Management Indicator Species

Transcription

1 Management Indicator Species Elk Introduction Elk is listed as a big game management indicator species in the Flathead Forest Plan and elk can be found throughout the area. Most elk in this area migrate elevationally and all seasonal habitats can be found in the analysis area. Analysis Area and Information Sources The analysis of direct/indirect effects on elk winter range used each of the Forest Plan designated MA 13A (elk/mule deer winter range) areas in Bunker Creek as well as the river-associated habitat (adjacent to the South Fork Flathead River and Bunker Creek) that functions as winter range during winters with deep snow pack. Elk spring and summer/fall range areas were also evaluated for effects from the. For cumulative effects, an analysis area that encompassed all seasonal habitats in the was used (Map 3-6); this area was approximately 24,000 acres in size. Data used in the analysis were from existing information sources, aerial photos, and field surveys of proposed treatment sites. None of the high elevation whitebark pine prescribed burns were field visited. Winter Range Affected Environment The Spotted Bear area contains important winter range. Most of the traditional wintering areas in the Spotted Bear area are generally east of the South Fork Flathead River along the lower westerly facing slopes below Dry Park/Crossover Mountains, Horse Ridge and Spotted Bear Mountain. However, habitats immediately adjacent to and on both sides of the South Fork Flathead River, though not designated as MA 13 (winter range) by the Forest Plan, also provide winter range, especially during severe winters with deep snow packs. Two areas are formally designated as MA13A within the analysis area (Map 3-6). One of these occurs in the Kah Mountain area and most of it was burned during the 2003 Ball Fire. This area is not being proposed for treatment and will not be discussed in the direct/indirect effects analysis because it will not be affected by the proposed treatments. The other is in Bunker Creek, which is affected by the proposed actions. In Bunker Creek, designated MA13A winter range has not been actively managed and consists of a combination of a bunch grass dominated ridges and sparsely to densely forested land on south facing slopes. There was evidence of elk winter use of habitat adjacent to Bunker Creek. A long range Activity Schedule for this winter range was developed (Project Record)

2 Map 3-6. Elk Habitat Analysis Area for the Proposed

3 An additional area between the South Fork and the Westside Reservoir Road (#895) is considered river-associated winter range because that is the area where elk have been observed during winter (personal observations). From north to south, this winter range occurs in four segments, or peninsulas, separated by necked-down short stretches where Road #895 is close to the river. The entire portion of the river-associated winter range within the Soldier Addition Project area consisted of approximately 1,300 acres. Each of the segments has had some type of past forest management. One segment of it was converted to an airstrip decades ago. Forested cover providing snow interception is limited in the two areas containing proposed forest treatments. The winter ranges in this analysis area are contained within the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Elk Management Unit. The FWP "Statewide Elk Management Plan" (2004) provides the following characteristics for this EMU: The overall goal for this EMU is to manage for mature bull elk available for viewing and hunting in a backcountry setting. Important habitat objectives include: maintain the current distribution of elk over three million acres of habitat and improve management of critical elk winter range to benefit elk. Spring Range Spring range for elk consists of those areas that consistently become snow-free earliest in the post-winter season. Typically these are low elevation habitats and south/west facing slopes. These areas provide elk (and other ungulates) early season green forage and are critical to post winter elk survival and for successful calving season in early June. For the Soldier Addition Project, the flat areas adjacent to the South Fork Flathead River (lowest elevation) and the southerly slopes in the Bunker Creek area are considered early spring range. However, as the snow pack recedes, elk tend to begin their elevational migration. There is a tendency for elk to try to maximize spring foraging in the low elevation habitats unless too much human presence causes them to avoid these areas. Perhaps the most beneficial human action for elk in the spring is to minimize human disturbance during this critical time period when elk are trying to restore lost weight expended surviving winter. The area of the Hungry Horse Reservoir that is exposed above water line in the spring is a good example of a prime spring elk foraging area (Figure 3-3). Elk have been observed in these areas during surveys

4 Figure 3-3. Elk feeding along the South Fork in early spring. Summer/Fall Range Elk typically spend the summer and fall in higher elevation habitats where forage is available and cooler temperatures allow them to minimize heat stress; north and east facing slopes are particularly favored as these are areas where moisture extends forage life into late summer. Elk, especially the mature bulls, tend to stay in these higher elevations sites until winter snows begin to force them toward winter ranges. Mid-high elevation sites tend to be relatively important during the early fall as these are areas where elk tend be during the rut/breeding season. Habitat security is important during the fall as this is the time when elk hunting begins and bulls become vulnerable to harvest. With the exception of the Bunker, Bruce and Soldier Creek areas and lower elevation sites, most of the elk analysis area contains northerly and easterly slopes which, as discussed above, provide suitable summer and fall range. Elk summer/fall range in the Soldier Addition Project generally occurs from approximately 5,000-7,500 feet in elevation; this area was approximately 24,000 acres in size and was used to evaluate the effect of implementing the. Introduction Environmental Consequences The following effects indicators were used to focus the elk habitat analysis and disclose relevant environmental effects: 3-158

5 The location and amount of snow intercept cover removed on elk winter range. The location and amount of elk spring range treated. The change in potential elk habitat use of treated sites in elk summer/fall range. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 No Action This alternative would have no impact on the existing condition of forest canopy cover on elk winter range or other seasonal habitats in the analysis area. Forested stands targeted for treatment in the action alternatives would undergo natural processes and if they escape fire and/or insect and disease outbreaks, would progress to more mature and older-aged forest conditions. They would presumably continue to function as snow intercept cover and provide some level of forage in the form of conifers and possibly arboreal lichens. However, in general this alternative would have no direct/indirect or cumulative effects to elk/habitat and would have no implications on population viability. Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives Mid-elevation harvest activities, such as in the Elam and Cedar Creek areas, would likely occur throughout the general elk hunting season (late October thru November). This could have some sort of displacement effect on elk moving onto winter range if early snows push elk from higher elevations earlier than normal. Late fall logging and log hauling activities could result in increased elk vulnerability to hunting mortality as elk could be displaced into habitats unfamiliar to them in order to avoid the logging related disturbance areas; this effect would likely occur for three hunting seasons. Summer/Fall Range Three harvest units present in all action alternatives (Units 2, 28 and 44) totaling approximately 156 acres are within elk summer/fall range. These units are spaced about 6 miles apart. The direct effect of treating these units would be that forested cover would be converted to noncover. Indirectly, these sites would potentially develop into potential foraging sites in areas of relatively good habitat security within the first five years post-harvest and function as such for another years. Five of the seven prescribed burns, common to all action alternatives, are fully contained within the elk summer/fall range analysis area; portions of two of the understory prescribed burns in Bunker Creek are also in the analysis area. The direct effect of implementing these burns would be that forested cover would be converted to mostly non-cover. Four of the five sites would likely be more beneficial than not because of their potential to create new foraging sites. The expected indirect effect of implementing these burns would be that elk summer range would gain additional foraging areas dispersed throughout the analysis area in areas of relatively good habitat security and would function as such for at least years. However, one unit (Burn Unit 5) is in a north facing cirque basin and appears to be valuable as a moist refuge during summer heat. Helicopter operations in Burn Unit 5 may cause elk using this basin to be temporarily displaced. Elk may return to forage in the area, but the summer thermal function of 3-159

6 the existing forest would be eliminated for at least another years. Burning in this area may be more detrimental to elk in the basin than any potential forage benefits that may be gained/produced. Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 4 Winter Range On winter range areas adjacent to the South Fork Flathead River, three of the four areas where most wintering occurs would be treated. The first area is just north of Soldier Creek and includes two units (Units 16 & 17), totaling 45 acres, which would be treated with a thinning/group selection prescription. The direct effect of treatment within these two units would be: (a) portions of the units would not function as snow intercept cover post treatment, and (b) the remainder of the area would have approximately 30 acres of potential snow intercept cover remaining untreated. Indirectly, these thinned stands have the potential to grow back into potential snow intercept cover in years. The area directly to the south of Units 16 and 17 has no proposed treatments, but has been thinned in the past and currently provides marginal snow intercept cover. Two treatments, Units N and 22, are proposed just south of Tin Creek in an area that contains a permanent opening in the form of an airstrip. Elk graze in the airstrip so maintenance of adjacent cover is important. Unit 22 is proposed thinning/group selection of a mature lodgepole stand that has been roller thinned in the past. The direct effect of the proposed treatment would be that it would reduce snow intercept cover. Unit N is a proposed sapling thinning unit. Indirectly, the sapling thinning would promote growth and perhaps shorten the time frame when the stand can once again function as snow intercept cover; the thinned/group selection stand (Unit 22) would also have the potential to grow back into potential snow intercept cover, but it would take years to achieve this. Elk travel and bed down along the break in slope at the east edge of Unit 22 and hide in sapling stand N. To maintain this use pattern, an unthinned strip of trees would be maintained along the east boundary of Unit 22. The next area is dominated by lodgepole pine and is south and east of the Wilderness Ranch Resort and north and east of Addition Creek. One treatment is proposed consisting of thinning of an older sapling lodgepole pine dominated stand (Unit O) in a previously harvested stand. The direct effect of the proposed treatment would not make any difference in the overall ability of this area to function as winter range because the stand to be treated was harvested in 1961, but has not yet regenerated to the point where it provides snow intercept cover. Indirectly, the sapling thinning would promote growth and perhaps shorten the time frame when the stand can once again function as snow intercept cover. In the Bunker Creek area, an area that includes MA 13A (Forest Plan designated winter range) and undesignated winter range north of the creek was delineated for effects analysis (Project Record Map). This area is a combination of south facing sparsely forested slopes and a long bunchgrass ridge; also included is the low elevation terrace adjacent to Bunker Creek. A prescribed understory burn is proposed in the MA 13A area (Burn Unit 7). The expected direct effects of the proposed prescribed burn in the MA 13A area would be: 1) a proportion of the 3-160

7 understory shrubs in the forested area would be burned and stimulated to produce new growth, 2) some openings in the forest canopy may be created as a byproduct of getting fire into the understory with the use of a helicopter and 3) new growth would be stimulated in the bunchgrass portion of the winter range. Indirectly, this winter range would likely revert to current conditions in years as continued browsing pressure will cause forage vigor to decline. Regeneration harvest units are proposed just east of the MA13 area. Proposed seedtree treatments would create approximately 130 acres of forest openings in five different units in somewhat close proximity to each other. These areas were targeted for harvest because they have a high proportion of lodgepole pine which is dead or at high risk of dying due to its age (refer to Forest Vegetation section of this EA). The expected short-term direct effect of these treatments would be to remove snow intercept cover that ungulates need to survive deep snow pack winters. In the longer term ( years) the treated stands would again be capable of functioning as snow intercept cover. Spring Range Spring/transitory range areas are highly dependent the previous winters snow pack depth. The South Fork river bottom, as well as the stream bottom and south facing slopes in Bunker Creek may function as spring range during some years. The sapling thinning portion of the is not expected to make significant changes to potential spring range use because this activity would not cause enough ground disturbances to cause changes to the existing basic vegetation structure; there would be less sapling trees, but the sites would still be dominated by a young forest. Prescribed understory burn units 3 and 6 are in areas that function as transitory or spring range. The expected direct/indirect effect of this action would be that some proportion of understory shrubs would be burned and stimulated to re-sprout, potentially providing some level of early spring shrub stems as browse for the next 5-10 years. If interspersed crown fires occur during implementation and fire intensity increases, there may be small openings created in the forest canopy. Creation of these openings may cause enough forest floor disturbance to produce a forb component, furthering the beneficial aspect of the burn. The beneficial aspects of the prescribed burn would be expected to have a potential increased forage life of approximately 10 years. The expected direct effect tree harvest would be a reduction of cover and an increase in potential forage as early successional plants occupy harvested sites. Whether or how much elk would use these new potential foraging areas would be somewhat dependent on how much of the snow-free portion of the spring these sites would be available prior to spring re-occupation of the Spotted Bear area by humans (i.e. annual re-opening of the Ranger Station/resorts and early recreationists). Most of the tree-harvest units are adjacent to open roads. In the Bunker Creek area, existing natural openings are interspersed within and near proposed units. The increased visibility from the road may become a deterrent for continued elk use of natural openings adjacent to the South Fork River and Bunker Creek. The implementation phase of the Soldier Addition Project itself is not expected to cause any disruption to normal spring elk use patterns because there would be no activities allowed during the spring

8 Effects of Alternative 3 Winter Range The effects of this alternative are the same as for Alternatives 2 and 4 except Alternative 3 eliminates some units in winter range areas that were not designated as such in the Forest Plan. Three units adjacent to the South Fork Flathead River (Units 16, 17, and 22) totaling 92 acres would be dropped. Units 50, 52, and 55 as well as a portion of units 51 and 54 in the Bunker winter range area would be dropped, resulting in more acres of snow intercept cover in the short term. In the longer term, when the lodgepole pine trees in proposed cutting units die, snow intercept cover would be lost, even without harvest treatment. Cumulative Effects Elk habitat, including winter range, in the area has been affected by past natural and human disturbances. The main natural disturbance that has affected winter range habitat condition was fire. In the early 1900s (1929 Sullivan Fire) fire swept through the winter ranges and changed the existing forested winter range to early successional habitat, leaving low amounts of forest canopy cover. In the ensuing 80 years the winter range adjacent to the South River has returned to a forested condition, providing snow intercept cover. Most of the dry hillsides east of the river have remained in early successional conditions, dominated by grass/forb/shrubs with occasional stringers and patches of forested cover dispersed throughout. However, the Horse Ridge area has returned to a mostly forested condition with a good dispersion of open grass/shrub habitats throughout the westerly and southerly facing slopes. In 2003, fire burned a majority of the designated elk winter range (MA 13) on Kah Mountain. Considering the above, natural processes have shaped conditions on elk winter range. Human actions between the 1950s to the early 2000s included a variety of forest management treatments (e.g. thinning, liberation cuts, clearcuts, etc.). These forest management actions created forest openings or thinned forests on over 10,000 acres within the elk analysis area. The total effect of these past forest management actions on elk habitat included the following: on winter range, a reduction of potential snow intercept cover where clearcutting occurred and an increase in potential snow intercept cover where thinning occurred. On spring range outside of winter range (up to about 5,000 feet in elevation) a diversification of forest vegetation age classes was produced that likely was beneficial as elk foraging habitat. In summer/fall range, a range of forest vegetation age classes was produced that helped provide many foraging options. Proposed action alternatives would continue the gradual conversion of closed canopied forests to forest openings to provide additional foraging opportunities in spring and summer/fall ranges and would further reduce potential snow intercept cover on elk winter range, to a greater extent under Alternatives 2 & 4 than under Alternative 3. If these units are not harvested and the lodgepole pine trees die, they would no longer provide snow interception. Vore et al (2007) urged using caution when managing forests to create forest openings on winter ranges with high snowfall. They concluded that elk did not benefit from opening the forest canopy to increase forage 3-162

9 production during the time period that they monitored elk response to logging units (in the Firefighter Mountain area). Their position was that maintaining forest conditions that maintain snow intercept and understory forage availability (coniferous browse and lichen) are key to maintaining higher elk densities through winter in northwest Montana. Along with forest management actions, humans constructed roads in or adjacent to winter ranges and other seasonal habitats in the analysis area. Elk habitat security was severely reduced as a result of past road densities. However, there has been a recent trend of reducing total and open road densities in the analysis area to meet A19 standards; elk/elk habitat has been a beneficiary of this trend and habitat security has substantially improved. Road #895 has remained open on a year round basis and is occasionally avoided by elk in winter in response to periodic snowmobile use. Many of the other normal human activities that occur in the area such as firewood cutting, huckleberry picking, camping, river floating etc. generally occur when elk are in higher elevation summer/fall habitats and are not known to cumulatively affect elk habitat use. However, the could be a short term (duration of project activities) cumulative impact on normal elk habitat use activities associated with the fall hunting season because tree harvest and log hauling would occur behind normally closed roads; their normal use patterns could change, making them more vulnerable to harvest. Regulatory Framework and Consistency Federal laws and policy/direction applicable to management indicator species such as elk include the NFMA and Forest Service Manual The Flathead Forest Plan has standards for elk summer and winter ranges. The would not result in reduced population viability and it is consistent with the Forest Plan governing designated elk winter range management (MA13). The USDA Forest Service is bound by federal statutes (Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act), regulation (USDA ), and agency policy (FSM 2670) to conserve biological diversity on National Forest System lands. A goal in Forest Plan Amendment 21 is to "ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to the loss of viability of native species. The proposed, based on this analysis, is not expected to contribute to loss of population viability of elk

10 This page intentionally left blank 3-164