boundaries. For example, DNRC may assist with timber sales on FWP lands, and forego harvest of 

 some timber on DNRC lands. FWP would assist DNRC with environmental analysis of proposed 

 projects on the BCWMA. 



• Large potential reductions in the Blackfoot-Clearwater e\k herd, from changes in land use on 

 the BCWMA, would be prevented. The subject lands include critical big game winter habitats that 

 support the elk population in Hunting District 282 and surrounding lands. The transfer of lands from 

 Plum Creek to DNRC, and a conservation license, lease or possible future easement between DNRC 

 and FWP, would restrict land development of these habitats, preventing a possible 70% reduction in 

 the Blackfoot-Clearwater elk herd. 



• Elk winter range could more easily be enhanced through cooperative management. 



Cooperative timber management and noxious weed control on the BCWMA are specific objectives of 

 the Cooperative Management Agreement between FWP and DNRC. 



• State ownership within the BCWMA would be retained and increased. The two land exchanges 

 would increase state ownership within the BCWMA by 3,040 acres, while DNRC scattered tracts 

 would move into private ownership. The public would gain an opportunity to be involved in 

 subsequent state actions on lands acquired from Plum Creek in the BCWMA, as provided under 

 ME PA. 



• DNRC would acquire 3,040 acres of productive forest lands suitable for management to 

 generate revenue. The lands acquired from Plum Creek have gentle topography and are adjacent to 

 other DNRC lands. They can be more economically managed for timber production than the 

 scattered parcels being offered to Plum Creek. Existing land uses, which are compatible with 

 BCWMA management objectives, would be maintained under the Cooperative Management 

 Agreement. 



• The Cooperative Management Agreement would reduce potential conflicts in management 

 direction on the BCWMA. FWP would acquire from DNRC a conservation license, lease or possible 

 future easement to restrict new land developments (such as cabin sites), and would compensate 

 DNRC for foregoing some timber harvest on DNRC lands, in order to meet wildlife habitat objectives. 

 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 

 analysis and public involvement process under MEPA. 



• The land exchanges would consolidate state ownership, and move DNRC scattered tracts into 

 private ownership. Plum Creek would acquire DNRC's scattered tracts, which are within Plum 

 Creek ownership and could be profitably managed by Plum Creek. DRNC would acquire lands within 

 the BCWMA that could be more efficiently managed by DNRC. 



3. RELATIONSHIP OF THE ISSUES AND PUBLIC COMMENT TO THE PROPOSED DECISION 



• Big Game Wildlife Species 



Current elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer populations on the BCWMA would be maintained, and 

 potential adverse impacts under the No Action Alternative would be avoided. No effect would occur 

 at the population level for elk and deer associated with the DNRC scattered tracts that Plum Creek 

 would acquire. 



• Recreation and Access 



The proposed action would maintain public access and hunting opportunities in the Seeley Lake area, 

 and potential adverse impacts under the No Action Alternative would be avoided. Public access to 

 the DNRC scattered tracts is currently controlled by Plum Creek, and would not likely change under 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 38 



