process were defined and are summarized in Chapter I. In order to understand how 

 the proposed harvest would effect the environment, its effects were contrasted to 

 those of Alternative A: No Harvest (No Action). Using the guidance of the MEPA 

 Rules, the responses received, and the issues developed during the internal scoping, 

 the team designed Alternative B: Harvest to satisfy the needs and meet the objectives 

 of the project. 



2.3 Alternative Design, Evaluation, and Selection Criteria 



The DNRC EDT the following design and evaluation criteria. 



• Meet objectives of Trust Lands stewardship. 



• Comply with MEPA Rules. 



• Retain coarse woody debris to reduce soil erosion. 



• Retain at least the minimum number of snags required to accommodate wildlife 

 needs. 



• Design harvest units and systems to minimize impact on the soils and stream. 



• Control noxious-weed infestations and prevent dispersal. 



• Maintain current ongoing recreational opportunities where possible. 



2.4 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed 

 Study 



No other alternatives were developed, because proposed Alternative B: Harvest met 

 all environmental guidance and IDT specialists' specifications, while providing 

 income for the trust. 



2.5 Description of Alternatives 



2.5.1 Alternative A: No Harvest (No Action) 



Salvageable fire and subsequent insect killed trees would not be harvested. No 

 revenue would be generated for the Common School and Public Building Trusts. 

 However, ongoing DNRC permitted and approved activities would continue in 

 the project area. 



2.5.2 Alternative B: Harvest 



The proposed salvage harvest would yield approximately 52,000 tons of fire- 

 killed timber from approximately 1,314 acres at this time. If there is future 

 mortality from subsequent insect infestations of species such as Douglas fir 

 beetles, mountain pine beetles, or western pine beetles, additional salvage harvest 



Fish Creek Salvage Environmental Assessment 2-2 



