compared to the other action alternatives. Ditch control measures would be implemented and the 

 gully back sloped and stabilized. 



Alternative C 



Direct economic return to the Trust is emphasized under this alternative. 



Sawlog harvesting proposed under this option is identical to the harvest described under 

 Alternative B. The difference involves the acres of post and rail thinning removal and the 

 amount retained for elk security cover. Approximately 1018 acres of the second growth timber 

 would be thinned by post and pole harvesting using low impact equipment such as 4 wheelers, 

 small dozers and pick-up trucks. As with Alternative B up to 10 percent of the 1018 acres would 

 have all of the trees removed in small, <5 acre patches. These small patches are at locations 

 where the dominant trees are so badly suppressed that it is unlikely they would respond to being 

 opened up. The two large blocks of retention that were identified for elk security cover under 

 Alternative B would receive more intensive management and would no longer meet the Hillis et 

 al (1991) definition. Corridors along Bear Creek and Beaver Creek would remain untreated but 

 would also not meet the security cover criteria established by Hillis et al. (1991). 



Road construction needs would be somewhat different under this alternative. A bridge would be 

 placed across Beaver Creek and the roads proposed under Alternative B for Sections 8 and 5 

 would be connected. 



Alternative D 



This alternative emphasizes retention of all stands which meet the Green et al (1992) definition 

 for old growth. In contrast to Alternatives B and C, road locations were moved and units deleted 

 to avoid disturbance in old growth stands. This has reduced the overall acres of harvesting, both 

 for sawlogs and post/rail material. Sawlog harvesting would decline from 297 acres to 173 acres. 

 The largest change in sawlog harvesting occurs in Section 5 where a 73-acre harvest simulating a 

 stand replacing fire, is eliminated. In Section 17, Unit Number 1 (9 acres) and Number 2(15 

 acres) are eliminated under Alternative D. 



With a reduction in harvest acres there is an accompanying reduction in the amount of road. 

 Alternatives B and C require 5.06 miles of new road construction, this would be reduced to 4.38 

 miles. The amount of reconstruction would remain the same while temporary road use would 

 increase by .2 miles to .3 miles. 



Post and rail harvesting under Alternative D is identical to B except for a 36-acre harvest unit, 

 which is deleted, in the NE '^ of Section 5. There is a substantial amount of change from 

 Alternative C to D. Under Alternative C 1018 acres of post and rail material would be thinned 

 while under D only 638 acres would be thinned. This amount is similar to the thinning identified 

 under Alternative B. Most of the acres deferred from harvesting are located in Sections 5 and 8. 



Approximately 136 acres of harvesting simulating stand replacing and mixed severity fire events, 



30 



