p. 2, para. 2 



We agree that different economic and ecological tradeoffs may occur under ttie various alternatives 

 considered, and your ctiaracterlzation of the differences in forested conditions between DNRC and Plum 

 Creek parcels proposed for exchange is correct The ecological tradeoffs of the alternatives were 

 considered in the analysis in the context of patch size, patch juxtaposition, stand attributes (DEIS p. 4-23 

 to 4-30), and anticipated effects to threatened, endangered and sensitive species (DEIS p. 4-33 to 4-50). 



p. 2, para. 3 



Forest characteristics were considered collectively in the attribute level tables contained on p. 4-26 to 4- 

 29, and levels of snags, structural complexity and coarse woody debris were evaluated in the Vegetation 

 subsection for each parcel (DEIS Appendix F). Inventoried and un-inventoried roadless areas are 

 classifications that pertain to federal lands. No federal lands are included in this proposal and no subject 

 lands fall within areas under this designation. All of these tracts have experienced some level of timber 

 harvest and road building in the past. 



Wildlife 



p. 2, para. 4 



The proposed action is driven, in part, by FWP's interest in moving proactively to protect wildlife habitat 

 and prevent substantial habitat and population losses that would be expected under the no-action 

 alternative. The proposed action was developed as a wildlife conservation strategy on the basis of FWP's 

 and DNRC's familiarity (first-hand and in consultation with other biologists) with wildlife populations across 

 the entire landscape connecting all parcels proposed for exchange. You will find the majority of this 

 landscape-scale analysis displayed in pages 4-9 to 4-11 and 4-43 through 4-49 in the DEIS. Results of 

 this landscape-scale analysis are displayed in Table 4. 7-6 (page 4-50). and in tables on pages 4-9 to 4- 

 1 1, where adverse, neutral and beneficial effects are summarized by species and alternative. We should 

 also clarify here that the effects on wildlife that are summarized in Table 2-5 (pages 2-7 through 2-16) are 

 the "bottom line" results of analyses at the landscape scale. In our analysis, we applied the principles you 

 described in your letter and the citations you have added will be useful as part of the record. 



For the wildlife analysis, all parcels surrounding each subject parcel were given coarse filter consideration 

 for habitat values, fragmentation, connectivity and potential corridors. Results of these assessments are 

 contained under the Fragmentation of Habitats headings contained in the DEIS Appendix F. This 

 approach was deemed appropriate for displaying likely effects at a reasonable scale where environmental 

 consequences would not appear diluted due to inclusion of extensive acreage in a particular analysis 

 area. As stated for fine filter wildlife considerations in the DEIS (p. 3-23 para 4). ..".analysis areas varied 

 in size as appropriate to consider the probability that effects of actions proposed on subject lands would 

 be felt by associated species at the population scale. " An example of this is provided for lynx habitat on 

 the DNRC Lost Horse parcels where a 30-square mile landscape was evaluated (DEIS pp. 4-46 and 4- 

 47). To derive Table 4. 7-6 in the DEIS (p. 4-50), multiple landscapes containing the subject parcels were 

 considered. While the SFLMP considers the importance of maintaining landscape patterns and 

 processes for achieving biodiversity goals on DNRC lands (SFLMP ROD - Biodiversity RMS-1. RMS-3 p. 

 ROD-12), there is no requirement pertaining to the appropriate scale with which to analyze effects on 

 wildlife species. 



p. 3, para. 2 



For the wildlife analysis, all subject parcels and those surrounding each subject parcel were given coarse 

 filter consideration for habitat values, forest fragmentation, connectivity and potential corridors. Results of 

 these assessments are contained under the Fragmentation of Habitats headings contained in the DEIS - 

 Appendix F. Forest fragmentation was given consideration for species where it was appropriate in the 

 Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Species analysis contained in the DEIS on pp. 4-33 to 4- 

 50. Consideration of fragmentation of habitat needed by big game species formed the fundamental basis 

 of the Big-Game Wildlife Species analysis contained on pp. 4-1 to 4-11 of the DEIS. 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 24 



