critical big game liabitat in the BCWMA, whicli would increase potential conflicts in nnanagement 

 direction for the BCWMA. These conflicts would be reduced by the FWP/DNRC Cooperative 

 Management Agreement, under which FWP would compensate DNRC for foregoing potential 

 revenues to benefit wildlife habitats. Under Alternative B, FWP would not acquire lands with near- 

 term habitat enhancement opportunities that would allow FWP to expand its influence on DNRC 

 timber harvests within the BCWMA by exchanging standing timber. Therefore, the beneficial effect of 

 the Cooperative Management Agreement would be limited, compared with Alternative D. 



• Alternative C-FWP/DNRC Land Exchange. This includes the FWP/DNRC land exchange; it 

 excludes the Cooperative Management Agreement between FWP and DNRC. 



This alternative would meet only a few of the project objectives. DNRC would exchange critical big 

 game winter habitats within the core of the BCWMA with FWP, in exchange for forested lands on the 

 Dreyer Ranch portion of the BCWMA, thus reducing potential conflicts between the two agencies. 

 However, this alternative would leave approximately 3,040 acres of subject lands within the BCWMA 

 in Plum Creek ownership, and would incur the same potential adverse effects as described for 

 Alternative A-No Action. The ecological integrity of the entire BCWMA would continue to be 

 vulnerable to the possibility of future sale and development of Plum Creek's inholdings. Also, DNRC 

 would continue to own scattered tracts within Plum Creek land ownership, and incur the elevated 

 administrative costs associated with management of these parcels. 



• Alternative D-Both Exchanges. This includes the DNRC/Plum Creek land exchange, the 

 FWP/DNRC land exchange, and the Cooperative Management Agreement between FWP and DNRC. 

 It is anticipated that one or more parcels of DNRC lands will be withheld from the DNRC/Plum Creek 

 and FWP/DNRC land exchanges, to equalize land values. It is also anticipated that a small amount 

 of DNRC excess value (<$1 0,000, or <1% of the total exchange value) may remain after all 

 adjustments have been made. In order to balance minor excess values, other mechanisms such as 

 the addition or exchange of easements may be incorporated into final exchange agreements. 



All parcels acquired by DNRC in the two land exchanges (the Plum Creek parcels and the FWP 

 Dreyer Ranch parcels on the BCWMA) would be included in the Cooperative Management 

 Agreement. DNRC and FWP would intend to work toward eventually replacing this Agreement with a 

 conservation easement, to achieve the purposes of the Agreement beyond its initial 10-year duration. 

 At this time, the list of DNRC lands that might be proposed for a future conservation easement with 

 FWP is unknown, and is beyond the scope of this analysis. Any future development of a 

 conservation easement proposal by FWP and DNRC on the BCWMA will be subject to a separate 

 public involvement process under MEPA. 



The proposed decision is to select Alternative D. The rationale for this decision is presented below. 



2. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES TO THE PROPOSED DECISION 



Of the four alternatives, Alternative D would best meet the general and specific project objectives, as 

 identified in section 1.2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES of the DEIS. The specific project objectives are 

 discussed below. 



• The public investment in the BCWMA would be protected. The two land exchanges would move 

 critical big game winter habitat from private into state ownership, and a Cooperative Management 

 Agreement or possible future conservation easement would restrict lands within the core of the 

 BCWMA from future development. 



• Stability and continuity of management of core winter range on the BCWMA would be 

 enhanced. The Cooperative Management Agreement between FWP and DNRC would restrict 

 changes from traditional land uses on the BCWMA, and facilitate forest management activities across 

 the BCWMA, in order to meet FWP and DNRC objectives. FWP would compensate the state trusts 

 for DNRC foregoing some sources of revenue. Less emphasis would be placed on ownership 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 37 



