Bear Creek (refer to hydrology section). Stabilization of the gully site would be a substantial 

 long-term improvement in sediment reduction compared to the No-Action Alternative. 



Alternative D 



This alternative would construct about 4.38 miles of new road, which is approximately 0.7 miles 

 less than Alternatives B & C. Segments of the new road are on different alignments than other 

 alternatives to avoid old growth designated stands. Alternative C and D would have one 

 additional bridge crossing on Beaver Creek, where Alternative B would not. The bridge would 

 be installed with gravel approaches to prevent rutting, erosion and sedimentation. 



Timber harvest would be completed by conventional ground skidding, and post and pole harvest. 

 Alternative D, low intensity harvest (post and pole thinning) would thin about 380 less acres than 

 Alternative C and 29 acres less than Alternative B. Tractor harvest units would incur similar 

 ground effects as the other action alternatives on a proportional basis but would involve fewer 

 acres than alternatives B and C. 



With Alternative D, the eroded irrigation gully in SE'^ of Section 8 would not be reshaped and 

 stabilized and chronic erosion and sedimentation into Bear Creek would continue (refer to 

 hydrology section) similar to the no-action Alternative A. 



Cumulative effects to soil productivity 



Cumulative effects could occur from repeated ground based entries into the harvest area. The 

 limited area of past thinning projects has left minimal effect on the soils, with few trails still 

 evident. All Action alternatives would control the area of soil effects associated with timber 

 harvest by skid trail planning and minimizing disturbance to that needed for silvicultural goals as 

 noted in the mitigation measures. Proposed post and pole harvest would have negligible effects 

 as long as contractors are required to implement the same mitigation measures for season of use, 

 avoid wet sites and install adequate drainage in trails and roads. Temporary roads would be 

 stabilized and revegetated. Any future harvest would likely use the same road system and 

 existing trails and landings and therefore presents low risk of cumulative effects. Large woody 

 debris will be retained for nutrient cycling and long-term productivity and therefore presents low 

 risk of cumulative effects to soil productivity. 



Visual 



Alternative A 



There would not be any significant change to the landscape in the near term. The existing mosaic 

 of textures and color variation would continue. At some point in the future fire or insects will 

 play their natural role within this ecosystem as a cleansing and thinning agent. It is likely that, 

 due to long-term fire suppression and resulting fuels buildup, future fire occurrences would be 

 larger and of higher intensity then occurred historically. Openings created by these fires would 

 be larger and more expansive than those proposed under any of the action alternatives. 



102 



