CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES Introduction This chapter describes the proposed action and 2 alternatives to the proposed action. This chapter is intended to provide the decision-maker the basis for choice. The proposed action was developed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) based on resource concerns and direction in the Forest Plan. This chapter includes mitigation, monitoring, and a summary comparison of the alternatives as they relate to resource concerns and the purpose and need for action. Alternative Formulation A proposed action was developed by the IDT and was designed to meet the purpose and need for action. The proposed action incorporated Forest Plan direction and recommendations made in the watershed analyses that pertain to the Boulder and Wolf allotments. During scoping, several resource concerns were identified by the interdisciplinary team. Mitigation measures and monitoring items were developed to address these resource concerns. Several public comments regarding the closure of the Boulder allotment and vacant portion of the Wolf allotment resulted in the development of an additional action alternative. A comment from Sun Mountain Lodge resulted in additional analysis and modifications to the proposed action. One comment regarding concerns about the effects of spring developments on stream temperature resulted in additional analysis. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated 1. Continuing with the current allotment management plans was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis because it would not meet the purpose and need or Forest Plan standards and guidelines as described in chapter 1 for the reasons described below: Allowed use in the Boulder allotment and the Wolf allotment exceeded forage production and availability. One water development in the Wolf allotment was in need of repair. There are 3 un-named ponds in the Wolf allotment that may not meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. Cattle can access sections of streams inhabited by listed fish species. 2. Grazing with fewer numbers on the Boulder allotment was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. A forage production analysis indicated there was enough forage on the Boulder allotment to support 25 cow/calf pairs (the minimum number for a grazing permit) for 78 days, every other year. A large portion of this forage was in or adjacent to riparian areas so utilization monitoring would be important. New fence construction would be required to keep cattle out of adjacent streams that are inhabited by Federally listed fish species (Cedar Creek, Early Winters Creek, Methow River) and from drifting off the allotment. The cost of additional monitoring and new fence construction to graze the minimum number for less than a full season, every other year, were the reasons this alternative was considered but eliminated from further analysis. 3. Grazing in the Huckleberry and Slate Lake pastures of the vacant portion of the Wolf allotment was considered by eliminated from detailed analysis. A forage production analysis indicated there was enough forage on the Huckleberry pasture to support 1 cow/calf pair for 48 days. The Slate Lake pasture would require new fence construction Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-1

2 in the wilderness to prevent cattle from drifting out of the pasture and down to the Twisp River. It would also require monitoring to ensure riparian utilization standards around Slate Lake were not exceeded. The cost of additional monitoring and the cost of fence construction and maintenance in the wilderness were the reasons this alternative was considered but eliminated from further analysis. 4. New fence construction to prevent cattle from accessing the sections of Wolf Creek that are in the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth wilderness and inhabited by Federally listed fish species was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. Bull trout inhabit the lower 8.5 miles of Wolf Creek. Preventing cattle access to Wolf Creek with fencing would allow the grazing season to be extended to September 30. However, the cost of construction and annual maintenance for this amount of fence, along with the negative impacts to the wilderness character were the reasons this alternative was considered but eliminated from further analysis. Alternatives Considered in Detail The proposed action (Alternative 2), the no grazing alternative (Alternative 1), and one additional action alternative were analyzed to evaluate their effects on the environment. Each alternative includes: objectives, description, mitigation measures, and monitoring. A summary of environmental effects of implementing these alternatives is available at the end of the chapter. More detailed descriptions of effects are provided in Chapter 3. Alternative 1 No Action Objective: Discontinue all livestock grazing in the Boulder and Wolf allotments. Description: This alternative would not allow grazing in the Boulder and Wolf allotments. The existing grazing permit would be cancelled. It is the analyzed "no action" alternative. Structural range improvements such as fences, corrals, and water developments would be allowed to deteriorate naturally. All other activity in the analysis area not connected to grazing would continue. Mitigation and Monitoring: No mitigation would occur. Forest Plan monitoring would continue for the analysis area with no project-specific monitoring. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Objective: Allow grazing to continue in the active portion of the Wolf allotment and revise the allotment management plan (AMP) to address the resource concerns and current management direction. Description: Close the Boulder allotment, the Huckleberry pasture, and the wilderness pastures of the Wolf allotment. Develop a new AMP for the Wolf allotment that reflects current management direction and addresses resource concerns listed below. Locations of the proposed actions are displayed in Figure 2.1. Allow the Wolf allotment to be grazed with up to 57 cow/calf pairs from June 1 to September 30. The reduction in permitted numbers is based on current estimates of forage production. The collection box and water trough at the Graff Spring water development will be relocated and the collection box area fenced. Logs or fence will be used to limit cattle access to: Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-2

3 o 2 un-named ponds in the Rader pasture o The large beaver pond in the Virginia Ridge pasture. Approximately 1/3 mile of fence will be constructed in the Little Wolf pasture to prevent cattle from accessing Wolf Creek. Approximately ½ mile of fence would need to be constructed in the Little Falls pasture, before it could be used, to prevent cattle from leaving the allotment and accessing the nearby Methow River. Approximately 1/3 mile of fence would need to be constructed in the Little Falls pasture near the Wolf Creek trailhead to prevent cattle from accessing Wolf Creek, while allowing access to the existing spring development. In the northeast corner of the Rader pasture move a cattleguard approximately ¼ mile and move the 2 sections of fence attached to it, to eliminate 5 of 6 trail/fence crossings and gates. Alternative 3 Objective: Allow grazing to continue in portions of the Wolf allotment. Revise the allotment management plan (AMP) to address the resource concerns and current management direction. Description: Close the Boulder allotment and the Slate Lake and Huckleberry pastures of the Wolf allotment. Develop a new AMP for the Wolf allotment that reflects current management direction and address resource concerns listed below. Locations of the proposed actions are displayed in Figure 2.2. Allow the active portion of the Wolf allotment to be grazed with up to 57 cow/calf pairs from June 1 to September 30. The reduction in permitted numbers is based on current estimates of forage production. Allow the vacant portion of the Wolf allotment (except Slate Lake pasture) to be grazed with up to 135 cow/calf pairs from July 15 to August 31. The reduction in permitted numbers is based on current estimates of forage production. The collection box and water trough at the Graff Spring water development in the Little Wolf pasture will be relocated and the collection box area fenced. Logs or fence will be used to limit cattle access to: o 2 un-named ponds in the Rader pasture o The large beaver pond in the Virginia Ridge pasture. Approximately 1/3 mile of fence will be constructed in the Little Wolf pasture to prevent cattle from accessing Wolf Creek. Approximately ½ mile of fence would need to be constructed in the Little Falls pasture, before it could be used, to prevent cattle from leaving the allotment and accessing the nearby Methow River. Approximately 1/3 mile of fence would need to be constructed in the Little Falls pasture near the Wolf Creek trailhead to prevent cattle from accessing Wolf Creek, while allowing access to the existing spring development. In the northeast corner of the Rader pasture move a cattleguard approximately ¼ mile and move the 2 sections of fence attached to it, to eliminate 5 of 6 trail/fence crossings and gates. Reconstruct 1.25 miles of existing barbwire fence, reconstruct 2 pole trailbars, reestablish 4 tent camps, locate and conduct clearing on 29.5 miles of historic cattle driveways, and locate and reconstruct 4 water developments within the wilderness portion of the Wolf allotment. Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-3

4 Figure 2.1. Location of proposed actions of alternative 2 in the Boulder and Wolf allotments. Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-4

5 Figure 2.2. Location of proposed actions of alternative 3 in the Boulder and Wolf allotments. Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-5

6 Design Criteria for Alternatives 2 and 3 In order to implement Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, the following design criteria would be applied. These criteria respond to concerns raised by the interdisciplinary team during scoping. 1. Bears can be attracted to and scavenge on livestock carcasses. Scavenging bears may aggressively defend a carcass which provides the potential for a bear/human interaction. To avoid this, any livestock carcass within ¼ mile of a road, facility, or developed trail will be moved or destroyed. In addition, all human and prepared livestock and pet foods and human refuse associated with the livestock operation on the Wolf allotment will be stored in a manner that makes them unavailable to bears. This will be added to the permittees annual operating instructions and discussed with permittees every year by the District Management Specialist. 2. Cattle use of the Wolf grazing allotment will increase the potential for wolf/livestock interaction, increase the potential for human disturbance to a wolf den or rendezvous site, and may result in wolves having to travel further to hunt deer. Therefore, the following conservation measures will be implemented to reduce effects of the grazing allotment to gray wolves: a) Livestock carcasses found on areas of the allotment where they will attract wolves to a potential conflict situation with other livestock, (such as a salting ground, water source, or holding corral) must be removed, buried, or otherwise disposed of such that the carcass will not attract wolves. b) Obviously sick or injured livestock must be moved from the allotment, so they are not targeted by wolves. c) Allotment management activities by humans will not be allowed near active wolf den sites during the denning period (late April to late June), to avoid human disturbance of the site. The distance will be determined on a site-specific basis and will depend primarily on topography around the den site. d) Salt or other livestock attractants will not knowingly be placed near wolf dens or rendezvous sites, to minimize cattle use of these sites. If a new den or rendezvous site is discovered, any previously established salt or attractant location may need to be relocated. Invasive plant species prevention standards from the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants (USDA Forest Service 2005b) will be implemented. Prevention standards that will be applied to this project include: If the permittee needs to use straw or mulch, it is required to be weed-free. If the permittee needs to use feed, it is required to be pelletized or certified weed free feed. Monitoring and Adaptive Management for Alternatives 2 and 3 Proposed Allotment Monitoring Plan Allotment monitoring will be conducted throughout the grazing season. The monitoring strategy will be interdisciplinary and based on Adaptive Management guidance contained in Forest Service Handbook (R-6) Chapter 90 (Part 95), and Forest Service land Ecosystem Analysis and Monitoring Handbook (R-6) , chapter Both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to determine if current management is Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-6

7 meeting the desired objectives. Implementation monitoring determines if livestock management prescriptions are effectively applied and if annual grazing use indicator standards are met. This type of monitoring occurs annually and provides information that helps make specific, year-toyear adjustments to livestock grazing management practices necessary to meet management objectives. Effectiveness monitoring is designed to address the question of whether or not management practices currently applied to the area are achieving the desired conditions. The strategy is to measure changes in vegetation and streambank stability over time. All of the monitoring would be done by the District range management specialist, trained range technicians, fisheries biologists, or hydrologists through administration of the grazing permits. Implementation Monitoring Implementation monitoring for each of the 2 action alternatives is summarized in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2. Riparian implementation monitoring consists of monitoring end-point indicators after cattle are removed from an allotment and is conducted by District staff and permittees. The riparian indicator standards are as follows (ARCS 2008): Streambank alteration standards: Not to exceed 20% altered banks Riparian shrub browse standards: Not to exceed a Moderate level of Woody Species Use or 40% Incidence of Use on current years leaders (stem growth from the current year) Riparian monitoring will be at Designated Monitoring Areas (DMA) located throughout the Wolf allotment (Figure 2.1). For alternative 2 the existing DMA in Rader pasture would be monitored, and 1 new DMA could be established in the Little Wolf pasture if future conditions warrant. For alternative 3, at least 3 new DMAs would be established in the wilderness portion of the allotment following established protocol on DMA site selection (described in Chapter 3.1 Resources). If grazing patterns change in the future new DMAs would be established in accordance with an adaptive management strategy. Due to limited resources and the fact that most riparian use indicators in the active portion of the Wolf allotment have been well below standards, the District proposes an adaptive monitoring strategy that involves mid-season and end of season observations every year. In DMAs that have had grazing use consistently below indicator standards, conduct and document annual mid- and end-of-season spot checks that look at streambank alteration and shrub use. If spot checks indicate streambank alteration is below 10%, the frequency of measured streambank alteration and woody browse monitoring would be once every 5 years. If DMAs exceed standards, they will have measured streambank alteration and woody browse monitoring annually and for any site where the spot check indicates bank alteration is above 10% but below the standard of 20%, they will receive measured streambank alteration and woody browse monitoring that year. The spot checks entail walking the DMA site and completing a rapid ocular estimate of the streambank alteration along with shrub use. This would be done once during mid-season and once at the end of the season for each DMA. The results would be documented and filed in the allotment records. If mid-season monitoring identifies that allowable use standards have not been met, the FS will require management actions to prevent excessive use from occuring. Actions will likely include moving cattle to areas within the grazing unit that have lighter use, moving cattle to the next grazing unit in the rotation, or moving cattle off the allotment. If end of season monitoring identifies a failure to meet the allowable use standards, the FS will require management actions in the next grazing season to prevent excessive use from reoccurring. Actions will likely include the application of an allowable use move trigger (a level Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-7

8 of use below the standard that would require cattle to be moved from the pasture), a change of the use level to an existing trigger, reduction in time and/or numbers, or additional fencing. Failure by livestock grazing permit holder to carry out required management actions resulting in a second occurrence of not meeting allowable use standards will result in action being taken against the Term Grazing Permit. Likely actions will be suspension of numbers or season. Table 2.1. Implementation monitoring for Alternative 2. Monitoring Purpose Objective readiness surveys AMP/ AOI compliance To determine if plants are ready for grazing and that the soil is dry enough to withstand grazing. Upland utilization inspections. To make sure no more forage is grazed than what is allowed in the Forest Plan and to watch for when grazing preference changes from grass to shrubs. Measure utilization if approaching allowable use standards. structural improvement checks. Inspect improvements to determine that required range improvement 1 maintenance is completed prior to turn-on. Riparian utilization inspections. Spot check level of use within riparian areas. Ocular estimate of percent streambank alteration and riparian shrub use and if approaching utilization standard, measure percent utilization. Streambank alteration. If ocular estimate is < 10%, estimate by ocular method again the following year. If 10-20% then schedule to be measured the following year, if > 20% measure that year, change grazing strategy and measure again the following year. What, When and Where One to two weeks before turn-on in the spring. Annually within season and/or end of season. At least 1 inspection in each unit of the allotment. Three units to be inspected. Check 15% of improvements. Each riparian DMA, mid- and end of season, every year. 1-2 DMAs. Who, Fisheries Table 2.2. Implementation monitoring for Alternative 3. Monitoring Purpose Objective readiness surveys To determine if plants are ready for grazing and that the soil is dry enough to withstand grazing. What, When and Where One to two weeks before turn-on in the spring Who 1 improvements include fences, water developments, and corrals. Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-8

9 Monitoring Objective AMP/ AOI compliance Purpose Upland utilization inspections. To make sure no more forage is grazed than what is allowed in the Forest Plan and to watch for when grazing preference changes from grass to shrubs. Measure utilization if approaching allowable use standards. structural improvement checks. Inspect improvements to determine that required range improvement 2 maintenance is completed prior to turn-on. Riparian utilization inspections. Spot check level of use within riparian areas. Ocular estimate of percent streambank alteration and riparian shrub use and if approaching utilization standard, measure percent utilization. Streambank alteration. If ocular estimate is < 10%, estimate by ocular method again the following year. If 10-20% then schedule to be measured the following year, if > 20% measure that year, change grazing strategy and measure again the following year. What, When and Where Annually within season and/or end of season. At least 1 inspection in each unit of the allotment. Twelve units to be inspected. Check 15% of improvements. Each riparian DMA, mid and end of season, every year. 4-5 DMAs. Who, Fisheries In addition, under both alternatives 2 and 3, all Sensitive plant and Survey and Manage sites occurring within the project area will be monitored over two seasons, within five years after implementation. The Virginia Ridge pond, 2 un-named ponds in the Rader pasture, the Graff Spring water development, and the spring adjacent to the corrals at the Wolf Creek trailhead will be monitored to determine if barriers to limit cattle access are effective. Selected aspen stands will be monitored by botanists to determine if cattle use is adversely impacted stand health. Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring is designed to address the question of whether or not management practices currently applied to the area are achieving the desired results. The strategy is to measure changes in vegetation, streambank stability, and, for Alternative 3, wilderness character over time. The District is currently refining the Effectiveness Monitoring strategy within the project area relating to aquatic and riparian resources. From the data, consistency should be determined to be within the NWFP and the Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines. Table 2.3 and Table 2.4 summarize the proposed Wolf AMP effectiveness monitoring plan. 2 improvements include fences, water developments, and corrals. Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-9

10 Table 2.3. Effectiveness monitoring for Alternative 2. Monitoring Purpose Objective Follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Meet ACS objectives Minimize noxious weed spread Follow Forest Plan direction on upland range conditions, which include trend assessments. The effectiveness monitoring strategy will focus on streambank stability and vegetative cover that is representative of grazing use along stream reaches or entire streams. Conduct noxious weed surveys to detect new invaders and document changes in areas of existing populations. If found implement treatments under existing noxious weed decisions. What, When and Where At established condition and trend plots every 10 years. 2 C&T plots. Each DMA would be monitored every 5-10 years. 1-2 DMAs. Annually Who Specialist, Fisheries Specialist, or Botanist Table 2.4. Effectiveness monitoring for Alternative 3. Monitoring Purpose Objective Follow Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Meet ACS objectives Minimize noxious weed spread Minimize impact to qualities of wilderness character Follow Forest Plan direction on upland range conditions, which include trend assessments. The effectiveness monitoring strategy will focus on streambank stability and vegetative cover that is representative of grazing use along stream reaches or entire streams. Conduct noxious weed surveys to detect new invaders and document changes in areas of existing populations. If found implement treatments under existing noxious weed decisions. Map and measure number and condition of range related campsites in the wilderness. Number of trail contacts. Amount of visitor use What, When and Where At established condition and trend plots every 10 years. 4 C&T plots. Each DMA would be monitored every 5-10 years. 4-5DMAs. Annually At new campsites established for range management. Along Wolf Creek trail. Who Specialist, Fisheries Specialist, or Botanist Wilderness manager Resource Specific Adaptive Management When standards are not met or operating instructions not followed, such as excessive streambank alteration or herbaceous and shrub utilization, range and aquatic staff work together with the permittee to further reduce impacts via management changes. For example, our range specialists will coordinate with the permittee to move livestock to other areas should within season move triggers be met. If this is ineffective, the permittee is issued a letter of non- Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-10

11 compliance and non-compliance actions are followed as outlined in Grazing Permit Handbook (Part 16.2b). If end of season monitoring guidelines are exceeded, alternative livestock grazing management practices (i.e. adaptive management) will be implemented for the following grazing season. Adaptive management decisions stemming from the previous season s grazing are given to the permittee in terms contained in the AOI or annual instruction letter for the following grazing season. These decisions may consist of a reduction in time and/or numbers, additional fencing, or an adjustment of monitoring standards for future years. Multiple infractions occurring during the term of consultation may ultimately result in suspension of numbers, or cancellation of a permit as described in Part 16.2b of FSH Alternative Comparison Chart Table 2.5 displays the purpose and need and issues and summarizes the environmental effects discussed in detail in Chapter 3. Table 2.5. Alternative comparisons for the Boulder/Wolf allotment management plan revision project. Purpose and Need Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Component Provide grazing in accordance with multiple-use mandates. Does not meet component. Meets component. Up to 57 cow/calf pairs. Meets component. Up to 192 cow/calf pairs. Update AMP to provide for grazing practices in accordance with current direction. Does not meet component. Meets component. Wolf AMP will be updated to meet current management direction. Meets component. Wolf AMP will be updated to meet current management direction. Resource Concerns Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Allowed use in the Little Wolf, Rader, Little Falls and Virginia Ridge units exceeds forage availability. The allotment would not be grazed. Utilization standards would not be exceeded. Potential for exceeding utilization standards in the units reduced by reduction in cattle numbers in these pastures. Potential for exceeding utilization standards in the units reduced by reduction in cattle numbers in these pastures. Environmental Effects Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Threatened and Endangered Species Bull trout No effect No effect. May affect, likely to adversely Chinook salmon No effect No effect. Steelhead No effect No effect. May affect, likely to adversely Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-11

12 Gray wolf Grizzly bear Canada lynx Sensitive plant species Invasive plant species Wilderness Character Economic Considerations Beneficial effect Beneficial effect No effect Beneficial impact. No sensitive plants impacted by cattle. No introduction or spread of invasive plants by cattle or associated management. New infestations may go undetected for longer time due to less management activity. No grazing would occur in the wilderness. No effect to the wilderness character. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. Introduction of new infestations by cattle possible. Soil and vegetation disturbance by cattle increases potential for spread of existing populations. New infestations likely to be detected sooner due to more management activity. No grazing would occur in the wilderness. Slight possibility of unauthorized drift. No effect to the wilderness character. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. May impact sensitive plant habitat in Gardner Meadows. Introduction of new infestations by cattle possible. Soil and vegetation disturbance by cattle increases potential for spread of existing populations. New infestations may go undetected for longer time in wilderness due to remote nature. Grazing in the wilderness would result in a moderate negative effect on the wilderness character. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No grazing permits. No livestock production. 1 grazing permit. Approximately 14,250 lbs of beef production. 1 water development 1 or 2 grazing permits. Approximately 48,000 lbs of beef production. 1 water Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-12

13 reconstruction =~$500 Approx. 1 mile of new fence = ~$15,000 development reconstruction =~$500 Approx. 1 mile of new fence = ~$15,000 Establish 3 new DMAs Reconstruct 1.25 miles of existing fence, 2 pole trailbars, reestablish 4 tent camps, locate and conduct clearing on 29.5 miles of cattle driveways, and reconstruct 4 water developments in the wilderness portion of Wolf. Additional monitoring and administration. Detailed environmental consequences of all 3 alternatives on other resources are disclosed in Chapter 3. Chapter 2 Alternatives 2-13