the exchange. There may be a minor adverse effect on access to hunt bighorn sheep near Bonner. 

 Overall, DNRC vi/ould be exchanging lands open to public recreational access year-round (the 

 scattered tracts) for lands with access restricted seasonally (the Plum Creek sections within the 

 BCWMA). 



• Economics 



Real estate property values of DNRC, FWP and Plum Creek would be virtually the same after the 

 exchanges as they were before. Preliminary appraisal data indicate that DNRC would gain acreage 

 and future forest management opportunities in both exchanges, but would surrender up to 12,066 

 MBF in standing merchantable timber in the two exchanges, if all DNRC subject parcels were 

 exchanged to Plum Creek and FWP. However, DNRC would withhold some timbered acres from 

 both final exchanges to balance the appraised values. Conversely, FWP would exchange more 

 acreage to DNRC than FWP would obtain in return, but FWP would acquire more standing 

 merchantable timber on the land it would receive from DNRC in the exchange. DNRC would 

 generate slightly more than $20,000 per year after the land exchanges, primarily from the 

 conservation license with FWP. This license may be replaced by the future purchase of a perpetual 

 conservation easement by FWP, which would yield a one-time payment to DNRC of $100-S300 per 

 acre. Timber revenues would continue at about the same rates per year. Development of a 

 conservation easement would involve a separate analysis and decision making process. 



• Vegetation and Old Growth 



Approximately 633.4 acres of old stands on the DNRC scattered tracts would be traded to Plum 

 Creek. These stands would likely be harvested and habitat would be reduced at the local landscape 

 level. FWP would acquire approximately 743.1 acres of old stands from DNRC (on sections 10, 14, 

 and 16), and these parcels would be managed to meet wildlife habitat objectives on the BCWMA. 

 DNRC would acquire 79.5 acres of old stands from FWP (on the Dreyer Ranch parcels), and these 

 parcels would be managed under the Cooperative Management Agreement. In the analysis, the 

 exchanges were not anticipated to adversely affect DNRC's ability to meet old growth commitments 

 under the SFLMP. The SFLMP's commitment to retain one-half of historic levels of old growth is in 

 conflict with law SB354, which was signed into law on April 16, 2001; DNRC will be amending the 

 SFLMP to reflect this change. As such, it is still expected that under Alternative D, DNRC would be 

 able to continue to meet SFLMP commitments to provide for biologically diverse forests. FWP would 

 continue its direction to recruit and manage old forests for their unique wildlife habitat values. 



• Noxious Weeds 



Under the Cooperative Management Agreement, FWP and DNRC would elevate the priority of weed 

 control on the BCWMA, and weed treatment is anticipated to improve in effectiveness. DNRC would 

 acquire from Plum Creek some scattered spot infestations of leafy spurge located on approximately 

 120 acres within the E1/2 of section 6 T15N-R13W. (Leafy spurge is also present on adjacent 

 ownership in this vicinity.) This parcel would incur additional weed control costs to FWP and DNRC. 



• Sensitive/Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species 



There would be moderate benefits for some species (gray wolf, grizzly bear, pileated woodpecker) by 

 blocking up state ownership on the BCWMA. The exchange of DNRC parcels to FWP would allow 

 the growth of larger patches of mature forest. There would be minor, localized adverse effects on 

 other species (lynx, flammulated owl, black-backed woodpecker) from exchange of DNRC scattered 

 tracts, which Plum Creek is likely to harvest. 



• Watershed and Fisheries 



There would be a net reduction in state ownership of stream habitat for westslope cutthroat trout and 

 bull trout. However, the proposed exchanges would not likely result in any adverse effects on water 

 quality, stream channel stability, or downstream fish habitat in any watershed except possibly in the 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 39 



