For the following reasons, I find the proposed action would not have significant impacts 

 on the human environment: 



a. Wildlife 



The project area is used extensively by elk, white tailed deer, mule deer, and 

 moose. With mitigations in place, little to low negative direct, indirect or 

 cumulative effects to big game populations would be expected with the proposed 

 action (Attachment D, Page 3, II, Description of Relevant Affected Resources, A. 

 Existing Environment, Big Game Considerations, Project Area, and Pages 8-9, 

 IV, Environmental Consequences). 



Recent findings, have detected grizzly bears within the analysis area and 

 mitigations to potential adverse impacts are in place (Attachment D, Page 3, II. B., 

 Existing Environment, Grizzly Bears and pages 9-1 1 , IV, Environmental 

 Consequences by Resource, Effects Upon Driver Issues, Grizzly Bears). 



Potential habitat for Lynx has been identified within the project area and 

 mitigations to potential adverse impacts are in place (Attachment D, Page 4, II,C., 

 Existing Environment, Lynx and page II, IV, Environmental Consequences by 

 Resource, Effects Upon Driver Issues, Lynx). 



Gray wolves could use the analysis area however; there would be low potential 

 for direct, indirect or cumulative effects (Attachment D, Page 2, II, B., Existing 

 Environment, Wolves and pages 12-13, IV, Environmental Consequences by 

 Resource, Effects Upon Driver Issues, Gray Wolf). 



b. Economics 



This alternative would provide the largest measure of reasonable and legitimate 

 return over the long run for the Public Buildings (P.B.) and Common School 

 (C.S.) grants. Under the selected alternative, trust revenues from stumpage would 

 be between approximately $345,000 and 747,000 (EA, #24, Page. 13 and 

 Attachment E). With a well designed and maintained access/transfwrtation route, 

 this would provide for future entries at reduced costs and anticipated higher 

 stumpage values. 



c Water Quality, Fisheries and Soils 



A small watershed yield increase would be anticipated in a small tributary to Bear 

 Creek. Stream channel conditions would accommodate this level of water yield 

 increase and no cumulative watershed impacts would be expected. No cumulative 

 watershed impacts due to watershed yield increase are anticipated in the Fish 

 Creek watershed. BMPs would be fully complied with during harvest operations 

 (EA, Page 5, #5, Water Quality, Quantity and Distribution, Cumulative 

 Watershed Effects, and Attachment C, Page 3, Effects on Water Quality, Action 



