Alternatives B, and C 



Under these alternatives, timber harvesting, road building, and other associated management 

 activities would occur. Table 2-1 below summarizes environmental effects of each of the 

 alternatives. Alternatives B & C make use of existing roads on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau 

 of Land Management land to access the school trust lands. Alternative B retains two blocks of 

 land, which meet the requirements of the Hillis et al. (1991) paradigm for elk security cover. 

 Alternative C emphasizes more intensive management of the trust lands for economic return 

 from timber harvest. No large blocks of security cover were retained but there would be 

 corridors of hiding cover along Bear and Beaver Creeks in which little or no harvesting occur. 



Alternative D 



This alternative avoids harvesting or road building within any stands which meet the Green et al. 

 (1992) definition of old growth. This reduces the number of acres proposed for sawlog harvest, 

 along with the acres of post and rail harvesting. It also reduces the amount of new road to be 

 built. Revenue to the trust is reduced when compared with Alternatives B and C but is greater 

 than A. There is additional elk security cover available but fewer acres of second growth 

 lodgepole pine, treatment. There are also no plans to install the diversion head gate on Beaver 

 Creek or reclaim the gully erosion in Bear Creek. A more detailed explanation of existing 

 conditions and environmental consequences can be found in Chapters 3 and 4. 



34 



