were defined and are summarized in Chapter I. In order to understand how the 

 proposed harvest would effect the environment, its effects were contrasted to those of 

 Alternative A: No Harvest (No Action). Using the guidance of the MEPA Rules, the 

 responses received, and the issues developed during the internal scoping, the team 

 designed Alternative B: Harvest to satisfy the needs and meet the objectives of the 

 project. 



2.3 Alternative Design, Evaluation, and Selection Criteria 



The IDT identified the following design and evaluation criteria. 



• Meet objectives of Trust Lands stewardship. 



• Comply with MEPA Rules. 



• Retain coarse woody debris to reduce soil erosion. 



• Retain at least the minimum number of snags required to accommodate wildlife 

 needs. 



• Design harvest units and systems to minimize impact on the soils and stream. 



• Control noxious-weed infestations and prevent dispersal. 



• Maintain current ongoing recreational opportunities where possible. 



2.4 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed 

 Study 



No other alternatives were developed, because proposed Alternative B: Harvest met 

 all environmental guidance and IDT specialists' specifications, while providing 

 income for the trust. 



2.5 Description of Alternatives 



2.5.1 Alternative A: No Harvest (No Action) 



Salvageable fire and subsequent insect killed trees would not be harvested. No 

 revenue would be generated for the Common School Trust. However, ongoing 

 DNRC permitted and approved activities would continue in the project area. 



2.5.2 Alternative B: Harvest 



The proposed harvest would yield approximately 9,521 tons of fire killed timber 

 from approximately 204 acres at this time. If there is future mortality from 

 subsequent insect infestations of species such as Douglas fir beetles, mountain 

 pine beetles, or western pine beetles additional salvage harvest may occur in the 

 same project area. At this time DNRC proposes to salvage harvest 204 acres, 



Dirty Ike Salvage Environmental Assessment ■ ' 2-2 



