MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 3 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME INTRODUCTION White-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk are Management Indicator Species (MIS) for commonly hunted big game species on the Flathead NF (USDA 1985). Meeting the habitat needs for white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk would indicate that the habitat needs for other commonly hunted big game species, such as black bear, mountain lion, and moose, would also be met. Habitat needs that each of these species has in common would include cover (hiding and thermal), forage, and security (Witmer et al. 1998). Natural disturbances such as fire or major insect infestations, and man-caused disturbances, including timber harvest, road construction, agricultural conversion, or residential development, alter the landscape, changing the amount and juxtaposition of cover and forage. These changes affect big game use patterns as they search out forage and cover, and can also affect habitat security. ANALYSIS AREA SPATIAL BOUNDS The effects analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk is the Cold Jim Fuels Reduction (Cold Jim) Project Area. This area (approximately 33,289 acres) is large enough to be representative of the effects of fire, natural tree mortality, timber harvest, and road management across the landscape. The actions proposed that could affect white-tailed deer, mule deer, or elk, are contained within this area. In addition, the area is sufficiently large enough to evaluate the ability of the habitat to support other big game species considered under the MIS umbrella. TEMPORAL BOUNDS The length of time for activities proposed by the Cold Jim Project is approximately 1 to 5 years. This is based on the probable contract length for the proposed project, and the timeframes for related activities. The length of time for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is approximately 100 years. This is based on the length of time for natural forest processes to occur, snags to be created, forest vegetation to provide a variety of characteristics suitable for different sensitive species. Specific temporal bounds for different direct, indirect, or cumulative effects are discussed below. DATA SOURCES, METHODS, AND ASSUMPTIONS USED Data used included open road densities, stand exam surveys, aerial photography, Vector Map (VMAP) data, project area field visits, research literature, and GIS and dataset information for features such as riparian habitats, wet areas, old growth stand layers, white-tailed deer winter range, deer summer range, elk winter range, and general forest attributes like habitat type, forest type, elevation, and slope

2 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME CHAPTER 3 MEASUREMENT INDICATORS Important considerations for summer range habitat for deer and elk include moist sites or riparian habitat, hiding cover, forage, and general habitat security, especially during hunting season. These elements of deer and elk summer habitat, and the anticipated effects to these elements from project implementation, are the predominant measurement indicators used in this analysis. In addition, there is an area of designated white-tailed deer winter habitat in the project area; thermal cover, hiding cover, and forage are important considerations for deer and will be measurement indicators in the area where white-tailed deer winter habitat may be affected with implementation of the Cold Jim Project. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT HABITAT The Swan Valley has historically provided year-round habitat for deer and elk, as well as for other big game species covered under the MIS umbrella. White-tailed deer habitat consists of a mixture of various forested communities that provide cover, foraging habitat, and water within a reasonable distance. While elk and mule deer use similar habitats, white-tailed deer are more closely associated with riparian features than elk or mule deer. White-tailed deer exhibit a broad range of summer and fall habitat use but are commonly associated with warm and moist mixed-species coniferous forest and lowlands interspersed with aquatic wetlands, meadows, and stream bottoms. The wetland complexes in the upper Swan Valley, including river and stream riparian zones, fens or peat lands, marshes, vernal pools, ponds, and lakes, are quite extensive (SEC 2004). Habitats favored by elk during the summer months include moist parks, meadows, and riparian areas, offering succulent forage and bedding sites. Elk remain on higher elevation summer ranges until forced down to lower elevations by snow and severe weather. Both elk and mule deer are also commonly associated with shrub, seedling, and sapling habitats. Mule deer have similar seasonal habitat and elevational range preference as elk. Like elk, mule deer elevational range is dictated by food availability and weather conditions. In the past, ungulate populations undoubtedly fluctuated between mild winter years and hard winter years. The use patterns of deer and elk have also undoubtedly shifted as a result of natural disturbances such as wildfire, windfall, and insect infestations, which typically remove or alter hiding cover, thermal cover, and forage. Thermal cover describes the ability of a forested stand to intercept snow and provide winter protection for deer or elk (e.g., shallow snow depths, warmth). Winter thermal cover is very important to white-tailed deer populations. Hiding cover for both deer and elk refers to vegetation of sufficient size and density to conceal an animal from view at approximately 100 feet. Forage areas, as the name implies, are habitats that provide food for deer and elk. Historically, there were large patch sizes of thermal and hiding cover, interspersed with patches of forage. As mentioned previously, the pattern across the landscape of cover and forage naturally fluctuated in response to winter severity, wildfire, insect and disease, windstorms, etc. The greatest change from historic to current conditions for deer and elk, throughout the Swan Valley, has been the change in human activity. The level of human activity in the Swan Valley has obviously increased over early settlement and pre-settlement conditions. The result of increased human activity has been an increase in the amount of timber harvest, road construction, recreational use (including hunting), residential development, grazing, and agriculture. Residential and agricultural developments have permanently altered potential deer and elk habitats. Timber harvest across the valley has altered the amount and juxtaposition of thermal cover, hiding cover, and forage. Timber harvest typically removes big game cover and creates foraging areas by reverting forest succession to its earliest stage. Most ungulate species select for newly created forest openings such as clearcuts or wildfire disturbance (Patton et al. 1976, Rempel et al. 1997, Fisher and Wilkinson 2005). Recently 3-258

3 CHAPTER 3 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME disturbed forest areas produce shrubs and grasses otherwise shaded out by mature forest canopy (Fisher and Wilkinson 2005). As these foraging areas go through succession and become reforested, they again begin to provide cover; first hiding and then thermal cover. Where cover exceeds forage by a wide margin, removal of cover may enhance deer and elk habitat by increasing edge, increasing diversity, and increasing forage. The increase in miles of road, largely a result of land management activities, has resulted in a decrease in security for deer and elk, especially during hunting season (Hillis et al. 1991, Christensen et al. 1993). Security was higher in the absence of road building and recreational hunting. In recent years, road closures for grizzly bear in the Swan Valley have undoubtedly benefited both deer and elk. Elk have been documented to avoid open roads (Christensen et al. 1993, McCorquodale 2013). Open roads can displace elk from nearby environments and serve as hunter access increasing elk, deer, and moose vulnerability to harvest (Hillis et al. 1991, Christensen et al. 1993, Rempel et al. 1997). Hillis et al. (1991) defined elk security areas with hiding cover, greater than 0.5 miles from an open road and larger than 250 acres in size. Applying this definition, 61% of the Cold Jim Project Area provides elk security (Project File Exhibit H-228). Road access management direction for grizzly bears provides high security for elk. Currently, in the Cold Jim Project Area (Cold Jim Grizzly Bear Subunit), 18% of the area exceeds 1 mile/square mile open motorized access. MDFWP characterized Forest Service access management in the Bob Marshall Complex Elk Management Unit, which includes the Swan Valley and the project area, as creating conditions beyond MDFWP s objectives for habitat security (MDFWP 2004). Historically, prior to fire suppression management, many forested stands in the lower elevations, especially on the east side of the Swan River, experienced frequent under-burns, and shrubs and grasses grew up under more open canopies. Under existing conditions, many of these historically open stands have become more grown in, and stand conditions are no longer open; shrubs and other forage vegetation have declined and any wildfire at this point would probably be stand replacing instead of a lower intensity underburn. More severe, stand replacing, wildfire within the project area has the potential to limit both cover and forage if conditions are severe enough to sterilize soil, creating longer regeneration times for early successional forage species or forest regeneration. The Cold Jim Project Area has historically been used year-round by white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, and other big game species. White-tailed deer have probably always been the most numerous of the big game species occurring in the Cold Jim Area and throughout the Swan Valley. The Cold Jim Project Area contains summer range for white-tailed deer. Hiding cover is defined as sufficient trees or vegetation to conceal an animal from view at 100 feet (Project File Exhibit H-234). Within the Cold Jim Project Area, available hiding cover is estimated at approximately 77%. In 1986, the Flathead Forest Plan allocated approximately 12,000 acres of NFS land in the upper Swan Valley as white-tailed deer winter habitat (MA9). The Forest Plan also allocated lands in the Swan Valley as elk and mule deer winter habitat (MA13). There are no lands designated MA13 within the Cold Jim Project Area. There are approximately 679 acres of white-tailed deer winter habitat within the Cold Jim Project Area. The FNF Forest Plan (1986) includes direction for managing thermal and hiding cover for white-tailed deer winter range (MA9). All portions of this management area separated by 0.5 or more miles are considered separate winter ranges. Thermal cover is defined as forest vegetation averaging 60 feet in height with 70% canopy cover. The standard is to maintain 50% thermal cover across MA9 lands. In 2009, Section 15 and Section 22 (T21N, R17W) were purchased through Land and Water Conservation Acquisition Funds. These sections were formally owned and managed by Plum Creek Timber Company (PCTC). Based on elevation and proximity, parts of these sections were designated as MA9 and included within the winter range calculations for this project. However, the former PCTC lands were not subject to the same winter range standards and currently contain little vegetation that meets the FNF Forest Plan thermal cover definition. Thermal cover on Flathead Forest lands in the Cold Jim Project Area covers 85% of the winter range area. Including the former PCTC lands within 3-259

4 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME CHAPTER 3 this calculation dilutes the total thermal cover area to 37% across the MA9 lands in the Cold Jim Project Area. Within summer and fall months elk favor habitat that includes moist sites associated with particular forest habitat types as well as meadows and riparian areas. Moist sites are defined by Lyon et al (1985). The Flathead Forest Plan includes direction that elk summer habitat will be managed in accordance with moist site and security area recommendations from Coordinating Elk and Timber Management, Final Report of the Cooperative Elk-Logging Study, (Lyon et al 1985). This report recommends high priority road closures for elk habitat through wet meadows and moist areas. Moist areas defined by Lyon et al (1985) include Abies lasiocarpa/clintonia uniflora, Picea Engelmanii/Clintonia uniflora, Abies lasiocarpa/menziesia ferruginea and Abies lasiocarpa/alnus sinuate habitat. These moist sites occur primarily at the headwaters of drainages and at high to mid elevations in roadless and wilderness areas (Lyon et al. 1985). POPULATION STATUS Early surveys indicate that the white-tailed deer population in the Swan Valley ranged from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 animals in the 1930 s, when surveys were first initiated, up to the 1990 s. It was believed that white-tailed deer reached a population high in 1900 to 1915, however, there are few reliable historical estimates for elk or mule deer). Mundinger (1981) described the Swan Valley white-tailed deer population as one that is characterized by low and stable annual turnover and recruitment. He concluded that the population was stable, with an annual recruitment rate of 29%, and an annual survival rate of approximately 70%. Exact numbers of deer and elk using the Upper Swan Valley, or specifically the Cold Jim Area, are not known. A 2010 report by Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MDFWP) describes the estimated population for white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk in Region 1, which includes the Swan Valley. In Region 1, the estimated population for white-tailed deer in 2011 was 73,996 and had a 10- year average ( ) of 73,872. The estimated population for mule deer in 2011 was 13,095, and had a 10-year average of 15,973 (MDFWP 2010). Elk status and objectives are described in the 2010 Report by Hunting District (HD). The Swan Valley, more specifically the Cold Jim Area, is located in HD130. The most recent year that elk were counted in HD130 was There were 203 elk counted; assuming that 80% of elk are observed, the estimated elk population in 2008 was 254 in HD130. The Elk Plan Objective for HD130 is 225 elk; the status for elk in HD130 is At Objective (MDFWP 2004, MDFWP 2010). Recruitment of young are also monitored within white-tailed deer populations. The Region One 2012 White-tailed Deer Report (MDFWP 2012) lists spring classifications for white-tailed deer for Hunting District 130 (HD 130) or the Swan Valley. These spring classifications for 2012 observed 524 adults and 265 fawns yielding a fawn to 100 adult ratio of 51. The report lists the average fawn to 100 adult ratio as 48 from 1980 to The fawn to adult ratio for all of Region 1 averaged 44 fawns per 100 adults higher than the previous 5 years. The ratio is thought to be the result of mild winter conditions across the region in the winter of (MDFWP 2012). In 2011, MDFWP (Jim Williams, Wildlife Manager, Region 1 MDFWP) described in the Daily Inter Lake (Tuesday, November 29, 2011) how early hunting season results for northwest Montana were showing deer and elk population numbers still down. Check station counts in 2011 were 15% lower for white-tailed deer bucks, 35% lower for mule deer, and 23% lower for elk. However, recent surveys by MDFWP (April 2012) indicated an upward trend for deer and elk, with the best survival in six years (Daily Interlake, 5/23/12).The higher numbers are probably due to the mild winter in 2012, throughout most of northwestern Montana

5 CHAPTER 3 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The Cold Jim Project consists of a No Action Alternative and two action alternatives. A cumulative effect considers and describes proposed activities in addition to the past, current, and reasonably foreseeable activities. Cumulative effects are discussed throughout this section under the specific alternatives. For a detailed discussion of all known past, present, and foreseeable activities see the Cumulative Effects Worksheet for Management Indicator Species (Project File Exhibit H-14). ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS There would be no proposed treatment under this alternative. The occurrence and abundance of forage and cover would fluctuate and change over time as the area progresses through various successional stages. There would be no direct effects to existing hiding cover, or thermal cover, and no direct effects to foraging habitat as a result of implementing the No Action Alternative. Security for white-tailed deer and elk/mule deer would remain the same. There would be no changes in the level of general motorized access, or hunting access. There would be no proposed road decommissioning with the No Action Alternative. Indirectly, the likelihood of stand replacement fires may be increased under Alternative A as compared to the action alternatives, with increased risk of cumulative effects to hiding and thermal cover. The occurrence of more severe fire could reduce forage and hiding cover under the right conditions. The level of effects would depend on the size and intensity of the wildfire, which would depend on the actual location, intensity, moisture and weather conditions associated with a presently unknown future fire event. TNC harvest would occur within the project area reducing ungulate cover and causing short-term displacement. Removal of mature forest vegetation may recruit early successional shrub and grass species to serve as forage for ungulate species. Reduction of hiding cover would increase mortality risk for ungulate species on TNC lands. Roads used for TNC access would not be open to the public. Guidelines for grizzly bears would incorporate spring timing restrictions during periods of emerging spring vegetation, and retain visual screening along open roads and hiding cover within TNC harvest areas. Human occupancy of private lands in the Swan Valley is likely to increase, as is overall human activity in the Cold Jim Area. This increase in human use would likely increase the potential for disturbance of deer and elk. ALTERNATIVES B AND C DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Comparing Alternatives B and C, Alternative C would be more favorable to the needs of ungulate species in the Cold Jim Area. Alternative C would retain more hiding cover within the project area and retain a higher degree of connectivity between untreated patches of forest vegetation. Units 22, 23, 25, and 28 would not be treated under Alternative C and would maintain relatively more habitat security within Section 16 (T21N, R17W). Under Alternative C, a large strip of mature vegetation would remain untreated across unit 13 increasing connectivity between stands surrounding that regenerative treatment unit. Alternative C would also be more favorable to calving/fawning ungulates because it retains more hiding cover and habitat security. RIPARIAN HABITATS / WETLAND COMPLEXES Riparian habitats are an important component of both deer and elk habitat. Riparian habitat would include rivers, streams, lakes, small wetlands, and ponds or potholes. There are management 3-261

6 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME CHAPTER 3 guidelines and Best Management Practices in place (e.g. INFISH) that mitigate effects to riparian habitat. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA s) restrict activities within a designated distance from streams, lakes, and wetlands (see Fisheries Section). The riparian guidelines in place for both Alternatives B and C would help protect important riparian habitats for deer and elk. However, it should be mentioned that riparian habitats, when considering deer and elk use, encompass more acreage than the wetland itself and probably extend beyond the guidelines established for aquatic riparian values. In other words, there would still be direct and indirect effects to riparian habitats or wetland complexes that are important for deer and elk in the Cold Jim Area. Direct and indirect effects would include the loss of hiding cover adjacent to riparian habitat buffers, and displacement from riparian habitats while activities are occurring in close proximity. There are no proposed treatments in either alternative within riparian areas. Temporary roads proposed for alternatives would not be built in riparian habitats. Treatments for both Alternatives B and C are located in the lower elevations of the project area. Based on spatial forest stand habitat data, and field validations, no treatments would occur in moist sites for elk as defined by Lyon et al. (1985). HIDING COVER Currently, approximately 77% of the Cold Jim Project Area provides hiding cover for wildlife species. This percentage includes all NFS lands (e.g. legacy lands and wilderness), but does not include private lands within the project area boundary. In Alternative B, approximately 95% (1,176 acres) of the mature and immature forest stands where treatment is proposed currently provide hiding cover for big game species, including deer and elk. In Alternative C, approximately 96% (1,117 acres) of the mature and immature forest stands where treatment is proposed is currently providing hiding cover. Alternatives B and C would decrease hiding cover within the Cold Jim Project Area. Within regeneration treatments (shelterwood, seed tree, and clearcut) little or no hiding cover would persist after implementation. Within intermediate treatments, some of the area would continue to provide cover. This is due to the wide variability in the proposed prescriptions. For example, commercial thinning treatments would leave trees per acre (TPA). At the lower end (50-80 TPA) of the scale there probably would not be sufficient cover left to function as hiding cover for deer and elk. At the higher end (80+ TPA) there would probably be sufficient cover to function as hiding cover. Precommercial treatments would be similar to the commercial intermediate treatments; depending on the residual density target (e.g. 50 to 300 TPA), hiding cover would be eliminated or retained. Design criteria (Table 2-12) for commercial thins would retain hiding cover by 10% of the sub-merchantable trees and hardwoods through each unit area. Taking the variable prescriptions into account, Alternative B is estimated to decrease hiding cover within the Cold Jim Project Area by 670 acres. Alternative C is estimated to decrease hiding cover in the Cold Jim Area by 611 acres. This assumes that half of the intermediate treatments would still provide hiding cover. In context to the entire Cold Jim Project Area, both Alternatives B and C would have an approximate decrease of hiding cover from 77% to 76%. Hiding cover would take up to approximately 20 years to recover, depending on stand conditions. Guidelines under the Swan Valley Grizzly Bear Conservation Agreement (SVGBCA) would diminish negative effects of proposed treatments to hiding cover. Vegetative screening will be retained along open roads in the project area and that clearcut and seed tree units retain cover such that no point in the unit is more than 600 feet from hiding cover. FORAGE Several studies in the Swan Valley and Salish Mountains have demonstrated that white-tailed deer forage consists mainly of conifer and shrub browse, with Oregon grape (Berberis repens) and Douglas-fir by far the most abundant items (MDFWP 2006). Forbs, grasses and lichens are also important seasonal food sources (e.g. grasses in the spring). The mature and immature stands where vegetative treatments are proposed offer foraging opportunities for deer and elk (Hildebrand 1971, 3-262

7 CHAPTER 3 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME Mundinger 1982). Although proposed vegetative treatments would initially decrease the amount of available forage due to ground disturbance, forage opportunities would increase again within 5 years. The additional sunlight reaching the forest floor would increase forage levels in some stands above existing forage amounts. Forage habitat is not presently limiting in the Cold Jim Area for deer and elk. HABITAT SECURITY Displacement and disturbance of elk and deer may have negative consequences to local herds. Human activity has been documented to stress animals affecting available energy reserves. There is a potential for short-term displacement (approximately 5 years or less) of deer and elk from the immediate area during the proposed activities of either Alternative B or C. Deer and elk use patterns would likely change slightly as the animals avoid areas of high human activity. There are large blocks of unroaded land and the Mission Mountains Wilderness in the Cold Jim Project Area that provide secure habitat for deer and elk. Further, there is no proposed treatment in old growth stands in the Cold Jim Area. This would provide additional habitat security for deer, elk, and other big game species; several studies have demonstrated a close relationship between deer and the serally mature, sub-climax, or late seral forest (Wallmo and Schoen 1980, Mundinger 1982). In addition, Design Criteria (Table 2-12) in place for grizzly bear protection would benefit deer and elk, and other big game species. For instance, in order to avoid the potential disturbance of grizzly bears in important spring habitat, management activities that are planned in spring habitat, which is generally defined as areas below 5,200 feet, will not occur within the Spring Period (April 1 through June 15). This timing restriction would be beneficial to deer and elk. Road closures in effect for grizzly bear in the Cold Jim Area would provide security for deer and elk as well. Existing open roads and closed roads would be used to conduct the proposed treatments under Alternatives B and C. Under a worst case scenario analysis, 26% of the project area would exceed 1 mi/mi 2 Open Road Density during project implementation for both Alternatives B and C (See Grizzly Bear Analysis for more information). Applying the Hillis et al. (1991) definition, some treatments and mechanical activity would occur in elk security areas (Project File Exhibit H-228). Displacement of individual deer or elk or other big game may occur due to activity. Vegetative screening would be maintained along open roads. This would help to provide habitat security for deer and elk, especially during hunting season. Use of gated or bermed roads for hauling logs would increase human activity levels in areas normally more secure for deer and elk. Roads that are currently closed, but that would be used for proposed activities, would be closed to the general public during the time that they are used for timber management activities. As they are closed to the public, these security areas (Hillis et al. (1991) would continue to provide reduced mortality risk for elk during hunting seasons. There would be temporary roads built under both alternatives. Temporary roads would be constructed to the minimum standards necessary for log hauling. Temporary roads would be reclaimed following use. The reclamation work would include the removal of any culverts, water bar placement, seeding, re-contouring, and the placement of woody debris on the reclaimed road. Despite the reclaiming of temporary roads, there is obvious evidence of ground disturbance and clearing of vegetation that remains after a temporary road is reclaimed. It is possible for these reclaimed areas to be an attractant to forest users. The goal of reclaiming the temporary roads is to discourage motorized use. There is always a potential for these temporary roads to be vectors of human use, but the potential is low, if the reclamation work is successful. Proposed road decommissioning under Alternatives B and C would decrease total road density over the long term in the project area. All roads proposed for decommissioning are currently closed roads (gated or bermed) and do not receive high amounts of motorized activity (at most less than 10 vehicle trips/week). Decommissioning would lower the probability of humans using these roads (administrative access, walking, bike riding, etc.) and provide some benefit to the security of big game habitat within the Cold Jim Project Area

8 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME CHAPTER 3 WHITE-TAILED DEER WINTER HABITAT (MA9) Both alternatives propose treatments on MA9 lands. Alternative B proposes approximately 3 acres of commercial thinning and 31 acres of precommercial thinning on MA9 lands. Alternative C proposes approximately 31 acres of pre-commercial thinning on MA9 lands. Thermal cover is an important habitat component for white-tailed deer on winter range; it helps moderate snow depths, and to a lesser extent, temperature. With the inclusion of historic PCTC lands, the winter range within the Cold Jim Project Area is currently below the Forest Plan Standard of 50%. None of the proposed treatments under Alternative B or C would occur within stands that are presently meeting thermal cover criteria on the MA9 lands. Precommercial thinning and commercial thinning would be designed to release stands by enlarging growing space for individual trees, reducing competition, and improving tree growth. These treatments would reduce tree density in the short term, however proposed treatments would likely expedite stand trajectory toward thermal cover conditions in the long term. Treatments would be consistent with remaining criteria for MA9 lands under the FNF Forest Plan (pg. III-35). CALVING/FAWNING AREAS Deer and elk are known to fawn and calve in the Cold Jim Area. Calving/fawning occurs from May through June (Vore & Schmidt 2001). Disturbance from human activity has been linked to disruption of reproductive potential in ungulate populations (Shively et al. 2005). Calving and fawning typically occurs away from disturbance. Treatments under Alternatives B and C would displace calving and fawning ungulates within the area. Spring period timing restrictions for grizzly bears would reduce activity within the Cold Jim Area and benefit calving/fawning elk and deer. Hiding cover and blocks of untreated stands would diminish potential for displacement from human activity. No treatments are proposed in Riparian Conservation Areas or old growth stands under either action alternative. These areas would continue to serve as hiding cover and serve towards habitat security within the Cold Jim Project Area. Design Criteria (Table 2-12) that retain hiding cover within commercial thin stands would also retain some cover calving/fawning security. RESOURCE ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS Equipment use and associated human activity for Cold Ponds Restoration would displace ungulate species in the immediate area. The activity would be short term (approximately 1 week) and effects of activity would be relaxed almost immediately after human activity ceases. Based on ungulate preference for riparian and moist sites and succulent forage restoring historic water levels to the wetland complex would likely benefit ungulate species in the long term. Gravel lay down and other Best Management Practice (BMP) work on NFSR Road # 9599 would displace ungulates species with associated heavy machinery use and human activity. This road is currently open to the public and activity proposed would be a small departure from the existing condition. Displacement of ungulates adjacent to the road corridor has likely already occurred due to existing human activity. Shrub planting would increase cover and forage within designated whitetail winter range. Planting would benefit ungulates species.. ALTERNATIVES B AND C CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Past land management activities in the area, including timber management, road construction, residential development, and agricultural conversion, have decreased and/or fragmented hiding cover, thermal cover, and forage. With increased human activity, have come decreased security levels for most wildlife species, including white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk

9 CHAPTER 3 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME The Cold Jim Project is located near the community of Condon, Montana. There are part-year and yearlong residences in the area, as well as other established human activities, including residential development, recreational trails, campgrounds, and a major highway. The level of human activity in the area increases the chance for disturbance or displacement of wildlife species. Other human activity in the area includes firewood cutting, hunting, various road use permits and easements, and road maintenance. Timber harvest activities on PCTC lands and on NFS lands in the Cold Jim Area peaked during the mid to late 1980 s, although lower levels of timber harvest continue up to the present on all ownership lands. TNC harvest is located on lands previously managed for industrial timber production. These lands contain regenerating stands with mature seed trees left intermittently through the area (Project File Exhibit H-227). TNC harvest would include commercial thin (CT) and overstory removal (OSR) prescriptions. Prescriptions for CT units would thin to 20 foot spacing (approximately 109 trees per acre) and OSR would retain approximately 1-8 trees per acre greater than 10 inches in diameter breast height (DBH) and regenerating vegetation in the understory. Both CT and OSR treatments would retain patches of regenerating forest vegetation that would serve as hiding cover and create some continuity of forest canopy cover between patches of older forest stands. None of these harvest activities would occur within riparian habitats. Harvest within the Cold Jim Project Area by The Nature Conservancy would reduce hiding cover and result in short-term displacement. Based on field review of TNC treatments and future treatment areas and prescriptions (Project File Exhibit H-227), an estimate of hiding cover retained in treated TNC areas was calculated. This estimate was used to quantify the amount of hiding cover that would be retained in TNC harvest units yet to be treated. TNC activities would reduce hiding cover in the project area by approximately 2,419 acres. Combined with the proposed Cold Jim activities (Alternative B or Alternative C), hiding cover in the Cold Jim Project Area would be reduced from 77% to 68%. Hiding cover would return over the next 20 years as forest regeneration occurs. TNC harvest activities would reduce forest canopy cover and likely result in an increase in forage species for ungulates in harvest areas within 5 years. Patches of forest vegetation would remain untreated surrounding the TNC harvest area and a mosaic of hiding cover and connectivity would be maintained through untreated patches of forest vegetation and riparian buffers. Roads used by TNC would remain closed to the public. Grizzly bear guidelines under the SVGBCA would include spring period restrictions to benefit ungulate calving and reduce displacement during the spring when receding snowpack may limit forage vegetation to the lower elevations of the Swan Valley. Cover retention, maximum distances to cover, in addition to visual screening along open roads would benefit connectivity of cover and ungulate security. TNC road storage would benefit long term ungulate security. The cumulative effect of past activities, the proposed activities of this project, and future activities, would not preclude deer or elk use of habitats in the area. There appears to be little risk of population loss, and species viability would be maintained. For additional information on the status of deer and elk on the Flathead NF, and the status at broader scales, reference the document Flathead National Forest Evaluation and Compliance with NFMA Requirements to Provide for Diversity of Animal Communities (USDA 2006). REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND CONSISTENCY The NFMA requires that Forest plans preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities and that Forests manage for maintenance of viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species

10 COLD JIM FUELS REDUCTION AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECT MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES COMMONLY HUNTED BIG GAME CHAPTER 3 Amendment 21 to the Forest Plan establishes a Forest-wide goal to provide appropriate habitat and access to maintain desired hunting, fishing, and viewing opportunities, in coordination with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The Forest Plan has identified white-tailed deer, elk, and mule deer as Commonly Hunted Big Game Management Indicator Species (MIS) that use general forest habitat. Conditions favorable to these species would generally also benefit other big game species found within the project area, such as moose, black bear, and mountain lion, which are considered under the umbrella of MIS evaluation. Goals, objectives, and standards in the Forest Plan, specific to managing white-tailed deer, elk, and mule deer have been met in varying degrees in the preparation and analysis of the Cold Jim Project. This page intentionally left blank