(U U (U (U

CJ

O

•H C JJ >

u

u

3

JJ (0 JJ 1-1

0

H

-H XJ IB O

V

Jn

JJ

> >H ft 3

T3 U •

•Sj

(0
JJ

-H 3

JJ JJ OJ >i

rH 4-1 OJ JJ

3 0 x: m

h

5

■H •

O w w XI

0 tn JJ

H

ft

XJ TJ

m -H 3

3 tn -H -H

m (1)

T3 (TJ

OJ 4H XI

H

^

.

x: m

•

01 0) OJ

•

01 Vh (0

O

jj

(fl

JJ

c (u 01 >H

JJ

C U rH X!

9

o

01 <u

u

•H M C nJ

V

•H (TJ (C

Pi

0)

a u

0)

JJ 3 rt

i)

JJ -H 01

H

>M

-H O

4-1

M nj x: 0)

4^

tn OJ JJ C

Q

>M

01 c

4^

0) O U XI

4-1

OJ r- C -H

Q

V

(0 -H

0)

^ >.TJ ^

V

> H OJ c

U JJ c

,^

^

'*5

0

0 (U

0

(0 m c 4-1

0

(TJ C 0 OJ

^

2

fa XJ

z

W E (0 0

•^

z

X -H ftTJ

%

1

§

^

H
O

i

1

4-1

to

I

o

H

fb

(0

3

J! I

(H

1
1

TJ

c

(0

o

m
o

i

u

X!
U
H

fa

Chapter II-Alternatives

Page 11-17

(1)

)H

0

OJ

V

>

« m

U m i) r-t

U > i)

-H

4J

u i) V <i) u <a

0) -H T) Xi

4J

to a

(u X3 x: -H c >

X Ti U Q) V

-rH

(U o

> 3 -U 0) -H

O 0) -H 4J

-d

U -H

0 Tl -H iH >
U rH to > (U (U Vh

0) m T3 (C C

TJ

in 0 J-)

ft O Tl -H -H

m

0 in u

3 (C -H 14H rH 3

Tl ft (0 CJ

3

rH 0 0) 4-1 tt) XJ to

H

0 0 0 01

(U

T3 tt) T3

m ^ u u u -H

g M

O V< lU M c

XI

C ^1 o

E nJ n< 01 <U

3 ft ^ M -H

(U 3 ^H

k 4-1 C -H E

m 4J

Tl

^H -U ft

(U ft M 01 H rH m

T3 0) Tl m

r-l

4J m

X! OJ OJ C 01 01 •

(U ^ iH M OJ

3

E 0)

4J U X! -H (U t3

JJ 4J 3 CO > .
n) 0 0 i^ («

0

iH 01 •

Vh 4J 4J • C 01 (1)

3

(0 0 i« ^

C 0) 0 to T3 -H 4J

0) E 3 -H (0 (U

M J-) k rH

-rH 4J (1) 0) - X3 nJ

U

rH 0 x: M

to

(U 0 0)

C 0 > ^ >, d

to -H 4-) H Sh 4J 0 -H

•

-rH s^ 01 -u m

4J

C C MH

4J

ftU-l C (0 4J

u

(U 0 T)

C m 3 -rH 4J tJ

O

-H JJ to W

0)

O) -rH 01 C

0 3 oj x; u M -H

(U

14-1 4J JJ -H (ti -H

M-l

to c m

-H 0 > U 3 to 4->

<*-(

0 (C m ja ft to

in

<U U -H

4JC-r|4JOUiJC

M-l

JJ 0) nJ >,

0)

X! 0) U flJ

cj to 4J c 0) u m

dJ

to -H > J3 XI iH

m XI ^ ■!-> (d

OJ

4-) > 3 to
C Tl 0

3 -H 0) 0) to m

Tl TJ Tl U > ft (U

0

0 n3 m 0 -H c

XJ

0 O 0) o

a)CT3<U(COE^-i

2:

J xi x; -u 3 m

H

4J U Vh E

p:i(0a)VHX:4J-H(0

to 0)

i)

>l

V4

Tl Tl • * rH

^

^

>H n3 (u x: •

CO

•

0)

c

r-t i) u T) nj

:;

(u 3 x; 4J Tl c

OJ

I'

>

J-< 73

(U

3 ^1 ifl OJ to -H 0)

*^

> 4J 0) -H

OJ

.ft

0

0 M

^

0 (u 4-1 -u -u 4J x;

•c

^

0 4J • x; 4J Tl

u

"S

iw 3

•u

3T)-H (0 C C4JiJ

1

.ft

Unjin^OlC (UC

V ■

ft

(U

>.

0

"C

C -H XI 3 (U 0) to

<

x: 0 0) 3 0) 0(0

C to

?

iH

r-H

>t 3

T3

5

•HlflWm4JE4J(U>-l

%

rH 4-) 01 0 > to (0

•H C

1

J3

(U

JJ

c

§

x34JCx:<utJOca)

i

?

nj AJC>H(UmrH01

0

m

^;

-H M

(C

4J -rH 0 ft nJ ft >

^

t

EnJCnJx:^ ftC

T3 -H

H M
Q 1^

•

jj

■H

i-t i^

i:

■ri a U U U V Xi 0

'S'

§

^H(U(U^H4Jft-. -H

rH 4J

•H

1— 1

m q;

0)

^

3 3 Q) Q) U i) U

•

(U >H O E to TJ

3 -H

%

3

3 ^

m

^

v X ft 4J x: u (0

s

•

x;rt^l^H4J(uk(u-H

O Tl

Q

m

CO

cr u

m

«

(0 4J XI U 4J (0 0)

.c

^

4-) a)iucxia)j«;xj

3 C

c

•rH

i)

(U

§

(U M dJ X TI rH ^

1

.5

0) ft 4-) (U 4J (0

0

^

c

4J ft

>-(

•S

^^OOft-HOJd) (0

•C

m 01 C E 4J 4J -

>H U

B h

*>

•H

to

n! Tl

u

1

m>4JTiEtntflC

^

0CrH-H(U001 tn

(U

fi w

4

0)

4J 0

c

Vh 0 0 (0 U i)

^

(0H3>CCC4J

> 4J

c

(U

■H 0

-H

•

ttjiccotflftojiux:

^

•

•

C >H — 0 0 0 -rl

o c

0

^^

Xi 3

x:x;(u3a)0M4JiJ •

%

to

0 T> E Tl rH -H C

O 0)

•H

4J

<fl

>,

U ft -rH ^H U to E

4J

-H k Tl 0) rH 4J 3

^

u

X -o

rH •

TfOTlUftCaJCVH

u

4J(U(U-H(U3(Un!

>i u

u

01

0)

iH OJ

H-H (U 0) (U -H 3 -H 0)

(U

04-)4-i'«H E ox: ^H4J

U 3

3

c

4J

(0 C

0 to 0 J-l ft QJ 4-)

M-l

3Ctn-H(C34J(Uto

-H U

73

-H

• 03

3 -H

00<OtOX3T3(UtO

M-l

TJ -H OJ 4J 01 CO)

u

0)

4J

dJ i)

T3 rH

XjftJ-lOJ 4-)rH0l(UD1

0)

(U3>c (OVHa)>

3 Sh

M

to

■H -H

(0 u

UO rH(U 3Vh(UC

3^h(u-hx:>iO(C^ho

0

vh ^i(UOi(ua)oiVH
Cn!T)-H^i>a;(0

U 0)

aj >

<

c

■U ft

01 T)

S ftXl ftHXI 3'H4JrH

2:

<-rHx;-HCQ (CO i-ix;

to 0

T) to >,

(U

rH to O 4J

>

3 to Tl U -HE

-rH

0 0 rH U C >H O

u

iJ

3(UrH3 nJM3M

0)

u

> O O UH

>

(C >i

4J -H Tl 3 VO OJ

o

(0

8ii

C 4J C ■* • to T3

o

C E

(U O (C Sh (NO) 0)

>.-H

E itl (U Ol - o

01

>H to

1

(U M > >, C E 3

c

(TJ iJ U

Oa)4JO rHnJlHTJ

•H

U G -ri

L

•

mx:-Ho (uvhojo)

Tl

•

O (U c

1

to

rH 4J C iH 4J 4J >H

-H

4J

a E 3

4J

ft 3 >i 0) m ^

XJ

U

E (U

u

toe ft>E(i)>H(U

•^

v

<u u u

(U

H-H 4JOO-H4J(DXJ

in

H-l

iJ nj to •

IM

Tl to C X C 0)

0

§

IM

rH O ^

t-l

^h(U(0VhO-Hc:t3

(U

dJ ft > 3

s

0)

<U3>U3>h3 '-I

E u ^ u ft aj 3

to

Cj

E to Vh U

•^

to

^

0

0 -rH rt U

1

0

OUnJiHOftUHxJO

0

•^

2;

w T) x; 0

s

C0Ox:oOnJO.i-)3

r-i

>.

^

iJ (1)

H 01

&

^

»H c

^

^

3 «

§

^

U M

1

§

u

^

to u

0)

o

^

XI M

(U JJ

M

1

0) U

T

E C

H

rfj

4J t)

.4

(fl -H

fii

1

(0 ft
--H 0

1

01 3

01 T)

H 0

^

rH C

m (0

Page 11-18

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

01

4-1

4J

c XI c

o

1 01

•

-H 4J 0)

4J 73 M C -O

4H 01 CO

4J 4J O ^

CO

>^ 01 01 T3

0 CO iJ 4J

CO u XI m

nj

rt C ^ 01 (C

ft-H E x:

rH (tf U •

(1) (0 4J

01

CO -H -H m 3

> ft 01 0)

t( E C V< CO

u

(« -H H 73

X) 0) >H ft 0

n

(0

01 4-) 4-) rH

C >H ft E rH

H

(d -H -H nS 0)

XI CO 3

(0 4-) O -H

u

X! 01 E

u

3 4^ • 0

>H 4J U CO

H

73 C CO 3

01

-a CO o CO 3

01 CO 73 ft 01 -H

h

4-1 rH (X> (1) rH

x:

rH 73

4J -H ft >

h

0 3 X! <U 0

4J

3 01 4J C 01

C 73 >; (0 -H >,

H

g u ^ >

rH 3 4J

0

0 73 CO nJ rH

3 -H 01 rH (0 •

01 01 CO 4-> 4J
4-) C m -rl

^

(B . 0)

4-)

3 > CO 73

01 1 t( 4J C

73 to 01 01 rH >

)-i 4J CO (1) x:

u

rH 01 C X! 3 -H

H

V^ CO C ^4 4J

m

rH 01 «J CO CO 3

3 > -H 3 E 4J
0 h 4J 3 U

H

0) (U ^^ 0)

ft

(0 4-> x: 3 -H iw

<

m def
s for
patte
on wh
d and

E

•H
T) •

rH 01

mber s
's Sta
nnual
ate tr
of th
trust

4J

3 (0 to 73 u 3
X! -H 01 73

4J X to 4H 0

CO >, W 3 O M

OJ rH ft

^

J-l -H -HO)

3 4J

U

> CO 01 >;

^1 3 • XJ CO rH

0) x: 4J 01 4J

0 rt

•H u n) 4J 01

01

4-) 4J CO 0) CO

3 4J

4J « CO 3 01

4H

(0 0 >H -r^ -^

1 (U ^ 01

M

Z 73 c x;

4H

X! -H 01 73 >H 0

C 0 S (U M

CO

CO Q rH E 01 4J

01

';> a t-ii CO
01 01 E 3 01

•H 01

•H 01 0 >

0 >-i m x; (B

x: x:

X: 4-1 -rl ^4 01 0

0

X! iH -H o x: o

J 4-1 x: 4J x:

Eh 4J

Eh 0 >,4H iH 4J

z

Eh ft 4J 3 Eh 4J

01 c

C 01 •

T)

C 01 (0 73

-H C CO

>

(U

-H 73 rH

>

rH -ho;

•

4J

rH >, m M 3

•

H 01 3 -H

.^

M

:;

0 rH >H 0 O

^

^

X3 0 4J

o

1

O 01 014-1 3

t.

.*

0 r-\ ■•-K

■5

ft

x: 4J

<

4J 73 rH >

s

ft

•c

CO ci rt X3 4J CO

6

<£

rH 0 -H

CO

?

3 <U

^

•H CO E 01 C rH

?

5

■■r 3 4H j-1

H

1

CO XX

a

x: -H 3 01 rt

1

5

0 CJ

o

5

4J 01 X 0 E 3

73 0 V^ S73

C

- 3 C (0

H

•

0) Xl

1

^

1

to 0

h

XI .H

E -H ^ x: 0 -H

•

4J nJ -H 01

h

»

3

>

0 > ft JJ iH >

s

>

•H 01 4J C

M

.5

T3 0

■

>H 0 ft ft-H •

e

•

C U -r^ -r^

c

.H 3

1

4H >H (0 C E 73 73

*c

5

3 0) 73 4J

H

5

3

ft 01 u c 01

5

•2

C CO

O

^

0 CO

5

TJ ^ 4J -H 73

^-

•

4J 01 0 01

H

4

3 M

01 73 O Vj -h

C rH 4H (C • •<r >

4

CO x; u >

01 4-) in

H

CO j<;

iH 3 01 CO a\ 0

> 73 nJ

Q

4J ^1

m o v-i jh 4J ^1

>

^1 4H 01 X!

^

C 0 •

01 3 (0 01 C 73 ft

4J

(0 0 4J

H

No stude
and no w
employed

Revenue
project
for 1 ye
201 kind
12 stude
estimate
also be

u

01

4H
4H
01

0

2

within h
percent
an impac
proposed

<a

c

>

0

•H Dl

>.

0) C 4J

CO rH

O T) -H C

01

-O rH 4-1

01

0) 0) 4J 01

XI

r-K -^ U

B

)^ 4J CO E 01

4J

3 0 M 0) CM

m 01 01 XI

73 CO

0 w 01 ^^ •*

H

T3 Vj > >

rH 3

3 AJ -H

h

.H 01 ^1 0 T3

3 U

4J C 73 C

h

3 c m (^ .-I

0 4J

01 u -H 0

H

g 01 x: ft 3

3 01 EG

>, 3

C (0 3 73

■H ft rH CO

t4

^ -H 3

01 O -H

01 E 3 rH

o

CO 01 01

•

4J O

•

01 -H • 0 -H

H

iJ 3 ^ 4J CO

CO c E CO 01

Tl

(0 O 73

4-)

0 CO 3 0

P4

01

E U) 01 •

U

rH >, 01 CO

H

3 01 -H 01 01

iJ

•H - 4-1 01

01

rH iH 01

Q

k > 4J >-< 4-1

o

X (N (0 3

4H

^1 4J O C 4-1 •

•U 01 0

01

O H M d

4H

0) U (C -H U W

^4 E 4^ '-

iH

M rg 01 01

01

E 01 01 (0 01

01 0 H

(-H

ft » C >

E >H O 01 ft M

X! 0 ^1 0 fa

0

ft H 01 01

0

3 -H o 0 E O

Eh C 4-1 2; —

u

«; </> oi >H

2

CO 73 CM rH -H (C

4-1

r-\ CO

0

(0 01

H

a

0 iJ 4J

O

1

0

rH C -H

1

•H
4-)
(0

"^ 01 c

01 p 3
3 SiJ

CO

^

u

U C 0 M

^

(1)
c

CO 01 r-< 0

3 > ft ft

^

0)

o

>^ 01 E ft
U ^ 01 o

^

Chapter JI-AIternatives

Page 11-19

#)

ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER III

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

^^ CHAPTER III t*k

\ /^EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND y^ ^
^ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ^

Q h3

INTRODUCTION

Chapter III is a summary of resource
conditions as they relate to the
proposed Dog/Meadow Timber Sale
Project. The current, or existing,
condition can be viewed as a
baseline condition to compare
changes resulting from the selection
of either alternative. How each
alternative may affect the
environment is also described. For
more complete assessments and
analyses related to the resources,
for both scientific and judicial
reviews, refer to the appropriate
appendices of this EA.

PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION

The proposed action would take place
on the western face of Stryker
Ridge, approximately 20 miles north
of Whitefish, Montana. The project
area, on the lower slopes of the
ridge, ranges from 3,400 to 4,400
feet in elevation. The soils in the
area are primarily silty glacial
till. The moist and cool area has a
relatively short growing season.
The vegetation indicates high to
very high timber productivity
potential. Some timber harvesting
has occurred in the area over the
past 80 years; many different mixes
of tree species and age classes can
be found in the timber stands. Most
of the area was accessed with a road
system that consists of several
primary roads, which remain open for
motorized use, and many lateral
roads, which are restricted from
motorized access for most of the
year. Some private ownership
borders the project area along the
western edge near the Highway 93
corridor.

VEGETATION

INTRODUCTION

This section provides a summary
description of the conditions of the
forest in the analysis area. Also
addressed are the potential effects
of the proposed alternatives related
to the following concerns :

• Harvest units would regenerate
adequately following hai-vesting.

• Trees may blow down in and
adjacent to existing harvest
units .

• Old-growth stands would,
potentially, be affected on
Stillwater State Forest.

This summary also addresses some
general concerns about the harvest,
such as how harvesting would affect:

- the health of the forest,

- the spread of noxious weeds,

- wildfire hazards,

- the historic occurrence patterns,
and

- whether biodiversity would be
maintained in the project area.

ANALYSIS METHODS

An analysis was done on a large
scale to assess how age classes,
covertypes, and old-growth timber
stands would be affected. How
snags, coarse woody debris, and the
occurrence and distribution of
noxious weeds would be affected
under each alternative was also
analyzed. The data used to derive
the existing condition was a
combination of DNRC's SLI, traveling
the area extensively, and taking
plots within the areas proposed for
harvesting. Where recent harvests
are completed, the Stillwater SLI is
updated on a yearly basis. Projects
of forest management that have been
started, but not completed, are
considered in the cumulative effects
analysis.

ANALYSIS AREA

The large-scale analysis area
includes Stillwater State Forest and
scattered sections in northern

Lincoln County (approximately 99,264
forested acres) ; this is referred to
as the analysis area in this
document. The analysis of site-
specific effects will be limited to
areas where actions are proposed,
which is referred to in this
document as the proposed harvest
units or the project area. Adjacent
lands will be analyzed where
applicable. Some comparisons will
be made with the historic data
representing the Upper Flathead
Valley, which was collected in the
1930s {climatic section 333c,
Losensky 1997b) .

EXISTING CONDITIONS

DISTRIBUTION OF AGE CLASSES AND
COVERTYPES

Stillwater State Forest's age
classes and distributions of
covertypes across the landscape are
used to examine its condition at a
large scale. Historic conditions
and conditions DNRC believes the
forest should trend toward will be
compared. The comparison will be
based on the current percent of tree
species mix, the history of fires
and fire suppression, tree mortality
attributed to white pine blister
rust, the history of harvesting, and
the condition of the forest at the
sites proposed for harvesting.

Graphs in FIGURE III-l - HISTORIC,
CURRENT, AND APPROPRIATE
DISTRIBUTION COVERTYPE DISTRIBUTION
IN ANALYSIS AREA displays the
current distribution of covertypes
in contrast to the historic
covertype distribution in the
Flathead Valley and the appropriate
covertype distribution.

The comparisons show that the
current subalpine fir and mixed-
conifer covertypes are more common
than the historic past or desired
future covertype distributions.

Increases in the subalpine fir and
mixed-conifer covertypes may be
consequences of fire suppression and

Page III -2

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

VEGETATION

FIGURE III-l — HISTORIC, CURRENT, AND
APPROPRIATE DISTRIBUTION COVERTYPB
DISTRIBUTION IN ANALYSIS AREA

COVERTYPE DISTRIBUTION IN
HISTORIC FLATHEAD VALLEY

Lodgepole pine 27%

Mixed Conifer 6%
1%
Douglas-fir 1%

28% Western larch/
Douglas-fir

1% Western
white pine

36% Subalpine fir

7/11/01

CURRENT COVERTYPE DISTRIBUTION

Western white pine 9%

Western larch/
Douglas-fir 23%

Mixed conifer 27%

35% Subalpine fir

1 % Douglas-fir
5% Lodgepole pine

^'^ ^'°^ APPROPRIATE COVERTYPE DISTRIBUTION

Western white pine 9%

/^i

»^:k27% Subalpine fir

^^

Western larch/ b'";'"''''i^

^^g "2%

Douglas-fir 45%\^'";;;™S

^P^>-o% Trace Hardwoods

5% Lodgepole pine

'•11% Mixed conifer

'■1% Ponderosa pine

past timber harvesting. Suppressing
fires allowed these shade -tolerant
species to grow in the understory.
Past timber harvests changed
covertype distribution by
selectively removing some of the

shade-intolerant western larch,
Douglas-fir, and western white pine
from the timber stands .

In the analysis area, compared to
the Historic Data from the Flathead
Valley, Stillwater State Forest
ownership has approximately 25
percent less area in the seedling/
sapling age class {O-to-39-year age
class) and 11 percent more area in
the old-stand age class.

OhD-GROVrVH DISTRIBUTION

For this analysis, old growth is
defined as stands that meet the
minimum criteria (number of trees
per acre that have a minimum
diameter at breast height (dbh) and
a minimum age) for a given site
{old-growth group from habitat
type) . These minimums can be found
in Green et al (Old Growth Forest
Types of the Northern Region) . The
SLI indicates that the estimated
timber stands that meet the old-
growth definition total
approximately 8,070 acres, or 12.3
percent of the analysis area.

The 2 covertypes most represented in
old-growth stands in the analysis
area are western larch/Douglas -fir
(40 percent) and subalpine fir (26
percent) .

INSECTS AND DISEASES/FOREST HEALTH
CONDITIONS

The most prevalent insect- and
disease-related tree mortality
recently found on Stillwater State
Forest was attributed to the
Douglas-fir bark beetles and fir
engravers. The attacks by Douglas -
fir bark beetles have caused
mortality to individual and clumps
of Douglas -fir trees throughout the
analysis area. The attacks by fir
engravers have caused the death of a
relatively high number of grand fir
and subalpine fir in the lower
portion of the Swift Creek drainage
in the past year.

The occurrence of root rot is fairly
common in the project area, but the

Chapter Ill-Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences Page III-3

VEGETATION

overall impact of root rot appears
low. However, the project area has
a high percentage of Douglas-fir,
subalpine fir, and grand fir, which
are highly susceptible to root rot.
The Indian paint fungus stem rot in
subalpine fir and grand fir is
fairly prevalent in the project
area. Concentrations of downed dead
trees can be found throughout the
project area. Most of the large
concentrations are lodgepole pine
that have been attacked by mountain
pine beetles several years ago.
Concentrations of downed dead trees,
combined with densely stocked
smaller trees, have created risks of
high intensity wildfires occurring.

NOXIOUS WEEDS

Concentrations of spotted knapweed,
oxeye daisy, orange hawkweed, Saint-
John' s-wort, dalmation toadflax, and
several species of thistle can be
found in the project area. Spotted
knapweed, the most widely
distributed noxious weed on
Stillwater State Forest, is found in
areas where ground disturbance has
occurred, such as landings and skid
trails, and in areas of high use,
such as powerlines and roadsides.
Isolated occurrences of tansy
ragwort were found in the project
area and sprayed with herbicide in
2002.

SENSITIVE PLANTS

In the project area, 2 populations
each of poor sedge and Buckler fern
were found during surveys . These
species, associated with wet meadows
and fens, appeared to be healthy and
reproducing.

■■"*-'-■/;-,

■»*-■■:';

% 'V

■^- -0

1 \i

4? ■^^>^''

i ;•

.^m'

'-■'dy

-^A^'"'

t-.. .

Buckler fern

Poor sedge

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS

> Distribution Of Age Classes and Covertypes

DIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct ElffeclH qfJVo-*1ction ^llternntive ,1
on »1ge ClniuteH and Cocerti/jteti

This alternative would not
directly affect the distribution
of age classes or covertypes in
the project area.

• Direct Effects of miction . Iltemative Ji on
^ge Clauses and Covertyjies

This alternative would convert
approximately 546 acres of the
mixed-conifer, subalpine fir,
and lodgpeole pine covertypes to
a western larch/Douglas-fir
covertype. An estimated 614
acres would be converted from
stands of pole-sized timber (40
to 99 years old) and mature
sawtimber (100+ years old) to
stands of seedlings/saplings (0
to 39 years old) .

INDIRECT EFFECTS

• Indirect Effects ofJVo-^lction ^llternntine
.1 on »1ge Classes and Covertgpes

Over time, the western white
pine covertype would likely
decrease as western white pine
mortality continues, and the
mixed-conifer covertypes (shade
tolerant) would likely increase.
The combination of lack of
forest management and continued
fire suppression would increase
the distribution of older age
classes .

• Indirect IJ^ffects of taction »1ltemative li on
*ige Classes and Covertypes

As tree planting, precommercial
thinning, or other follow-up
treatments occur in the proposed
harvest units, the percentage of
western larch, Douglas -fir, and
western white pine species would
likely increase in addition to
the direct effects. The
proposed harvest treatments, in
combination with the existing

Page III -4

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

VEGETATION

#')

condition, would maintain timber
stands in the project area with
a mosaic of multiple stories and
ages.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

• Cumtilntive Ii^eclMqfJ\o-*1ction
tlltentatice »1 on »1ge Cla-iute* and
Cocertype*

Under this alternative,
continued fire suppression and
the ongoing mortality of western
white pine from white pine
blister rust would add to the
trend of an increase of shade -
tolerant tree species in the
analysis area and a decrease in
the amount of western white
pine. Timber stands in the
analysis area would continue to
age, which would slightly
offset the total area being
converted to younger age classes
through other timber-management
projects in the analysis area.

• C'umulalice FUfecUt qf miction . Iltern/ttive
li on mige ClajtHen and Cocerti/pen

Stillwater State Forest's other
timber sale projects and
associated planting and
precommercial thinning
activities will also increase
the amount of western larch,
western white pine, and Douglas -
fir in the analysis area. In
addition to the area that would
be converted to seedling/sapling
stands under the proposed action
alternative, other current
timber sale projects in the
analysis area would increase
seedling/saplings stands in the
area by approximately 1.7
percent and slightly decrease
the area in older age classes.

> OldGrourth

DIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct IJ^fectJt qfJVo-,1ction Alternative, 1
and.lction .tltematice D on Old Growth

No direct effects to old growth
would be expected under either

alternative. Action Alternative
B was designed to not harvest
timber or build roads in old-
growth stands .

• Indirect f^ffcctM ofJ\^o-%1ction Jllternatice
»1 anfl ».1ction .llternatice B on Old
GrowUi

Under both alternatives, stands
currently meeting DNRC's old-
growth definition would become
more decadent with heavier
stocking levels and an increased
loading of down woody debris and
wildfire hazards. Shade-
tolerant species would increase
in stands and, potentially, more
snags would eventually occupy
the stands .

Additionally, Action Alternative
B would harvest timber next to
old-growth stands and
structurally create a more
abrupt stand edge. Potentially,
the risk of blowdown along the
proposed unit boundaries would
increase. Harvest areas next to
old-growth stands would possibly
act as fuel breaks that could
slow or stop wildfires before
these fires could burn the old
growth.

• Cumulative IJ^ffects qfJVo-, Iction
,1lternative . / and, Iction . Ilternative B
on Old Groicth

Approximately 188 forested acres
that meet the old-growth
definition may be entered with
other timber sale projects that
have been initiated in the
analysis area. Because of
ongoing litigation, these areas
are not currently being
harvested. If this litigation
is resolved, these areas would
be harvested as part of their
initial project. Following
harvesting, these areas would
not likely be considered old
growth .

Chapter III— Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences Page III-5

VEGETATION

> Insects and Diseases (Forest Health
Conditions)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct and Indirect B^ffects ofJWo-,1ction
. ilternatice »1 on Insects and Diseases /
Forest Health Conditions

Tree mortality from some insects
and diseases that are currently
active in the project area would
likely continue. This would
increase decadence and lower
overall vigor in the timber
stand. Loss of sawlog volume
(value) in the area would
increase as the species mature
that are susceptible to root and
stem rots. As stand densities
and accumulations of down woody
debris continue, wildfire
hazards would increase. No
additional rust-resistant
western white pine would be
introduced into the area.

• Direct and Indirect Effects of.Iction
»1lternatice li on Insects and Diseases/
Forest Health Conditions

Mortality from some insects and
diseases in the project area
would likely continue, but the
amount would appreciably
decrease as the older, decadent
trees are harvested and,
eventually, replaced with young
vigorous trees . Much of the
sawlog volume that is most
susceptible to loss of value
from stem rot infection would be
harvested. Some mortality from
root rot may occur shortly after
harvesting due to a build-up of
the disease, but the species mix
that would be retained and
regenerated by the proposed
harvest would be far less
susceptible to root rot. Over
the long term, a reduction in
the number of trees with root
and stem rot infections would be
expected. During the first
season after harvesting, the
hazard of wildfire may increase
due to the high amount of

logging slash. With the
completion of the proposed
hazard reduction (usually within
18 months of harvesting) , fire
hazards would be reduced
substantially for a long time.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

• Cumulative ^ects j\o-, Iction ^Ilternatice
. 1 and, Iction ^llternative B to Insect and
Disease/Forest Health Conditions

Other forest -management
treatments, similar to
treatments proposed in this
project, are being proposed and
initiated in the analysis area.
These treatments would promote
the regeneration and retention
of a diverse mix of tree species
that are more vigorous and less
susceptible to attacks by
insects and diseases.

> Noxious Weeds

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct and Indirect fleets ofJ\o-,Iction
.Ilternatice ,1 on j\ojrious JV'eeds

Under No-Action Alternative A,
no new areas of disturbance,
which would be at high risk for
weed infestation, would be
created through timber-
management activities.
Recreationalists using the
project are would continue to
introduce and spread weed seeds.
Some effort would be made to
manage weeds, but no revenue
would be collected to fund the
noxious weed program.

• Direct and Indirect J^ects qf. Iction
.Ilternatice B on JVoxious ^Veeds

Under Action Alternative B,
additional mineral soils would
be exposed by logging equipment
within the proposed harvest
units and on access roads .
Constructing and maintaining
roads, skidding logs, and
clearing landings would create
conditions that are conducive to
new weed infestations.

Page 111-6

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

VEGETATION

Mitigation measures would
require that equipment be washed
before it is brought on site,
substantial areas of exposed
mineral soil be seeded, and
herbicides be applied at
specified sites. Action
Alternative B would collect
money for forest improvement,
which would help fund the
Stillwater Unit weed-management
program. This program monitors
noxious weeds annually and
applies herbicides at specific
sites.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

• Cuuiiilaiipe Hiffecbt qfJVo^lclion
»1Iternative -1 and miction tllternatice li
OH j\oj-iotM \V'eedPopulntionM

The open roads in the analysis
area have traffic from dispersed
recreation, timber-management
activities, and other uses on a
regular basis. This traffic,
along with road-maintenance and
timber-harvesting activities,
increases exposure to weed
establishment. Utility line
corridors and illegal motorized
use also increase exposure to
weed establishment. Over time,
the weed-management program at
Stillwater Unit, including
cooperation with the Flathead
and Lincoln County weed
departments, has improved. If
funding remains available, some
of the large populations of
weeds in the analysis area would
be treated, greatly reducing the
current weed populations.

> Sensitive Plants

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct ami Indirect f^ecltt qfJVo-,1ction
»'ilternatice ,1 on Sensitive Plants

This alternative would not
directly affect water levels or
increase the risk of exotic
plant species being introduced
in meadows and fens where
sensitive plants are known to

occur. Over time, if forest
fuels were allowed to build up
and increase fire hazards, the
risk of a very large stand-
replacement fire in the area
would increase. The result of
such a fire could increase
runoff and water levels in the
fens and meadow complexes near
the burn. Under this
alternative, no funds would be
collected for weed-population
monitoring or management.
Without adequate funding the
weed-management program on
Stillwater Unit would, over
time, be reduced, which would
increase the risk of exotic
plants successfully invading the
habitat of the sensitive plant
species in the project area.

• Direct and Indirect L^ffecfs qf. Iction
tllternatice li on Sensitive Plants

Action Alternative B would
reduce the canopy on
approximately 93 9 acres to
varying degrees. This could,
potentially, cause some
increased water levels at low
points of the topography. The
meadows, wetlands, and fens
would be buffered by additional
vegetation that would be
retained along the edges; in
some cases, harvest units would
be located away from the habitat
feature. This retained
vegetation would absorb much of
the water from surrounding areas
and should limit increases in
water levels in sensitive plant
habitat to veiry minor amounts.
Action Alternative B would
collect fees that could be used,
in part, to fund measures to
monitor and control weeds. This
would allow land managers to
react to the future
establishment of an exotic plant
species within the sensitive
plant habitat in the project
area.

Chapter III— Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences Page III -7

VEGETATION

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

• Cumulative I^ffech ofA'o-. Iclion

. Ilternntive .1 and. lotion . Ilternative B
on Sensitive Planttt

Management actions on Stillwater
Unit are being initiated with
mitigation measures to prevent
the spread of weeds more than in
the past; the spread of weeds
from these actions should be
reduced from past levels. In
contrast, the amount of
dispersed recreation on
Stillwater State Forest has
increase substantially, which
also increases the chances of
weed introduction. The Forest
Weed Management Program provides
a way to monitor the overall
weed population, identify major
problem areas, and treat those

areas to control weed
populations. These control
treatments could prevent future
outbreaks of exotic species in
sensitive plant habitat.
Projects to harvest timber that
have been initiated on
Stillwater Unit will analyze the
potential effects to water yield
and include mitigation measures
to reduce the increases to water
yield that might affect
sensitive plant habitat.

C" fl'!';'' ail

#

Example of ^0- to -99 -year -old stand

that would be entered with proposed

harvest. Notice the ingrowth of

shade- tolerant species underneath

the lodgepole pine overstory.

An example of a mixed-conifer

stand proposed for

harvesting.

€

Pa gre III -8

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

VEGETATION

Example of 40-tO'99 -year-old stand

that would be entered with proposed

harvesting. Notice western larch

component in overstory. Much of the

western larch overstory would be

retained with a commercial -thin

harvest treatment.

An example of a prescribed

group-select seedtree-with-

reserves harvest treatment

after harvesting.

Example of 40-to-99-year-old

stand that would be entered with

proposed harvest. Notice the heavy

stocking density and concentrations

of down woody material.

Example of mixed-conifer

stand similar to stands

proposed for harvesting.

Chapter Ill-Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences Page III-9

HYD"RDLOGY

INTRODUCTION

This analysis is designed to
disclose the existing condition of
the hydrologic resources, display
the anticipated effects that may
result from each alternative, and
address the following issues and
concerns :

• Timber-harvesting activities may
increase the amount of sediment
flowing into the streams .

• The removal of vegetation near
streams reduces its sediment-
filtering capacity and channel
stability.

• Harvesting may reduce future
amounts of large woody material in
streams; the material is used as
natural sediment traps and energy
dissipaters to reduce the velocity
and erosiveness of streamflows.

• Removing tree canopies would
decrease rain and snow
interception and alter the
distribution of snowpack and
snowmelt, which would lead to
water yield increases. This may
result in more streambank erosion
and sediment deposits.

ANALYSIS METHODS

A DNRC hydrologist evaluated roads
and stream crossings to determine
the location of sediment sources and
identify in-channel sources of
sediment. The increase in water
yield for the Dog Creek watershed
was also determined using the
equivalent-clearcut-acre (EGA)
method. This method equates the
area harvested and percent of crown
removed with an equal amount of
clearcut area. This method also
calculates the recovery of these
increases as new trees grow on the
site and move toward preharvest
water use .

ANALYSIS AREA

The analysis area for sediment
delivery is the Dog Meadow Timber
Sale Project area and the proposed

haul routes. Dog Creek, a 9,4 59-
acre watershed that includes Dog
Lake, is a perennial third-order
tributary to Stillwater River. The
sediment delivery analysis will
cover all stream segments within the
watershed and all roads and upland
sites that may contribute sediment
to Dog Creek.

The analysis area for water yield is
the 9,459-acre, third-order Dog
Creek watershed. Dog Lake covers 99
acres and is fed and drained by Dog
Creek. The Dog Creek watershed also
contains dozens of wetlands and
beaver dam complexes. These all
serve to dampen the effect of water
yield by releasing water more slowly
and evenly than incoming flows.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Montana Surface Water Quality
Standards classifies the Stillwater
River drainage, including Dog Creek,
as B-1, which does not allow
increases in sediment above
naturally occurring levels and
allows only minimal increases over
natural turbidity.

Bull trout or migratory cutthroat
trout do not inhabit streams in the
project area. Eastern brook trout,
an exotic species, are present in
the streams.

The SMZ Law defines Dog Creek as a
Class 1 stream; Dog Creek and many
of its tributaries flow for more
than 6 months of the year. Many of
these tributaries also support fish.
Some of the smaller first-order
tributaries may be Class 2 or 3,
depending on the site-specific
conditions .

Stream channels in the Dog Creek
watershed are mostly in good
condition. Though some sediment
deposits exist, no areas of in-
channel erosion were found during
reconnaissance. Stream crossings in
the project area and on the haul
route are in good condition
generally and are not contributing
sediment to streams. Some stream

t

Page III -10

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

HYD"RDLOGY

crossings require additional BMP
work, and others need to be
replaced. Surface drainage needs to
be upgraded. Despite this,
reconnaissance identified no point
sources of fine-sediment delivery.

Past timber harvesting and
associated road construction,
combined with vegetative recovery,
have led to a 4.9 percent increase
in water yield over an unharvested
condition in this watershed. The
allowable water yield increase is 12
percent.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct ami Indirect ^ffectn qfA'o-^lction
. Ulernatice ,1 on Ilydrology

This alternative would have no
direct effects to sediment
delivery or water quality beyond
those currently occurring. An
increased risk of sediment
delivery to streams from crossings
that do not meet BMPs would
continue until other funding
becomes available to repair them.

• Direct and Indirect ^ffectji qf Action
.llternatice B on Hydrology

This alternative would:

- replace several stream crossings
in the Dog Creek watershed and
along the proposed haul route;

- construct .3 mile of temporary
road in Section 28, including
the installation of a culvert on
a perennial stream; and

- improve drainage from the road
surface.

All pertinent laws, rules, and
BMPs, including erosion-control
measures, would be applied to all
roadwork and harvesting activities
to minimize the risk of sediment
delivery to draws and streams.
The 0.3 mile of proposed temporary
roads would be reclaimed
immediately after harvesting
activities are completed. The
reclaimed road would pose an

increased risk of sediment
delivery until the bare soil
revegetates . On the temporary
road in Section 28, little or no
disturbance to the creek banks and
bed would occur while installing a
temporary stream crossing in the
perennial stream. In the long
term, the risk of sediment
delivery to streams would be
reduced from current conditions.

Action Alternative B would
increase the annual water yield in
this watershed by 2 . 9 percent over
the current level. This level of
increase would not be sufficient
to create unstable channels.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

• Cumulative Ii^ect* qfJKo-, Iction Alternatice
»1 on Hydrology

All existing sources of sediment
would continue to recover or
degrade as dictated by natural and
preexisting conditions until a
source of funding is available to
repair them. Sediment loads would
remain at or near present levels.
Harvest units of the past would
continue to revegetate and move
closer to premanagement levels of
water use and snowpack
distribution.

• Cumulative Effects qf, Iction , llternatice li on
Hydrology

The sediment generated from
replacing an existing culvert
would increase the total sediment
load in Dog Creek while the
culvert is being replaced. The
installation and improvement of
erosion-control features on
existing roads would also affect
the cumulative sediment delivery
in Dog Creek by exposing bare
soil, though applying BMPs during
this work would make increased
sediment loads unlikely. As these
sites stabilize and revegetate,
the sediment levels would return
to the level of preactivity. Over
the long term, cumulative sediment
delivery to Dog Creek would likely

Chapter III— Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences page III-ll

HVD'RDLOGY

decrease with the installation of
the more effective surface-
drainage and erosion-control
features on the existing road
system. The water yield increase
expected from this alternative
leaves the watershed well below
the established threshold of
concern. None of the cumulative

impacts described above are
expected to adversely affect
downstream uses such as domestic
water supply, coldwater fisheries,
and recreation. Therefore, no
impacts to water quality are
expected as a result of this
alternative.

f

Placing a culvert

Page II I -12

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

Placing rock (rock armoring) at a culvert inlet/outlet to stabilize the soil

and minimize sediment introduction

Culvert installation could cause a short-term increase in sediment to the

streams, but in the long term would help reduce the amount of sediment

entering streams from existing road-crossing structures.

Chapter Ill-Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences Page III-13

WILDLIFE

INTRODUCTION

This analysis is designed to address
public concerns and analysis
elements considered necessary by the
ID Team in reference to threatened,
sensitive, and endangered wildlife
species and wildlife species of
concern. Additional coarse-filter
wildlife analysis and description is
presented in APPENDIX E - WILDLIFE
ANALYSIS.

ANALYSIS METHODS

Field visits, scientific literature,
SLI data, aerial photographs,
Montana Natural Heritage Program
data, and consultations with other
professionals provided information
for this wildlife analysis.

ANALYSIS AREA

The analysis area varies for each
particular species, depending on the
habitat needs of that species.

EXISTING CONDITION

Bald Eagle - classified as threatened.
This project is proposed in and
around the Upper Stillwater Lake
Bald Eagle Territory.

Canada Lynx- classified as
threatened. Lynx foraging and
denning habitats exist within the
proposed project area.

GrayWoif- Classified as endangered.
The project area includes habitat
suitable to wolves; wolf packs are
present near the project area.
Wolves likely use the vicinity of
the proposed project area for
hunting, breeding, and other life
requirements.

GriZZlvBear- classified as threatened.
The project area includes spring
habitat and is used by grizzly
bears. The proposed project would
harvest either during the denning
season (November 15 through March 5)
from open roads or using closed
roads for during short -duration,
high-intensity periods.

Fisher - Listed by DNRC as a
"sensitive" species. In the
proposed project area, an estimated
1,060 acres provide potential
denning habitat. Additionally,
travel corridors retained along
riparian areas connect forested
stands throughout the proposed
project area.

Pileated WoodpeCKer - Listed by DNRC as
a "sensitive" species.
Approximately 242 acres of potential
nesting habitat for pileated
woodpeckers exists within the
proposed project area.

B'FGafne- Moose winter throughout the
project area, while elk winter along
the western portion of the project
area. Stands within the proposed
project area provide security
habitat for elk and deer during the
general hunting season.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS

DIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct tilffecttt ofj\o-,1ction ,1lternative ,1 on
U'ifff/ife

No substantial changes in human
disturbance would be expected with
this alternative; therefore, no
direct effects would be expected
to bald eagles, Canada lynx,
grizzly bears, gray wolves,
fishers, pileated woodpeckers, or
big game (moose, elk, white-tailed
deer, mule deer) .

• Direct J^ect» qf miction ^Alternative Jl on
M^ilfllife

Negligible to minor effects to
Canada lynx, gray wolves, fishers,
and pileated woodpeckers would be
expected. Minor disturbances to
foraging bald eagles might occur.
No effects to eagle reproduction
would be expected. Hiding cover
for grizzly bears would be reduced
over 939 acres. Grizzly bear use
of the project area would be
altered during activities. Some
displacement of big game would be
expected; however, no long-term

Page I II -14

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

WILDLIFE

Moose

White-tailed deer

Chapter Ill-Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences Page III-IS

WILDLIFE

changes in big game security would
be anticipated.

INDIRECT EFFECTS

• Indirect Elffecta qfJWo-^lction JlltemnHve A
on Wildlife

No additional effects to nesting
eagles, gray wolves, or grizzly
bears would be expected from this
alternative .

This alternative would allow for
the greatest development and
abundance of existing and
potential future lynx and fisher
denning habitats, and pileated
woodpecker nesting and foraging
habitats. As stands become
dominated by shade -tolerant tree
species, habitat substainability
and quality for pileated
woodpeckers would gradually
increase through time, then would
decline as any remaining shade-
intolerant species were removed by
mortality. .

This alternative would not reduce
big game hiding or thermal cover
in the project area. Through
time, thermal cover would
increase, forage production would
probably decline, and elk security
would remain relatively unchanged.

• Indirect Effects qf Action Alternative B on
Wildlife

The proposed action alternative
would not reduce alternative bald
eagle nest sites, foraging
opportunities, or the ability of
the territory to support a pair of
nesting bald eagles; therefore,
the indirect effects to bald
eagles are expected to be minor.

Reductions in the quality of
grizzly bear hiding cover are
anticipated. The proposed project
area occurs in spring grizzly bear
habitat. In addition to the
previously described reduction in
hiding cover, the proposed
treatments would also alter some
of the spring habitat components

likely causing grizzly bears to
avoid the treated areas during the
spring. Therefore, grizzly bear
use during the spring, and
possibly other seasons, is
expected to decline. Forage
production is anticipated to
increase. No long-term increases
in open- or total-road densities
are proposed, which would minimize
disturbance to grizzly bears.

Potential Canada lynx denning
habitat would not be removed, and
no impacts to lynx prey or
movement would be expected.
Foraging habitats would be
generated through the proposed
harvest. Landscape connectivity
would be retained through riparian
buffers .

Likely increases in forage
production may result in a light
increase in big game use, which,
in turn, may benefit gray wolves.

The proposed project would reduce
potential fisher denning habitat
on 172 acres. Potential fisher
habitat would be retained within
riparian buffers. Otherwise,
effects to fisher are expected to
be minor because the proposed
project largely avoids typical
fisher habitats.

Suitable habitat for pileated
woodpeckers would be reduced due
to the removal of 4 acres of
potential nesting habitat. The
canopy would be expected to be too
open over the 939 acres proposed
for harvesting to be considered
pileated woodpecker habitat.

Harvesting is expected to reduce
thermal cover for big game. The
proposed activity should increase
forage production. Elk security
is expected to decline in the
short term, but increase in the
long term. Reclosing roads after
harvesting would benefit elk
security.

t

Page III -16

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

WILDLIFE

CUMULATIVB EFFECTS

• Cumulative E^ffectn qfJVo-^lction *1lternative
.Ion Wildlife

Currently, no other activities are
under consideration within the
bald eagle home range.

Road access to the grizzly bear
subunits would not change, nor
would security cover, hiding
cover, and spring habitat quality.

Recruitment of new denning habitat
for Canada lynx is possible as
stands age; however, reductions in
foraging habitat are also
anticipated as stands age.

Disturbance to gray wolves would
not be expected to change. As
previously harvested areas
regenerate, a slight decrease in
big game forage would reduce prey
availability.

Fisher denning and resting
habitats would be retained.
Landscape connectivity through
riparian buffers would persist.
Disturbance levels would not be
expected to change .

Pileated woodpecker foraging and
nesting habitats would improve
through time.

Big game thermal cover and snow
intercept would not be altered.
Reduced forage production is
anticipated. No change in elk
security would be expected.

• Cumiilalice ^ffectn qf, Iclion . Ilternative B on
intfllife

Proposed activities would not
reduce the potential nesting or
perching habitats for bald eagles.
Eagles using the Upper Stillwater
territory are expected to benefit
from the road restrictions
associated with another current
timber sale.

Long-term road access in the
grizzly bear subunits would not
change; timber harvesting would
use a combination of harvesting

along open roads, winter logging,
and intense road use for short
durations to minimize impacts to
grizzly bears. No changes in
security cover are anticipated.
Reductions in hiding cover would
be additive to ongoing and past
timber sales.

No further reductions in Canada
lynx foraging and denning habitats
are expected. Foraging habitats
created by past timber sales would
decline in quality through time as
they age. Lynx use should not be
impacted.

Slight shifts in big game use are
anticipated. Landscape
connectivity for gray wolves would
be maintained. No substantive
change in gray wolf use of
Stillwater State Forest is
expected.

The reduction of fisher denning
habitat by 172 acres would be
additive to the loss of 167 acres
during the Good/Long/Boyle Timber
Sale Project and 5 97 acres during
the Taylor South Timber Sale
Project. Landscape connectivity
through riparian buffers would
persist. Human disturbance levels
would not be expected to change in
the long term.

The opening of the canopy on 939
acres would be additive to
pileated woodpecker habitat loss
associated with past harvesting.

Thermal cover for elk would be
reduced. Increased forage
production in harvest units and
other harvested areas would
benefit wintering elk. The
proposed harvesting would reduce
elk security by removing some
hiding cover along open roads .
This would be additive to past
harvests. Hunter access would be
unchanged .

Chapter Ill-Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences page III-17

ECONOMIC?

INTRODUCTION

This analysis summarizes the economic
impacts of the timber sale and
focuses on market activities that
directly or indirectly benefit the
Montana education system and the
local economy. The Enabling Act of
18 8 9 and the State of Montana
Constitution require that income be
generated from State forestlands for
the school trust fund and to provide
funding for public buildings.

ANALYSIS AREA

The analysis centers on Flathead
County in northwestern Montana, where
the Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project is
located. Most of the economic
impacts related to this timber sale
project are likely to occur in
Flathead County because of its well-
developed wood-product industry.

FLATHEAD COUNTY

Flathead County, located in the
northwest corner of Montana, is the
fourth most populous county in the
State. The population in Flathead
County increased by 15,253 residents
between 1990 and 2000, a growth rate
of 2.3 percent . The average age in
Flathead County is 3 7.2 years, a
slightly younger population than the
State average of 37.8 years.

The Montana Office of Public
Instruction indicates that over
13,000 kindergarten through grade 12
school children were enrolled in
Flathead County public schools in the
2000/2001 school year. Since 1991,
the enrollment in high schools has
increased more than 23 percent.

The woods product industry is the
largest producer in the County,
accounting for approximately 21
percent of the County' s gross
product .

Total employment in Flathead County
shows that nearly 30,200 workers
earned $697 million in wages in 1999;
an average annual wage of $23,152.
This average annual wage is about the

same as the Statewide annual wage.
The average annual wage of workers in
the forestry industry is $49,490,
almost 2.14 times as much as the
average wage earner in Flathead
County. Lumber workers earn an
average of $34,574 per years, or
nearly 50 percent more than the
average wage earner. Forestry and
lumber workers account for 1,955
jobs, or about 6 percent of the jobs
in Flathead County. Forestry and
lumber, combined, produce
approximately 9.8 percent of the
areas wage and salary income.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct and Indirect P^ffech ofj\o-^lctinn
. Ilternatice ,1 on Economics

No people would be employed or earn
income from this timber sale
project under this alternative. No
money would be earned from this
timber sale in support of schools
or public buildings.

• Direct and Indirect flffectit of. let ion
^Ilternatice li on Economics

The estimates in this analysis
compare the action alternative to
the no-action alternative. These
estimates of the employment,
income, or wages associated with
this sale are not intended to be
absolute.

If the estimated harvest volume of
60,221 tons of timber sells for an
estimated stumpage of $27.82 per
ton, the total revenue earned for
the stumpage would be $1,675,000.
Of this, the revenue for the school
trust would be $1,212,600. This
would be enough money to educate
2 01 students in grades kindergarten
through 12 for 1 year. This
estimate is based on a student cost
per year of $6,038, as provided by
the Montana Office of Public
Instruction.

This timber sale project would
provide approximately 94 jobs to

Page III -18

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

ECONOMIC?

I

workers that would earn a total of
$3,016,500. The estimated amount
of income tax paid on this money by
the workers would be $131,700.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

• Ciiniulatice J^ech qfJVft-. Iclion . Illernatice
%1 on EconomicH

DNRC's State-wide goal is to
harvest 42.164 MMBF each year. If
timber from this project is not
sold, this volume could come from
timber sale projects elsewhere,
which may not benefit this region
of the State.

If harvesting in this forest is
deferred for a long time, harvest
patterns would be impacted,
changing the region where the
volume was harvested and this
region.

CitHitilalii'e li^'eclH qf. Iclion . Illernative II on
KconnmicH

This sale would be part of the
annual harvest of timber from trust
lands. The net revenue from this
sale would add to the trust fund.
The annual contribution to the
trust fund has varied widely over
the years, as shown in TABLE III-
1 - DNRC'S ANNUAL TIMBER HARVEST
REVENUE FOR YEARS 1997 THROUGH
2001) . The contribution to the
trust fund is also affected by the
annual costs experienced by DNRC
for program management .

TABLE III-l - DNRC'S ANNUAL TIMBER
HARVEST REVENUE FOR YEARS 1997
THROUGH 2001.

YEAR

HARVEST
REVENUE ($)

2001

8,524,150

2000

12,710,311

1999

6,998,847

1998

8,393,485

1997

7,327,641

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project would earn $1,212,600 for the

school trust, which is enough money to educate 201 students

in grades kindergarten through 12 for 1 year

Chapter Ill-Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences Page III-19

^oiLs:

INTRODUCTION

The Dog Creek watershed is a valley
formed by glaciers and rivers. The
dominant soil types found in the
project area are deep glacial tills.
Upper slopes and ridges are
weathered bedrock that have been
scoured by glaciers. EXISTING
CONDITIONS

The Flathead National Forest (FNF)
Soil Survey did not identify any
areas of soils that are at high risk
for mass movement in the project
area. Several areas are wetland
soil types not suitable for timber
management and would require special
measures for road construction. The
Dog Creek watershed soil types and
their associated management
implications are found in APPENDIX
G - SOILS ANALYSIS in TABLE G-3 -
SOIL MAP UNIT DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE
DOG/MEADOW PROJECT AREA.

In the Dog Creek watershed, DNRC has
conducted timber harvesting since
the 1920s. Timber sale records
dating back to the 1960s indicate
that 2,062 acres have been harvested
on State land, using a combination
of ground-based and cable -yarding
methods . Ground-based yarding can
affect soil productivity through
displacement and compaction of
productive surface layers of soil,
mainly on heavily used trails.
Based on field review of the area,
an estimated 10 to 15 percent of the
area may be impacted by existing
trails. Trails are still apparent,
but most are well vegetated and past
impacts are beginning to ameliorate
from frost and vegetation.

ANALYSIS AREA

The Dog Creek watershed encompasses
the entire Dog Meadow Timber Sale
Project area. The analysis area for
evaluating soil productivity will
include DNRC-managed State lands
within this project area.

ANALYSIS METHODS

The productivity of the soils will
be analyzed by evaluating the level
of soil disturbance currently in the
proposed project area. The criteria
for analysis will also include risk
factors of soil stability.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct and Indirect Effect* ofJVo-^lction
»lltematice »1 on Soils

No-Action Alternative A would not
directly or indirectly affect soil
productivity. No harvesting
activities would take place.

• Direct and Indirect ^ffectt of, Iction
*1lternatice li on Soil*

Action alternative B would
directly impact approximately 137
acres of ground if yarded in the
summer, and approximately 42 acres
if yarded in the winter. Direct
impacts would include compaction
and displacement resulting from
the use of ground-based equipment
to skid logs on approximately 898
acres, and cable yarding on
approximately 41 acres. Ground-
based site preparation and road
construction would also generate
direct impacts to the soil
resource. These activities would
leave up to 15 percent of the
proposed harvest units in an
impacted condition if done in the
summer, and up to 4 percent if
done in the winter. DNRC expects
to maintain long-term soil
productivity based upon the
implementation of mitigation
measures to control the area and
degree of detrimental soil impacts
to less than 15 percent of the
proposed harvest area. A
combination of skidding mitigation
measures would include:

- restricting the season of use,

- utilizing a minimum skid-trail
spacing,

- installing erosion control where

Page III -20

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

SOTLS

needed,

- retaining woody debris, and

- following all applicable BMPs .

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

• Cuinttlnlii'e I^'eclM qf.Xth, Iction , llternatice
.lonSoilji

This alternative would not
cumulatively affect soil
productivity. No soil would be
disturbed and no past harvest
units would be reentered.

• Cumulative I^'ech of. Iction . Illernatice li on
Soils

Action Alternative B would enter
some stands that had been
previously harvested. Cumulative
effects to soils may occur from
repeated entries into a forest
stand, where additional ground is
impacted by equipment operations.
DNRC would maintain long-term soil
productivity and minimize
cumulative effects by implementing

any or all of the following
mitigation measures :

• Existing skid trails from past
harvesting activities would be
used if they are properly
located and spaced.

• Additional skid trails would be
used only where existing trails
are unacceptable.

• The potential direct and
indirect effects would be
mitigated with soil-moisture
restrictions .

• A portion of coarse woody debris
and fine litter would be
retained for nutrient cycling.

In stands that have not been
previously harvested, cumulative
effects to soil productivity from
multiple entries would be the same
as those listed in the direct and
indirect effects section.

Ground-hased yarding equipment causes some soil compaction and \

di spl a cemen t

Chapter III— Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences Page III-21

t

I

I PREPARERS AND

^ CONTRIBUTORS

i

o

Q

^XWBER

1

PREPARERS AND
CONTRIBUTORS

o
1^

3i^-jtfc«n<:MiMi ■ «'ttoiMr,'«a-»

ID TEAM MEMBERS
Beck, Margaret

Engelmann, Paul

Hadlock, Gary

Manning, Brian

McMahon, Michael

Merz, Norm
Nelson, Tony
Schairer, Garrett
Seifert, Dan

Shepard, Jay

Graphics/Publications Technician, DNRC, Stillwater
State Forest, Olney, MT

Economist, Forest Management Bureau, DNRC, Missoula,
MT

Forest Engineering Specialist, NWLO, DNRC, Kalispell,
MT

Forest Management Specialist, DNRC, Stillwater State
Forest, Olney, MT

Management Forester, DNRC, Stillwater State Forest,
Olney, MT 59927

Wildlife Biologist, NWLO, DNRC, Kalispell, MT

Hydrologist, NWLO, DNRC, Kalispell, MT

Wildlife Biologist, NWLO, DNRC, Kalispell, MT

Management Forester, DNRC, Stillwater State Forest,
Olney, MT

Wildlife Biologist, NWLO, DNRC, Kalispell, MT

DECISIONMAKER

Sandman, Bob

Unit Manager, Stillwater/Swan Units, DNRC, Olney, MT

t

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

i

o

Q

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

o

I

Ake, K. 1994. Protocol Paper:
Moving Window Motorized Access
Density Analysis and Security Core
Analysis for Grizzly Bear.
Unpublished mimeograph, 2/22/1995.
USDA Forest Service. Flathead
National Forest, Kalispell, Montana.
10pp.

Aney, W. and R. McClelland. 1985.
Pi lea ted Woodpecker Habitat
Relationships (Revised) . Pages 10-
17 in Warren, N.(eds.) 1990. Old
Growth Habitats and Associated
Wildlife Species in the Northern
Rocky Mountains. USFS, Northern
Region, Wildlife Habitat
Relationships Program Rl-90-42 .
4 7pp.

Bull, E. L. and J. A. Jackson.
1995. Pileated woodpecker:
JDryocopus pileatus. American
Ornithologists' Union. Washington
DC. 24pp.

General Technical Report,
95 pp.

INT-223

DNRC.

1996,

State Forest Land

Management Plan. Montana Department
of Natural Resources and
Conservation, Missoula, Montana.

Farns, P. 1978. Hydrology of
Mountain Watersheds, Preliminary
Report . Soil Conservation Service.
Bozeman, Montana.

Ferguson, B.A. 2001. Root Disease
Survey, Mapping, and Management
Report for the Dog Meadow Project
Area, Stillwater State Forest,
Montana

Fischer, W.C, andA.F. Bradley.
1987. Fire Ecology of Western
Montana Forest Habitat Types. USFS

Flathead National Forest, Forest
Plan Amendment 21, Final
Environmental Impact Statement,
1998, Management Direction Related
to Old Growth Forests .

Forest Insect and Disease
Identification and Management 1996,
USDA, Forest Service, R-1; Montana
Department of State Lands; Idaho
Department of Lands .

Green, P, J. Joy, D. Sirucek,W. Hann,
A. Zack, B. Naumann. 19 92. Old-
Growth Forest Types of the Northern
Region. USDA Forest Service,
Northern Region, Region 1, Missoula,
Montana. 60pp.

Haupt, H.F., et al . 1974. Forest
Hydrology Part II Hydrologic Effects
of Vegetation Manipulation. USDA
Forest Service, Region 1. Missoula,
Montana.

Heinemeyer, K. S. and J. L. Jones.
1994. Fisher Biology and Management
in the Western United States: A
Literature Review and Adaptive
Management Strategy. USDA Forest
Service, Northern Region, Missoula,
Montana 108pp.

Hillis, J.M., and M.J. Thompson, J.
E. Canfield, L.J. Lyon, C.L. Marcum,
P.M. Dolan, and D.W. McCleerey.
1991. Defining Elk Security: The
Hillis Paradigm. Pages 38-43 in A.
G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon, and T.N.
Lonner, comps . , Proc. Elk
Vulnerability Symp., Mont. State
Univ., Bozeman, Montana. 330pp.

Jacobs, A. H. and M. R. Kuennen.
1998. Site Specific Guidelines for
the Stillwater Bald Eagle Nesting
Territory. USDA Forest Service,
Flathead National Forest, Whitefish,
MT. 71pp.

Jones, J.L. 1991. Habitat Use of
Fisher in North-Central Idaho. M.S.
Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow,
Idaho. 147 pp.

Koehler, G. M. and J. D. Brittell.
1990. Managing Spruce-Fir Habitat
for Lynx and Snowshoe Hares .
Journal of Forestry 88:10-14.

Leaf, Charles F. 1975. Watershed
Management in the Rocky Mountain
Subalpine Zone: The Status of Our
Knowledge . Research paper RM137.
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Ft. Collins, Colorado.

Losensky, B.J. 1997. Historical
Vegetation in Region One by Climatic
Section - Draft Report, Revision
Three. USDA Forest Service,
Northern Region, Missoula, Montana.

Losensky, B.J. 1997. Historical
Vegetation of Montana. Unpublished
report done under contract for
Montana Department of Natural
Resources and Conseirvation,
Missoula, Montana. 100pp.

McClelland, B.R. 1979. The Pileated
Woodpecker in Forests of the
Northern Rocky Mountains. Pages
283-299 in J. G. Dickson, R. N.
Conner, R. R. Fleet, J C. Kroll, and
J. A. Jackson, editors. The Role of
Insectivorous Birds in Forest
Ecosystems . Academic Press, New
York, New York.

Montana Bald Eagle Working Group.
1994. Montana Bald Eagle Management
Plan. USDI Bureau of Land
Management. Billings, Montana.
61pp.

Montana Department of Environmental
Quality. 2003a. Environet
Watershed Information, 2002 Montana
303(d) Impaired Water Database. 6
January 2003. <http://nris.state.mt.

us/ script s/esrimap.dll?
name=TMDL2 002&Cmd=INST>.

Montana Department of Environmental
Quality. 2003b. Environet
Watershed Information, year 2001 305
(b) report database and year 2000
303(d) list database. 6 January
2003. <http://nris.state.mt.us/
scripts/esrimap . dll?
name=TMDL&;Cmd=INST> .

Montana Department of Environmental
Quality. 2003c. 1996 TMDL Query
System. 6 January 2 003. <http://
nris . state .mt .us/wis/tmdlapp/tmdl96 .
asp>.

Mosconi, S. L. and R. L. Hutto.
1982. The Effect of Grazing on the
Land Birds of a Western Montana
Riparian Habitat. pp 221-233 in L.
Nelson and J. M. Peek (eds)
Proceedings of the Wildlife-
Livestock Relationships Symposium.
Forest, Wildlife, and Range
Experiment Station, University of
Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Pfister,R.D. , B.L. Kovalchik, S.F.
Arno, and R. C. Presby. 1977.
Forest Habitat Types of Montana.
USDA, Forest Service General
Technical Report.

Powell, R. A. and W. J. Zielinski .
1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in
Ruggiero, L. F. , K. B. Aubry, S. W.
Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J.
Zielinski, tech eds. 1994. The
Scientific Basis for Conserving
Forest Carnivores: American Marten,
Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the
Western United States. USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report RM-
254. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Redfern, D.B., and G.M. Filip.
1991. Innoculum and Infection.
Pages 48 through 61 in Armillaria
Root Disease. Shaw, C.G.,III, and
G.A. Kile, eds. Agricultural
Handbook No. 691. USDA Forest
Service, Washington, D.C. 233 pages.

Rosgen, David L. 1996. Applied
River Morphology. Wildland
Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Page A- 2

Dog Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

I

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Mighton,
B. Nanaey, T. Tinaldi, F. Wahl, N.
Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson, L.
Lewis, B. Holt, G. Patton, J. Trick,
A. Vandehey, S. Gniadek, 2000.
Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment
(2nd Edition) . USDA Forest Service,
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI
Bureau of Land Management, and USDI
National Park Service. Missoula,
Montana. 122 pp.

Troendle, Charles A. 1989. Effects
of Partial Cutting and Thinning on
the Water Balance of the Subalpine
Forest . USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station. Research paper RP-274.
Fort Collins, Colorado.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Soil
Survey of the Flathead National
Forest Area, Montana. USDA Forest
Service and Natural Resource
Conservation Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1998.
"WATERSHED" CONDITION-Rating
Standards for form KNF-2670-BTI
Thru BT5 . Kootenai National
Forest .

USFWS. 1986. Recovery Plan for the
Pacific Bald Eagle. USFWS.
Portland Oregon. 160pp.

USFWS. 1987. Northern Rocky
Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan.
USFWS. Denver, Colorado. 119pp.

USFWS. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery
Plan. Missoula Montana. 181pp.

Waller, J. S. and R. D. Mace.
1997. Grizzly Bears and Timber
Harvest. Pages 26-2 8 in Mace, R.
D. and J. S. Waller. 1997. Final
Report: Grizzly Bear Ecology in the
Swan Mountains. Montana Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, Helena,
Montana.

Appendix A-References

Page A- 3

t

APPENDIX B

STIPULATIONS AND
SPECIFICATIONS

J^

i

%

i)

o

Q

APPENDIX B

STIPULATIONS AND
SPECIFICATIONS

o

1-3

stipulations and specifications for
the action alternatives were
identified or designed to prevent or
reduce potential effects to
resources considered in this
analysis. In part, stipulations and
specifications are a direct result
of issue identification and resource
concerns. This section is organized
by resource .

Stipulations and specifications that
apply to operations required by, and
occurring during, the contract
period would be contained within the
Timber Sale Contract. As such, they
are binding and enforceable.
Project administrators would enforce
stipulations and specifications
relating to activities such as
hazard reduction, site preparation,
and planting that may occur during
or after the contract period.

The following stipulations and
specifications would be incorporated
into the selected action alternative
to mitigate potential effects on
resources .

WATERSHED AND FISHERIES

• Erosion-control measures planned
include:

- grade breaks on roads,

- surface-water-diverting
mechanisms on roads,

- slash-filter windrows, and

- grass seeding.

Details for these control measures
will be included in Appendix B of
the Timber Sale Agreement.

Culvert sizing for all road
projects will be for a 50-year-
flood event, as recommended by the
DNRC hydrologist.

Stream crossings where culvert
removals and installations are
planned will have the following
requirements, as needed, to
protect water-quality and meet
BMPs:

- Filter-fabric fences will be in
place downstream prior to and
during culvert installation.

- Diversion channels will be
constructed and lined with
plastic to divert streamflow
prior to any in- channel
operations .

Contract requirements for removal
and installation of any stream-
crossing structures include:

- Crossings would be limited and
occur only at authorized sites.

- All soil disturbed during
installation or removal of
bridges would be seeded with
quick-cover mix within 24 hours
of disturbance.

Brush would be removed from
existing road prisms to allow
effective road maintenance. Road
maintenance would reduce sediment
delivery.

The contractor would be
responsible for the immediate
cleanup of any spills (fuel, oil,
dirt, etc.) that may affect water
quality.

• Leaking equipment would not be
permitted to operate at stream-
crossing construction sites.

• The BMP audit process will
continue. This sale will likely
be reviewed in an internal audit
and may be picked at random as a
State-wide audit site. SMZs would
be evaluated as a part of the
audit process .

WILDLIFE

> Bald Eagles

No harvesting or yarding activity
will occur in the bald eagle
primary-use area or across
documented flight paths.

> Grizzly Bears

The following items are
incorporated into this proposal:

• Grass seeding plans to
revegetate roads and landings
include seeding with plant
species less palatable to
grizzly bears to discourage or
minimize the potential for bear/
human conflicts.

• No logging camps would be
allowed in the sale area.

• Garbage hauling would be
required daily.

• The Forest Officer would, if
necessary, immediately suspend
any or all activities directly
related to the proposed action
to prevent imminent
confrontation or conflict
between grizzly bears, or other
threatened or endangered
species, and humans.

• While working under contract,
contractors would be prohibited
from carrying firearms onto
restricted roads.

• All restricted roads would be
closed by a gate, if present, or
by a sign and sawhorse placed in
the middle of the road while
logging operations are inactive

(weekends, nights, etc.).

• Following harvesting operations,
temporary roads would be
obliterated by recontouring,
slashing, or otherwise obscuring
the road prism for at least 200
feet. The remaining road prism
behind the obliteration would be
ripped and water barred. The
obliteration should be at a
level to prevent motorized use.

> Wolves

A contract provision will require
DNRC to contact USFWS to develop
and implement mitigations to
protect any wolf den or rendezvous
site within the gross sale area
that may be discovered during
implementation of this proposal.

VEGETATION

SNAG RETENTION

• Where available, 2 to 5 snags or 2
to 5 trees (snag recruits) , 21
inches dbh or greater, per acre.

• Larger trees that are at least 200
feet from an open road would be
favored.

• Western larch, Douglas-fir, and
black Cottonwood would be favored.

• Clumpy distribution, versus even
distribution, would be favored.

AESTHETICS

• The number and size of landings
would be limited; the location
would be away from main roads,
when possible.

• Disturbed sites along road right-
of-ways would be grass seeded.

AIR QUALITY

• To prevent individual or
cumulative effects during burning
operations, burning would be done
in compliance with the Montana
Airshed Group reporting
regulations and any burning
restrictions imposed in Airshed 2 .
This would provide for burning

Page B-2

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project

during acceptable ventilation and
dispersion conditions.

• To reduce effects from burning
operations :

- Excavator, landing, and roadwork
debris would be piled clean to
allow ignition to occur during
fall and spring when ventilation
is good and surrounding fuels
are wet. The Forest Officer may
require that piles be covered to
reduce dispersed (unentrained)
smoke. Covered piles are drier,
ignite easier, burn hotter, and
extinguish sooner.

- The number of burn piles would
be minimized by leaving large
woody debris on site.

• Dust abatement may be applied on
some road segments, depending on
the seasonal conditions and level
of public traffic.

SOILS

> S'O'I Compaction and pisplacement

• Logging equipment would not
operate off forest roads unless
soils are adequately dry, frozen
to a depth that would support
machine operations, or snow
covered to a depth that would
prevent compaction, rutting, or
displacement.

• Existing skid trails and
landings would be used if their
design is consistent with
prescribed treatments and meets
current BMP guidelines.

• Conventional wheeled and tracked
skidders would not be operated
on sustained slopes steeper than
40 percent, or could be operated
on slopes up to 45 percent on a
site-specific basis if
operations do not cause
excessive disturbance. Short
steep slopes (less than 300
feet) of 40 to 50 percent would
be winchline skidded, soft-track
yarded, or timber-feller
harvested with wood shuttled to

gentler slopes.

• The logging foreman and sale
administrator would agree to a
general skidding plan prior to
equipment operations .

• The density of skid trails in a
harvest area would not exceed 20
percent of the total area in a
cutting unit .

> ?oi| Erosion

• Winchline skidding would be
required for short (less than
300 feet) steep slopes over 45
percent, on equipment
restriction zones (ERZ) , and as
required by the Forest Officer.

• To reduce surface erosion, roads
used by the purchaser would be
reshaped and the ditches
redefined following use to
reduce surface erosion.

• Drain dips and gravel would be
installed on roads, as needed,
to improve road drainage and
reduce maintenance needs and
erosion.

• Some sections of roads would be
repaired to upgrade the roads to
design standards that reduce
erosion potential and
maintenance needs .

• Certified weed-free grass seed
and fertilizer would be applied
in a timely manner on all newly
constructed road surfaces, cut-
and-fill slopes, and any
existing disturbed cut-and-fill
slopes and landings immediately
adjacent to open roads to
stabilize soils and reduce/
prevent the establishment of
noxious weeds. This would
include :

- seeding all road cuts and
fills concurrently with
construction;

- applying "quick cover" seed
mix at culvert installation
sites within 1 day of when
work is completed; and

hppeixdix B-Stipulacions and Specifications

Page B-3

- seeding all road surfaces and
reseeding culvert installation
sites when the final blading
is completed for each
specified road segment.

• As directed by the Forest
Officer, water bars, logging-
slash barriers, and, in some
cases, temporary culverts
would be installed on skid
trails where there is a
potential for erosion, based
on ground and weather
conditions. These erosion-
control features would be
periodically inspected and
maintained throughout the
contract period or extensions
thereof .

NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT

• Surface blading may be required to
remove weeds before the seed-set
stage on roads affected by the
proposal .

• All tracked and wheeled equipment
are required to be clean of
noxious weeds prior to beginning

project operations. The contract-
administrating officer would
inspect equipment periodically
during project implementation.

• Prompt revegetation of disturbed
roadside sites would be required.
Roads used and closed as part of
this proposal would be reshaped
and grass seeded.

• Infestations of noxious weeds
would be treated on a site-
specific basis (mainly along
roads) , with a priority on the
newer species and infestations of
noxious weeds .

ARCHAEOLOGY

• A review of this project was
conducted by a DNRC archaeologist.
No additional archeological
investigative work was recommended
for this project.

• A contract clause provides for
suspending operations if cultural
resources are discovered;
operations may only resume as
directed by the Forest Officer.

r

{("

c:

Page B—4

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project

APPENDIX C

VEGETATION
ANALYSIS

(C

((.

^^°o

o

Q

.^^tVlAL 4^^<^^

APPENDIX C

VEGETATION ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

This section provides a detailed
description of the conditions of the
forest in the analysis area and
addresses the potential effects of
the proposed alternatives related to
the following issues:

• Adequate regeneration of the
harvest units

• The likelihood of blowdown
occurring in and adjacent to
existing harvest units

• The potential effects to old
growth on Stillwater State Forest

Also, this section addresses general
concerns with timber harvesting,
such as potential effects to the
health of the forest, the spread of
noxious weeds, wildfire hazards, the
maintenance of biodiversity, the
effects of clearcutting, and
historic occurrence patterns.

ANALYSIS METHOD

A coarse-filter analysis was
conducted on the analysis area in
reference to effects to age class,
covertype, and old-growth timber
stands. Each alternative was
analyzed for the effects to snags,
coarse woody debris, and noxious
weed occurrence and distribution.
The data used to define the existing
condition of the project area came
from several sources, including
DNRC's SLI, extensive traverses, and
plots. The Stillwater SLI is
updated annually in areas where
recent harvesting has been
completed. The estimated effects of

o

h3

forest -management projects that have
been implemented, but not completed,
on current vegetation conditions are
considered in the cumulative-effects
analysis .

ANALYSIS AREA

The coarse-filter analysis area is
the contiguous Stillwater State
Forest and scattered sections in
northern Lincoln County,
approximately 99,264 forested acres.
The analysis of site-specific
effects is limited to areas where
actions are proposed (referred to as
the proposed harvest units or the
project area) ; consideration for
adjacent lands is analyzed where
applicable. Some comparisons are
made with historic data representing
the Upper Flathead Valley that was
collected in the 1930s {cliwatic
section 333c, Losensky 1997h) .

EXISTING CONDITIONS

COVERTYPE

The current covertype distribution
on the landscape in the coarse -
filter analysis area is displayed in
FIGURE 1. For comparison, the
covertype distribution from the
Historic Upper Flathead Valley is
displayed. Covertypes are assigned
based on the existing percent of
species mixes from a set protocol
using SLI. Also displayed is an
appropriate covertype distribution.
This depicts the covertype
distribution DNRC determined should
be trended towards based on the
current percent of species mix, fire
and fire suppression history, white

pine blister rust mortality, harvest
history, and local site conditions.

FIGURE C-1

COVERTYPE DISTRIBUTION IN
HISTORIC FLATHEAD VALLEY

Lodgepole pine 27%

Mixed conifer 6%
Ponderosa pine 1 %

Douglas-fir i %

Western larch/
28% Douglas-fir

Western
1 % white pine

36% Subalpine fir

CURRENT COVERTYPE DISTRIBUTION

Western white pine 9%

Western larch/
Douglas-fir 23%

Mixed conifer 27%

■ 35% Subalpine fir

1% Douglas-fir
5% Lodgepole pine

APPROPRIATE COVERTYPE DISTRIBUTION

Western white pine

Western larch/
Douglas-fir 45%

% Subalpine fir

2% Douglas-fir
Trace Hardwoods

5% Lodgepole pine
11% Mixed conifer
•■1% Ponderosa pine

Data indicates that the largest
discrepancies between the current
covertype distribution and historic
data are that there is currently
less lodgepole pine and more mixed-
conifer covertypes. Currently, the

largest discrepancies between
appropriate covertype and current
covertype appear to be that there
are more mixed-conifer and subalpine
fir (24 percent) covertype and less
western larch/Douglas-fir covertypes
(22 percent) . Increases in the
subalpine fir and mixed-conifer
covertypes may be a consequence of
an increase in shade-tolerant
species from fire suppression and
past harvesting that selectively
removed some of the shade -intolerant
species. Current covertype
distribution is displayed in TABLE
C-1 - CURRENT COVERTYPE DISTRIBUTION
WITHIN PROPOSED HARVEST UNITS.

TABLE C-1 - CURRENT COVERTYPE
DISTRIBUTION WITHIN PROPOSED HARVEST
UNITS

COVERTYPE

UNIT

DISTRIBUTION

(PERCENT)

Subalpine fir

4

Douglas-fir

2

Hardwoods

Trace

Lodgepole pine

19

Mixed conifer

34

Western larch/
Douglas-fir

1

Western white pine

40

AGE -CLASS DISTRIBUTION

FIGURE C-2-COMPARISON OF CURRENT
AGE-CLASS DISTRIBUTIION IN THE
ANALYSIS AREA AND AGE -CLASS
DISTRIBUTION FROM HISTORIC UPPER
FLATHEAD VALLEY DATA provides a
comparison of the current age-class
distribution in the analysis area
and from Historic Upper Flathead
Valley data.

State ownership in the analysis area
has approximately 25 percent less
area in the seedling/sapling age
class (0 to 39 years) and 11 percent
more area in the old-stand age class
than Historic Data over the larger
climatic section. TABLE C-2 -
CURRENT AGE-CLASS DISTRIBUTION IN
THE PROPOSED HARVEST UNITS is
displayed below.

Page C-2

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

FIGURE C-2 - COMPARISON OF CURRENT
AGE-CLASS DISTRIBUTION IN THE ANALYIS
AREA AND AGE -CLASS DISTRIBUTION FROM
HISTORIC UPPER FLATHEAD VALLEY DATA

O Current Age Class
U Historic Age Class

Historic Age Class
Current Age Class

(Note: Old Stands for age-class
comparison are stands with a dominant
overs tory of 150 years or older or in
the case of lodgepole 14 0 years or

TABLE C-2 - CURRENT AGE -CLASS
DISTRIBUTION IN THE PROPOSED HARVEST
UNITS

OLD -GROWTH DISTRIBUTION

Old growth, for this analysis, is
defined as stands that meet the
minimum criteria (number of trees
per acre that have a minimum dbh and
a minimum age) for a given site
(old-growth group from habitat
type) . These criteria can be found
in the Green, et al. Old Growth
Forest Types of the Northern Region,
R-1 SES 4/92, USDA Forest Service,
Northern Region, Missoula, MT. The
SLI indicates that timber stands
that are estimated to meet the old-
growth definition total
approximately 8,070.4 acres, or 12.3
percent of the analysis area. For
comparison, in the FNF Forest Plan
Amendment 21, the amount of old
growth on FNF historically was
estimated to be between 15 and 60
percent (FNF Plan Amendment #21,
1998) . The percentage is highly

AGE CLASS

ACRES

PERCENT

0 to 3 9 years

8

1

40 to 99 years

316

33

100 years to old
stand

332

34

Old stand

282

30

Totals

939

100

variable by forest type. This
historic estimate is based on
various information sources,
including historic data, aerial
photography comparison, and computer
modeling. FIGURE C-3 - CURRENT
COVERTYPE DISTRIBUTION WITHIN OLD-
GROWTH STANDS IN THE ANALYSIS AREA
is displayed below.

FIGURE C-3 - CURRENT COVERTYPE
DISTRIBUTION WITHIN OLD -GROWTH
STANDS IN THE ANALYSIS AREA

OLD GROWTH BY COVERTYPE

Western white pine -140^

Western larch/ 40%
Douglas-fir

26% Subalpine fir

0°^ Trace Douglas-fir
1% Lodgepole pine

19% Mixed conifer

Subalpine fir and western larch/
Douglas-fir are the 2 dominant old-
growth covertypes in the analysis
area. The Dog/Meadow Timber Sale
Project was designed to not harvest
in old-growth stands. The old
stands that are proposed for harvest
entry with the Dog/Meadow Timber
Sale Project have, for the most
part, been entered previously with
timber harvesting and do not
currently meet minimum criteria for
old-growth definition. The mature
overstory component in these timber
stands is distributed in a
scattered, clumpy distribution with
less than the minimum number of
large old trees per acre than are
required to be considered old growth
in this analysis.

FIGURE C-4 - OLD -GROWTH STAND
LOCATIONS ACROSS THE ANALYSIS AREA
is displayed on the following map.

Appendix C-Vegetation Analysis

Page C-3

FIGURE C-4 - OLD-GROWTH STAND LOCATIONS ACROSS THE ANALYSIS AREA

Note: The analysis area has no old-growth stands in scattered sections
northwest of the contiguous Stillwater State Forest.

Page C-4

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

INSBCT AND DISEASE/ FORBST HEALTH
CONDITIONS

Insect and disease conditions in
timber stands on Stillwater State
Forest are monitored annually. The
annual Forest Health Protection
aerial detection survey flight
provides DNRC data on mortality on
State ownership and adjacent forest
ownerships. In addition, Stillwater
Unit conducts an annual aerial
survey to detect mortality from
forest insect infestations and
disease infections. The last
Stillwater Unit survey was conducted
in June of 2002. Ground surveys are
done in areas where tree mortality
is detected; the cause and scope of
the infestation is evaluated. The
most prevalent tree mortality found
recently on the forest was
attributed to Douglas-fir bark
beetle (Dendroctonus psuedotsugra
Hcpk) and fir engraver {Scolytus
Ventalis Leconte) attacks. The
Douglas-fir mortality is distributed
in clumps and individual trees
throughout the analysis area, with
the largest concentrations in the
lower Swift Creek area and on the
rocky portions of Stryker Ridge.
The lower Swift Creek area
experienced substantial mortality in
the grand fir from the fir engraver
during 2001 and 2002. Some western
larch dwarf mistletoe {Arceuthobium
laricis) is patchily distributed
over the project area.

Indian paint stem decay
{Echinodontium tinctorium) in the
subalpine fir and grand fir is
fairly prevalent in the project
area.

A contracted pathologist conducted a
root -disease survey and authored a
map and management report for the
Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project area.
The report can be located in the
project file (Root Disease Survey,
Mapping And Management Report For
The Dog /Meadow Project Area,
Stillwater State Forest, Montana,
Ferguson 2001) . Most of the
mortality from Armillaria root rot

{Armillaria ostoyae) observed during
the survey was in grand fir and
subalpine fir. Douglas-fir showing
symptoms of root rot infections were
fairly common in the area. Some
samples of annosus root rot
{Heterobasidium annosum) were also
collected from infected trees in the
project area during the survey.
Schweinitzii root rot {Phaeolus
Schweinitzii) is also present. The
report concluded that the overall
impact of root disease in the
project area appears low in the
known areas of past disease.

Stocking densities in many of the
stands in the project area are high,
reducing tree vigor and growth rates
and increasing susceptibility to
additional insect and disease
attacks .

The project area contains an
estimated less than 2 snags per acre
that are greater than 15 inches in
diameter, which is a condition
probably associated with the species
mix and harvest entries in the
distant past.

Concentrations of down trees can be
found throughout the project area.
Most of the down trees are a product
of lodgepole pine mortality created
several years ago by mountain pine
beetle (Dendroc tonus ponderosae)
attacks. The combination of heavy
fuel loads and dense stocking
creates risks of high intensity
wildfire occurrences.

The existing vegetative types in the
project area are a result of various
site factors, disturbance regimes,
and past forest -management
activities.

SITE FACTORS

• Elevation - The proposed harvest
units lay between 4,400 and 3,400
feet.

• Aspects, position on landscape -
Proposed activities are primarily
at the base of Stryker Ridge on
west, south, and flat aspects.

• Soils - The project area is

Appendix C-Vegetation Analysis

Page C-5

composed primarily of silty
glacial till soils (see APPENDIX
G - SOILS ANALYSIS) .

• Moisture availability - The mean
annual precipitation is
approximately 2 8 inches.

• Growing season - The project area
consists of a relatively short
growing season, 5 to 7 months.

These site factors helped develop
the habitat-type classifications
used to describe successional
development and timber productivity,
among other things (Pfister et al,
1977) . Most of the areas within the
proposed harvest units are western
red cedar/queencup beadlily habitat
types. These habitat types indicate
a high to very high potential for
timber productivity. Fire return
intervals in cedar/hemlock stands in
northern Idaho have been estimated
by Arno and Davis (1980), who have
reported fire-free intervals from 50
to greater than 200 years. Fire
severities vary greatly, from minor
ground fires of moist sites to
stand-replacement fires {Fischer,
Bradley 1987) .

Currently, blowdown occurs
periodically in small clumps and
individual trees throughout the
project area. Blowdown events occur
most often in the spring when
conditions are generally wet and
windy.

Trees have regenerated well with a
diverse species mix of native trees
and vegetation in most of the
project area that was previously
harvested with regeneration as an
objective. A sort of the O-to-39-
year age class in the SLI shows over
75 percent of the area is medium to
well stocked. The most common
barriers to tree regeneration in the
area are a lack of good seed source
(particularly with western larch and
western white pine) , brush
competition, and competition from
pinegrass and beargrass.

INFLUENCES FROM PAST DNRC HARVESTING
ACTIVITIES

Historical records indicate that a
small amount of selective timber
harvesting was initiated at lower
elevations in the gross sale area in
the 1920s. These harvests targeted
some of the large serai dominants in
the stands, such as western larch
and western white pine, but did not
cover large areas. The area was
entered in the 1930s for harvesting
cedar poles; these pole harvests
continued through the 1940s and 50s.
Partial cutting was initiated during
the 1940s and 50s, removing some of
the large western larch, western
white pine, and Douglas-fir,
primarily from areas in the lower
elevations. This resulted in stand
compositions heavy in shade-tolerant
species (subalpine fir, grand fir,
and western red cedar) . In the late
1960s, even-aged harvesting methods,
primarily seedtree and clearcut
harvests, occurred. Some mixed-
conifer stands were entered in the
1980s with an improvement harvest
that removed most of the lodgepole
pine and other scattered individual
trees that were showing poor vigor.
This improvement cutting and some of
the even-aged harvesting was focused
on treating lodgepole pine stands
that were heavily infested with
mountain pine beetle. The species
mixes in the seedling/sapling stands
that have regenerated from the even-
aged treatments are predominantly
lodgepole pine, western larch, and
Douglas-fir.

NOXIOUS WEEDS

A survey of the road system that
accesses the project area and many
of the existing harvest units in and
around the project area was
completed. One small population of
tansy ragwort {Senecio jacobaea L)
was found and sprayed with an
herbicide in 2002. The road rights-
of-way had both patchy and
continuous concentrations of spotted
knapweed {Centaurea maculosa) and
oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum

Page C~6

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

leucanthemum) . Small isolated
concentrations of orange hawkweed
{Hieracium aurantiacum) , Saint-
John' s-wort (Hypericuiii perforatum) ,
dalmation toadflax {Linaria
dalmatica) , sulphur cinquefoil
{Potentilla recta L) , and several
species of thistle (Cirsiujn spp.)
were also located. Within existing
harvest units were invasions of
spotted knapweed, oxeye daisy, and
thistle that tended to follow areas
where the greatest disturbance, such
as landings, skid trails, and areas
that received heavier scarification,
had occurred. Generally, the weed
infestation was more extensive in
the recently (occurring in the last
15 years) harvested areas; once
units have successfully regenerated
with seedling- to sapling-sized
trees, the area of infestation
appears to decrease, with only
small, scattered patches of weeds
remaining. Orange hawkweed appears
to be increasing in the area and is
able to tolerate some shade.

SENSITIVE PLANTS

A sensitive plant survey was
conducted in the project area in the
summer of 2000 by contracted
botanists. Two substantial
populations of poor sedge (Carex
paupercula) were found in the lower
elevations of the project area
associated with a wet meadow and a
fen. Seed production was in
evidence. Two populations of
Buckler fern {Dryopteris cristata)
were found in the project area.
These plants also occupy wet sites
such as the edge of swamps and fens .
The Buckler fern populations
appeared to be healthy with mature,
fertile fronds.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS
COVERTYPB DISTRIBUTION
Direct Effects

• Direct E^ffech qfA'o^ Iclioii . Illeriiative ,t on
Cocei'tt/jtes

No-Action Alternative A would not
directly affect covertypes in the
analysis area.

• Direct J^'ectH qf, Iclion , lllernatice U on
Cocertype»

The proposed treatments would
convert approximately 546 acres
(60 percent) of the area where
treatment is proposed from mixed-
conifer, subalpine fir, and
lodgepole pine covertypes to a
western larch/Douglas-fir
covertype. Areas where natural
lodgepole pine regeneration
becomes established at heavy
stocking levels might retain the
lodgepole pine covertype. Rust-
resistant western white pine would
be planted over much of the
proposed harvest area and,
depending on the regeneration
success of other tree species,
some of the area may convert to a
western white pine covertype.

Indirect Effects

• Indirect ^ectjt qfJVo-, let ion , liter native *1 on
Cocertypen

Over time, as ingrowth of shade-
tolerant species continues with
the ongoing mortality of western
white pine, the western white pine
covertype would likely decrease in
the area and the mixed-conifer
covertype would likely increase.

• Indirect E^'ectn qf. Iction . Ilternatice li on
CocertypcA

As follow-up treatments such as
precommercial thinning occur in
proposed harvest units, the
species mix percentages of western
larch, Douglas-fir, and western
white pine would likely increase
in addition to the direct effects.

Appendix C-Vegetation Analysis

Page C-7

Cumulative Effects

• Cumulative L^fects qfJWo-Jlction Alternative
»1 on Covertypes

Given continued fire suppression
and ongoing mortality of western
white pine from white pine blister
rust, No-Action Alternative A
would add to the trend of an
increase of shade-tolerant tree
species in the analysis area and a
decrease in the amount of western
white pine.

• Cumulative mjectjs qf. Iction Alternative Ji on
Covertypeit

In addition to the changes in
covertype from the proposed action
are other timber sale projects
that have been initiated, but not
completed; therefore, their
effects are not represented in the
SLI. These projects would
probably increase the amount of
the western larch/Douglas-fir
covertype by 3 percent over the
analysis area and, subsequently,
reduce the amount of area in the
mixed-conifer and supalpine fir
covertypes by 3 percent. The
Stillwater State Forests
precommercial thinning program
thins 200 to 500 acres of sapling
stands a year. The thinnings
often favor the retention of
western larch and western white
pine covertypes and, in some
cases, the Douglas fir covertype.
The cumulative effect is a trend
toward serai covertypes in areas
where recent forest-management
activities have taken place.

AGE-ChASS DISTRIBUTION

Direct Effects

• Direct mj'ects ofJVo-. Iction . Alternative . 1 on
»1ge-Cla.s.s DistrHmtion

No direct effects on age classes
within timber stands in the
analysis area would occur with No-
Action Alternative A.

• Direct mfccts of Action . Ilternative on Ji Age-
ClaJts Distriltution

Action Alternative B proposes
harvest treatments that would
create openings within stands,
though, in most cases, some mature
trees would be retained; the
stands within the openings would
likely be converted to a O-to-39-
year age class. Overall, an
estimated 614 acres of 40-to-99-
year, lOO-to-old-stand, and old-
stand age classes would be
converted to the O-to-39-year age
class. Approximately 67 percent
of the harvested area would be
converted to the O-to-39-year age
class.

Indirect Effects

• Indirect F^ectn ofJK'o-^tction Alternative A
on Age'Claxft Di»trihution

Over time, with natural forest
succession and continued fire
suppression, the age-class
distribution between stands would
become somewhat homogeneous,
trending toward older age classes.

• Indirect H^ectn of» Iction , 'Ilternative Ji on
Age-Cla)tH Ditttrittution

With the proposed harvest
treatments, the project area would
contain a mosaic of stand
structures, including single-
storied, two-storied, and
multistoried conditions. The
openings created would be typical
of mixed-severity fires and large
portions of the area would be
typical of stand-replacing fires.

Cumulative Effects

• Cumulative IJ^ects ofJVo-, Iction . Ilternative
, I and Action Alternative B on Age Cla»s

In addition to the changes in age-
class distribution from the
proposed action, other timber sale
projects have been initiated, but
have not been completed, so their
effects are not represented in the
SLI. These projects are estimated
to increase the amount of area in
the O-to-39-year age class by

Page C-8

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

approximately 1.7 percent and
slightly decrease the area in
older stand classes.

OLD GROWTH

Direct Effects

• Direct £(ff'ecfjt qfJ\o^lcHon . lUeimatice Aon
Old Growth

No-Action Alternative A would have
no direct effects on the amount,
distribution, or character of old-
growth stands in the analysis
area.

• Direct Effect* qf.lction Alternative B on Old
Groirth

Action Alternative B was developed
to not enter old-growth stands
with harvesting or road
construction. Therefore, no
direct effects to old growth are
expected with the implementation
of this alternative.

Indirect Effects

• Indirect mfectn *ifJVo^ Iction Alternntice A
on Old Growth

Fire suppression, firewood
cutting, and roadside salvage
harvesting would still occur with
No-Action Alternative A. Over
time, with no harvesting, old-
growth timber stands would likely
become more decadent, more heavily
stocked, and contain increased
down woody loads and wildfire
hazards. An increase in shade -
tolerant species would occur
within the stands; potentially,
more snags would occupy the stands
where they are too far from open
roads to be harvested for
firewood.

• Indirect lilffectJt qf Action Alternative B on
OldGroicth

Action Alternative B would not
harvest within old-growth stands;
thus, the indirect effects would
be very similar to No-Action
Alternative A. Additionally, this
alternative would harvest in
stands adjacent to old-growth

stands, structurally creating a
more abrupt edge to the stand
boundary. The risk of blowdown
along proposed harvest unit
boundaries would, potentially,
increase. Harvest units adjacent
to old-growth stands would be less
susceptible to high intensity
crown fires and may provide an
opportunity for a fuel break in
the event of a wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

• Cumulative lilffectM qfJWo-, Iction Alternative
A and Action . lUernative B on Old Groicth

The timber sales in the analysis
area that have been initiated, but
are not yet reflected in the SLI,
are not harvesting timber in old-
growth stands. Approximately 188
acres of these stands meet the
current old-growth definition, but
were withdrawn from harvests until
ongoing litigation is resolved.
If this litigation is resolved,
these areas may be harvested as
part of their initial projects.
After harvesting, these 188 acres
would not likely be considered old
growth, although the current
prescribed treatments would retain
some of the larger older trees,
snags, and coarse woody debris.
If no action was applied for an
extended period over the entire
analysis area, the number of old-
growth stands would increase as
younger stands age and develop
old-growth characteristics.

INSECTS AND DISEASES (FOREST HEALTH
CONDITIONS)

Direct Effects

• Direct J^ect* qfJVo-, Iction . llternativeA
and Action Alternative B on InacclH and
Diseages/forest Health Conditions

Small pockets of mortality caused
by the Douglas -fir bark beetle are
expected to occur in clumps of
mature Douglas-fir within the
project area. Some subalpine fir
and grand fir will become infected
with stem rots, Indian paint
fungus in particular. Western

Appendix C-Vegetation Analysis

Page C-9

larch mistletoe infections would
continue to increase and intensify
in western larch throughout the
project area. The mortality from
insects and diseases that are
currently occurring in the project
area will continue.

• Direct Elffech of JVo-.1ction .llternative ^ on
Insects and Diseases/Forest Health
Conditions

No-Action Alternative A would
directly affect insect and disease
conditions by the continuing loss
of sawlog volume due to stem rots
and the current level of mortality
and infections from stem rots,
root rots, and white pine blister
rust, and bark beetle
infestations. Fire hazards would
continue to increase in the
project area.

• Direct f^ffectit qf. let ion . Alternative It on
Inttectit and Diiteaiieii/Forettt Health
Conditions

The value of many mature true firs
within the harvest units that are
already infected by, or highly
susceptible to, stem rot infection
would be recovered. Mistletoe-
infected western larch would be
preferentially removed, reducing
the incidence and severity of
western larch dwarf mistletoe.
Rust-resistant western white pine
would be planted, increasing the
amount of rust-resistant western
white pine in the project area.
The wildfire risk of ignition may
be increased during the first
season after harvesting due to the
availability of cured logging
slash. All treatments would
reduce ladder fuels and stocking
density in the proposed harvest
units, thus, reducing crown-fire
hazard. Few large trees that are
good candidates for wildlife trees
would be harvested. Most of the
large western larch and black
Cottonwood would be retained.
Where available, approximately 2
to 5 snags per acre would be
retained in a clumpy distribution.

Indirect Effects

• Indirect Blffects qfJVo^ Iction ^Alternative *1
on Insects and Diseases/Forest Health
Conditions

Over time, the overall decadence
within timber stands would
increase and, subsequently, a
reduction of vigor and an increase
in mortality would occur. No
rust-resistant western white pine
would be planted and, with
continued mortality in western
white pine, the representation of
western white pine in the area
would decrease. As the percent of
true firs in the area increases
due to lack of disturbances that
open the canopy, the incidence of
root rot and stem rots would
likely increase. With no
harvesting or follow-up
treatments, western larch dwarf
mistletoe would spread from
infected mature trees to adjacent
young western larch saplings,
increasing the overall incidence
of this parasitic plant in the
project area. For a time, stands
would become more densely stocked
and ladder fuels would increase.
Increased mortality would increase
the amounts and size of down woody
concentrations. These 2
conditions would increase the risk
of fire starts in the area
becoming intense stand-replacement
fires .

• Indirect Flffects qf taction ,Ilternatice li on
Insects and Diseases/Forest Health
Conditions

Over time, the removal of
infected, low-vigor, highly
susceptible trees proposed in
Action Alternative B would reduce
the levels and risk of insect and
disease mortality occurring on
sites in the project area. Over
time, some loss of retained
subalpine fir, grand fir, and
Douglas -fir due to root rot would
be expected. On sites with
existing root rot infestations,
where a portion of the mature

Pagre C-10

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

Douglas -fir and true fir would be
harvested, the inoculum potential
would initially increase due to
colonization of stumps by
existing root rot fungi {Redfern
and Filip, 1991) . The increase of
western larch and rust-resistant
western white pine regeneration in
the area should reduce the impacts
of root disease. The risk of
blowdown adjacent to proposed
harvest unit boundaries would be
increased by the reduction of
canopy. Mitigation measures to
reduce the amount of blowdown
would include retaining clumps of
trees in high-risk areas and
retaining additional trees in
areas exposed to high winds, such
as ridgetops. Individual trees
that have shallow lateral root
systems, such as Engelmann spruce,
would not be retained in openings
away from timber walls that could
provide shelter from the wind.
Following hazard-reduction
treatments, the harvest unit
conditions would be more conducive
to fire-suppression efforts, with
a lower risk of high intensity,
stand-replacement fires occurring.

Cumulative Effects

• C'uutHlatite mfech ofJVo-*1clion ^llternatice
,1 and miction ,1lternatice li on Imtecln and
DiHeiuie«/Fore«t Health Conditions

The Stillwater Unit forest-
management program bases the
priority of timber-harvest
locations largely on timber-stand
conditions in reference to insect
and disease conditions, retention
of biodiversity, loss of value,
and fire -hazard reduction.
Therefore, treatments similar to
those proposed on this project
have been initiated and completed
in the analysis area. These
treatments harvested trees that
were infested with bark beetles;
retained trees that are more
resistant to insect and disease
attacks; retained species that are
less susceptible to root rot and
stem rots; and regenerated a tree-

species composition that is
diverse and, therefore, more
resistant to insect and disease
mortality. These types of
treatments will likely continue to
be proposed and implemented in the
analysis area.

NOXIOUS WEEDS

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct .Ind Indirect L^ecls qfA'o-. Iction
,1lternatice *1 on J\'ojriom Weeds

Current infestations of noxious
weeds are being addressed with an
ongoing program of site-specific
herbicide spraying along roads and
in small areas of infestation.
The spraying is done by a
certified applicator at Stillwater
Unit and Flathead County weed-
control personnel . The funding
for weed control comes largely
from the FI fee collected on
timber sale projects. This
alternative would not collect
funds to be used for noxious -weed
management and could reduce the
ability to treat noxious weeds.
No-Action Alternative A would not
expose additional mineral soil or
open up the canopy of existing
stands and, therefore, would not
increase the risk of additional
establishment of weed populations.
Currently, the project area is
used extensively for dispersed
recreation; weed seed is
introduced primarily from motor
vehicle traffic.

• Direct . tnd Indirect fiffect* qf. Iction
.llternatice B on jXoxioim IV'eedji

Action Alternative B proposes to
operate harvesting equipment,
logging trucks, and personal and
administrative vehicles on
existing road systems within the
harvest area. Additional mineral
soil would be exposed during
equipment operation within the
proposed harvest units, blading of
existing roads, and construction
of log landings and temporary
roads .

Appendix C-Vegetation Analysis

Page C-11

Mitigation measures that would be
implemented to reduce the
establishment of additional weed
populations include:

• Surface blading to remove weeds
before the seed-set stage on
existing road systems affected
by the proposal .

• Monitoring, mapping, and
treating existing populations
near harvesting activities.

• All tracked and wheeled
equipment would be pressure
cleaned prior to beginning
operations to eliminate weed
seeds; the officer
administrating the contract
would inspect equipment
periodically during project
implementation .

• Disturbed roadside sites would
be promptly revegetated; roads
used and closed would be
reshaped and grass seeded.

• Site-specific herbicide spraying
would occur prior to harvesting
activities on all haul roads.

Approximately 6.25 miles of road
that is currently restricted from
motorized traffic would be opened
and used. In addition,
approximately .5 miles of
temporary road would be
constructed and reclaimed after
proposed treatments were
completed. These areas would have
additional exposed mineral soil,
which are potential seedbeds for
weeds. Currently, many of the
restricted roads have established
populations of noxious weeds.
Opening these roads for
administrative use only and
implementing a site-specific weed
spraying and management program
would likely, over time, reduce
the weed population in the project
area.

Ciomulative Effects

• Cumulative Ejects qfJMo-^lction Mternntice
»1 and miction Jllternattve li on JVoarioug
JVeeds

The analysis area has traffic on
open roads from dispersed
recreation, timber-management
activities, and other uses on a
regular basis. This traffic,
along with road-maintenance and
timber-harvesting activities,
increases the areas exposed to
weed establishment. In addition,
illegal motorized use and the
corridors for power and utility
lines expose areas to weed
establishment. With the
organization of Stillwater Unit's
weed -management program, the
County Weed Department's
cooperation, and available
funding, some of the large
populations of weeds in the
analysis area should be treated
and greatly reduced; ongoing
annual weed management on road
systems should reduce the current
weed populations.

SENSITIVE PLANTS

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct and Indirect Effect/* qfJVo-^lction
tllternative »1 to Sen^titice Plants

Sensitive plants in the project
area are located in and around
fens or wet meadow complexes . The
greatest threats to these species
are changes in hydrology and/or
the introduction of exotic species
that would outcompete these
plants. No-Action Alternative A
would not directly affect water
levels or increase the risk of
exotic species introduction. Over
time, if fuel buildups and fire
hazards were allowed to increase,
the risk of a very large stand-
replacement fire in the area would
increase and the result could
increase runoff and water levels
in the fens and meadow complexes
near the burn. A large stand-
replacement fire could also

Page C-12

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

increase the potential for the
introduction of exotic species
that could outcompete sensitive
plants. This alternative would
not collect funds for weed
population monitoring or
management. Over time, without
adequate funding, the weed
management program on Stillwater
Unit would be reduced and the risk
of exotic plants successfully
invading the habitat of the
sensitive plants in the project
area would increase.

• Direct and Indirect E^ffect* qf.lcHon
.llternative It to Semiitive Plants

Action Alternative B would reduce
the canopy over approximately 93 9
acres to varying degrees, which,
potentially, could cause some
increased water levels at low
points in the topography. The
meadows, wetlands, and fens in the
project area will be buffered by
retaining tree canopy cover and
additional vegetation along the
edges or, in some cases, locating
harvest units away from the
habitat feature. This buffering
also protects SMZs and wildlife
habitat. The retention of
additional vegetation would absorb
much of the water from surrounding
areas and should limit increases
in water levels in sensitive plant
habitat to very minor amounts.
Action Alternative B would collect
fees that could be used, in part,
to fund weed-monitoring and weed-

control measures, which would
allow land managers to react to
the future establishment of exotic
species within the sensitive plant
habitat in the project area.

Cumulative Effects

• Cutnulative B}ffectH qfJVo-»1ction *1lternntice
»1 and »1ction Jllternatice li to Sensitive
PlantH

Management actions on Stillwater
Unit are being initiated with
mitigation measures to prevent the
spread of weeds more often than in
the past; these actions should
reduce the spread of weeds from
past levels. In contrast, the
amount of dispersed recreation on
Stillwater State Forest has
increased substantially, which has
also increased the introduction of
weeds to the area. Stillwater
Unit's weed management program
provides a way to monitor the
overall population, identify major
problem areas, and treat areas to
control populations. Control
treatments could prevent future
outbreaks of exotic species in
sensitive plant habitat. Timber-
harvesting projects initiated on
Stillwater State Forest analyze
potential effects to water yield.
Mitigation measures are included
in the development of the project
to reduce increases in water yield
that might affect the habitat of
sensitive plants.

hppendix C-Vegetation Analysis

Page C-13

•)

APPENDIX D

HYDROLOGY
ANALYSIS

o
a

APPENDIX D
HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS

o

Hi

^

INTRODUCTION

This analysis is designed to address
the public concerns particular to
hydrology, as listed in TABLE I-l-
SUMMARY AND TRACKING OF ISSUES AND
CONCERNS FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS of the
EA, and analysis elements considered
necessary by the ID Team.

SEDIMENT DELIVERY

Timber harvesting and related
activities, such as road
construction, can lead to water-
quality impacts by increasing the
production and delivery of fine
sediment to streams. Construction
of roads, skid trails, and landings
can generate and transfer
substantial amounts of sediment
through the removal of vegetation
and exposure of bare soil. In
addition, removal of vegetation near
stream channels reduces the
sediment-filtering capacity and may
reduce channel stability and the
amounts of large woody material.
Large woody debris is a very
important component of stream
dynamics and creating natural
sediment traps and energy
dissipaters to reduce the velocity
and erosiveness of streamflows.

WATER YIELD

Timber harvesting and associated
activities can affect the timing,
distribution, and amount of water
yield in a harvested watershed.
Water yields increase
proportionately to the percentage of
canopy removal, because removal of
live trees reduces the amount of

water transpired, leaving more water
available for soil saturation and
runoff. Canopy removal also
decreases interception of rain and
snow and alters snowpack
distribution and snowmelt, which
lead to further water-yield
increases. Higher water yields may
lead to increases in peak flows and
peak-flow duration, which can result
in accelerated streambank erosion
and sediment deposition.

ANALYSIS METHODS

SEDIMENT DELIVERY

Methodology for analyzing sediment
delivery was completed using a
sediment -source inventory. All
roads and stream crossings were
evaluated to determine the sources
of introduced sediment. In
addition, in-channel sources of
sediment were identified using
channel-stability rating methods
developed by Pfankuch, and through
the conversion of stability rating
to reach condition by stream type
developed by Rosgen (1990) . These
analyses were conducted in 2000 and
2002 by a DNRC hydrologist.

WATER YIELD

The water yield increase for the
watershed in the project area was
determined using the ECA method, as
outlined in Forest Hydrology Part II
(1976) . ECA is a function of total
area roaded and harvested, percent
of crown removal in harvesting, and
amount of vegetative recovery that
has occurred in harvest areas. This
method equates area harvested and

percent crown removed with an
equivalent amount of clearcut area.
For example, if 100 acres had 60
percent crown removed, EGA would be
approximately 50, or equivalent to a
60-acre clearcut. The relationship
between crown removal and EGA is not
a 1-to-l ratio, so the percent EGA is
not always the same as the percent
canopy removal. As live trees are
removed, the water these trees would
have evaporated and transpired either
saturates the soil or is translated
to runoff. This method also
calculates the recovery of these
increases as new trees revegetate the
site and move toward preharvest water
use .

In order to evaluate the watershed
risk of the potential water-yield
increase effectively, a threshold of
concern must be established. In
order to determine a threshold of
concern, acceptable risk level,
resource value, and watershed
sensitivity are evaluated according
to Young (1989) . The watershed
sensitivity is evaluated using
qualitative assessments, as well as
using procedures outlined in Forest
Hydrology Part II (1976) . The
stability of a stream channel is an
important indicator of where a
threshold of concern should be set.
As water yields increase as a result
of canopy removal, the amount of
water flowing in a creek gradually
increases . When these increases
reach a certain level, the bed and •
banks may begin to erode . The more
stable streams will be able to handle
larger increases in water yield
before they begin to erode, while
less stable streams will experience
erosion at more moderate water-yield
increases .

ANALYSIS AREA

SEDIMENT DELIVERY

The analysis area for sediment
delivery is the Dog Meadow Timber
Sale Project area and the proposed
haul routes. Dog Creek is a 9,459-
acre watershed that includes Dog

Lake. Dog Greek is a perennial
third-order tributary to Stillwater
River. Analysis will cover all
stream segments within the watershed
and all roads and upland sites that
may contribute sediment to Dog Greek.

WATER YIELD

The analysis area for water yield is
the Dog Greek watershed. Dog Creek
is a 9,459-acre, third-order
watershed. Dog Lake is a 99-acre
lake that is fed and drained by Dog
Creek. The Dog Creek watershed also
contains dozens of wetlands and
beaver dam complexes . These wetlands
and Dog Lake serve to moderate and
stabilize the effect of water yield
by releasing water more slowly and
evenly than incoming flows.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Montana Surface Water-Quality
Standards

According to Administrative Rules of
Montana (ARM) 17.30.608 (1), the
Stillwater River drainage, including
Dog Creek, is classified as B-1.
Among other criteria for B-1 waters,
no increases are allowed above
naturally occurring levels of
sediment, and minimal increases over
natural turbidity. "Naturally
occurring, " as defined by ARM
17 . 30 . 602 (17), includes conditions
or materials present during runoff
from developed land where all
reasonable land, soil, and water
conservation practices (commonly
called BMPs) have been applied.
Reasonable practices include methods,
measures, or practices that protect
present and reasonably anticipated
beneficial uses. These practices
include, but are not limited to,
structural and nonstructural controls
and operation and maintenance
procedures . Appropriate BMPs may be
applied before, during, or after
completion of potentially impactive
activities .

Designated beneficial water uses
within the project area include

Page D-2

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

domestic water supply, lawn and
garden sprinkling, industrial and
commercial uses, coldwater
fisheries, and recreational use in
the stream, wetlands, lake, and
surrounding area.

Water-Quality-Limited Waterbodies

The Dog Creek watershed is not listed
in either the 1996, 2000, or 2002 LIST
OF WATERBODIES IN NEED OF TOTAL
MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) DEVELOPMENT
publication produced by DEQ (2003a,
2003b, 2003d) .

Montana SMZ Law

By the definition in ARM 36.11.312
(3) , the majority of the Dog Creek
watershed is a class 1 stream. Dog
Creek and many of its tributaries flow
for more than 6 months each year.
Many of these stream reaches also
support fish. Some of the smaller
first -order tributaries may be
classified as class 2 or 3 based on
site-specific conditions.

SEDIMENT DELIVERY

According to field reconnaissance in
the summers of 2000 and 2002, stream
channels in the Dog Creek watershed
are primarily in good condition.
Three reaches were rated in fair
condition, and one in fair/poor
condition. The reason for the
reaches rating fair and fair/poor
was deposition. Gravel bars have
formed on point bars in these
reaches. No areas of in-channel
erosion were identified during field
reconnaissance. Large woody debris
was found in adequate supply.
Little evidence of past streamside
harvesting was found; where past
logging in the riparian area had
taken place, no deficiency was
apparent of existing or potential
downed woody material in the
streams .

The existing road system in and
leading to the proposed project area
was reviewed for potential sources
of sediment. Stream crossings in
the project area and on the haul
route are generally in good

condition and not contributing
sediment to streams . Many have been
replaced and brought up to
applicable BMP standards through
other projects. Some crossings need
additional BMP work and some need to
be replaced. Surface drainage BMPs
on the existing road system need to
be upgraded to meet applicable
standards. In spite of the minor
surface drainage and erosion-control
measures needed on the existing road
system, no sources of direct
delivery of fine sediment were
identified through field
reconnaissance .

WATER YIELD

The allowable water-yield increase
for the Dog Creek watershed has been
set at 12 percent, based on channel -
stability evaluations, watershed
sensitivity, and acceptable risk.
This water-yield increase would be
reached when the ECA level in Dog
Creek reaches the allowable level of
2,838. Detailed information is
available for timber harvesting and
associated road construction
activities that have taken place in
the Dog Creek watershed since the
1960s. These activities, combined
with the vegetative recovery that
has occurred, have led to an
estimated 4.9 percent water-yield
increase over an unharvested
condition in the Dog Creek
watershed. TABLE D-1-CURRENT WATER
YIELD AND ECA INCREASES IN DOG
WATERSHED summarizes the existing
conditions for water yield in the
Dog Creek watershed.

TABLE D-1 - CURRENT WATER YIELD AND
ECA INCREASES IN DOG WATERSHED

DOG CREEK

Percent WYI

4.9

Allowable WYI (percent)

12

Existing ECA

1,037

Allowable ECA

2,838

Remaining ECA

1,801

Appendix D-Hydrology Analysis

Page D-3

FISHERIES

No bull trout or migratory cutthroat
trout inhabit streams in the project
area. Eastern brook trout, an exotic
species, are present in streams in
the project area.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS

SEDIMENT DELIVERY

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct and Indirect Effects ofA'o-. Action
*1lternntive .1 on Sediment Delicery

No-Action Alternative A would have
no direct effects to sediment
delivery beyond those currently
occurring. Existing sources of
sediment, both in-channel and out
of channel, would continue to
recover or degrade based on natural
or preexisting conditions.

The indirect effects of No-Action
Alternative A would be an increased
risk of sediment delivery to
streams from crossings that do not
meet applicable BMPs . These sites
would continue to pose a risk of
sediment delivery to streams until
other funding became available to
repair them.

• Direct and Indirect pyjectx of. Iction
.liter natice li on Sediment Delivery

Action Alternative B would replace
several stream crossings in the Dog
Creek watershed and along the
proposed haul route. The crossings
proposed for replacement do not
currently meet all applicable BMPs
and require a new culvert in order
to meet applicable standards. The
replacement of existing stream
crossings would contribute sediment
directly to Dog Creek. This
sediment would be minimized through
application of standard erosion-
control measures. The sediment
delivery anticipated from this
project would be short term and
comply with all applicable permits
and State water-quality laws. In
addition, several sites would have
additional erosion control added to
lower the risk of sediment delivery

to a stream or draw. In some
cases, the addition of erosion-
control measures may increase the
risk of sediment delivery in the
short term by creating bare soil.
However, as these sites revegetate,
the long-term risk of sedimentation
to a stream would be reduced to
levels lower than the existing
condition.

Action Alternative B would also
construct 0.2 miles of temporary
road in Section 2 8 of the proposed
project area. This temporary road
would require installation of a
temporary stream crossing on a
perennial stream in the Dog Creek
watershed. This stream has,
approximately, a 5-foot bankfull
channel and flows through a series
of wetlands before reaching Dog
Creek. Installation of this
crossing would involve placing a
bundle of well-casing pipes in the
channel; the pipe bundle would be
wrapped in filter fabric. All
materials would be removed
following the completion of
harvesting activities. This
installation would create sediment
delivery to the creek during the
course of construction and hauling.
Sediment delivery is expected to be
very minimal since little or no
bank and bed disturbance would
occur from placement of the well
casings. Sediment generated from
traffic would be minimized by the
application of erosion-control
measures. Reclamation of the
temporary road and crossing would
occur immediately following
completion of activities in the
proposed units. The reclaimed road
would present an increased risk of
sediment delivery until bare soil
is revegetated.

Action Alternative B would have a
very low risk of sediment delivery
to streams as a result of the
proposed timber-harvesting
activities. Some harvesting
activities may occur within
designated SMZs. This harvesting
activity would follow all

Page D-4

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

requirements of the SMZ Law and
have a low risk of affecting
recruitment of large woody material
to Dog Creek or its tributaries.
The SMZ law, rules, and all
applicable BMPs would be applied to
all harvesting activities, which
would minimize the risk of sediment
delivery to draws and streams.

Cumulative Effects

• Cumiilatice J^ecttf qfJVo-wlction »1tternative
»1 on Sediment Delivery

The cumulative effects of No-Action
Alternative A on sediment delivery
would be very similar to those
described in the existing condition
portion of this analysis. All
existing sources of sediment would
continue to recover or degrade as
dictated by natural and preexisting
conditions until a source of
funding became available to repair
them. Sediment loads would remain
at or near present levels.

• C'limulatice fyjecbi qf, Iction ^lUernatice Ji on
Sediment Delicery

Cumulative effects to sediment
delivery under the action
alternative would be primarily
related to roadwork and stream-
crossing replacements. The
sediment generated from replacement
of existing culverts would increase
the total sediment load in Dog
Creek for the duration of the
activity. These increases would
not exceed any State water-quality
laws and would follow all
applicable recommendations given in
124 and 318 permit applications.
In the long term, the cumulative
effects to sediment delivery would
be similar to existing levels. As
the sites stabilize and revegetate,
sediment levels resulting from
culvert replacements would return
to preactivity levels. Over the
long term, cumulative sediment
loads may be reduced due to
improved design on the crossings.
Improved design would reduce the
risk of structure failures, which
would reduce the risk of sediment

delivery to the outlet of Dog
Creek.

The installation and improvement
of erosion-control and surface-
drainage features on existing
roads would also affect the
cumulative sediment delivery in
Dog Creek. In the short term,
the installation and improvement
of surface drainage features
would expose bare soil. This
would increase the risk of
sediment delivery to Dog Creek.
An increase in sediment load to
Dog Creek is possible as a result
of this work. The application of
all applicable BMPs during this
work would make increased
sediment loads unlikely. Over
the long term, cumulative
sediment delivery to Dog Creek
would likely be lower than
existing conditions with the
installation of more effective
surface-drainage and erosion-
control features on the existing
road system.

Harvesting of trees within
selected SMZs would have a low
risk of adverse cumulative
effects to downed woody material
in Dog Creek or its tributaries.
Tree retention requirements of
the SMZ Law would ensure a future
supply of woody material to the
creeks .

None of the cumulative impacts
described above are expected to
adversely affect downstream
beneficial uses. All activities
would comply with applicable
laws, rules, and regulations.

TfiKTER YIELD

Direct and Indirect Effect

• Direct and Indirect I^'ectit qfj\o-,lction
,Hternntive*1on IVater Yield

No-Action Alternative A would
have no direct or indirect
effects on water yield. Water
quantity would not be changed
from present levels.

Appendix D-Hydrology Analysis

Page D-5

• Direct and Indirect I^ffectH of Action
Alternative B on JVater Yield

No-Action Alternative B would
increase the annual water yield in
the Dog Creek watershed by an
estimated 2.9 percent over the
current level. This level of
water-yield increase would not be
sufficient to create unstable
channels .

Cumulative Effects

• Cumulative Effects qfJVo-,1ction Alternative
AonJraterl'ield

No-Action Alternative A would have
no cumulative effects on water
yield. Existing harvest units
would continue to revegetate and
move closer to premanagement
levels of water use and snowpack
distribution.

• Ctinudatice JiKJecbt of Action Alternative B on
Water Yield

The removal of trees proposed in
Action Alternative B would
increase the water yield in the
Dog Creek watershed from its
current level of approximately 4.9
percent over unharvested to an

estimated 7.8 percent. This
water-yield increase, and its
associated ECA level, includes the
impacts of all past management
activities, existing and proposed
roads, proposed timber harvesting,
and vegetative hydrologic recovery
in the Dog Creek watershed. The
water yield increase expected from
this alternative leaves the
watershed well below the
established threshold of concern
(See TABLE D-2 - WATER YIELD AND
ECA INCREASES IN DOG CREEK) . No
impacts to water quality are
expected as a result of Action
Alternative B.

TABLE D-2 - WATER YIELD AND ECA
INCREASES IN DOG CREEK

ALTERNATIVE

A

B

Allowable WYI
(percent)

12%

12%

Percent WYI

4.9

7.8

Acres harvested

0

941

Miles of new road

0

0.5

ECA generated

0

701

Total ECA

1,037

1,738

Remaining ECA

1,801

1,100

Allowable ECA

2,838

2, 838

Page D-6

Dog /Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

APPENDIX E

WILDLIFE
ANALYSIS

i

i

XVIBEK

o

APPENDIX E
WILDLIFE ANALYSIS

v°

O

h3

INTRODUCTION

This analysis is designed to address
the public concerns particular to
wildlife, as listed in TABLE I-l-
SUMMARY AND TRACKING OF ISSUES AND
CONCERNS FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS of the
EA, and analysis elements considered
necessary by the ID Team.

DNRC attempts to promote
biodiversity by taking a 'coarse-
filter approach' , which favors an
appropriate mix of stand structures
and compositions on State lands
{DNRC 1996) . Appropriate stand
structures are based on ecological
characteristics (e.g., land type,
habitat type, disturbance regime,
unique characteristics) . A coarse-
filter approach assumes that if
landscape patterns and processes are
maintained similar to those with
which the species evolved, then the
full complement of species will
persist and biodiversity will be
maintained (DNRC 1996) . This
coarse-filter approach supports
diverse wildlife populations by
managing for a variety of forest
structures and compositions that
approximate historic conditions
across the landscape. DNRC cannot
assure that the coarse-filter
approach will adequately address the
full range of biodiversity;
therefore, DNRC also employs a "fine
filter" approach for threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species.
The fine-filter approach focuses on
a single species' habitat
requirements {DNRC 1996) .

METHODS

To assess the existing condition of
the proposed project area and
surrounding landscape, a variety of
techniques were used. Field visits,
scientific literature, SLI data,
aerial photographs, Montana Natural
Heritage Program data, and
consultations with other
professionals provided information
for the following discussion and
effects analysis.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

COARSE- FILTER ASSESSMENT

Overview

The majority of terrestrial
vertebrates that were present at the
time of European settlement likely
still occur on Stillwater State
Forest. This includes the large
carnivores often displaced by human
disturbance, such as grizzly bears
{Ursus arctos) , Canada lynx {Lynx
canadensis) , gray wolves (Canus
lupus) , and wolverines {Gulo gulo) .
Species that rely on special habitat
elements, such as white bark pine
(Pinus albicaulis) , western white
pine {Pinus monticola) , or burned
areas, may not be present or are in
decline due to the decline of these
elements across the landscape.

Wildlife habitats on the main block
of Stillwater State Forest benefit
from the surrounding relatively
undisturbed areas managed by FNF.
Other adjacent or surrounded private
industrial forests have been
harvested intensively, benefiting
wildlife species that use early

serai stages either exclusively or
seasonally.

Human activity, generally
recreational, on Stillwater State
Forest ranges from high along Lower
Whitefish Road and within Upper
Whitefish Lake Campground to low or
moderate along the high elevation
Whitefish Divide and Stryker Ridge
of the Whitefish Mountain Range.
Dispersed and locally concentrated
recreation, combined with timber
harvesting, are the primary human
activities that, directly and
indirectly, affect wildlife.

Timber Harvesting

Timber-harvesting activities have
occurred on Stillwater State Forest
for several decades. Early timber
harvesting concentrated mainly on
large serai tree species, such as
western larch (.Larix occidentalis)
and western white pine. Recent
harvesting activities have, through
various silvicultural prescriptions,
promoted western larch, western
white pine, and lodgepole pine
{Pinus contorta) . Snag retention
and recruitment have been recently
considered in managing timber on
Stillwater State Forest.

Other Timber Harvest Projects Under
Contract

Timber sale projects in progress on
Stillwater State Forest include:

• The Taylor-South Timber Sale

Project, located in Sections 6, 7,
17, 18, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32,
and 33, T32N, R22W, is southeast
of the proposed Dog/Meadow Timber
Sale Project. This project will
harvest 4 91 acres (based upon
contract acreages, which differ
from acres reported in the FEIS)
of mixed conifers, western larch,
and Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii) . The largest impacts
to wildlife are reductions in
grizzly bear hiding cover and
pileated woodpecker habitat.
Hiding cover within the Lazy Creek
Grizzly Bear Subunit would be

reduced by 491 acres.

• The Chicken/Werner Timber Sale
Project is directly east of the
proposed Dog/Meadow Timber Sale
Project area in Sections 19, 20,
29, 30, 32, and 33, T33N, R22W.
This project will harvest up to
684 acres, if the optional
helicopter units are harvested
(based upon contract acres, which

differ from acres reported in the
FEIS) . The largest impacts to
wildlife are reductions in Canada
lynx denning habitat, grizzly bear
hiding cover, and nesting habitats
for pileated woodpeckers and
boreal owls. Hiding cover within
the Lazy Creek Grizzly Bear
Subunit would be reduced by 6 84
acres. There would be no long-
term increase in the percent of
the subunit with open- or total -
road densities higher than 1996
levels. The percentages of the
subunit with greater than 2 miles
of total road per square mile of
land and greater than 1 mile of
open road per square mile of land
would increase 1 percent during
project activities and revert to
existing levels following
completion of the project.

• The Good/Long/Boyle Timber Sale
Project, located in Sections 17,
19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and
33, T32N, R23W, and Section 1,
T31N, R24W, is directly south of
the proposed Dog/Meadow Timber
Sale Project area. Approximately
5 MMBF of timber will be harvested
from 1,026 acres (based upon
contract acreages, which differ
from acres reported in the EA) .
Approximately 190 acres would be
changed directly to the O-to-39-
year age class. Four harvest
units are within the Lazy Creek
Grizzly Bear Subunit, and hiding
cover would be reduced by 597
acres. There would be no long-
term increase in the percentage of
the subunit with open- road or
total -road densities higher than
1996 levels. The percent of the

Page E-2

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

subunit with greater than 2 miles
of total road per square mile of
land and greater than 1 mile of
open road per square mile of land
would both increase 1 percent
during project activities and
revert to existing levels
following completion of the
project .

Influence of Fire

The influence of fire has been
reduced across the northern Rocky
Mountains, including most of western
Montana. Modern fire-suppression
techniques have been effective for
at least 50 years. However,
relatively cool, moist habitat types
make up much of Stillwater State
Forest, and mixed- severity and
stand-replacing fire regimes are the
normal disturbance factor, occurring
at intervals of 50 to 250 years.
Therefore, the lower- than-
characteristic frequency of fire
occurrences during the past 50 years
on most sites on Stillwater State
Forest had a lesser effect than in
areas characterized by warm, dry
habitats. Nonetheless, fire-
associated species, such as the
black-backed woodpecker {Picoides
arcticus) , are probably less
abundant on Stillwater State Forest
currently than would typically have
been expected under natural fire
regimes. Species preferring the
dense coniferous in-growth of shade-
tolerant tree species (such as
subalpine fir and grand fir) under
mature forest canopy likely
benefited. Shrub amounts and
distribution important for many
nongame and big game species have
also been influenced by fire-
suppression activities during the
past half century. However, the
effects of the departure from
historic shrub conditions are
unclear because past logging has
created favorable conditions for
shrub growth in some instances.

Stand-Age and Covertype
Characteristics

Mature and old stands are essential
habitat for wildlife species
associated with the late serai
stages of forest -stand development
for all or some life requirements.
A partial list of these species
includes pileated woodpeckers
(Dryocopus pileatus) , American
marten (Martes americana) , brown
creepers (Certhia americana) , and
winter wren (Troglodytes
troglodytes) . The proposed project
area currently contains 1,34 8 acres
of mature stands (100 to 14 9 years
old) and 1,323 acres of old stands
(more than 150 years old) , with
overstory canopy closure of at least
40 percent. A majority of these
stands are currently mixed-conifer,
Douglas-fir/western larch, and
western white pine covertypes.
Stillwater State Forest has less
acres in the seedling/sapling class
(0 to 3 9 years old) than were
historically present {Losensky
1997h) , and a greater percentage of
acres in mature stands. Modern fire
suppression has led to an increase
in shade-tolerant mixed-conifer
stands, while the amount of western
larch/Douglas-fir stands has been
reduced. The representation of
western white pine has also been
reduced due to mortality caused by
white pine blister rust.

Patch Characteristics and
Connectivity

Wildlife species that require
connectivity of forest habitat types
between patches or those species
that are dependent upon interior
forest conditions can be sensitive
to the amount and spatial
configuration of appropriate
habitats. Therefore, patch size and
juxtaposition can influence habitat
quality and population dynamics for
some species. Some species are
adapted to thrive near patch edges,
while others are adversely affected
by the presence of edge or the
presence of other animals that

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-3

prosper in edge habitats.
Connectivity under historical fire
regimes (Losensky 1997b) likely-
remained relatively high as fire
differentially burned various
habitats across the landscape.
Currently, connectivity across
Stillwater State Forest remains
relatively high with considerable
forested interior habitats and a
network of riparian areas. The
network of open roads through
Stillwater State Forest has reduced
some of the landscape-level
connectivity. Patch size on
Stillwater State Forest is likely
similar to the historic conditions
{Losensky 1997b) dominated by mixed-
severity and stand-replacing fire
regimes .

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS TO EXISTING
CONDITION

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct and Indirect ^ffectH ofJWo-, Id ion
. 7/ternative . 1 on Conme Filter

Under No-Action Alternative A,
forest conditions would continue
to move toward denser stands of
shade-tolerant tree species with
high canopy cover. No immediate
changes are anticipated in the
patch size, shape, or
connectivity. Edge habitats
associated with past harvests
would gradually be replaced by
forested habitats, resulting in a
loss of edge habitats, an increase
in patch sizes, and an increase in
interior forested habitats. Over
time, shade-intolerant species in
the proposed units would die, and
dense shade-tolerant species in
the midstory would prevent
replacement of shade-intolerant
species. A stagnated, dense stand
of Douglas-fir, grand fir (Abies
grandis) , subalpine fir (Abies
lasiocarpa) , and Engelmann spruce
(Picea engelmanni i ) would likely
result. Wildlife favoring dense
stands of shade-tolerant tree
species would benefit, while those
requiring conditions likely found

under natural disturbance regimes
would continue to be
underrepresented. Habitat for
forested interior and old-stand -
associated species, such as the
American marten, northern goshawk,
and pileated woodpecker, would
likely improve with this
alternative .

Direct and Indirect t<^ectit of.lctinn
.ilternntice li on Conrae Filter

Under Action Alternative B,
approximately 939 acres of forest
canopy would be opened up to
varying degrees. Additionally,
shade-intolerant trees would be
preferentially retained, while
mostshade-tolerant mixed conifers
would be removed in harvest units.
These conditions would lead to
more-open stands of mature western
larch and western white pine.
Based on silvicultural
prescriptions, the regeneration of
shade-intolerant trees would be
expected. Openings from the
proposed harvests would be
additive to existing openings,
increasing mean opening patch size
from 18 to 40 acres, while
decreasing mean forested patch
size from 609 to 199 acres.
Regeneration within the patches
that are additive to past
harvesting would yield larger
blocks of relatively homogeneous
forested habitats in the long
term. Landscape connectivity
would be retained through buffers
along riparian areas. The
proposed harvests would create an
additional 26 miles of edge
habitats, which would benefit
those species using these
habitats, while negatively
impacting those that require
forested interior habitats.
Reverting stands to earlier serai
stages on approximately 614 acres
would bring Stillwater State
Forest closer to perceived
historical conditions {Losensky
1997b) . This change would likely
reduce habitats for species

Page E-4

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

associated with old stands, such
as American martens, northern
goshawks, and pileated
woodpeckers, which benefited from
the increasing stand ages due to
modern fire suppression.

Cumulative Effects

• Ciimulatice ^ffectjt qfA^o-*1clion ^Alternative
»1 on Coarae Filter

Under this alternative, the
existing habitats within the
proposed project area would
continue to provide habitat for
wildlife species requiring denser
stands with a canopy that is more
closed. Surrounding stands would
retain a mosaic of age classes,
representing young stands that
have been recently harvested to
mature stands. Adjacent harvested
stands would continue to emulate
stand-replacing fire regimes.
Edge habitats between these
earlier harvested stands and the
State parcel would continue to
exist. This alternative would
cause neither changes in the
amount of fragmentation nor
changes in patch size and
configuration. Habitats for
forested interior and old-stand-
associated species would continue
to develop across much of
Stillwater State Forest.

• Cumulalice HlffecLt qf miction »Hternntive B on
Conr*e Filter

This alternative would open up
stands and decrease the amount of
interior habitat, while increasing
edge habitats within Stillwater
State Forest. The proposed
harvest units would blend with
several recent harvest units
adjacent to the proposed units,
increasing patch size and
offsetting some of the edge
habitats developed by the proposed
activities. Some wildlife species
would benefit from this increase
in edge and jvixtaposition of
different covertypes, while, for
other species, fragmentation would
limit available habitat. Again,

landscape connectivity would be
retained through retention buffers
preserving riparian plant
communities. Although this
alternative would remove
approximately 939 acres of
potential habitat for old-stand-
associated species, stands on much
of Stillwater State Forest
continue to advance toward
conditions necessary for these
species .

Special Habitats

Approximately 8.2 miles of perennial
streams are within the proposed
project area. In western Montana,
85 percent of all bird species use
riparian areas, which comprise 1
percent of the land. Half of those
bird species, or 40 to 45 percent of
all birds, are restricted to
riparian areas for breeding purposes
^Mosconi and Hutto, 1982) . Also,
paper birch CBetuIa papyrifera) ,
willow {Salix spp.), and black
Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)
occur in conjunction with numerous
meadow systems in the general
vicinity. No avalanche chutes are
within the proposed project area;
however, rock outcrops and cliffs
exist in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct and Jntlirect Flffecln qfJS'o-, Iction
,1lternatice • 1 on Special JIabitat»

The riparian plant communities
along approximately 8.2 miles of
perennial streams and several
miles of intermittent streams
within the proposed project area
would not be affected by this
alternative. Streamside areas
would continue to move toward more
shade-tolerant conifer species,
such as grand fir and Engelmann
spruce. Paper birch and black
Cottonwood would continue to occur
in the stream corridors, meadows,
and seasonal wetlands (small low
areas that seasonally collect
water) . All of these areas would
remain unaffected under this
alternative. Therefore, the

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-5

wildlife species presently using
these riparian areas and other
special habitats would not be
affected under this alternative.

• Direct and Indirect Lfffects qf Action
.UternntiveB on Special Habitats

On each side of selected perennial
streams, 165-foot no-harvest
buffers would protect the riparian
plant communities; 50-, 83-, or
100-foot buffers would protect
other perennial and intermittent
streams and adjacent wetlands.
Within the proposed project area,
approximately 296 acres of the
unharvested 165 -foot riparian
buffers would continue to move
toward the more shade -tolerant
conifer species (grand fir and
Engelmann spruce) . Paper birch
and black cottonwood would
continue to occur within these
buffers and the intermittent
stream corridors, meadows, and
seasonal wetlands. Therefore, the
wildlife species associated with
these riparian areas would not be
affected under this alternative.
Likewise, wildlife species using
the cliffs, rock outcrops, and
other special habitats would also
not be affected.

Cxomulative Effects

Since this project would not affect
riparian communities and other
special habitats, no cumulative
effects would be expected.

FINE-FILTER ASSESSMENT

In the fine-filter analysis,
individual species that are
recognized to be of special concern
are evaluated. These species are
addressed below and include
Federally "threatened" or
"endangered" species, species listed
as "sensitive" by DNRC, and species
managed as "big game" by DFWP.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Four species indigenous to Montana
are classified as "threatened" or
"endangered" under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973. The bald
eagle, grizzly bear, and Canada lynx
are listed as "threatened", while
the gray wolf is listed as
"endangered" .

> Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Issue

There is concern that timber
harvesting could alter habitat or
create disturbance that would be
detrimental to bald eagles.

Existing Environment

Strategies to protect the bald
eagle are outlined in the Pacific
States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan
(United States Fish and Wildlife
Service [USFWS] 1986) and the
Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan
(Montana Bald Eagle Working Group
1994) . Management direction
involves identifying and
protecting nesting, feeding,
perching, roosting, and wintering/
migration areas {USFWS 1986,
Montana Bald Eagle Working Group
1994) . This project was designed
in accordance with the Montana
Bald Eagle Management Plan and
Habitat Management Guide for Bald
Eagles in Northwestern Montana.
The Stillwater Bald Eagle Nesting
Territory Site-Specific Management
Guidelines: Upper Stillwater Lake
(Jacobs and Kuennen 1998) was the
main source of the site-specific
information used.

Bald eagles are diurnal raptors
associated with significant
waterbodies, such as rivers,
lakes, and coastal zones. The
bald eagle diet consists primarily
of fish and waterfowl, but
includes carrion, mammals, and
items taken from other birds of
prey. In northwestern Montana,
bald eagles begin the breeding
process with courtship behavior
and nest building in early
February; the young fledge by
approximately mid-August, ending
the breeding process. Preferred
nest-stand characteristics include

Page E-6

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

large emergent trees that are
within site distances of lakes and
rivers and screened from
disturbance by vegetation.

Upper Stillwater Lake Bald Eagle
Terri tory

The Upper Stillwater Lake bald
eagle territory (007-020) is
located on the north end of Upper
Stillwater Lake in northwest
Montana (T31N and T32N, R22W) .

The aquatic habitat associated
with the Upper Stillwater Lake
Bald Eagle Territory contains
several waterbodies. The
principal waterbody is Upper
Stillwater Lake (approximately 3
miles long and 0.5 miles wide; 528
acres) . Many tributaries, small
wetlands, and beaver ponds are
within the Upper Stillwater Lake
Bald Eagle Territory home range.
Also, several bodies of water are
located within or near the Upper
Stillwater Lake Bald Eagle
Territory home range, including
Dog, Lower Stillwater, and Duck
lakes. These waterbodies may be
important components of the Upper
Stillwater Lake Bald Eagle
Territory.

Aquatic prey for bald eagles are
primarily composed of fish and
waterfowl species, but also
mammals, such as beaver and
muskrat. Waterfowl tend to
congregate at the inlet and outlet
of Stillwater River, which
typically remain ice-free when
Upper Stillwater Lake is frozen.
Fish species that grow large
enough for use by bald eagles and
occur in the more accessible
shallow areas of Upper Stillwater
Lake include yellow perch,
northern pike, cutthroat trout,
rainbow trout, brook trout, bull
trout, mountain whitefish, and
lake trout.

The terrestrial habitat
incorporated by the Upper
Stillwater Lake Bald Eagle
Territory is a coniferous/

deciduous mixture along the
lakeshores and riparian areas,
with coniferous forests in the
upland areas. Within the present
home range, black cottonwood is
the deciduous tree of primary
importance to bald eagles.
Coniferous tree species within the
Upper Stillwater Lake Bald Eagle
Territory include western larch,
western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla) , western red cedar
(Thuja plicata) , grand fir,
subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, and
ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) .
Large ponderosa pine and western
larch trees occur in the Douglas -
fir or Douglas -fir/western larch
covertypes .

Foraging opportunities within the
terrestrial habitats include
carrion, ground squirrels, and
robbing other raptors' nests.
Carrion primarily would be white-
tailed deer, mule deer, elk, or
moose remains from winterkill,
human-caused mortality, or
predation activities by wolves,
bears, and mountain lions.

Five nests have been associated
with this territory since
observations were first recorded
in 1972. The most recently used
nest has an associated nest-site
area almost entirely within
Stillwater State Forest {Jacobs
and Kuennen 1998) . This nest-site
area produced and fledged 27
fledglings from 1980 to 1998. One
additional fledgling was produced
since 1998 (A. Jacobs, USFS-FNF,
personal communication, October
2002) .

The primary-use area is an area
where it is assumed 75 percent of
the foraging, resting, and
associated behaviors occur
{Montana Bald Eagle Working Group,
1994) . Approximately 60 percent
of the delineated primary-use area
is within Stillwater State Forest.
The delineated home-range area is
located on Stillwater State
Forest, FNF, and private lands.

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-7

Most of the breeding activity of
an eagle pair is assumed to occur
within the home range. Various
levels of timber harvesting,
residential development, and
recreation are occurring within
the prescribed home range of the
Upper Stillwater Lake pair.
Features within the home range
that are important to bald eagle
life-history requirements include
perching and roosting trees on
Upper Stillwater, Dog, and Duck
lakes, and approximately 61 acres
of DFWP-designated white-tailed
deer winter range and its
associated carrion in the
northwest portion of the home
range .

Cumulative effects were analyzed
on the bald eagle home range
delineated around the nest
location.

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct and Indirect F^ffectn ofJVo-. Iction
. Ilternatioe . 1 on liald Englen

No direct or indirect effects to
bald eagles would be expected.
Stands would continue to age and
emergent trees would continue to
persist and could serve as perch
trees now and in the future.
Human disturbance would continue
at approximately the same
levels .

• Direct and Indirect ^[fectit of miction
.llternntive li on Bald Englcit

Under the proposed Dog/Meadow
Timber Sale Project, no
harvesting would occur within
the nest or primary-use areas.
Approximately 120 acres of
subalpine fir and mixed-conifer
cover types within the
delineated home range would be
harvested (Unit 8 and portions
of Units 7 and 9) . These 3
units are approximately 0.8
miles from the primary aquatic
habitat, and are more than 1.4
miles from the nest location, so
disturbance from harvesting

should be minimal. Within the
areas proposed to be harvested,
most of the canopy- emergent
western larch and Douglas-fir
would remain as perch and rest
sites for use within the
regenerating stands, should
these areas receive use.
However, several proposed
harvest units (Units lA, 6, and
7) are within 0.3 to 0.5 miles
of Dog Lake, which has been
identified as a foraging habitat
for the Upper Stillwater Lake
pair of eagles. Disturbance
within these units might limit
bald eagle use of Dog Lake for
the nesting season in which
harvesting takes place.
Harvesting in the remaining
portions of the proposed project
area is not expected to have an
immediate or long-term effect on
bald eagles .

Cumulative Effects

• Ciimiilntice mj'ectJt qfJVo^ Iction
mllternatice , 1 on linld Eaglett

Stillwater State Forest and FNF
each manage approximately 35
percent of the home range
associated with the Upper
Stillwater Lake Bald Eagle
Territory. Approximately 2 0
percent of the home range is
privately owned, thereby
limiting potential development
and disturbance. Concurrently,
no other plans that would
increase human disturbance,
development, recreation, timber
harvesting, or firewood
gathering within the home range
are under consideration.

• Cumulative UlffectH of. Iction . llternatice
li on Haiti Eagles

Timber harvesting from this
project would not reduce
potential nesting and perching
habitats within the home range.
A number of proposed units
within the home range and in
close proximity to foraging
areas would be harvested;

Page E-8

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

however, much of the proposed
project would not affect bald
eagles. The harvesting of
approximately 120 acres within
the home -range area would not
include the harvesting of
ponderosa pine or western larch
and should have a negligible
cumulative effect on the
availability of potential
nesting and perching trees .
Disturbance near Dog Lake may
displace foraging bald eagles
for the duration of the proposed
project. Concurrently, no other
plans are under consideration
that would affect eagle use of
the territory.

Mitigation Measure Included:

Cease all operations and consult
with a DNRC biologist for further
mitigations should an eagle nest
be observed within 1 mile of any
project-related activities.

> Grizzly "Bear (C/rsusarceosi

Issue

There is concern that timber
harvesting and associated
activities could alter habitat or
create disturbance that would be
detrimental to grizzly bears.

Existing Environment

Grizzly bears are wide-ranging
mammals that use forested upland
habitats. Preferred grizzly bear
habitats are meadows, riparian
zones, avalanche chutes, subalpine
forests, and big game winter
ranges, all of which provide
seasonal food sources . The
proposed project area lies within
the Lazy Creek and Stryker Bear
Management Subunits of the North
Continental Divide Ecosystem
(NCDE) Recovery Area {USFWS 1993),
and grizzly bears are known to
inhabit the project area.

The Lazy Creek Bear Management
Subunit is approximately 34,560
acres (54 square miles) managed/
owned by:

- Plum Creek Timber Company
(15,013 acres) ,

- State ownership managed by DNRC
(14,520 acres) ,

- FNF (4,008 acres), and

- other private landowners (1,020
acres) .

The Stryker Bear Management
Subunit is approximately 40,729
acres (64 square miles) managed/
owned by:

- State ownership managed by DNRC
and others (33,054 acres),

- FNF (7,542 acres), and

- other private landowners (133
acres) .

There have been several recent
grizzly bear sightings within the
general vicinity of the project
area that have occurred on:

- adjacent portions of Stillwater
State Forest,

- adjacent portions of FNF, and

- on Plum Creek Timber Company
land west of the project area.

Grizzly bears generally use
different habitats relative to
season. The Dog Meadow Timber
Sale Project area is primarily
spring habitat. Summer or autumn
habitat values are low within the
project area.

Managing human access is a major
factor in management for grizzly
bear habitat. DNRC is committed
to designing projects to result in
no net increase in the proportion
of each subunit of a bear
management unit (State trust lands
only) that exceed an open-road
density (percent of open road) of
1 mile per square mile and a total
road density (percent of total
road) of 2 miles per square mile
from levels in 1996 .
Additionally, DNRC is also
committed to a no-net decrease in
security core areas. Security
core areas should be 0.3 miles
from open roads or high-use
trails. Security core areas are
not necessarily roadless, but

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-9

existing roads within security
cores should be completely free of
motorized access during the
nondenning period. Security core
areas must also have relatively
low nonmotorized use. A moving-
windows analysis {Ake 1994) was
conducted to determine road
densities and security core areas
within the Lazy Creek and Stryker
Grizzly Bear Management Subunits
{TABLE E-1 - PRESENT ROAD DENSITY
AND LEVELS THROUGH PROJECTS
PROPOSED FOR THE IMMEDIATE
FUTURE) . Total road densities are
presently at 1996 thresholds for
the Stryker and Lazy Creek
subunits .

Security core comprises 12 percent
of the State-owned portion of the
Lazy Creek Grizzly Bear Management
Subunit and 50 percent of the
Stryker Grizzly Bear Management
Subunit. Baseline from 1996 for
the Lazy Creek Grizzly Bear
Management Subunit was 12 percent;
the Stryker Grizzly Bear
Management Subunit was 50 percent.

Direct and Indirect Effects

• /Ji'rect nnil Indirect li^ffect^ ofJKo-, Iction
*1lternatice . 1 on Grixsly Jiearn

No direct effects to grizzly
bears would be expected.
Grizzly bears using the project
area for any type of life
requirement would be under the
lowest risk of mortality or
disturbance caused by grizzly
bear-human interactions under
this alternative. Foraging
opportunities may decline due to
the lack of diversity in habitat
such as forest edge and younger
age-class stands. No changes in
security core, open- or total -
road densities, or hiding cover
are anticipated.

• Direct and Indirect JJ^ffects of. Iction
Mternntive B on Crrixzlj/ Bears

This project may affect grizzly
bears directly through increased
road traffic, noise, and human

activity, and indirectly by
altering the amount of hiding
cover and forage resources.
Activities in occupied grizzly
bear habitats reduce grizzly
bear security, possibly
resulting in increased stress
and/or energy expenditure to
endure the disturbance or to
move from the area. These
disturbances would only be
present during harvesting
operations .

The season of disturbance is
important in addressing impacts
to grizzly bears. Winter
harvesting would result in no
direct effects to grizzly bears
in areas with no known den
sites. Secondarily, activities
that target time periods when
the probability of animals using
the area is low would result in
reduced direct disturbance to
grizzly bears in the nondenning
period.

Hiding cover, defined as
vegetation that will hide 90
percent of a grizzly bear at a
distance of 200 feet, would be
reduced by 939 acres (502 acres
in the Lazy Creek Grizzly Bear
Management Subunit and 432 acres
in the Stryker Grizzly Bear
Management Subunit) in the
proposed harvesting. Hiding
cover is especially important
along open roads and in areas
that receive human disturbance.
Pockets of cover, including
SMZs, reserve areas, and
advanced regeneration would be
retained within the units, so
these figures represent a
liberal estimate of the
potential loss of hiding cover
in the proposed project area.
Forested buffers would be
retained between units and open
roads to provide screening to
increase security. Hiding cover
in the harvested units is
expected to regenerate in 5 to
10 years.

Page E-10

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

TABLE B-1 - PRBSBNT ROAD DENSITY AND LEVELS THROUGH PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE
IMMEDIATE FUTURE*

DURING

ANALYSIS

UNIT

STATUS

OF

ROAD

DENSITY

BASELINE
LEVELS
(2/96)

EXISTING
LEVELS
(3/00)

GOOD/
LONG/
BOYLE

TAYLOR
SOUTH

TAYLOR
SOUTH ANE
GOOD/
LONG/
BOYLE

DOG/
MEADOW

DOG /MEADOW,

TAYLOR

SOUTH, AND

GOOD/LONG/

BOYLE

Lazy

Creek

Subunit

Open- road
density
(less than 1
mile per
scjuare mile)

50%

47%

48%

50%

50%

47%

50%^

Total -road
density
(less than 2
miles per
square mile)

74%

72%

73%

72%

73%

72%

73%

DNRC-

managed

lands

within

Lazy

Creek

Subunit

Open- road
density
(less than 1
mile per
scjuare mile)

76%

72%

73%

75%

76%

72%

76%^

Total -road
density
(less than 2
miles per
square mile)

76%

74%

75%

74%

75%

75%

76%

Stryker
Subunit

Open- road
density
(less than 1
mile per
scjuare mile)

35%

35%

N/A

N/A

N/A

35%

35%^

Total -road
density
(less than 2
miles per
square mile)

32%

29%

N/A

N/A

N/A

29%

29%

DNRC-

managed

lands

within

Stryker

Subunit

Open- road
density
(less than 1
mile per
scjuare mile)

40%

40%

N/A

N/A

N/A

40%

40%'

Total -road
density
(less than 2
miles per
square mile)

35%

33%

N/A

N/A

N/A

33%

33%

'Based on the most updated road layer available for Stillwater State Forest.
Open-road density in the Lazy Creek and Stryker BMU subunits are at 1996 baseline
levels; therefore, operations on restricted roads would be conducted so that the
status of the road would not change.

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-11

Timber harvesting may reduce the
habitat quality within the
proposed units. The proposed
project area occurs in spring
grizzly bear habitat. The
effects of timber harvesting on
grizzly bears are not
conclusive. Small sample sizes
and different harvesting
practices limited the inference
about seasonal grizzly bear use
of cutting units. Other
factors, such as levels of human
disturbance and the amount of
hiding cover, may also confound
determinations of seasonal
grizzly bear habitat use.
Therefore, it is difficult to
speculate on the effects of this
particular project on spring
habitat; however, they probably
range from neutral to slightly
negative. Forage production is
anticipated to increase. No
long-term increases in open- or
total-road densities are
proposed, which would minimize
grizzly bear disturbance.

Security core would not be
entered or altered in this
alternative. The amount of
DNRC-owned security core would
remain at 12 percent of the Lazy
Creek Grizzly Bear Management
Subunit and 50 percent of the
Stryker Grizzly Bear Management
Subunit .

No permanent changes to the
status of existing roads would
occur, and only a 0.3 -mile
section of road would be
constructed; this section of
road would be reclaimed after
use. Road-density levels would
return to their present levels
upon completion of the proposed
project. Several of the
proposed units exist along open
roads; hence, harvesting within
these units will not alter open-
road densities. Other harvest
units behind closed gates are
small enough to facilitate
harvesting during an intensive
30 -day period followed by road

closure; this would not cause a
change in road status. Winter
logging of the remaining larger
units behind closed gates (such
as Units 10 and 11) would
prevent an increase in open-road
densities impacting grizzly
bears in the area.

Cumulative Effects

• Ciimiilatice Elffecttt ofJYo-, Iction
^lltcrnatice ^1 on Grissly lienrit

Motorized access to the area,
security and hiding cover, and
spring habitat would all remain
unchanged. In the long term,
forest succession would continue
and may reduce food sources, but
may increase the amount of
hiding cover.

• Cumulative IJ^ecltt of -Iction -llternntiee
II on Griszlj/ Jlenrx

The increased use of road
systems during all of the
proposed and active projects,
including those on private
industrial lands, may
temporarily increase human
disturbance to grizzly bears
within the Lazy Creek and
Stryker Grizzly Bear Management
Subunits. Long-term open- and
total-road densities would not
increase due to the proposed Dog
Meadow Timber Sale Project. FNF
manages 12 percent of the
subunit on the Whitefish Divide,
which receives minimal human
disturbance. Reductions in
hiding cover would be additive
to the reductions due to past
DNRC timber sales; however,
considerable hiding cover exists
within these subunits. Early
successional stages of
vegetation occurring on harvest
units would provide foraging
opportunities that do not exist
in some mature stands.

Mitigation Measures Included:

• Retain forested corridors to
maintain landscape connectivity.

Page E-12

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

• Reclose roads and skid trails
opened with proposed activities
to reduce the potential for
unauthorized motor vehicle use.

• Using a combination of
topography, group retention, and
roadside vegetation buffers,
reduce views into harvest units
along open roads .

• Harvesting activities would be
conducted to limit disturbance
in grizzly bear habitat by using
the following methods:

- harvesting during the denning
period (November 15 through
March 15)

- harvesting along open roads,
or

- harvesting for short-duration,
high- intensity periods on
closed roads.

Issue

There is concern that timber
harvesting could alter habitat or
create disturbance that would be
detrimental to the gray wolf.

Existing Environment

The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf
Recovery Plan defines 3 recovery
areas for the gray wolf {USFWS
1987) . The proposed project area
falls within the Northwest Montana
Wolf Recovery Area.

The wolf is a wide-ranging species
whose habitat contains adequate
vulnerable prey and minimal human
disturbance. Primary prey species
in northwestern Montana are white-
tailed deer, elk, moose, and mule
deer. The distribution of wolves
is strongly associated with the
white-tailed deer winter range.

Typically, wolves in Montana den
in late April. Wolves choose
elevated areas in gentle terrain
near a water source (valley
bottoms) , close to meadows or
other openings, and near big game

wintering areas for dens and
rendezvous sites. Within the
proposed project area, a number of
these important habitats occur,
including meadows and openings,
some big game winter range, and
several water sources . Wolves are
most vulnerable to human
disturbance at den and rendezvous
sites .

Wolves and wolf sign have been
documented on adjacent portions of
Stillwater State Forest and Plum
Creek Timber Company lands to the
east of the project area. The
newly identified Lazy Creek pack
has been using Plum Creek
timberlands approximately 7 miles
southeast of the proposed project
area. Reproduction in the
Whitefish pack was documented on
the same block of Plum Creek
timberland east of the proposed
project area during the spring of
2000. The Grave Creek pack has
been using portions of Stillwater
State Forest and FNF 13 to 15
miles northwest of the proposed
project area (T. Meier, USFWS,
personal coimnunication, September
2002) . Wolves likely use the
vicinity of the proposed project
area for hunting, breeding, and
other life requirements.

Cumulative effects were analyzed
on the contiguous Stillwater State
Forest.

Direct and Jndirect Effects

• Direct and Indirect Effect* ofJVo-, Iction
,llternatice A on Gray \Volce»

Disturbance to wolves would not
increase. Forest canopy closure
would continue to decrease big
game forage, while slightly
improving thermal cover in the
area. In the short term, white-
tailed deer habitat would
decrease with the reduction in
forage production, thereby
reducing big game use of the
area and, thus, decreasing wolf
prey in the area. Wolf use of
the proposed project area would

Appendix. E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-13

be expected to continue at
current levels.

• Direct and Indirect JElffects t(f Action
Alternative B on Gray JVolce^

Wolves using the area would
likely be disturbed by
harvesting activities, and are
most sensitive at den and
rendezvous sites. After
harvesting activities, wolf use
of the proposed project area for
denning and rendezvous sites
would likely revert to
preharvest levels. In the short
term, the proposed harvest units
are expected to lead to an
increase in big game forage and
a decrease in summer thermal
cover for white-tailed deer.
This may lead to a slight
increase in white-tailed deer
use, which, again, is an
important food source for
wolves .

Cumulative Effects

• Cum III at ice f^ectit ofJVo-, Iction
.llternaticc A on Gray IV'olveg

Under this alternative, white-
tailed deer winter range would
not be affected, and substantive
change in white -tailed deer
population, distribution, or
habitat use is not anticipated.
Levels of human disturbance are
expected to remain similar to
present levels. Therefore, the
effects to wolves are expected
to be negligible.

• Ciimiilatice H^ffects of. Iction Alternntice
JI on Gray M^^olven

Since the expected effects of
this project on wolves would be
minor, cumulative effects would
also be minor. Some slight
shifts of big game use may
occur. Reductions in cover may
cause slight decreases in use by
deer and elk; however, these
shifts are likely to be at least
partially offset by the
increases in forage production
in the near-term. Travel

corridors along riparian areas
would be retained throughout the
project area, maintaining
connectivity with surrounding
forested habitats. Reductions
in cover within the proposed
project area will be additive to
existing openings from past
timber-harvesting activities.
The affect of this reduction
should still only be minor to
wolves due to low human-
disturbance levels. Human-
disturbance levels are expected
to revert to levels similar to
current levels after the
proposed harvesting is done and
roads are again closed. No
substantive change in wolf use
of Stillwater State Forest is
expected; wolves would continue
to use Stillwater State Forest
and adjacent areas in the long
term.

Mitigation Measures Included

• Suspend operations and
temporarily restrict use of
roads within a 1-mile radius of
any known active wolf den.

• Suspend operations and consult a
DNRC biologist if a suspected
rendezvous site is observed
within 0.5 mile of any ongoing
project activities.

• Retain connective corridors of
heavy forest cover, when
possible, to maintain travel
routes, visual screening, and
partial security for elk and
deer.

• Reclose roads and skid trails
opened with proposed activities
to reduce the potential for
unauthorized motor vehicle use.

• Use a combination of topography,
group retention, and roadside
vegetation to reduce views into
harvest units along open roads.

> Canada Lynx cZi/ywcy/^.y^^aaf/j)

Issue

There is concern that timber
harvesting could alter habitat or

Page E-14

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

create disturbance that would be
detrimental to lynx.

Existing Environment

Canada lynx are associated with
subalpine fir forests generally
between 4,000 to 7,000 feet in
elevation in western Montana
(Ruediger et al, 2000) . The
proposed project area ranges from
approximately 3,200 to 5,800 feet
in elevation and is dominated by
mixed conifers, Douglas -fir,
western larch, and subalpine fir.
Primary lynx habitats are
subalpine-f ir types; however, lynx
will use a mix of species
compositions (subalpine fir,
lodgepole pine, Douglas -fir, grand
fir, and western larch) . Typical
1/nx denning habitat consists of
mature Engelmann spruce/ subalpine
fir with abundant coarse woody
debris; typical lynx foraging
habitat consists of younger
coniferous forests with an
abundance of snowshoe hare .
Historically, high intensity,
stand-replacing fires of long fire
intervals (40 to 200 years) within
continuous forests of lodgepole
pine, subalpine fir, and Engelmann
spruce maintained a mosaic of
ideal snowshoe hare and lynx
habitat. The weather station in
Olney, 3 miles south of the
proposed project area, has
recorded an average of 120 inches
of snowfall each year, with an
average depth of 21 inches. The
stand types and ages, elevations,
and snow accumulations indicate
the northeastern portion of the
proposed project area contains
appropriate lynx denning habitat
{TABLE E-2 - POSSIBLE CANADA LYNX
HABITAT WITHIN THE PROPOSED
PROJECT AREA BY STAND TYPE AND
ELEVATION) . Lynx and lynx tracks
have been observed near the
proposed project area and in
adjacent areas on Stillwater State
Forest. Snowshoe hares occur
throughout the proposed project
area.

TABLE E-2 - POSSIBLE CANADA LYNX
HABITAT WITHIN THE PROPOSED PROJECT
AREA BY STAND TYPE AND ELEVATION

STAND
TYPE

ACRES ABOVE
5,000 FEET
ELEVATION

Douglas -fir/ western
larch

6

Lodgepole pine

5

Mixed conifer

402

Subalpine fir

115

Grand fir

0

Engelmann spruce

0

Western white pine

64

Total

592

Cumulative effects were analyzed
on the State portions of the
Stryker and Lazy Creek Grizzly
Bear Management Subunits.

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct and Indirect niO'ech qfJ>io-,1clion
. lUernntice , 1 on Canada Lynx

Under this alternative, timber
stands would continue to age,
die, and be replaced by shade-
tolerant tree species. Existing
closed roads and skid trails
would remain closed; no changes
in human-disturbance levels are
expected. However, use of the
general vicinity by snowmobiles
may enable other predators to
access some of these upper
elevations, increasing
competition for available prey.
Lynx generally will not travel
more than 100 meters
(approximately 110 yards)
through an open-habitat type;
the existing stands of
continuous forested habitats
facilitate lynx movement.

Denning habitat would continue
to age, which would gradually
improve the habitat quality for
lynx. Dense stands of younger
coniferous forests from past
timber harvests exist in the
proposed project area, providing
snowshoe hare habitat. In the
long term, foraging

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-15

opportunities in these stands
will decline as they age,
leading to a decline in edge
habitats and the amount of
younger stands, thereby
providing less-favorable habitat
conditions for snowshoe hares
that are the preferred prey for
lynx.

• Direct and Indirect Fiffects of.lction
Mtematice B on Canada Lynx

Under this action alternative,
activities are not proposed
within areas of high hare use or
potential lynx denning habitat.
Again, these younger stands will
decline in quality for foraging
habitats over time as they
mature. The proposed treatments
would increase the acreage in
earlier-aged stands that would
provide snowshoe hare habitat in
the future. Forest connectivity
around these openings will
largely be retained through
riparian buffers and other
forested habitats.

Lynx may have adapted to move
between isolated foraging and
denning areas through forest
corridors in the southern extent
of their range f^Koehler and
Brittell 1990) . The riparian
buffers retained as fisher
habitat may be used as travel
corridors or denning habitat.
Large coarse woody debris is
more prevalent within the
riparian areas, possibly due to
the lower fire intensity within
these areas .

Cumulative Effects

• Cumulative li^ffects qfA'o-, Iction
,1lternatice .1 on Canada Lynx

Under this alternative, lynx
denning and foraging habitats
would not be affected in the
near- term. A majority of the
lynx denning and foraging
habitat in the Stryker and Lazy
Creek Grizzly Bear Management
Subunits is in the Stryker

Ridge-Herrig Basin and Whitefish
Divide areas. No further
reductions in foraging or
denning habitat are currently
under proposal within these
subunits. The distribution and
quantity of potential lynx
denning habitat is not expected
to change within these subunits.
In the future, as stands age,
the quality of existing denning
habitats may improve;
recruitment of new denning
habitats is possible as
currently unsuitable stands
mature and develop necessary
habitat attributes. The Werner
Peak Fire created future
foraging habitats on 737 acres.
Foraging habitats were the by-
product of past harvesting on
adjacent private timberlands
within the Lazy Creek Subunit,
but the quality of these as
foraging sites is starting to
decline as they mature.
Otherwise, foraging habitats
within the Stryker and Lazy
Creek subunits are expected to
decline through time as young
foraging areas age.

• Cumulative Injects of miction . llternative
II on Canada Lynx

Since the expected effects of
this project on Canada lynx
would be minor, cumulative
effects would also be minor. A
majority of the lynx denning and
foraging habitats in the Stryker
and Lazy Creek Grizzly Bear
Management Subunits is in the
Stryker Ridge-Herrig Basin and
Whitefish Divide areas. No
further reductions in foraging
or denning habitat are currently
under proposal within these
subunits. The Werner Peak Fire
created future foraging habitat
on 737 acres. The foraging
habitat was the by-product of
past harvesting on adjacent
private timberlands within the
Lazy Creek Grizzly Bear
Management Subunit, but the

Page E-16

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

quality of the foraging sites is
starting to decline as they
mature. Meanwhile, the Chicken/
Werner Timber Sale Project
planned to remove 105 acres of
potential denning habitat and
353 acres of potential foraging
habitat (the FEIS-based acreages
are subject to change with
project layout) , but most of
these acres are in the optional
helicopter units that are not
expected to be harvested. The
Taylor South Timber Sale Project
planned to reduce potential lynx
denning habitat by another 205
acres. The quality and quantity
of potential denning habitat
across the subunits are expected
to slowly improve through time.
Meanwhile, foraging habitats
within the Stryker and Lazy
Creek Grizzly Bear Management
Subunits are expected to decline
through time as young foraging
areas age.

Mitigation Measures Included

• Retain forested corridors to
maintain landscape connectivity.

• Reduce views into harvest units
along open roads using a
combination of topography, group
retention, and roadside
vegetation buffers.

Sensitive Species

When conducting forest-management
activities, the SFLMP directs DNRC
to give special consideration to
several sensitive species. These
species are sensitive to human
activities, have special habitat
requirements that might be altered
by timber management, or might
become listed under the Federal
Endangered Species Act if management
activities result in continued
adverse impacts. Because sensitive
species usually have specific
habitat requirements, consideration
of their needs serves as a useful
"fine filter" for ensuring that the
primary goal of maintaining healthy
and diverse forests is met.

A search of the Montana Natural
Heritage Database reconfirmed common
loon sightings within of the
proposed project area. TABLE E-3 -
LISTED SENSITIVE SPECIES FOR THE
NWLO SHOWING THE STATUS OF THESE
SPECIES IN RELATION TO THE DOG
MEADOW TIMBER SALE PROJECT shows how
each sensitive species was either
included in the following analysis
or was removed from further analysis
because suitable habitat does not
occur within the project area or
proposed activities would not affect
their required habitat components .

Appendix B-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-17

TABLE E-3 - LISTED SENSITIVE SPECIES FOR THE NWLO SHOWING THE STATUS OF THESE
SPECIES IN RELATION TO THIS PROPOSED PROJECT

SPECIES

DETERMINATION - BASIS

Black-backed
woodpecker

No further analysis conducted - No recently (less than 5
years) burned areas are in the project area.

Boreal owl

No further analysis conducted - No activities are proposed
above 5,200 feet.

Coeur d'Alene
salamander

No further analysis conducted - No moist talus or streamside
talus habitat occurs in the project area.

Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse

No further analysis conducted - No suitable grassland
communities occur in the project area.

Common loon

No further analysis conducted - Loons breed on Dog and Upper
Stillwater lakes. No activities are proposed within 500 feet
of these lakes.

Ferruginous hawk

No further analysis conducted - No suitable grassland
communities occur in the project area.

Fisher

Included - Potential fisher denning habitat occurs in the
proposed project area.

Flammulated owl

No further analysis conducted - No suitable dry ponderosa pine
habitats occur within the project area.

Harlequin duck

No further analysis conducted - No suitable habitat occurs in
the project area.

Mountain plover

No further analysis conducted - No suitable grassland
communities occur in the project area.

Northern bog lemming

No further analysis conducted - No suitable sphagnum bogs or
fens occur in the project area.

Peregrine falcon

No further analysis conducted - A small cliff/rock outcrop
complex is within the project area; however, no sightings have
been documented in the area, and the cliff complex is likely
too small for peregrine falcon use.

Pileated woodpecker

Included - Western larch/Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer
habitats occur in the project area.

Townsend's big-eared
bat

No further analysis conducted - No caves or mine tunnels occur
in the project area.

Sensitive Species Assessed

> pis her (Mertes pennanti)

Issue

There is concern that timber
harvesting could alter habitat or
create disturbance that would be
detrimental to the fisher.

Existing Environment

DNRC has listed the fisher as a
sensitive species due to their use
of mature and late-successional
habitats {DNRC 1996) . Forest-
management considerations for
fisher involve providing for
resting and denning habitats near
riparian areas while maintaining
travel corridors. Fishers are
generalist predators and use a

variety of habitat types, but are
disproportionately found in stands
with dense canopies. In the Rocky
Mountains, fishers appear to
prefer late-successional
coniferous forests for resting
sites and tend to use areas within
150 feet of water more than their
availability on the landscape.
Such areas typically contain large
live trees, snags, and logs, which
are used for resting and denning
sites and dense canopy cover,
which is important for snow
intercept {Jones 1991) . Modeling
the above conditions using SLI
data generated an estimate of
fisher resting and denning habitat
{Heinemeyer and Jones 1994) .

The proposed project area ranges

Page E-18

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

from 3,200 to 5,800 feet in
elevation, with several perennial
streams. Along the 8 miles of
perennial streams in the proposed
project area, 296 acres are
riparian buffer areas that would
be retained as potential fisher
habitat. Western larch/Douglas -
fir and mixed-conifer habitat
types dominate these areas. These
areas likely provide resting and
denning habitats in addition to
travel corridors and landscape
connectivity. Potential denning
habitat exists on 1,060 acres
within the proposed project area.

Trapping is a significant source
of fisher mortality. Fishers are
easily caught in traps set for
martens, bobcats, and coyotes
{Powell and Zielinski 1994) , and
trapping density is generally tied
to road density. Currently, open
roads total approximately 1 mile
within these riparian buffers, so
human disturbance and potential
trapping mortality are fairly low
within the proposed project area.

Cumulative effects were analyzed
on the State portions of the
Stryker and Lazy Creek Grizzly
Bear Management Subunits .

Direct aiid Indirect Effects

• Direct and Indirect li^'ectn qfj\o-^1ction
. Ilternntice »1 on Pi»lter»

No effects to fishers would be
expected under this alternative.
Little change to the stands
providing fisher denning and
foraging habitats would be
expected. Habitats that are
conducive to fisher denning and
travel may improve due to
increased tree growth and canopy
closure; however, foraging
opportunities may decline due to
the lack of diversity in habitat
such as edge and younger age-
class stands. No changes are
anticipated to the 1,060 acres
of potential denning habitat
within the proposed project
area. Human disturbance and

potential trapping mortality
would expect to remain similar
to current levels.

• Direct and Indirect ^ff'ectn qf.lction
.Alternative II on Pinhern

Under this action alternative,
riparian habitats along the
perennial streams in the
proposed project area would
largely be unaffected.
Harvesting would occur in 172
acres of the 1,060 acres of
potential fisher denning habitat
in Units 2, 11, and 12. Fisher
resting habitat might also be
slightly reduced due to the
proposed overstory removal on
the uplands adjacent to the
riparian areas and in some of
the intermittent tributaries to
Dog Creek; but, again, most of
the harvesting would avoid
habitats typically preferred by
fishers .

Cumulative Effects

• Ciimulatice li^ffectH ofjXo-, Iction
tllternatice »1 on Fiathern

Under No-Action Alternative A,
fisher denning and resting
habitats would be retained.
Suitable fisher habitat occurs
across much of the Stryker and
Lazy Creek subunits. Landscape
connectivity within most of the
Stryker Subunit and the part of
the Lazy Creek Subunit within
Stillwater State Forest is
largely intact. Road access
within the proposed project area
and within the subunits would
not be changed after
implementation of this
alternative; therefore, fisher
vulnerability to trapping would
remain unchanged.

• Cumulative mjectjt qftlction tllternalive U
on Pinheni

Under Action Alternative B, 172
acres of potential fisher
denning habitat would be
harvested within the proposed
units. This loss is additive to

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-19

the loss of approximately 167
acres of habitat harvested in
the Good/Long/Boyle Timber Sale
Project and the 597 acres
harvested in the Taylor South
Timber Sale Project (EA-based
acreages that are subject to
change with project layout) .
Potential fisher denning,
resting, and foraging habitats
would be retained in the
riparian buffers. Landscape
connectivity within the subunits
is largely intact, and human
disturbance and potential
trapping mortality will remain
relatively unchanged since no
changes in access within the
subunits will be realized.

Mitigation Measures Included:

• Reclose roads and skid trails
opened with the proposed
activities to reduce the
potential for unauthorized motor
vehicle use.

• Retain vegetated buffers along
streams to provide potential
fisher denning, resting, and
foraging habitats.

> piieated WoodpecKer (Dryocopus p/'ieatus)

Issue

There is concern that timber
harvesting could alter habitat or
create disturbance that would be
detrimental to the piieated
woodpecker.

Existing Environment

The piieated woodpecker is listed
by DNRC as a sensitive species
because of the important
ecological niche it occupies {DNRC
1996) . Piieated woodpeckers
excavate the largest cavities of
any woodpecker. The cavities are
frequently used in subsequent
years by many other species of
birds and mammals. Preferred nest
trees are western larch, ponderosa
pine, black Cottonwood, and
quaking aspen, usually 20 inches
dbh and larger. Piieated

woodpeckers primarily eat insects,
mainly carpenter ants, which
inhabit stumps, snags, and large
downed logs. Nesting habitat for
piieated woodpeckers consists of
mature stands below 5,000 feet in
elevation with 100 to 125 square
feet per acre of basal area and a
relatively closed canopy (Aney and
McClelland 1985) . The feeding-
and nesting-habitat requirements,
including large snags or decayed
trees for nesting and large downed
wood for feeding, closely tie
these woodpeckers to mature
forests. The density of piieated
woodpeckers is positively
correlated with the amount of dead
and/or dying wood in a stand
{McClelland 1979) .

Removal of large western larch by
past timber-harvesting activity
has reduced the quality of habitat
for piieated woodpeckers. Large
live and dead trees are less
common than would occur naturally
due to past timber-harvesting
activities. Black cottonwood
occurs within riparian areas along
perennial and intermittent
streams. Douglas-fir and grand
fir exist in the project area and
are primarily used for foraging.

Modeling the above conditions
using SLI data generated an
estimate of piieated woodpecker
habitat. In the proposed project
area, potential piieated
woodpecker nesting habitat exists
on approximately 242 acres.
Younger-aged stands might provide
feeding or lower quality nesting
habitat. During field visits,
many feeding sites and 1 to 2
snags per acre were obseirved in
the proposed project area.

Cumulative effects were analyzed
on the contiguous Stillwater State
Forest.

Page E-20

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct and Indirect Liffect qfJWo^lction
*1lternative »1 on Pileated XVoodpeckera

No direct impacts are
anticipated under No-Action
Alternative A. Shade -intolerant
trees would continue to grow and
die over time, providing nesting
and foraging habitat. As these
trees die, replacement shade -
intolerant trees would be
underrepresented in the stand
unless other disturbances
influence the stands, allowing
for their regeneration.
Therefore, a reduction in
suitable nesting trees is likely
over time. Pileated woodpeckers
typically do not nest in
Douglas -fir or grand fir;
however, they will forage on the
boles of Douglas -fir. Under
this alternative, stands once
dominated by western larch and
Douglas -fir would continue to be
converted through succession to
Douglas-fir, grand fir, and
mixed-conifer stands. Thus,
habitat sustainability and
quality for pileated woodpeckers
would gradually increase through
time, and then decline.

• Direct and Indirect Electa qf,1ction
.lllernatice li on Pileated M'oodpeckern

Pileated woodpeckers tend to be
tolerant of human activities
(Bull and Jackson 1995) , but
might be temporarily displaced
by the proposed harvesting and
road-building activities.
Elements of the forest structure
important for nesting pileated
woodpeckers would be retained,
including snags, coarse woody
debris, numerous leave trees,
and snag recruits. Of the 242
acres of pileated woodpecker
nesting habitat in the proposed
project area, only 4 acres are
proposed for treatment (in Units
11 and 12) . Within these 4
acres, the majority of the
midstory and overstory would be

removed. This could reduce
pileated nesting use in this
limited area. After the
proposed harvesting, 939
harvested acres within the
proposed project area would be
too open to be considered
pileated woodpecker habitat.
The silvicultural prescriptions
would plant western larch and
western white pine seedlings in
addition to natural
regeneration. Recruitment of
western larch would benefit
pileated woodpeckers in the
distant future by providing
nesting, roosting, and foraging
habitats .

Cumulative Effects

• Cumulative li^ffectH qfJ\'o-,1ction

•llternative *1 on Pileated ^^ 'oodpeckertt

Under this alternative, western
larch and western white pine
trees would continue to grow and
die over time in the proposed
project area, providing nesting
and foraging habitats. Through
time, conversion of stands to
shade-tolerant species would
reduce nesting substrates for
pileated woodpeckers. Stands
elsewhere on Stillwater State
Forest are frequently managed
for mature western larch, snags,
and snag-recruit trees, which
benefit pileated woodpeckers.
Habitats within these recent
harvest units, especially the
seedtrees retained in some
units, could provide nesting
substrates in the long term (70+
years) .

• Cumulative IJ^ffectn qf. Iction »1lternative
li on Pileated Woodjteckers

Under this alternative,
reductions in pileated
woodpecker habitat are expected.
Existing snags, coarse woody
debris, and suitable nesting
trees would be retained within
the proposed project area;
however, future recruitment of
these attributes may be reduced

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-21

by the proposed activities.
Within the proposed project
area, canopy on 93 9 acres
proposed for harvesting would be
too open for appreciable
pileated woodpecker use.
Recently harvested stands within
the proposed project area
reduced some of the pileated
woodpecker habitat; however the
silvicultural prescriptions
within these harvested areas
would likely improve long-term
habitat quality for pileated
woodpeckers. Additionally, the
quality of habitat on adjacent
private timberlands has largely
been reduced through recent
harvesting; some of the
beneficial attributes that have
been retained on past State
timber sales do not appear to
have been managed for on these
private lands. The loss of
pileated woodpecker habitats
from the proposed harvesting
would be additive to habitat
loss associated with past
harvesting both on DNRC lands
and adjacent private
timberlands; continued
widespread use of Stillwater
State Forest is expected. After
the proposed harvesting, the
project area would still be able
to support a couple of pairs of
pileated woodpeckers.

Mitigation Measures Included:

• Favor western larch in retention
and regeneration decisions.

• Reclose roads and skid trails
opened with the proposed
activities to reduce potential
loss of existing snags to
firewood gathering.

Big Game

Issue - Winter Range

There is concern that timber-
harvesting activities associated
with this proposed project could
reduce cover important for the
survival of wintering elk, white-

tailed deer, and mule deer.

Existing Environment

Winter ranges enable big game
survival by minimizing the effects
of severe winter weather conditions .
Winter ranges tend to be relatively
small areas that support large
numbers of big game, which are
widely distributed during the
remainder of the year. These winter
ranges have adequate midstory and
overstory to reduce wind velocity
and intercept snow, while moderating
ambient temperatures. Besides
providing a moderated climate, the
snow-intercept capacity effectively
lowers snow depths, which enables
big game movement and access to
forage. Snow depths differentially
affect big game; deer are most
affected, followed by elk (Cervus
elaphus) , then moose (Alces alces) .
The proposed project area does not
provide winter range for white -
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
or mule deer (Odocoileus hemxonus) ,
but does provide winter habitat for
elk and moose. DFWP identified the
entire proposed project area as
moose winter range and delineated
elk winter range along the lower
elevations of the project area (see
FIGURE E-1 - ANALYSIS AREA FOR
PROPOSED PROJECT AREA SHOWING
LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED HARVEST UNITS
AND IMPORTANT WATER RESOURCES) . In
the contiguous 270, 160 -acre elk
winter range, approximately 2,150
acres fall within the proposed
project area and 16,000 acres fall
within Stillwater State Forest (see
FIGURE E-2-ELK WINTER RANGE IN
RELATION TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
AREA AND STILLWATER STATE FOREST) .
Winter snow depths and suitable
microclimates influence elk
distribution and use within
Stillwater State Forest and the
proposed project area. The proposed
project area is a mosaic of stands
of differing ages. Portions of the
project area include stands that
were harvested during the last 15
years and are not currently
providing thermal cover for big

Page E-22

Dog/Meadow Tivnber Sale Project Draft EA

FIGUBE E-1-RNALYSIS AREA FOR PROPOSED PROJECT AREA SHOWIIfG LOCATIONS OF
PROPOSED HARVEST UNITS AND IMPORTANT IfATER RESOURCES

game. Other stands are providing
the attributes facilitating winter
use by elk and moose. Evidence of
summer use by moose, white-tailed
deer, and elk was noted throughout
the proposed project area during
field visits.

Cumulative effects were analyzed on
the contiguous 16,000-acre portion
of the elk winter range occurring
within Stillwater State Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct and IndireclIiKfecU qf.Vt^'Icfion
•lllematice^lon Ilig Game Winter Itange

Under this alternative, big game
thermal cover in the proposed
project area would not be altered
in the near term. Existing stands

would continue to provide thermal
cover for elk and moose. In the
longer-term, continued succession
would reduce forage production
while increasing thermal cover.

Direct and Indirect Efffiects qfJlction
,1ltematice B on Biff Game W^ter Range

Some displacement is expected as a
result of the proposed harvesting
operations. This action
alternative would reduce thermal
cover for elk and increase
potential forage production.
Canopy cover would be largely
removed from the 24 6 acres that
fall within the elk winter range.
(11 percent of the winter range
occurring in the proposed project
area; 2 percent of the total

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-23

I

01

I

I

I

s

I

S

w

T

4

t t

^^

Page £-24

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

16,000-acre winter range). Timber
harvests would not prevent big
game movement through the area .

Cumulative Effects

• Cuutiilative li^ffect* qfJVo^lction Alternative
»1on Big Game Winter Range

Under this alternative, no changes
are anticipated in thermal cover
and snow intercept. Stands across
Stillwater State Forest are still
providing thermal cover and snow
intercept for elk and moose. The
general trend within Stillwater
State Forest is conversion to
mature forests, reducing forage
production while increasing
thermal cover for elk and moose.

• Cumulative ^ffectit qf Action , llternative B on
Big Game Winter Range

Under this alternative, thermal
cover would be largely removed
from 246 acres. Harvesting has
occurred elsewhere in the winter
range on Stillwater State Forest.
Big game winter range has been
reduced by 505 acres with the
Good/ Long/ Boyle Timber Sale
Project, 213 acres with the Taylor
South Timber Sale Project, and 684
acres with the Chicken/Werner
Timber Sale Project. The proposed
reduction in thermal cover would
be additive to these other
reductions in thermal cover and
snow intercept .

Mitigation Measures Included:

• Retain patches of dense vegetation
in harvest units within elk winter
range when possible to provide
some thermal cover/snow intercept
capacity.

• Reclose roads and skid trails
opened with the proposed
activities to reduce the potential
for disturbance from unauthorized
motor vehicle traffic.

Issue - Elk Security

There is concern that timber-
harvesting activities associated
with this proposed project could

have adversely affected elk and
other big game security.

Existing Environment

Timber harvesting can increase elk
vulnerability by changing the size,
structure, juxtaposition, and
accessibility of areas that provide
security during hunting season
iHillis et al. 1991). As visibility
and accessibility increase within
forested landscapes, elk and deer
have a greater probability of being
observed and, subsequently,
harvested by hunters. Because the
female segments of the elk and deer
populations are normally regulated
carefully during hunting seasons,
primary concerns are related to a
substantial reduction of the male
segment and subsequent decrease in
hunter opportunity. The presence of
fewer males at the beginning of the
hunting season reduces the odds of
any given hunter to see or harvest
such an animal throughout the
remainder of the season.

It is expected that when elk
security is substantially
compromised effects to deer can also
be expected (albeit to a lesser
degree than for elk) . As with elk,
the greatest effects on deer
security to occur would be expected
to be within the male segment of the
populations .

Cumulative effects to elk security
were analyzed on the contiguous
Stillwater State Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects

• Direct and Indirect lilffect* nfJVo-. Iction
Alternative A on Elk Security

Under this alternative, no changes
in elk security cover are
expected. Existing cover would
continue to provide intact blocks
of security habitat. Timber
stands would continue advancing to
climax plant species. No
alterations in cover would occur
that would increase elk
vulnerability during the elk
hunting season. No changes are

Appendix E-Wildlife Analysis

Page E-25

anticipated in disturbance and
potential mortality due to
hunting.

• Direct and Indirect l^ects of miction
. Ilternative B on Elk Securlti/

Under this action alternative,
security cover would be reduced in
the near-term. As regeneration
advances, hiding and security
cover would be greater than
current conditions. Reclosing the
roads used for harvesting would
return hunter accessibility to
previous levels. The retention of
pockets of cover and structure
within the proposed units would
further contribute to elk and deer
security.

Cumulative Effects

• Cumnlntice Effect* ofJVo-^lctlon .llternatlce
,1on Elk Security

Under this alternative, no changes
are anticipated in elk security
cover. Over time, habitats within
the proposed project area would
become denser, offering greater
security, which would benefit elk
and deer that spend portions of
hunting season in the vicinity of
the proposed project area. Future
harvesting in Stillwater State
Forest would not be expected to
improve elk security. Recently
harvested stands within the
proposed project area would likely
provide additional security
habitat in 10 to 20 years.

• Cumulative Effects of Action Alternative B on
Elk Security

Under this alternative, negligible
impacts to big game survival are
anticipated. A reduction in
hiding and security cover caused
by the proposed harvest will be
additive to the harvesting that
has occurred recently within
Stillwater State Forest and could
occur in the future on Stillwater
State Forest and adjacent
ownerships. Hiding cover is being
reduced by approximately 2,201
acres with the Good/Long/Boyle,

(1,025 acres), Taylor South (491
acres) , and Chicken/Werner (684
acres) timber sale projects.
Hunter access to Stillwater State
Forest is relatively unlimited
with many open roads and
considerable foot access along
trails and closed roads. Closing
the roads that were opened during
harvesting activities and
returning human disturbance to
preharvest levels would compensate
for some of the reduced elk
security caused by the harvesting.
Recently harvested stands and the
proposed stands on the State
parcel would likely provide blocks
of security habitat in 10 to 20
years .

Mitigations for Consideration

• Retain patches of dense vegetation
when possible to provide security
cover.

• Reclose roads and skid trails
opened with the proposed
activities to reduce the potential
for disturbance from unauthorized
motor vehicle traffic.

• Reduce views into harvest units by
using a combination of topography,
group retention, and roadside-
vegetation buffers.

• Retain corridors connecting
forested habitats to aide
movement .

Page E-26

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

0

APPENDIX F

ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS

i

i

i

o

Q

^^.

APPENDIX F
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

o

h3

INTRODUCTION

This analysis is designed to address
the public concerns particular to
economics, as listed in TABLE I-l—
SUMMARY AND TRACKING OF ISSUES AND
CONCERNS FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS of the
EA, and analysis elements considered
necessary by the ID Team.

This analysis focuses on the
proposed actions and economic
effects of the 2 alternatives. The
analysis is not programmatic by
nature and does not provide a
detailed analysis of potential long-
term economic effects of managing
the area exclusively for revenue -
generating projects other than
timber management. A specific
proposal that included only revenue -
generating activities other than
timber management was not submitted
to or created by the ID Team working
on this project.

The proposed timber sale project is
on State timberlands in Stillwater
State Forest. This appendix
analyzes the economic impacts of the
timber sale and focuses on market
activities that directly or
indirectly benefit the Montana
education system, generate revenue
for the school trust fund, and
provide funding for public
buildings. The Enabling Act of
1889, as well as the State of
Montana Constitution, requires that
income be generated from State
forestlands for the school and
public buildings trusts. The
analysis will center on Flathead
County, where most of the impacts

related to the timber sale project
are likely to occur because of the
well developed wood-processing
industry, including processors at
all levels of production.

ANALYSIS AREA

FLATHEAD COUNTY

The proposed Dog Meadow Timber Sale
Project is located entirely in
Flathead County in northwestern
Montana. Flathead County is the
fourth most populous county in
Montana; only Yellowstone, Missoula,
and Cascade counties are larger.
The population of Flathead County in
1990 was 59,218. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau, the population
of Flathead County in April 2000 was
74,471, an increase of 15,253
residents over the last 10 years,
implying an annual growth rate of
2.3 percent. The largest community
in the County is Kalispell, with a
population of over 17,000 within the
community, and nearly twice that
many in the surrounding area. The
second and third largest communities
are Whitefish and Columbia Falls
with populations of 6,300 and 4,300,
respectively. Median age in the
County is 37.2 years, making
Flathead County's population
slightly younger than the Montana
average of 37.8.

The Montana Office of Public
Instruction indicates that over
13,000 kindergarten through grade 12
school children were enrolled in
Flathead County public schools in
the 2000/2001 school year. Since

1991, enrollment in high school has
increased more than 23 percent, to
the 2001 level of 4,369 students.
Most of this growth has occurred in
the Kalispell High School, where
enrollment has increased by more
than 500 students over the last 10
years. Elementary school enrollment
is at about the same level as in
1991, 9,000 students. In the period
between 1991 and 2001, elementary
enrollment grew and peaked during
the middle 90s, but since then has
declined and is currently at 9,000
students. This trend is much the
same as school trends for the rest
of the country. High school
enrollment is likely to drop in the
next few years, as the end of the
children of the "baby boomers"
finish their secondary education.
Some of the other County high
schools are already experiencing a
decline in enrollment.

Flathead County is widely known for
its production of "Flathead
cherries" and Christmas tree farms;
according to the University of
Montana Bureau of Business and
Economics, these other agricultural
activities account for about 8

percent of the County gross product.
The wood-products industry is the
largest producer in the County,
accounting for about 21 percent of
the County's gross product. Other
areas of economic importance include
transportation (16 percent) , Federal
government (10.1 percent), tourism
(10.8 percent), and metal production
(11.2 percent). The County gross
product figures are substantiated by
the personal income, employment, and
wage and salary data.

The data in TABLE F-1 - FLATHEAD
COUNTY COVERED WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT
1999 - SELECTED INDUSTRIES shows
employment and income in different
industry categories for Flathead
County. Total employment shows that
nearly 30,100 workers earned $697
million in wages, with an average
annual wage of $23,152. The average
annual wage is nearly identical to
the Statewide average wage of
$23,253.

Industry wages related to forest
products and harvesting are paid at
rates substantially above the
average; only workers in the metal
industry have higher annual wages

TABLE F-1 - FLATHEAD COUNTY COVERED WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT 1999 - SELECTED
INDUSTRIES

INDUSTRY

AVERAGE

ANNUAL

EMPLOYMENT

ANNUAL

WAGES

PAID ($000s)

AVERAGE

WAGE

($)

Agriculture, forestry, and fish

346

6,750

19,507

Forestry

44

2,176

49,490

Construction

1,855

51,308

27,659

Manufacturing

4,029

133,429

33,117

Lumber

1,911

66,071

34,574

Metals

703

27,522

39,150

Transportation

1,253

35,921

28,668

Trade

8,166

129,864

15,903

Eating and drinking establishments

2,814

26,136

9,288

Finance, insurance, and real estate

1,473

42,639

28,946

Services

8,705

179,250

20,591

Hotels and lodging

1,237

14,840

12,805

Amusement and recreation

741

7,921

10,690

Government

4,151

113,387

27,315

Total all industries*

30, 086

696,559

23,152

*Totals may not add due to nondisclosure of confidential industry data or to

rounding.

Source: Montana Department of Labor and Industry, Research and Analysis Bureau

Page F-2

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

per capita. The average annual wage
in forestry is $49,490 or nearly
2 . 14 times as much as the average
wage earner in Flathead County.
Lumber workers earn on average
$34,574 per year or nearly 50
percent more than the average wage
earner. In employment terms,
forestry and lumber workers account
for 1,955 jobs, or about 6 percent,
of the area employment. Other
industries supported by tourism
actually supply substantially more
jobs: eating and drinking
establishments, hotels and lodging,
and amusement and recreation
services employ 4,792 workers,
nearly 16 percent of the County's
wage and salary employees, or over
twice as many as the forestry and
lumber industries. However, wages
are lower in the tourism- supported
industries . The lower wage means
that over twice as many workers
produce less in terms of annual wage
income in the County. Forestry and
lumber, combined, produce
$68,247,000 in annual wage income
(9.8 percent of all regional wage
and salary income) whereas the
tourist-related industries (lodging,
restaurants, and recreation) yield
$50,000,000 (7.2 percent of all
regional wage and salary income) in
annual wage and salary income.
Income in tourist-related industries
and proportional decreases in forest
industries would lead to a lower
average wage in Flathead County and
a lowered ability for individual
residents to purchase goods and
services.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS

DIRECT EFFECTS

This EA provides for 2 alternatives:

• No-Action Alternative A - No
employment, income, or school
trust fund effects that result
from Action Alternative B would
occur .

• Action Alternative B - The
estimates provided in the
following analysis are for the

purpose of comparing the "action"
alternative to the "no-action"
alternative and are not intended
as an absolute estimate of the
employment, income, or wages
associated with the sale.

The estimated stumpage volume rate
and income, together with an
estimate of revenue to the trust, is
shown in TABLE F-2 - ESTIMATED
REVEtfUES FROM THE DOG MEADOW TIMBER
SALE. The stumpage value was
estimated using the most current
transaction evidence equation. The
transaction evidence appraisal
method uses a multivariate
regression equation to estimate the
bid price based on past sale
characteristics and the market data.

TABLE F-2 - ESTIMATED REVEIfUES FROM
THE DOG/MEADOW TIMBER SALE

ACTION
ALTERNATIVE B

Harvest volume

60,221 tons

Stumpage price

$27.82/ton

Stumpage revenue

$1,675,000

Trust revenue

$1,212,600

Source: Montana DNRC, Trust Land
Managemen t

TABLE F-3 - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
STUDENTS SUPPORTED BY 1 YEAR'S
ESTIMATED SALE REVENUE shows that
the trust revenue would provide
enough money to pay for the
education of 201 students in the
kindergarten through grade 12 levels
for 1 year; this estimate is based
on an annual student cost of $6,038,
as determined from information
provided by the Montana Office of
Public Instruction.

TABLE F-3 - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
STUDENTS SUPPORTED BY 1 YEAR'S
ESTIMATED SALE REVENUE

ACTION
ALTERNATIVE B

Estimated school
revenue

$1,212,600

Students supported

201

Source: Montana DNRC, Trust Land
Managemen t

Appendix F - Economic Analysis

Page F-3

TABLE F-4 - ESTIMATED DOG MEADOW
TIMBER SALE DIRECT EMPLOYMENT AND
INCOME IMPACTS shows the number of
jobs and the wages that would be
generated by the timber harvest.
These estimates are based on an
average wage of $32,090 and an
estimated job generation rate of
10.58 jobs per MMBF of wood
harvested. The estimated employment
associated with the timber would be
94 jobs. The 94 jobs would generate
more than 3 million dollars in
income. The estimated amount of
income tax that would be paid by
millworkers is $131,700.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

TABLE F-4 - ESTIMATED DOG/MEADOW
TIMBER SALE DIRECT EMPLOYMENT AND
INCOME IMPACTS

ACTION
ALTERNATIVE B

Direct employment

94 jobs

Wages and salaries

$3,016,500

Source: Montana DNRC, Trust Land
Managemen t

This sale would be part of the
annual harvest of timber from trust
lands. The net revenue from this
sale would add to the trust fund.
Annual contributions to the trust
fund have varied widely over the
years, because the actual
contribution to the trust is more a
function of harvest than of sales.
Harvest levels can vary
substantially over time; sales tend

to be more consistent. TABLE F-5 -
ANNUAL REVENUE FROM TIMBER HARVESTED
FROM MONTANA TRUST LANDS shows the
annual revenue from harvest for the
last 5 years. The net contribution
to the trust fund is also affected
by the annual costs experienced by
DNRC for program management, which
varies year to year. DNRC should
continue to make net annual
contributions to the trust from its
forest management program.

TABLE F-5 - ANNUAL REVENUE FROM
TIMBER HARVESTED FROM MONTANA TRUST
LANDS

YEAR

HARVEST
REVENUE ($)

2001

8,524,150

2000

12,710,311

1999

6,998,847

1998

8,393,485

1997

7,327,641

DNRC has a Statewide sustained-yield
annual harvest goal of 42.164 MMBF.
If timber from this project is not
sold, this volume could come from
sales elsewhere; however, the timber
may be from other areas and not
benefit this region of the State.
Long-term deferral of harvesting
from this forest would impact
harvest patterns, changing both the
region where the trees are harvested
and the volumes taken. This would
impact other areas of the State
where these changes occur.

Page F-4

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

'I

APPENDIX G

SOILS
ANALYSIS

<^V

O

a

APPENDIX G
SOILS ANALYSIS

o

h3

INTRODUCTION

This analysis is designed to address
the public concerns particular to
soils, as listed in TABLE I-l-
SUMMARY AND TRACKING OF ISSUES AND
CONCERNS FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS of the
EA, and analysis elements considered
necessary by the ID Team.

The Dog Creek watershed is a valley
formed by glaciers and river
processes. The dominant soil types
found in the project area are deep
glacial tills derived from
argillite, siltite, and limestone
from the Belt Supergroup. Upper
slopes and ridges are weathered
bedrock scoured by glaciers.

ANALYSIS METHODS

Soil productivity will be analyzed
by evaluating the current levels of
soil disturbance in the proposed
project area. Analysis criteria
will also include soil-stability
risk factors.

ANALYSIS AREA

The analysis area for evaluating
soil productivity will include DNRC-
managed State land within the Dog/
Meadow Timber Sale Project area.
The Dog Creek watershed encompasses
the entire project area.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

DNRC has conducted timber harvesting
in the Dog Creek watershed since the
1920s. Since timber sales dating
back to the 1960s, 2,062 acres have
been harvested on State land using a
combination of ground-based and

cable-yarding harvest methods.
Ground-based yarding can affect soil
productivity through displacement
and compaction of productive surface
layers of soil, mainly on heavily
used trails. Based on field review
of the area, an estimated 10 to 15
percent of the area may be impacted
by existing trails. Trails are
still apparent, but most are well
vegetated and past impacts are
beginning to ameliorate from frost
and vegetation.

Soil types in the project area vary
from nearly level wetland types
along Dog Creek to steep valley
sideslopes on ridges. The FNF Soil
Survey identified no areas of soils
at high risk for mass movements in
the project area. Several areas of
wetland soil types are not suitable
for timber management and would
require special measures for road
construction. This is in Soil Map
Unit 12 and occurs in low areas
throughout the watershed. No slope
failures were identified during
reconnaissance in the proposed
project area. The Dog Creek
watershed soil types and their
associated management implications
are found in TABLE G-3 - SOIL MAP
UNIT DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE DOG/MEADOW
PROJECT AREA.

ALTERNATIVE EFFECTS

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

• Direct and Indirect lilffects ofJWo-,lction
. lltemative ,1 on Soils

No-Action Alternative A would have
no direct or indirect effects on
soil productivity. No ground-
based activity would take place
under this alternative, which
would leave the soil in the
project area unchanged from the
description in the EXISTING
CONDITIONS portion of this
analysis .

• Direct and Indirect Effects of miction
Alternative B on Soils

Action Alternative B would have
direct impacts on approximately
100 acres of ground if harvesting
takes place in the summer, and on
approximately 42 acres if
harvesting is done in the winter.

Direct impacts would include
compaction and displacement
resulting from the use of ground-
based equipment to skid logs on
approximately 898 acres, and cable
yarding on approximately 41 acres.
Ground-based site preparation and
road construction would also
generate direct impacts to the
soil resource. TABLE G-1 -
SUMMARY OF DIRECT EFFECTS OF
ALTERNATIVES ON SOILS WITH SUMMER
HARVESTING and TABLE G-2 - SUMMARY
OF DIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES
ON SOILS WITH WINTER HARVESTING
summarize the expected impacts to
the soil resource as a result of
the action alternatives. These
activities would leave
approximately 15 percent of the
proposed harvest units in an
impacted condition if harvested in
the summer, and up to 4 percent if
done in the winter. DNRC expects

TABLE G-1 - SUMMARY OF DIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES ON SOILS WITH SUMMER
HARVESTING

DESCRIPTION
OF PARAMETER

ALTERNATIVE
A

ALTERNATIVE

B

Acres of harvesting

0

939

Acres of tractor yarding

0

898

Acres of skid trails and landings^

0

180

Acres of cable yarding

0

41

Acres of yarding corridors'*

0

4

Acres of moderate impacts-*

0

137

Percent of harvest area with impacts

0

15.2

"■20 percent of the ground-based area

^5 to 10 percent of cable-yarding units

^75 percent of ground-based skid trails and 50 percent of cable corridors

TABLE G-2 - SUMMARY OF DIRECT EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES ON SOILS WITH WINTER
HARVESTING

DESCRIPTION
OF PARAMETER

ALTERNATIVE A

ALTERNATIVE B

Acres of harvesting

0

939

Acres of tractor yarding

0

532

Acres of skid trails and landings^

0

106

Acres of cable yarding

0

40.7

Acres of yarding corridors'*

0

41

Acres of moderate impacts'*

0

42

Percent of harvest area with impacts

0

4

"^20 percent of the ground-based area

^5 to 10 percent of cable yarding units

^20 percent of ground-based skid trails and 50 percent of cable corridors

Pagre G-2

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

O
O

o

o

I
t
%

a

O
01

I

*

c

•a

01

4)

•H

•H

u •

0)

TO TJ »H ■

TO

rH C •

•

O

■o u

•

TO T3

2 e

U (U

<U C O C

V V

Si 0 JJ

JJ

>

0) «)

<U

m

Oj C

01 "o a

0< 10 JJ V4

TO T) cu

« in C

• c

18

4J "O

0)

r^

T3 10

10 3

V< C 0

0 10 3

n c o

O V M V

r-t (0

-H -H

3

•H

> X3

rO 10 iH

rH a > ja

(0 10 rH

O O

•H JJ

•«

e en

(0

<-\ a

rO

0 01

n 0 10

0 0)

u a u

O U

(0

•H C

*>

Vj

10 Q
0) -H J

O iJ

u n

rH tJ 4J

0 >J

• out)

TO O

o

M o

01

4J

X 01

(u x:

C X «

HI x:

>! > JJ ft

9'

0)

&

^ u

c

U U

0) (0

- 4J 4J

O - «> 10

- JJ JJ

JJ o

41 E

& ..

•H

T3

-H tt)

o

a 10 3

JJ o

a 10 3

x: JJ in

> -H

iJ

4J

-H

3 a •

& to M

- T3

(U » 0

C - "O

(U 3 o

01 TO <M in

•H

V i>

m

>;

J3 (0

0) 0}

■ U ^ 10

(1) w

3 4) O

JJ x:

iH

> w

0)

0)

(U (U

TO O

■O 0)

>< U 01 0

"O 4)

0 a TO o

O JJ

•H •

3

e:

U ' >

<0 U

u

U V4 10 M

u

V( O JJ

3 ft

0 0)

10

■a

^ 01 <0

<-\ a

>, 3 •

£ dJ rH J3

>. 3 •

•O rH H

"O 4J

OQ C

<u

10

0)

S C tJ

01

rH -0 0)

01 a TO

rH T3 TO

TO 0 ft

o -o

_ 0

m o

£

4J

g -H Ol

U

0) OJ iJ

3 >H

(U (U JJ

& C JJ

u

X) -H

(0

(0

E ^

u o

■u ^J C

0 in ^ 0

JJ ^^ c

ft rH

C 4J

J5 C

u

c

■H ^^

(U

10 (U

V4 m a)

10 <u

4) 0 C TO

-H

10 10

O

(U

01

01 a o

4J

V4 TO -H

■0 JJ -

U <a -ri

> 4) 4)

- 0

rH U

fH m

iJ

•H

■D C ^

jj (U

0) rH k

U xi i)

4) rH >H

"0 O ft

ft TO

Xi i)

■H (0

c

CO

(0 u -a

(0 <-i

"0 -H OJ

CI (U 10 rH

73 -rH JJ

4) Vh U 0

(u a

i> a

o <u

•iH

(U

0 3 C

V ■r^

0 O 3

(H > 0 -H

0 O 3

H (0 4) rH

4) o

S 0

CO (0

»

•o

(U -U (0

Hi a

£ TO C

10 0 TO a

2 TO C

(0 >. ft TO

Q Eh

EROSION

(BARE
SURFACE)

0)

4J

iJ

JJ

x:

(0

2

Ol

X!

(LI

4)

•H

01

T3

»

M

•H

Q

0

5

WJ

CO

w

^

S

^

2 i

C

c

S S

0

0

si

H 9
en

H

U JJ

i) 4j

4J -H

JJ -H

10 -U

(0 JJ

l4 0)

Vh 4)

V^

u

(u a

4) a

T '

0

0

■0 e

T3 e

f 1

0

o

0 0

O 0

? 1

a

a

X u

£ CJ

a

a

b o

s:

j:

fc H

O)

01

TOPSOIL

SPLACEMB

COMPACT

•rl

x:

•H

JZ

<M

4)

0)

ij

(0

4)
JJ
10

■H

4)
JJ 4)

(0 )H

u

u

»H

U

Vh 4)

m

(U

lU

<U

41 > ^

H p

>

>

■a

T3

T3 4) JJ

Q Z

4)
M

0

0

0 TO 41

0)

SS

o

" H

s

H

u

0

O Ol

Xi

0)

a c

Ol

V4

-H

c

>

JJ (0

y

3

>

0)

0) (U

iJ

Q

0

5

CO

3 i3

in

'^

J

^

H

►a jS

Q

M

U

<u

c

t-i -H

•a

4)

c

rH -H

•o

41

C

rH -rH

o
o

8

rH rO

<u u

rH lO
4) VJ

rH (0

4) Vh

04

o.

S -O

s -o

s -o

§
H

a
e

Q

CO

o

c

c

0)

0)

o

O

0

c

«

o

V CN

T3 •*

^

•H

•H

01

^

0) c

4> C

TO

u m

^

(U

o

JJ -H .

JJ

JJ -H •

JJ

rH 41 O

JJ

H m

iJ

o

a

(0 10 TO

c

(0 (0 TO

C

(0 C CM

c

d t)

>i 0)

(0

•H JJ 01 O (U 1

■H JJ 41 O 4) 1

•rl -H

4)

10 ^<

4J 3

u

in

u c a

«■ o

o c a vo 0 1

O <0 O

U

01 a

rH O

u

10 3 0

u

(0 3 0

Vj

10 k JJ

U

U V

•H 10

o

O

l-t 0 r^

0 0

rH 0 rH

0 4)

rH O

0)

O "O

W rH

XJ

4J

U E TO

D a

OEM

LI ft

O E O

ft

W) . H

M

00

a\

1

1

1

1

u

o 5 S

CN

V

n

m

u>

w « B '^

tH

(N

rj

<N r~

Page G-4

Dog/Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

to maintain long-term soil
productivity, based upon the
implementation of mitigation
measures, to control the area and
degree of detrimental soil impacts
to less than 15 percent of the
proposed harvest area. A
combination of skidding mitigation
measures would include:

- restricting the season of use,

- utilizing a minimum skid trail
spacing,

- installing erosion control where
needed,

- retaining woody debris, and

- following all applicable BMPs .

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

• Cumulatice Liff'ect^t qfJ\o-*icHon . Ilternative
»/ on Soil-It

No-Action Alternative A would have
no cumulative impacts on soil
productivity; no soil would be
disturbed and no reentry of past
harvest units would occur.

• Cumulatice EltJectn of,1ction ^llterimtice B on
Soi'/jt

Action Alternative B would enter
some stands of previous timber
sale operations. Cumulative
effects to soils may occur from
repeated entries into a forest
stand, where additional ground is

impacted by equipment operations.
DNRC would maintain long-term soil
productivity and minimize
cumulative effects by implementing
any or all of the following
mitigation measures:

• Existing skid trails from past
harvesting activities would be
used if they are properly
located and spaced.

• Additional skid trails would be
used only where existing trails
are unacceptable.

• The potential direct and
indirect effects would be
mitigated with soil- moisture
restrictions, season of
operation, and method of
harvesting.

• A portion of coarse woody debris
and fine litter for nutrient
cycling would be retained.

In previously unharvested stands,
cumulative effects to soil
productivity from multiple entries
would be the same as those listed
in the direct and indirect effects
sections .

Appendix G-Soils Analysis

Page G-3

0

,

w

JJ

a

0

0) 01 -O C

•

u n

JJ

rH O4 41 41

4J

« 43

■H 0 TJ 0

• c

.. . 73 iJ

•a

0 Vh C ^^

.H (0

.-H 4) 73

>.

4)

01 U 4) 41

•rH t)

•H 01 -H to

>H

JJ

JJ E 01

0 k

o 3 J>: tn

41

•rl

>. 3 1

" R

CO en 01

>

3

J>! 0 0 in

U-l M

01

u 0 f

CO

<U E

4) o J.;

01

0 a; 4)

> -H

> (J 4J

■H

JJ

^ U )H ^

tJJ

•H

•H a 10 ^^

0

0 41

^

iJ £

ij 0 M n)

J3

B

- IH 01 >

ss

0 U

O CO AJ

4J

01 BO

3 a

3 10 " 4J •

a

01

4) B -n

"S^

T3 4) 4J (0 JJ

41 •

•H JJ

a 0 01 0)

O 01 "M £ C

73 4J

c

0 E 01 41

rH E 0 a

h

M O XJ 4)

c

41 4)

ttrH

a 4) 01 U

^^ (0

&§

01 0 rH 0

•H

oi in u

•H iJ

U rH

- 0

- (0 4-> 41 4J

o u

JJ 01

0. 41 01

a n

a v< -H a a

01 O

73 (0

41 £ rH

0) a

4) 4) E O

a a

C C

41 JJ £ IH

4) 0

4) > -H r-l U1

0 E

nj 10

JJ -H 10 0

Q H

Q (0 J 01 •*

f- -H

a e

W S CJ UH

*-»

8

-^

(U

41

4)

ij

4J

JJ

n)

10

(0

H ^

^

U

M

(U

4) x:

41

-0

73 01

^

s

73

0

0 -H

0

0

0

£

S £

^

•J

s

>,

H

JJ

A

a

O B

0

01

Z P

4J

3

a|

41 >.

0

u

3 4

iJ JJ

73

H ^

(0 £

T3

T3

(H 01

41 3

u

(H

" H

0

O

73 0

0

•H

u

0

0

O Sh

0

(0

H

C3

o

S X)

a<

b.

a

TOPSOIL
DISPLACEMENT
AND COMPACTIO

JJ

E
41

^

^

E

lU

4)

4)

41

4J

U

JJ

CI

(0

10

A

(0

0) £

4) j:

U
«

4)

rH

x: a

"H.?

I.?

•8

c

0

01 01

■H -H

S £

£ J=

s

2

X 73

m

X

o

^

^

0)
JJ
(0

41

4J

(0

41

k

k

^

>^ a

* H

0) j:

41 £

4)

J^ 41

■0 01

73 01

d

>

0 4)

0 -H

O -H

Q

4)

0 JJ

>3

S £

S XI

•^

CO

b: 01

H
C5

H SS

•a

"O

73

73

73

0)

41

41

41

4)

c

c

C

C

B

O H

i-l -H

i-H -H

<-i -rl

rH -H

•-\ -H

Q

iH ro

rH (0

rH (0

rH (0

rH (0

«) k

41 IH

4) U

4) Vl

41 U

S -0

3 "O

S 73

S 73

■3. -O

s

H
H

o

0

,

JJ JJ
E

in o

01 o

01

0 4)

r^ tu -r u

rH 4) VO 4J

rH 41 JJ

a

rH VO 0

la c c

10 C C

m c c

0

<0 J2 M

descr:

•H -H 0 4)

■H -H O 41

•H -H O 41

u

•H 01 - 4)

O (0 iJ O

U (0 4J CJ

U 10 cs o

a u

u 3 rH a

a u u

(0 >H U

(0 U ij

O JJ

(0 0 rH

rt 0 O 4)

rH 0 O 41

rH 0 O 4)

O 3

rH M (0 0

C3 E fS a

O E «a< a

O E JJ &

(U o

0 JJ 3 ON

6

1

u

1

S§g

VC

vo

00

in

00

M * B

CN 00

cs m

cs

in

r~

[Appendix G-Soils Analysis

Page G-5

c

</i

o

o
a

'^^J'

GLOSSARY

o

1^

)

Administrative road use

Road use that is restricted to DNRC
personnel and contractors or for
purposes such as monitoring, forest
improvement, fire control, hazard
reduction, etc.

Airshed

An area defined by a certain set of
air conditions; typically, a
mountain valley in which air
movement is constrained by natural
conditions such as topography.

Appropriate conditions

Describes the set of forest
conditions determined by DNRC to
best meet the SFLMP objectives. The
4 main components useful for
describing an appropriate mix of
conditions are covertype
proportions, age class
distributions, stand structural
characteristics, and the spatial
relationships of stands (size,
shape, location, etc.), all assessed
across the landscape.

Bald eagle primary-use area

An area where it is assumed that 75
percent of the foraging, resting,
and associated behaviors occur.

Basal area

A measure of the number of square
feet of space occupied by the stem
of a tree.

Best fvianagement practices (^^V^)

Guidelines to direct forest
activities, such as logging and road
construction, for the protection of
soils and water quality.

Biodiversity

The variety of life and its
processes, including the variety of
living organisms, the genetic
differences among them, and the
communities and ecosystems in which
they occur.

Board foot

144 cubic inches of wood that is
equivalent to a piece of lumber 1
inch thick by 1 foot wide by 1 foot
long.

Canopy

The upper level of a forest
consisting of branches and leaves of
the taller trees.

Canopy closure

The percentage of a given area
covered by the crowns, or canopies,
of trees.

Cavity

A hollow excavated in trees by birds
or other animals. Cavities are used
for roosting and reproduction by
many birds and mammals.

Coarse down woody material

Dead trees within a forest stand
that have fallen and begun
decomposing on the forest floor.

Co-dominant tree

A tree that extends its crown into
the canopy, receiving direct
sunlight from above and limited
sunlight on its sides. One or more
sides are crowded by the crowns of
other trees .

Compaction

Increased soil density caused by force
exerted at the soil surface, modifying
aeration and nutrient availability.

Connectivity

The quality, extent, or state of being
joined; unity; the opposite of
fragmentation .

Core area

See Security habitat (grizzly bears) .

Cover

See Hiding cover and/or Thermal cover.

Covertype

A classification of timber stands
based on the percentage of tree
species composition.

Croujn cover or croujn closure

The percentage of a given area covered
by the crowns of trees

Crown scorch

The portion of the tree crown that has
been scorched.

Cull

A tree of such poor quality that it
has no merchantable value in terms of
the product being cut.

Cutting units

Areas of timber proposed for
harvesting.

Cumulative effect

The impact on the environment that
results from the incremental impact of
the action when added to other
actions. Cumulative impacts can also
result from individually minor
actions, but collectively they may
compound the effect of the actions.

Direct effect

Effects on the environment that occur
at the same time and place as the
initial cause or action.

Ditch relief

A method of draining water from roads
using ditches and corrugated metal
pipe. The pipe is placed just under
the surface of the road.

Dominant tree

Those trees within a forest stand
that extend their crowns above
surrounding trees and capture
sunlight from above and around the
crown.

Drain dip

A graded depression built into a
road to divert water and prevent
soil erosion.

Ecosystem

An interacting system of living
organisms and the land and water
that make up their environment; the
home place of all living things,
including humans.

Environmental effects

The impacts or effects of a project
on the natural and human
environment .

Equivalent ciearcut acres (ECA)

This method equates area harvested
and percent of crown removed with an
equivalent amount of ciearcut area.

Allowable ECA - The estimated
number of acres that can be
ciearcut before stream channel
stability is affected.

Existing ECA - The number of acres
that have been previously
harvested, taking into account the
degree of hydrologic recovery that
has occurred due to revegetation.

Remaining ECA - The calculated
amount of harvesting that may
occur without substantially
increasing the risk of causing
detrimental effects to the
stability of the stream channel.

Evaportranspiration

A combination of 2 physical
processes in the environment:
evaporation is the loss of moisture
into the atmosphere from the soil
and bodies of water (lakes, river,
etc.); transpiration is the process
where moisture is lost through the
surfaces of plants and trees into
the atmosphere. Both are the result
of heating by the sun, and the
combination of the 2 is how moisture

Page 2

Dog Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

is cycled back into the atmosphere.

Excavator piling

The piling of logging residue using
an excavator.

?1re regimes

Describes the frequency, type, and
severity of wildfires. Examples
include: frequent nonlethal
underburns; mixed- severity fires;
and stand-replacement or lethal
burns .

forage

All browse and nonwoody plants
available to wildlife for grazing.

Forest Improvement

The establishment and growing of
trees after a site has been
harvested. Associated activities
include :

- site preparation, planting,
survival checks, regeneration
surveys, and stand thinnings;

- road maintenance;

- resource monitoring;

- noxious -weed management; and

- right-of-way acquisition on a
State forest.

Fragmentation (forest)

A reduction of connectivity and an
increase in sharp stand edges
resulting when large contiguous
areas of forest with similar age and
structural character are interrupted
through disturbance (stand-
replacement fire, timber harvesting,
etc.)

Habitat

The place where a plant or animal
naturally or normally lives and
grows .

Habitat type

The place or type of site where a
plant or animal naturally or
normally lives and grows.

Hazard reduction

The reduction of fire hazard by
processing logging residue with
methods such as separation, removal,
scattering, lopping, crushing.

piling and burning, broadcast
burning, burying, and chipping.

Hiding cover

Vegetation capable of hiding some
specified portion of a standing
adult mammal from human view at a
distance of 200 feet.

Historical forest condition

The condition of the forest prior to
settlement by Europeans.

Homogeneous

Of uniform structure or composition
throughout .

Indirect Effects

Secondary effects that occur in
locations other than the initial
action or significantly later in
time.

Intermediate trees

A characteristic of certain tree
species that allows them to survive
in relatively low light conditions,
although they may not thrive.

Interdisciplinary team (ID Team)

A team of resource
specialists brought together
to analyze the effects of a
project on the environment.

Landscape

An area of land with
interacting ecosystems.

Meter

A measurement equaling 39.37
inches .

Mitigation measure

An action or policy designed
to reduce or prevent
detrimental effects.

Moving-windou) analysis

A computer-based method that, in
this EA, is used to quantify the
area influenced by roads in a study
area. Starting with the pixel in
the upper left corner of the
computerized subunit map, the
computer calculates how many miles
of road exist within a 1-square-mile
"window" around that pixel. It

Glossary

Page 3

moves to the next pixel and repeats
the process until the road density is
calculated in a 1-square-mile area
around every pixel in the study area.
The number and percentage of pixels
in the study area that fall into
different road-density classes are
then calculated by the computer.
Based on research studying the
effects of roads on grizzly bears,
the effects of open roads are
measured by the percentage of pixels
in the study area that have at least
1.0 mile of open road in the
surrounding 1-square-mile window.
The effects of total roads (open,
gated, barricaded, bermed, but not
brushed, etc.) are measured by the
percentage of pixels in the study
area that have at least 2 miles of
open or restricted roads in the
surrounding 1-square-mile window.

Muitistoried stands

Timber stands with 2 or more distinct
stories .

Nest site area (bald eagle)

The area in which human activity or
development may stimulate abandonment
of the breeding area, affect
successful completion of the nesting
cycle, or reduce productivity. It is
either mapped for a specific nest
based on field data, or, if that is
impossible, it is defined as the area
within a 1/4-mile radius of all nest
sites in the breeding area that have
been active within 5 years.

No-action alternative

The option of maintaining the status
quo and continuing present management
activities; the proposed project
would not be implemented.

Nonforested area

A naturally occurring area where
trees do not establish over the long
term, such as a bog, natural meadow,
avalanche chute, and alpine areas.

Old groimrh

For this analysis, old growth is
defined as stands that meet the
minimum criteria (number of trees per
acre that have a minimum dbh and a

minimum age) for a given site (old-
growth group from habitat type) .
These minimums can be found in the
Green et al Old Growth Forest Types
of the Northern Region (see APPENDIX
A - REFERENCES) .

Overstory

The level of the forest canopy
including the crowns of dominant,
codominant, and intermediate trees.

Patch

A discrete area of forest connected
to other discrete forest areas by
relatively narrow corridors; an
ecosystem element (such as
vegetation) that is relatively
homogeneous internally, but differs
from what surrounds it.

Potential nesting habitat (bald eagle)

Sometimes referred to as > suitable
nesting habitat,' areas that have no
history of occupancy by breeding
bald eagles, but contain the
potential to do so.

project file

A public record of the analysis
process, including all documents
that form the basis for the project
analysis. The project file for the
Dog/Meadow Timber Sale project Ea is
located at the Stillwater State
Forest office near Olney, Montana.

Tledds

The spawning ground or nest of
various fish species.

■Regeneration

The replacement of one forest stand
by another as a result of natural
seeding, sprouting, planting, or
other methods.

■Residual stand

Trees that remain standing following
any cutting operation.

■Rpad-construction activities

In general, the term 'road
construction activities' refers to
all the activities conducted while
building new roads, reconstructing
existing roads, and obliterating
roads. These activities may include

Page 4

Dog Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

any or all of the following:

- road construction;

- right-of-way clearing;

- excavation of cut/fill material;

- installation of road-surface and
ditch-drainage features;

- installation of culverts at stream
crossings;

- burning right-of-way slash;

- hauling and installation of borrow
material; and

- blading and shaping road surfaces.

■Rpad Improvements

Construction projects on an existing
road to improve ease of travel,
safety, drainage, and water quality.

Saplings

Trees 1 to 4 inches in diameter at
breast height.

S^aurtlmber trees

Trees with a minimum dbh of 9
inches .

Scarification

The mechanized gouging and ripping
of surface vegetation and letter to
expose mineral soil and enhance the
establishment of natural
regeneration.

^coping

The process of determining the
extent of the environmental
assessment task. Scoping includes
public involvement to learn which
issues and concerns should be
addressed and the depth of
assessment that will be required.
It also includes a review of other
factors such as laws, policies,
actions by other landowners, and
jurisdictions of other agencies that
may affect the extent of assessment
needed.

Security

For wild animals, the freedom from
the likelihood of displacement or
mortality due to human disturbance
or confrontation.

Security habitat cgrlzziy bears)

An area of a minimum of 2,500 acres

that is at least .3 miles from
trails or roads with motorized
travel and high-intensity
nonmotorized use during the
nondenning period.

Seedlings

Live trees less that 1 inch dbh.

Sediment

In bodies of water, solid material,
mineral or organic, that is
suspended and transported or
deposited.

Sediment yield

The amount of sediment that is
carried to streams.

Serai

Refers to a biotic community that is
in a developmental, transitional
stage in ecological succession.

Shade Intolerant

Describes the tree species that
generally can only reproduce and
grow in the open or where the
overstory is broken and allows
sufficient sunlight to penetrate.
Often these are serai species that
get replaced by more shade -tolerant
species during succession. In
Stillwater State Forest, shade-
intolerant species generally include
ponderosa pine, western larch,
Douglas-fir, western white pine, and
lodgepole pine.

Shade tolerant

Describes tree species that can
reproduce and grow under the canopy
in poor sunlight conditions. These
species replace less shade-tolerant
species during succession. In
Stillwater State Forest, shade-
tolerant species generally include
subalpine fir, grand fir, Douglas-
fir, Engelmann spruce, and western
red cedar.

SUtatlon

The process of very fine particles
of soil (silt) settling. This may
occur in streams or from runoff. An
example would be the silt build-up
left after a puddle evaporates.

Glossary

Page 5

S:iivicu|ture

The art and science of managing the
establishment, composition, and
growth of forests to accomplish
specific objectives.

g'ite preparation

A hand or mechanized manipulation of
a harvested site to enhance the
success of regeneration. Treatments
are intended to modify the soil,
litter, and vegetation to create
microclimate conditions conducive to
the establishment and growth of
desired tree species.

Splash

Branches, tree tops, and cull trees
left on the ground following a
harvest.

S"nag

A standing dead tree or the remaining
portion of a broken-off tree. Snags
may provide feeding and/or nesting
sites for wildlife.

gfnou) Intercept

The action of trees and other plants
in catching falling snow and
preventing it from reaching the
ground .

gfpur roads

Low standard roads, constructed to
meet minimum requirements for
harvest-related traffic.

^tand

An aggregation of trees occupying a
specific area that are sufficiently
uniform in composition, age
arrangement, and condition so as to
be distinguishable from the adjoining
forest.

S'tand density

Number of trees per acre.

S:tocKing

The degree of occupancy of land by
trees as measured by basal area or
number of trees and as compared to a
stocking standard, which is an
estimate of either the basal area or
number of trees per acre required to
fully use the growth potential of the
land.

Stream gradient

The slope of a stream along its
course, usually expressed in
percentage, indicating the amount
of drop per 100 feet.

S:tumpage

The value of standing trees in the
forest. Sometimes used to mean the
commercial value of standing trees.

Substrate scoring

Rating of streambed particle sizes.

g:uccession

The natural series of replacement
of one plant (and animal) community
by another over time in the absence
of disturbance.

g^uppressed

The condition of a tree
characterized by a low-growth rate
and low vigor due to competition.

Temporary road

Roads built to the minimal
standards necessary to prevent
impacts to water quality and
provide a safe and efficient route
to remove logs from the timber sale
area. Following logging
operations, reclamation would
incorporate the following concepts
to discourage future motorized use
of the roads :

- Segments near the beginning of
the new temporary road systems
would be reshaped to their
natural contours and reclaimed
for approximately 200 feet by
grass seeding and strewing slash
and debris.

- The reclamation of the remaining
road would include a combination
of ripping or mechanically
loosening the surface soils on
the road, removing culverts or
bridges that were installed,
spreading forest debris along
portions of the road, and
allowing the surface to
revegetate naturally.

Texture

A term used in visual assessments

Page 6

Dog Meadow Timber Sale Project Draft EA

indicating distinctive or
identifying features of the
landscape, depending on distance.

Thermal cover

For white-tailed deer, thermal cover
has 70 percent or more coniferous
canopy closure at least 20 feet
above the ground, generally
requiring trees to be 40 feet or
taller.

For elk and mule deer, thermal cover
has SO percent or more coniferous
canopy closure at least 20 feet
above the ground, generally
requiring trees to be 40 feet or
taller.

Timber-harvesting activities

Refers to all the activities
conducted to facilitate timber
removal before, during, and after
the timber is removed. These
activities may include any or all of
the following:

- felling standing trees and bucking
these trees into logs;

- skidding logs to a landing;

- processing, sorting, and loading
logs onto trucks at the landing;

- hauling logs by truck to a mill;

- slashing and sanitizing residual
vegetation damaged during logging;

- machine piling logging slash;

- burning logging slash;

- scarifying and preparing the site
for planting; and

- planting trees.

Transaction evidence equation

Multivariant regression based on
past sales and market variables.

CJnderstory

The trees and other woody species
growing under a, more or less,
continuous cover of branches and
foliage formed collectively by the
overstory of adjacent trees and
other woody growth.

CJneven-aged stand

Various ages and sizes of trees
growing together on a uniform site.

Ungulates

Hoofed animals, such as mule deer,
white-tailed deer, elk, and moose,
that are mostly herbivorous and many
are horned or antlered.

Vigor

The degree of health and growth of a
tree or stand of trees.

Watershed

The region or area drained by a
river or other body of water.

Water yield

The average annual runoff for a
particular watershed expressed in
acre-feet .

Water yield Increase

Due to forest canopy removal, an
increase in the average annual
runoff over natural conditions.

Windthroio

A tree pushed over by wind.
Windthrows (blowdowns) are common
among shallow-rooted species and in
areas where cutting or natural
disturbances have reduced the
density of a stand so that
individual trees remain unprotected
from the force of the wind.

Glossary

Page 7

A

o

Q

ACR0N7MS

o

ARM Administrative Rules of
Montana

BMP Best Management Practices

BMU Bear Management Unit

dbh diameter at breast height

DEQ Department of Environmental
Quality

DFWP Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks

DNRC Department of Natural

Resources and Conservation

EA Environmental Assessment

ECA equivalent clearcut acres

EIS Environmental Impact
Statement

tl forest improvement

FNF Flathead National Forest

ID Team Interdisciplinary Team

Land

Board Board of Land Commissioners

MBF thousand board feet

MCA Montana Codes Annotated

MEPA Montana Environmental
Policy Act

MMBF million board feet

NCDE Northern Continental Divide
Ecosystem

NWLO Northwestern Land Office

SFLMP State Forest Land
Management Plan

SLI stand-level inventory

SMZ streamside management zone

TMDL total maximum daily load

USFS United States Forest
Service

USFWS United States Fish and
Wildlife Service

124 Permit
3 A Permit

Stream Protection Act Permit

Authorization A —
Montana's Surface

Short-term Exemption from
Water Quality Standards

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION
STILLWATER UNIT OFFICE - STILLWATER STATE FOREST

P.O. BOX 164

OLNEY, MT 59927

(406) 881-2371

Persons with disabilities who need an altexnatlve, accessible

format of this docvaaent should contact DNRC

at the address or phone nixaber shown above.