Proposed Action and Alternatives

Chapter Proposed Action and Alternatives Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 15

CHAPTER 2 - PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION Chapter 2 describes and compares the Southwest Fence Relocation and Waterline Project s Proposed Action and its alternatives. This chapter also identifies several alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study. This project s alternatives were developed in response to the key issues described in Chapter 1. While many potential alternatives exist, it is neither practical nor feasible to consider every possible option. The Proposed Action and alternatives described here represent a range of management approaches. Note: NEPA regulations require the Forest Service to analyze a No Action Alternative as a baseline for comparing the effects of other alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14(d), FSH 1909.15, 23.1). DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives were considered in detail. These were: 1) the No Action Alternative, 2) the Proposed Action, and 3) the Modified Action Alternative. Specifics of these alternatives follow. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 16

Alternative 1: No Action The No Action Alternative would continue current management in the project area (Figure 3). The Chester (Middle), Chester (West), Horsethief (West), and Kennedy (West) Pastures have existing, reliable water in the form of either water tanks or stockdams. These pastures would be grazed by livestock almost annually. The Horsethief (East), Stony Butte (#2), and West Engen (Main) Pastures would be grazed intermittently when water supplies allowed. The Dry Hole (Chester) Pasture would remain in multi-year rest. The existing deferred grazing rotation system with rest pastures would remain unchanged. The fence between the West Engen (Main) and Horsethief (West) pastures would remain in its current location (i.e. it would remain across Booth Dam). The electric fence separating the Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) Pastures would remain electric. Figure 3. Map of the No Action Alternative showing the distribution of fence and water sources that would result after alternative implementation. Note that the water sources shown are not necessarily reliable for livestock watering uses; see Figure 2 for more information. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 17

Alternative 2: Proposed Action The Proposed Action Alternative (Figure 4) would install approximately 3.6 miles of waterline and install five water tanks into the following pastures: Dry Hole (Chester), Horsethief (East), Kennedy (West), Stony Butte (#2), and West Engen (Main). This would increase flexibility in the existing grazing rotation system by allowing managers to place any of the project area s pastures on either the rest schedule or the grazing schedule, based on the particular resource needs in any given year. The Proposed Action Alternative would relocate the boundary fence between the Horsethief (West) and West Engen (Main) Pastures. That fence currently crosses through Booth Dam. The fence would be relocated ~0.25 mile to the north, near Forest Service Road 227. This would change the approximate pasture size for Horsethief (West) from 352 to 543 acres and West Engen (Main) from 750 to 559 acres. The electric fence separating Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) Pastures would be converted to a barbwire fence. Figure 4. Map of the Proposed Action Alternative showing the distribution of fence and water sources that would result after alternative implementation. Note that the water sources shown are not necessarily reliable for livestock watering uses; see Figure 2 for more information. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 18

Alternative 3: Modified Action The Modified Action Alternative (Figure 5) would: Combine the Horsethief (East), Horsethief (I.T. #25), and Dry Hole (Chester) pastures into a single 940-acre pasture. Interior fences as well as a cattle guard along Forest Service Road 227 would then no longer be necessary and so would be removed. Temporary (i.e. 1-3 years in any one location) use of electric fence would be permissible for the purpose of vegetative management. Remove the existing fence from Booth Dam, relocating it near Forest Service Road 227. Convert the existing electric fence between Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) pastures to a barbwire fence. Install approximately 3 miles of underground waterline and five water tanks. One tank would be placed in pastures: Kennedy (West), Stony Butte (#2), and West Engen (Main). Two tanks would be placed in the newly combined pasture. Compared to the Proposed Action, the pipeline s route under this alternative would be slightly different; specifically, the west tank in the combined pastures would be further south. Reclaim (i.e. fill-in) five water sources. The water sources affected would be: #810w10 (in Chester (Middle) pasture); #817w05 (in Dry Hole (Chester) pasture); #825w04 (in Horsethief (East) pasture); #854w04 (in West Engen (Main) pasture), and #848w03 (in Stony Butte (#2) pasture). The latter s dilapidated exclosure would also be removed. Figure 5. Map of the Modified Action Alternative showing the distribution of fence and water sources that would result after alternative implementation. Note that the water sources shown are not necessarily reliable for livestock watering uses; see Figure 2 for more information. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 19

DESIGN CRITERIA & FEATURES COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES Design criteria and features common to alternatives are described below: Archeological Clearance Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range improvements. A cultural resource inventory and all required clearances would be completed prior to any ground disturbing activities. Fence Design Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new fences. All newly constructed fences would comply with LRMP recommendations for big game movement and recreational use. In particular, all new fences would have easy-opening gates and a bottom smooth wire 16 above the ground surface to facilitate pronghorn passage (see LRMP pp. 1-30, B-1). In addition, special care would be taken to reduce potential impact to a sharp-tailed grouse lek near Booth Dam; specifically, the relocated fence would be routed to avoid the lek (if it is active); fence markers would be placed on that portion of the fence closest to the lek site if necessary. Monitoring Monitoring would occur under all alternatives (funding permitting), though not all alternatives would require the same monitoring. See Table 3 for details. Noxious Weeds Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range infrastructure. All construction equipment used for the installation of that infrastructure would be required to be cleaned of any noxious weed seeds prior to being moved into the project area. Any new noxious weed infestations resulting from ground disturbing activities would be treated as necessary. Reclamation Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range improvements. Following the completion of each ground disturbing activity, the site would be seeded with native seed if seeding was determined to be necessary for vegetative recovery. Soil Disturbance Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range improvements. To help reduce the potential for soil disturbance, the best management practices labeled: Watershed Conservation Practices (WCPs) Required for All Activities Associated with Project Implementation in the project file would be followed. See the Soil Specialist Report in the project file for more details. Timing of Construction Activities Alternatives 2 and 3 propose new range improvements. To help reduce disturbances to nesting and breeding sharp-tailed grouse and greater prairiechicken, construction activities would not be allowed from March 1 through June 15 within 1 mile of active display grounds from 0.5 hour before sunrise until after 09:30 a.m. Water Tank Escape Ramps Alternatives 2 and 3 propose installing new water tanks. Each of these tanks would be required to have a wildlife escape ramp installed. See the Wildlife Specialist Report in the project file for more detail. Water Tank Placement Alternatives 2 and 3 propose installing new water tanks. Water tanks would be located to minimize visibility from roads, thus reducing the impact on the scenic integrity of the area. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 20

Table 3. Summary of monitoring that would be conducted in the project area. ISSUE DETAILS Livestock Management Grazing use distribution maps would be compiled by Forest Service personnel for the first 3 years of this project s implementation. Mapping would be done after livestock were rotated out of each grazed pasture. This information would help assess how range infrastructure had affected livestock distribution. Incidental monitoring would be used to assess whether existing water sources caused any problems related to livestock, pet, or human safety. These monitoring efforts would be conducted under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. Vegetation Under all alternatives, vegetative litter and species composition would be monitored by Forest Service personnel every 5-10 years. This information would help assess whether there had been changes in litter levels as well as species composition, including both native and exotic species. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, Forest Service personnel would monitor areas of ground-disturbance for the 3 years following that disturbance. This information would help assess the need for native grass seeding and identify any areas of noxious weed establishment. Wildlife Habitat Visual obstruction readings (VOR) would be taken by Forest Service personnel in the project area under Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. Monitoring protocol would follow the current methods already in use across the Fort Pierre National Grassland. This information would help assess availability of high structure vegetation to dependent wildlife. The South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department currently conducts lek surveys in the project area. This information would provide an index to population levels of greater prairie-chicken and sharp-tailed grouse. It is anticipated that these surveys would continue under all alternatives. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, range infrastructure would be periodically inspected to assess impacts on wildlife. Questions addressed would include: Are escape ramps in place and effective? Is the bottom smooth wire in place and properly situated on new fences? Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 21

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES This section provides three summaries of the alternatives. Table 4 compares the projects that are being proposed. Table 5 compares the alternatives by key issue. Table 6 displays the extent to which each alternative would meet the guidance provided in the LRMP. Table 4. Projects proposed by alternative. ------------------ALTERNATIVE------------------ PROJECT 1 2 3 Install waterlines No Yes; about 3.6 miles Yes; about 3.0 miles Install five water tanks No Yes Yes Relocate boundary fence No Yes Yes between West Engen (Main) and Horsethief (West) Pastures Replace electric fence No Yes Yes separating Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) Pastures with barbwire fence Reclaim 5 water sources No No Yes Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 22

Table 5. Comparison of how alternatives would address key issues. ----------------------------ALTERNATIVE--------------------------------- ISSUE 1 2 3 Livestock Management: cost of range improvements Livestock Management: electric fence Livestock Management: water sources Livestock Management: water source reclamation Livestock Management: grazing rotations There would be no cost for range improvements. Fence between Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) would remain electric; maintenance would continue to be a long-term problem. No new water sources would be installed, reliable water for livestock would be unavailable in some pastures. No water sources would be reclaimed. No changes would be made in current livestock managment. Certain pastures would continue to be grazed every year, some pastures would be grazed only in years with high precipitation, while other pastures would remain in multi-year rest. New range improvements would cost ~$15,928. The electric fence between Camp Flat (East North) and Camp Flat (East South) Pastures would be converted to a barb-wire fence; maintenance needs would be lessened. New water sources would be installed, providing reliable water for livestock. See Alternative 1 regarding water source reclamation. Management flexibility would be increased. It would be easier to change grazing rotations. Pastures that are currently grazed on a yearly basis could be rested, while pastures that are currently in multi-year rest could be grazed. New range improvements would cost ~$14,428; reclamation of 5 existing water sources would cost ~$16,000. See Alternative 2 regarding electic fence. See Alternative 2 regarding water sources. Five poorlyfunctioning water sources would be reclaimed. See Alternative 2 regarding grazing rotations. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 23

----------------------------ALTERNATIVE--------------------------------- ISSUE 1 2 3 No pastures would be combined. Livestock Management: pasture size Livestock Management: Booth Dam fence Vegetation: Invasive & native grass species composition Vegetation: noxious weeds Fence currently at Booth Dam would remain in place; fence maintenance and effectiveness would continue to problematic. Booth Dam would still be split between two pastures, requiring both pastures rotations to be altered to modify grazing use around the dam. Current vegetative would continue. Invasive species such as smooth brome would persist and potentially continue to spread. There would be no ground disturbing activities, therefore there would be no potential for the associated machinery to introduce noxious weeds. See Alternative 1 regarding pasture size. Fence currently at Booth Dam would be moved near Forest Service Road 227 thus removing it from the water s edge at Booth Dam. The dam would then be located solely within Horsethief (West) Pasture; only one pasture s use would have to be changed to modify grazing along shoreline. Through prescribed grazing management, invasive grass species would likely decrease and native species increase. There would be potential for noxious weed introduction during construction of proposed improvements. These potential effects would be mitigated (see p. 20). Horsethief (East), Horsethief (I.T. #25), and Dry Hole (Chester) would be combined into one pasture, increasing the average pasture size. See Alternative 2 regarding Booth Dam fence. See Alternative 2 regarding species composition. See Alternative 2 regarding noxious weeds. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 24

----------------------------ALTERNATIVE--------------------------------- ISSUE 1 2 3 Vegetative structure Amount and See Alternative 2 would not be distribution of high regarding vegetative changed due to structure vegetation structure. changes in could change in the livestock project area as more distribution from pastures became able creation of new to be grazed or water sources. rested. Note: 10% of Note: 10% of the the Fort Pierre Fort Pierre National National Grassland Grassland would be would be rested each rested each year. year. Vegetation: vegetative structure Wildlife Habitat: water source reclamation Wildlife Habitat: sensitive species viability and management indicator species population trends Wildlife Habitat: disturbance No existing water source would be reclaimed. Sensitive species would be affected, though viability would not be threatened. Management indicator species would be affected, though population trends would remain unchanged. No new range infrastrure would be installed; sensitive and management indicator species would not be disturbed by construction. See Alternative 1 regarding water source reclamation. See Alternative 1 regarding sensitive and management indicator species. New range infrastructure would be installed; sensitive and management indicator species could be disturbed by construction, though the level and duration of disturbance would likely be minor. Five existing water sources would be reclaimed. Species such as northern leopard frog could be affected, positively or negatively, depending on the quality of wetland habitat that would have otherwise been provided. See Alternative 1 regarding sensitive and management indicator species. See Alternative 2 regarding disturbance to wildlife. Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 25

Table 6. Comparison of how Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would meet guidance contained in the Nebraska National Forest s Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). FPNG = Fort Pierre National Grassland. ---------------ALTERNATIVE------------------ LRMP DIRECTION 1 2 3 Objective: The desired plant species composition objective across the geographic area is as follows: Late seral 20% to 40%, Late Intermediate Seral: 30% to 50%, Early Intermediate Seral 10% to 30%, Early Seral: 1% to 10% Objective: Manage the geographic area to meet the vegetation structure objectives identified below: High: 30% to 50%, Moderate: 30% to 50%, Low: 10% to 30%. Goal 1.c: Increase the amount of forests and grasslands restored to or maintained in a healthy condition with reduced risk and damage from fires, insects and diseases, and invasive species. Goal 2.c: Improve the capability of the Nation s forests and grasslands to provide a desired sustainable level of uses, values, products, and services. B-13 Water: Design activities to protect and manage the riparian ecosystem. Maintain the integrity of the ecosystem including quantity and quality of water. (Standard) Little or no change from current Little or no change from current on FPNG as a whole or in the project area Little or no change from current Little or no change from current on FPNG as a whole; vegetative structure diversity in project area would be more variable Little or no change from current Little or no change from current on FPNG as a whole; vegetative structure diversity in project area would be more variable Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 26

---------------ALTERNATIVE------------------ LRMP DIRECTION 1 2 3 F-4 Fish, Widlife, and Rare Plants: Design and build new structures, including fences, to reduce hazards to big game and to allow big game movement throughout the year (Appendix B). This doesn t include fences designed to specifically exclude wildlife. (Guideline) I-9 Livestock Grazing: Prioritize and remove any fences or water developments that are not contributing to achieving desired. (Guideline) J-6 Non-native and Invasive Species, Noxious Weeds and Insect Management: Utilize all methods feasible, including livestock grazing strategies, in the integrated pest management program. (Guideline) Q-6 Infrastructure Use and Management: Build new and reconstructed fences to provide for big game movement (Appendix B) and access for recreation, fire protection, and mineral development. (Guideline) Q-10 Infrastructure Use and Management: Prioritize and reconstruct those fences that do not meet big game specifications. (Guideline) Does not meet or move towards LRMP ; no new or relocated fences are proposed ; 1 new and 1 relocated fence are proposed ; 1 new and 1 relocated fence are proposed Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 27

---------------ALTERNATIVE------------------ LRMP DIRECTION 1 2 3 Infrastructure 1: Increase the average pasture size by 25 percent over the decade. (Objective) No change from current ; average pasture size on FPNG when this objective was established was 500 acres 1 ; average pasture size now is 537 acres (115,973 acres/216 pastures) See Alt. 1. Moves further toward objective; average pasture size in project area increased from 509 acres to 622 acres; average pasture size on FPNG increased from 537 acres to 542 acres (115,973 acres/214 pastures) Rest 1: Maintain at least 10 percent of the suitable rangeland in rest each year. (Objective) Infrastructure 1: Allow no net decrease in the average pasture size. (Guideline) Infrastructure 2: Allow no net gain in the number of water developments... (Guideline) 1 USDA Forest Service 2001b, Table 3-34, p. 3-87., i.e. while there would be an increase in water developments compared to existing, there would not be an increase compared to the present when this guideline was established, i.e. there would be no net gain in water developments even compared to existing Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 28

OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Several alternatives that were proposed were not carried forward for detailed analysis. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the need for the proposal, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to have components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. These alternatives are summarized below: Combine Pastures, Trade Water Sources, and Mow Exclosures: One commenter suggested an alternative that would combine eight pastures into four larger pastures and would eliminate livestock access to three existing water sources while installing three new water sources. This alternative as a whole would decrease management flexibility in grazing rotations and therefore would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action. A decision regarding mowing of exclosures was outside the scope of this project. Parts of this proposal, however, were used to create the Modified Action Alternative. Specifically, that alternative included the concept of trading water sources (i.e. creating some new water sources while eliminating livestock access to an equal number of existing water sources) so that there would be no net gain in the number of water sources on the Fort Pierre National Grassland from what currently exists. The Modified Action Alternative also included the concept of combining some pastures to create a larger pasture. Dam and Dugout Repair and/or Creation: The option of repairing existing dams and dugouts or building new ones, rather than installing new water tanks was suggested. The option for dam and dugout repair already exists (i.e. repair does not require additional approval). Dam and dugout repair alone, however, was considered unlikely to address this project s purpose and need long-term due to continuing sedimentation and dam breaching, and in some cases, poor siting (e.g. Dam #817w05). The project area does not contain additional suitable sites for dam creation; sites suitable for creation of new dugouts are largely limited to natural wetlands. Excavating such sites would cause unnecessary environmental harm and would be inconsistent with the LRMP (see LRMP p. 1-10). Drill Wells: The option of drilling 5 wells in the project area was also identified as an alternative to putting in a pipeline. The average depth of water wells in this area is 1,800 to 2,400 feet; the average cost is $80,000 to $100,000 per well. Well drilling was therefore not considered to be an economically-viable alternative to pipeline installation. Haul Water: The option of hauling water to dispersed locations in the project area was also identified as an alternative to putting in a pipeline. This would require hauling water to each selected location several times a week during the summer grazing season. Due to the volume and frequency of trips this would entail, about 1 mile of newly road would have to be built. This option was also deemed less responsive to the project s purpose to increase management flexibility by increasing water reliability. Furthermore, this alternative is already very similar to the No Action Alternative (i.e. permittees already have the option to haul water). Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives Page 29