Chapter Alternatives, Including the Proposed...

Introduction Alternatives Considered

No Action Alternative No Change Alternative Proposed Action

Design Criteria (Alternative 3) Adaptive Strategies Monitoring Alternatives Considered but Eliminated Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Final Environmental Impact Statement for Livestock Grazing on the Battle Park & Misty Moon Allotments

Chapter 2: Alternatives 2-1

Chapter 2: Alternatives

Introduction This chapter describes alternatives considered for livestock grazing on the Battle Park cattle and horse (C&H) and Misty Moon sheep and goat (S&G) allotments. It also compares the alternatives and defines the differences between them, providing a basis for decision-making and the selection of the proposed action.

Alternatives Considered The Forest Service fully developed three alternatives, the “no action” alternative and two “action” alternatives (one being the proposed action), in response to issues raised. The effects of all three alternatives relative to issues and resources are addressed in chapter 3 of this document.

Alternative 1: No Action – No Livestock Grazing Under the no action – no livestock grazing alternative, no livestock grazing would be permitted on either of the allotments. Following current direction, existing permits would be phased out after giving permittees notice as provided for in the Forest Service handbook (FSH) 2209.13, chapter 10, section 16.13, R2 interim directive of 1/20/2004 which states “…the authorized officer shall provide one year’s written notice before the modification takes effect, except in emergency situations.” According to direction given in FSH 2209.13, chapter 90, section 94.1, R2 interim directive of 1/20/2004 “the ‘no livestock grazing’ alternative will always be fully developed and analyzed in detail.”

Other improvements such as fences, gates, and cow camps1 not needed for other resource uses would eventually be removed as time and funding allows. This alternative provides an environmental baseline for evaluation of the action alternatives as required but is also a viable alternative in its own right.

Alternative 2: No Change – Livestock Grazing under Current Allotment Management Plans or Annual Operating Instructions Under the no change alternative, livestock grazing would continue as prescribed under the current allotment management plans (AMPs) and annual operating instructions (AOIs) as they have been implemented over the past several years. As provided for in FSH 2209.13, chapter 90, section 94.1, R2 interim directive of 1/20/2004, “Current management will be analyzed in detail as an alternative to the proposed action if current management will meet the stated purpose and need for action.” For the Battle Park-Misty Moon project, the no change alternative generally meets the purpose and need and is a fully viable alternative that will be considered in detail.

1 Heritage section 106 consultation would occur as needed.

Bighorn National Forest Powder River Ranger District

2-2 Chapter 2: Alternatives

Existing improvements would be maintained as assigned in term grazing permits and would be reconstructed as needed. New improvements not currently authorized in an existing AMP would not be developed without further NEPA analysis and decision. The Bighorn Vegetation Grazing Guidelines would determine adjustments needed based on utilization monitoring. Sagebrush management would not occur. Cattle would be stocked on Battle Park C&H allotment but not on the lower portion of Misty Moon S&G allotment. The Misty Moon S&G allotment boundary would not be changed, and it could be available for restocking with sheep and goats if the demand arises. Heritage resource protection on the Battle Park allotment would be through non-structural means, such as moving livestock with riders, shortening the grazing season, or keeping livestock out of existing pastures, unless a future decision to implement a structural improvement solution is made in a separate NEPA analysis and decision process.

While current management has evolved to better address certain situations and known problems, there are places where this management is slow in meeting or moving toward desired conditions.

Alternative 3: Proposed Action – Livestock Grazing using Adaptive Management Alternative 3, the proposed action, focuses on the end results for the resource, as opposed to selecting one specific course of action that will not be deviated from over time. The proposed action would be incorporated into the AMP for Battle Park, scheduled to take affect during the 2009 livestock grazing season. Grazing permits, and their associated AMPs and AOIs, would be issued or re-issued as implementing actions of the decision. The decision is expected to remain in effect until new information or changed conditions warrant a new analysis of the allotments.

Any or all of the potential management actions listed in table 2-1 could be implemented to maintain or move allotments toward desired conditions. This list is not all-inclusive. New science and management techniques may be incorporated as needed or when they are developed. If the effects of implementing new tools fall outside the scope of this analysis, additional NEPA may be required. Some practices alone may not be sufficient, but in combination with other practices, desired conditions may be maintained, met, or moved toward. For example, a later on-date alone may not provide the anticipated result, but when coupled with increased vegetation residue requirements, desired conditions may be met. The actions listed in table 2-1 do not require additional NEPA analysis to implement as the effects of implementation are discussed in chapter 3.

The design criteria on pages 2-4 through 2-6 would be starting points to best meet, maintain, or move the resource toward desired objectives. Forest Service and permittee would conduct monitoring to assess how well the design criteria were achieving the stated objectives. The district ranger would evaluate the results of monitoring and adopt other potential management actions (table 2-1 and design criteria, pages 2-4 to 2-6), as needed, to ensure adequate progress toward desired conditions. If future monitoring determined that desired conditions were not appropriate, benchmark site selection and desired condition statements would be reassessed and other management options, or combinations of options, considered.

With adaptive management, the forest seeks to improve resource management by viewing project strategies and actions as tools for learning and improvement. Actions are designed so that, even if they are not completely successful, they provide useful information for future actions, and monitoring and evaluation are used to assess the efficacy of the actions. All



adaptive actions to be used would either be within the scope of effects described in this document, or a supplemental NEPA document and decision will be prepared as appropriate. The Bighorn Vegetation Grazing Guidelines would be implemented and would determine adjustments needed based on utilization monitoring. Table 2-1. Potential management adaptive options – livestock grazing management actions. The effects of these actions are considered in chapter 3. Livestock Grazing Management Actions1 Use of salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas Incorporate a range rider to move livestock (herding) Change season of use as long as after the range readiness date Change animal numbers Change animal class Change number of days of livestock utilization Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons Construct temporary electric fence Control livestock distribution patterns using water (turn water on or off at developed water sites) Remove existing water development (pipeline, tanks, windmill, well, stock dam) Remove existing fence line (electric, standard, permanent or temporary) Implement multi-pasture, deferred livestock grazing system Implement a high-intensity/short duration livestock grazing system (by riding, herding, temporary fence, etc.) Implement rest-rotation livestock grazing system Implement multiple unit rotation with permittees' private land 1 The potential management actions are designed to be used either alone or in combination to best

meet, or at least, move toward the desired resource condition within a timeframe of ten years.



Design Criteria (Alternative 3)

1. Keep livestock distributed as evenly as possible. 2. Implement the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook guidelines shown in

appendix C. (forest plan soil, water, riparian and wetland guideline 1) 3. Sagebrush will be treated as follows (a map of the treatment units is on file in the project

record): a. Burning will be the preferred treatment method. 1. Determine density and extent of sagebrush canopies to ensure

maintenance of habitat diversity and adequate habitat for the sage grouse and Brewer’s sparrow and other sage-dependent species.

2. Follow Connelly et al. (2000) guidelines regarding sagebrush cover. Desired condition is a sagebrush landscape with 30% of the area in heavy (>35%) canopy cover, 50% of the area in medium canopy cover (11-34%), and 20% of the area in light canopy cover (<10%).

b. Non ground-disturbing mechanical treatments may be used and are expected to treat up to approximately 40% of the identified sagebrush units. Chemical treatments may be used but are expected to treat 10% or less of the identified sagebrush units.

1. Only licensed applicators will apply chemical treatments. Application will be according to label directions.

2. For both chemical and mechanical treatment, the vehicle used should be cleaned and treated before it comes to the project area to reduce any risk of introducing any invasive species.

3. In areas where cheatgrass is determined to have the potential to spread, use chemical or mechanical treatment methods or do not treat the sagebrush in those areas.

4. Active management of invasive species will be conducted by the permittee and Forest Service, per the 2005 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005c), the noxious weed environmental assessment (USDA Forest Service 1998), and the Bighorn National Forest invasive species action plan (USDA Forest Service 2008).

5. Fences constructed may be buck-and-pole, permanent electric, standard let-down, or barbed-wire with wood and metal fence posts. All new fence developments should be of wildlife friendly design. Fences included in this decision, or to be constructed based upon need, as well as those to be removed, are in tables 2-4 and 2-4a.

6. Currently there are no known occurrences of terrestrial sensitive plant species within these allotments. If any sensitive plants are found, they will be fenced, or other protective measures may be applied, if monitoring indicates that livestock grazing is the cause of a downward trend in the population. Any fence construction would follow appropriate NEPA analysis.



7. Livestock pipelines and stock tanks to be constructed are listed in tables 2-4 and 2-4a. New stock pipelines will be designed and located to be out of view from open forest system roads and trails. Permanent pipelines will be buried where feasible. As existing stock pipelines are reconstructed, they will be designed to meet these criteria. All stock tanks should be fitted with escape ladders for small mammals, birds, and bats.

Maintain/reconstruct improvements as needed. Ground-disturbing activities determined to be necessary as adaptive strategies based on

monitoring, such as installation of water developments, pipelines, fences, or exclosures listed in tables 2-4 and 2-4a, will require surveys, consultation, and clearance, as appropriate, for heritage resources and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

8. Apply the most recent Bighorn National Forest Vegetation Grazing Guidelines. Specific desired conditions and utilization guidelines included in this EIS supercede the general conditions and guidelines in the grazing guidelines. Dispute resolution, administrative actions, and the “Recommended Adjustments if Guidelines are Exceeded” described in the grazing guidelines are incorporated into this alternative.

9. Methods listed in the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (USFS, 1996) will be used to monitor the implementation and/or effectiveness of livestock grazing. See monitoring details in tables 1-2, 1-2a, and in the following monitoring section.

10. The upper portion of the Misty Moon S&G allotment will be closed to commercial livestock grazing. This is a heavily visited portion of the Cloud Peak Wilderness, and it has not been stocked with sheep since 1989, presumably because of economic viability. The lower portion of the Misty Moon allotment, below fence 501197 (across Middle Paint Rock Creek above Lily Lake) will be incorporated into the Battle Park C&H allotment.

11. Permitted numbers and season of use will not change as a result of this decision, although both may vary annually in response to a variety of factors, including drought, wildfire, and/or resource recovery needs, management needs, and monitoring findings. If supporting evidence from actual use clearly demonstrates that permitted stocking cannot be sustained, the Forest Service will determine an appropriate number and season of use that represents a sustainable carrying capacity of the allotment, and will adjust permitted use accordingly.

12. The allowable use guidelines for utilization of the current year's forage are listed in tables 2-2 and 2-3. These guidelines are applicable at the time the livestock leave the unit and include use by both livestock and wildlife. The Battle Park allotment is, and will be, managed under a rotation livestock grazing strategy.2 See grazing rotation map in appendix H. Table 1-3 indicates the existing rangeland condition (meeting or moving toward desired condition, or not meeting or moving toward) of the key areas. Annual operating instructions beginning in 2009 will use these rangeland conditions to modify annual allowable utilization standards.

2 One year, cattle are rotated clockwise through the pastures. The next year, they are rotated counter clockwise through the pastures. This alternate year rotation system will be implemented for the life of the AMP, unless monitoring indicates changes need to be made. Flexibility will be built into pasture design to accommodate



13. Refer to the timing and spatial buffers and other measures for the northern goshawk described in the 2005 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005c, page 1-46).

14. Install a hardened ford or bottomless culvert on FDT 360 at Buck Creek Crossing. 15. Remove existing fish structures in Soldier Creek riparian pasture (exclosure below

Spring Draw). Proposal is to cut logs near stream bank, and not disturb the portion of log in the bank.

Table 2-2. Maximum allowable use guidelines (percent utilization by weight of forage species).

Type of Management Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Growing Season Long 30 10 Fall and Winter 45 15 Rotation 45 35 Deferred Rotation 50 40 Rest Rotation 50 40

Table 2-3. Riparian vegetation residue guidelines.

Existing Rangeland Condition Season of Use Satisfactory* Unsatisfactory

Early Use Pasture Livestock leave pasture prior to 08/01 5 inches 5 inches

Summer & Fall Use Pasture Livestock leave pasture after 08/01 5 inches 7 inches

The forestwide riparian vegetation residue guidelines are not appropriate in riparian sites in “the ponds” area and in the riparian corridor on Middle Fork Paint Rock Creek between Lily Lake and the wilderness boundary. On these two sites, the maximum allowable use guideline in table 2-2 will be applied. *Satisfactory is defined here as meeting or moving toward desired vegetative condition and unsatisfactory is defined as not meeting desired vegetative condition or undetermined. Vegetation residue guidelines are expressed in terms of the inches of stubble height to be left, measuring longest leaf of designated Carex species, after livestock use.

Adaptive Strategies The following management strategies, in addition to those listed in table 2-1, are included in this alternative. A desired condition for each area is stated, and the strategies may be implemented until monitoring indicates the desired condition is achieved or trend is toward desired condition. Not all of these actions may be needed to move toward or meet the desired conditions. However, if actions other than those listed in this table or table 2-1 are determined to be needed, additional NEPA analysis may be required. deviation from this schedule. Pasture rest (total non-use), deferment, or other changes in season of use for one or more seasons will likely be necessary. While the permitted season of use is 06/26 – 10/25, historic use has been a shorter season.



Table 2-4. Adaptive management strategies for livestock grazing on Battle Park and Misty Moon allotments to achieve desired conditions on all benchmark sites.

Location Strategies Trigger Allotmentwide Apply the Bighorn National Forest Vegetation Grazing Guidelines, forage

utilization guidelines from the allotment management plan, continue to utilize herding, salting, and implementation of the rotation grazing strategy, and remove livestock prior to exceeding forage use guidelines. Implement sagebrush treatment as districtwide schedule allows.

Mandatory, in year 1 of implementing this AMP decision.

Bald Ridge Pasture

Construct and make permanent Bald Ridge division fence, south (501207) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Mandatory, no later than year 4 of implementation this AMP decision.

Extend Bald Ridge division fence, south (501207) to the south to Soldier Creek-Bald Ridge pasture division fence (501122) above the green gate to prevent livestock drift between pastures.


Where Bald Ridge division fence, south (501207) intersects Bald Ridge Trail 402 move the wire livestock gate away from the ATV gate to reduce the incidence of users leaving the gate open.

Mandatory, no later than year 4 of implementing this AMP decision.

Continue fence 501207 (Bald Ridge division fence south) northward beyond trail 097 to Lake Helen to prevent livestock drift into Tensleep watershed.

Discretionary, if/when unacceptable drift into Tensleep watershed occurs, or before.

Construct Bald Ridge division fence north (501206) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution. Discretionary

Construct Bald Ridge north pipeline and tanks (501208) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution. Discretionary

Construct Bald Ridge middle pipeline and tanks (501209) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution. Discretionary

Construct Bald Ridge south pipeline and tanks (501210) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution. Discretionary

Construct Bald Ridge/Soldier Creek pipeline & tank (501213) to provide stock water in Bald Ridge pasture above the key area (above the culvert) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Move Soldier Creek/Bald Ridge division fence (501122) to a point above the green gate key area to prevent livestock use in this area when cattle are in Bald Ridge pasture.

Discretionary



Location Strategies Trigger Bald Ridge Pasture, cont.

Trail livestock directly between north Bald Ridge pasture and Warner pasture, through the South Bald Ridge pasture rather than taking several days to pass through, to minimize livestock impacts and time of use. or Stock fewer AUMs of livestock use in this pasture to reduce livestock impacts.

Mandatory, if satisfactory condition* is not achieved/maintained on benchmark sites following 10 years of implementing this AMP decision.

Buck Creek Pasture

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline and stock tank A (501162a) to pipe and pump/gravity-flow water from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring to stock tank A near the ford to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline and stock tank B (501162b) to pipe and pump/gravity-flow water from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring to stock tank B east of Buck Creek to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline and stock tank C (501162c) to pipe and pump/gravity-flow water from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring to stock tank C below the Quaker Trail to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline spring and stock tank I (501162i) at spring site east of Buck Ck below Buck Mountain to pipe and pump/gravity-flow water from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring to stock tank I on flat below Buck Creek Spring, to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Bellyache stock tank (501204) in Bellyache Flats fed by pipeline from Bald Ridge pasture above the Battle Park Road, to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Construct Bellyache - Buck Creek division fence (501216) from a point near Ed's Point to Buck Mountain to separate the Buck Creek pasture into two units; improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Buck Creek Horse Pasture

Re-route ATV Trail 360 around the west side of the horse pasture to eliminate recreation travel and gates being left open. Discretionary

Reconstruct Buck Creek cow camp (501102) to facilitate administration of permit requirements. Discretionary

Buck Creek Vees Pasture

Construct and make permanent Buck Creek Vees/Buckskin Ed Creek division fence (501196) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.




Location Strategies Trigger Buck Creek Vees Pasture, cont.

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline and stock tank F (501162F) to pipe and pump/gravity-flow water from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring to stock tank F near south guzzler (501138) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline and stock tank G (501162G) to pipe and pump/gravity-flow water from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring to stock tank G near north guzzler (501139) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline and stock tank H (501162H) to pipe and pump/gravity-flow water from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring to stock tank H on saddle in north Vee to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline and stock tank J (501162J) to pipe and pump/gravity-flow water from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring to stock tank J on south Vee near tank E in South Fork North pasture, to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline and storage tank D (501162d) to store water piped and pump/gravity-flow from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring for use in stock tanks along pipeline (501162) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Maintain Buck Creek Vee Reservoir (501048) by cleaning as needed to provide water and improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution. Discretionary

Reconstruct Buck Creek Guzzler No.1 South (501138) to use as overflow storage from Buck Creek pipeline; to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Reconstruct Buck Creek guzzler No.2 North (501139) to use as overflow storage from Buck Creek pipeline; to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Reconstruct and fence wings into Ed's Point stock trail (501212) between Buck Creek Vees & Middle Fork pasture to allow movement directly between the Vees and Middle Fork pastures, adding flexibility to management.

Discretionary

Reconstruct Vees Rim Spring (501181) to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution. Install new stock tanks away from stream. Discretionary



Location Strategies Trigger Middle Fork Pasture

Reconstruct Middle Fork/Buck Creek division fence east (501153) between Buck Creek cow camp and the Battle Park Road, including moving the cattleguard and “Battle Park Road drift fence (501051), to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Upper Middle Fork pipeline and stock tank (501202) to provide water from Battle Park trailhead area to Middle Fork pasture pothole in the trees in upper Middle Fork pasture.

Discretionary

Misty Moon Construct and make permanent Battle Park wilderness fence (501197) to reduce livestock drift into the upper Middle Fork and Ten Sleep watersheds, and improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Soldier Creek Reconstruct Buck Mountain Spring (501180) and move stock tank out of aspen to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution. Discretionary

Install Soldier Creek riparian north link fence (501200) to connect Soldier Creek riparian fence north into Bellyache Fence (501152 or 501122) creating an East and West Soldier Creek pasture to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution. May require a cattleguard on Battle Park Road

Discretionary

Construct Soldier Creek Stock pipeline and stock tank (501214) to provide water on the flat above the fishpond that will be in the west Soldier Creek pasture. Discretionary

Install Upper Soldier Creek stock tank (501205) in Upper Soldier Creek pasture fed by pipeline from Upper Soldier Creek in Bald Ridge pasture near the new exclosure, to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Soldier Creek riparian southwest link fence (501199) to connect Soldier Creek riparian pasture fence west to the horse pasture fence creating an East and West Soldier Creek pasture, to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Remove the east portion of the Soldier Creek riparian pasture fence (501165) enlarging the Soldier Creek riparian pasture to create an East and West Soldier Creek pasture, to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary, when 501214, 501199 and 501200 are completed.

Soldier Creek Horse Pasture

Extend Soldier Creek cow camp horse pasture fence (501003) in lower horse pasture into the rocks, to eliminate north side fence. Discretionary

Reconstruct Soldier Creek cow camp (501003) Discretionary South Fork North Pasture

Install Buck Creek Vee pipeline and stock tank E (501162E) to pipe and pump/gravity-flow water from Buck Creek near the ford or Buck Creek pipeline spring to stock tank E on south Vees, in South Fork North pasture.

Discretionary



Location Strategies Trigger South Fork North Pasture, cont.

Construct Buck Creek trails fence (501219) to facilitate movement of livestock between pastures. Discretionary

Construct Buck Creek stock trail (501220) to facilitate movement of livestock between pastures. Discretionary

South Fork South Pasture

Install South Fork South division fence (501211) and cattleguard above South Fork South riparian area to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Mandatory, no later than year 2 of implementing this AMP decision, in accordance with the USFS/SHPO MOA.

Construct Pothole pipeline and stock tank #1 (501227a), from near Mud Mine to site above FDR 408 (Hyattville Logging Road) near existing pothole to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Construct Pothole Pipeline and stock tank #2 (501227b Nate's Pothole) from near Mud Mine to site below FDR 408 (Hyattville Logging Road) near Nate’s existing pothole to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install Pothole pipeline and stock tank #3 (501227c) half way up the hill on the west side of South Fork South lower crossing to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Extend collection point of Hyattville Log Road pipeline (501137) to higher elevation near Mud Mine Reservoir output to improve pipeline function. Discretionary

Warner Ridge Pasture

Construct South Fork Headwater Spring exclosure (501215) to exclude livestock and eliminate livestock impacts.

Mandatory, no later than year 4 of implementing this AMP decision.

Construct fence around Upper Warner Ridge Reservoir (501039) and repair the reservoir to improve water supply for livestock. Discretionary

Convert Ross Ranch fence (501178) to Warner division fence; take out west or east part & extend on ends to existing fences both directions, to improve control of livestock grazing time, timing, and distribution.

Discretionary

Install pipeline extension to Warner Draw pipeline (502166) to convey water from Upper Warner Ridge Reservoir (501039) to add flow for South Warner Ridge stock tanks (airport stock tanks 501173, 501173a).

Discretionary

Reconstruct Warner Ridge-Soldier Creek division fence (501174) below FDR 404 to eliminate 2 gates and the likelihood of them being left open. Discretionary

Reconstruct or relocate collection system of Warner Draw Spring (501148) to improve water production. Discretionary



Table 2-4a. Heritage resource adaptive management strategies for livestock grazing on the Battle Park and Misty Moon allotments. Location Strategies Trigger HR 48BH1388 Move cattleguard (501154) and associated fence

(501152) to the north to avoid snow drifting on the fence and sediment accumulation in the cattleguard, to improve function and reduce maintenance needs of both.

Discretionary

HR 48BH0151 Implement site-specific forage utilization guidelines that are more strict than those described in the AMP on specific identified site of concern. or Install fence (501224) to exclude livestock until satisfactory conditions are reached.

Mandatory if heritage resource 48BH0151 desired condition is not satisfactory following 4 years of implementing this AMP decision. This strategy will be implemented if livestock grazing is determined to be the cause of, or a contributor to, not achieveing the desired condition.

HR 48BH0152 Construct Fence (501225) around adversely impacted area or otherwise exclude livestock until satisfactory conditions are reached.

Mandatory, no later than year 2 of implementing this AMP decision, in accordance with the USFS/SHPO MOA.

Re-route ATV trail to eliminate recreation travel and gates being left open. Discretionary

Reconstruct cow camp 501102 to facilitate administration of permit requirements. Discretionary

HR 48BH0317 Install exclosure 501226 to excluding livestock and aid in assessing vegetative site potential.

Mandatory, no later than year 2 of implementation this AMP decision, in accordance with the USFS/SHPO MOA.

Implement site-specific forage utilization guidelines that are more strict than those described in the AMP on specific identified site of concern.




Location Strategies Trigger HR 48BH0317, cont.

To eliminate livestock impacts, allow no livestock use or trailing in this pasture;

or

Install fence (501221) on to exclude livestock until satisfactory conditions are reached. Temporary fence may be used in lieu of permanent, until monitoring validates the benefit of livestock exclusion, at which time it may be either removed or made permanent.


Implement ground cover improvement strategies such as seeding, mulching, and/or fertilizing. Discretionary

HR 48BH3711 Construct fence (501223) to exclude livestock Mandatory no later than year 2 of implementing this AMP decision, in accordance with the USFS/SHPO MOA.

HR 48BH3712, 48BH0245, 48BH0112

Implement site-specific forage utilization guidelines that are more strict than those described in the AMP on specific identified site of concern.

Mandatory, if heritage resources 48BH3712, 48BH0245, 48BH0112 desired conditions are not satisfactory following 2 years of implementing this AMP decision. This strategy will be implemented if livestock grazing is determined to be the cause of, or a contributor to, not achieving the desired condition.

Trail livestock directly between pastures rather than taking several days to pass through, to minimize livestock impacts and time of use.

Mandatory if heritage resources 48BH3712, 48BH0245, 48BH0112 desired conditions are not satisfactory following 4 years of implementing this AMP decision. This strategy will be implemented if livestock grazing is determined to be the cause of, or a contributor to, not achieveing the desired condition.

To eliminate livestock impacts, allow no livestock use or trailing in this pasture; or Install fence (501218) to exclude livestock from concern area until satisfactory conditions are reached. Temporary fence may be used in lieu of permanent, until monitoring validates the benefit of livestock exclusion, at which time it may be either removed or made permanent.

Mandatory, if heritage resources 48BH3712, 48BH0245, 48BH0112 desired conditions are not satisfactory following 6 years of implementing this AMP decision. This strategy will be implemented if livestock grazing is determined to be the cause of, or a contributor to, not achieveing the desired condition.

Implement ground cover improvement strategies such as seeding, mulching, and/or fertilizing. Discretionary



Location Strategies Trigger HR 48BH1386 Construct fence (501222) to exclude livestock

until satisfactory conditions are reached. Temporary fence may be used in lieu of permanent, until monitoring validates the benefit of livestock exclusion, at which time it may be either removed or made permanent.

Mandatory, in year 1 of implementing this decision, in accordance with the USFS/SHPO MOA.

“Mandatory” projects will be implemented subject to the “trigger” described. “Discretionary” projects may help management achieve satisfactory conditions, but will be implemented at Forest Service discretion. If desired conditions are satisfactory, projects may not be implemented. * “Satisfactory” condition is defined in this context as meeting or moving toward desired conditions. When “satisfactory” condition is achieved, monitoring may be conducted on a less frequent basis. Stock pipelines will be constructed as described in forest plan guideline. Existing range improvements, those proposed for reconstruction, removal, and new improvements are listed in separate document (Battle Park Improvements) and map. A total of 3.6 miles of fence are to be removed and up to 18.3 mi are proposed for construction.



Monitoring Monitoring and evaluation leads to improved management and informed management decisions. Monitoring helps determine how the forest plan and NEPA decisions are being implemented, whether AMP implementation is achieving desired outcomes, and whether assumptions made in the planning process are valid. Monitoring and evaluation are key elements in adaptive management, allowing us to measure whether or not we are being effective in meeting or moving toward our desired conditions within the appropriate timeframes. Through adaptive management, AMPs become dynamic, relevant, and useful documents.

Two types of monitoring are associated with AMPs: implementation monitoring and effectiveness monitoring:

• Implementation monitoring will measure whether or not prescribed actions are being implemented as planned, including whether forest plan standards and guidelines are being met. For the Battle Park and Misty Moon allotments, implementation monitoring will occur on the key areas listed in table 1-3 (chapter 1). The allowable use guidelines shown in tables 2-2 and 2-3 are based upon the meeting or moving toward the desired condition determination shown in table 1-3. Implementation monitoring items will be specified annually in the AOI.

• Effectiveness monitoring will evaluate how effective management actions are at moving toward or achieving desired conditions. For the Battle Park and Misty Moon allotments, effectiveness monitoring will occur on the benchmark sites listed in table 1-2. The current condition of the allotment (meeting or moving toward the desired condition, or not) is shown in table 1-3, and will be monitored, and modified if appropriate, based on the monitoring methods and frequencies shown in table 1-2.

The following discussion outlines the monitoring protocols that will be used for the Battle Park and Misty Moon allotments.

Implementation (Short-Term) Monitoring Implementation monitoring will occur periodically depending on the monitoring topic and methodology used. Annual monitoring techniques will vary depending on the resources being monitored. Any of the following monitoring techniques, or other protocol listed in the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (RAMTG) may be used alone or in combination:

Annual Allotment Resource Inspections

Rangeland Readiness Soil and vegetation conditions are indicators used to determine rangeland readiness. Rangeland is generally ready for livestock grazing when soils have become firm after winter and spring precipitation, and is generally ready when cool-season grasses are headed out, forbs are in full bloom, and brush/shrubs are leafed out. Range readiness is evaluated on a landscape basis annually, and is applied site specifically on each allotment.



Compliance with Annual Operating Instructions (AOI)

The AOIs clearly explain how each allotment is to be managed on a year-to-year basis. These instructions become part of the term grazing permit for each permittee and responsibility for carrying out the instructions falls to the permit holder. The AOIs include instructions for pasture rotations, numbers to be grazed, pasture entrance and exit dates, standards for and determination of allowable use, improvement maintenance and construction, and general allotment operating procedures. Spot checks will occur annually by the Forest Service and permittee to evaluate whether requirements from the AOI are being implemented as specified.

Allowable Use Guidelines These guidelines (tables 2-2 and 2-3) are designed to ensure that short-term effects of livestock grazing activities are able to provide for the long-term health and sustainability of rangeland resources. The following two basic methodologies may be used to determine allowable use.

Trigger (or within-season indicator) allowable use monitoring will occur periodically on key species and key areas. Frequency will depend on experience in meeting the allowable use for any given key area and applied management.

Residual allowable use monitoring will occur periodically to evaluate whether the trigger allowable use guidelines are sufficient to provide for the prescribed levels of standing residue. Monitoring will be on key areas and key species on each allotment.

Once the allowable use trigger guideline is reached, livestock must be moved out of the pasture, or, in the case of the last pasture, they will be removed from the allotment. Monitoring of the pastures and allotments for compliance with allowable use standards and to judge livestock moves based on stubble height would require active management by the permittee and Forest Service.

Utilization monitoring methods: This is expressed as a percentage of available forage weight that has been consumed or trampled. Utilization measurements should be confined to forage species, not total herbaceous vegetation. Methods include paired plots, utilization gauge, and ocular estimates.



Allowable Use Guidelines, Residual allowable use monitoring, cont.

Vegetative residue methods: This is expressed by the amount of “standing crop” left after livestock grazing and includes methods such as stubble height, herbage left ungrazed, and visual obstruction methods (Robel pole). When the methodology for the Robel pole has been developed and determined to be statistically reliable and if the AOI specifies its use, the Forest Service will provide training sessions to train permittees in the use of the modified pole and include corresponding pole readings as allowable use standards in each allotments’ AOI.

Effectiveness (Long-Term Trend) Monitoring Probably the most important role of monitoring is to determine whether management is successful at moving rangeland resources toward desired conditions. Determining trend toward or away from allotment objectives allows resource managers to accurately determine the relative success of the management system and to adjust management to speed the accomplishment of objectives. Trend for a variety of rangeland resource parameters may need to be monitored. Effectiveness monitoring will typically occur every ten years depending on the methodology used.

The initial effectiveness monitoring strategy is prescribed in table 1-2. The benchmark sites have been selected over time by Forest Service permit administrators, resource specialists, and the livestock permittees as reference points that are considered sensitive and responsive to management changes. Benchmark sites are small areas where long-term trend studies are established and maintained so the manager can assess the resource impacts from management. Table 1-2 describes the existing and desired conditions by benchmark site and defines monitoring protocols that will be used to determine if the benchmark sites are meeting or moving toward the desired condition.

The desired conditions defined in table 1-2 will be revalidated in the future. This is one of the first allotment management plan analysis projects to specify such specific, quantitative, desired future conditions, and we are likely to learn more about the adaptive process and the resources involved in the future.

The benchmark monitoring, serving as a proxy for the achievement of landscape scale desired conditions, is in addition to the yearly implementation monitoring that is used to make operational decisions such as date to remove livestock from the allotment or pasture. Benchmark monitoring site, desired conditions, and monitoring protocols will be revalidated in the future, as we learn more about the ecosystems, management strategies and effects, and the relationships between them. This is a fundamental premise of adaptive management.

Adaptive changes to livestock grazing management will be made in future allotment management plans and annual operation instructions based upon the long-term effectiveness monitoring. If the benchmark site conditions are meeting or moving toward the desired conditions, a continuation of current management would be likely.



If benchmark site conditions are not meeting, or are moving away from the desired conditions, management will select livestock grazing management actions from the list in tables 2-1 and or 2-4 in order to change the resource condition trajectory towards achieving the desired conditions. The interdisciplinary team will analyze the long-term monitoring results, annual monitoring information, and other resource data. They will use this information to recommend livestock grazing management changes to the district ranger. The district ranger and rangeland management specialist will work with the permittee(s) to change management so desired conditions can be achieved. This adaptive process will be an ongoing, ‘continual improvement’ process.

The following effectiveness monitoring protocol methods are used in table 1-2. Other monitoring protocols listed in the Rangeland Analysis and Management Training Guide (RAMTG) may be used in the future as we learn more in the adaptive process.

♦ Cover-Frequency Transects: These transects are used to monitor changes in canopy cover and relative frequency of herbaceous species. This method provides quantitative estimates of canopy cover by species, frequency, ground cover, and production by life form through replicated sampling of plot frame transects. Combining cover and frequency data helps overcome variability in the data due to climate changes. This method is used to determine change in composition over time. (RAMTG)

♦ Photographs and Photo-points: Photographs are extremely useful in documenting change on the landscape. Photos should capture the essence of the plot, point or transect, including important characteristics and features of the site. Photos need to include enough of the horizon-line to allow the photographer to easily repeat the photograph from the same angle at a different time. Photo monitoring is the primary methodology that will be used to monitor the effectiveness of the conifer encroachment actions.

♦ Stream Channel Cross-Sections. Baseline photos, generalized vegetation and physical cover groups, and physical stream characteristics were established in 2004, 2005, or 2006. The cross-sections were permanently marked and GPS located. They will be used to measure the long-term condition of the streams and associated riparian areas.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need.

The following alternative was eliminated from further analysis for the reason listed:

The ID team considered maintaining Misty Moon allotment as a vacant S&G allotment. This was not analyzed because of the lack of demand, at this time, for small (in suitable AUMs) remote sheep allotments. In addition, the portion of the allotment not added to the Battle Park allotment is in the area of highest user conflict, especially the area around Misty Moon Lake. Finally, the area included in Battle Park is the area with the most forage production per acre, so the majority of the available forage is being made available to domestic livestock grazing under alternative 3.



Table 2-5. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative 1 No Livestock Grazing

Alternative 2 Current Management

Alternative 3 Proposed Action

Description of the Alternatives

No livestock grazing would be permitted on the allotments. Existing permits would be phased out. This alternative provides an environmental baseline for evaluation of the action alternatives.

Livestock grazing would continue as prescribed under current allotment management plans and annual operating instructions.

Focuses on the end results for the resource, as opposed to selecting one specific course of action that will not be deviated from over time. The adaptive options include fences and water developments and administrative permit changes as shown in tables 2-1 and 2-4.

Allotments Livestock grazing on both allotments would be eliminated.

Permitted cattle and sheep authorization on the Battle Park and Misty Moon allotments would not change. The portion of the Misty Moon allotment below the temporary electric fence across Middle Paint Rock Creek above Lily Lake would not be grazed by cattle. The Misty Moon allotment would be available for stocking by sheep.

The Misty Moon allotment above the fence across Middle Paint Rock Creek above Lily Lake would be retired. The area below the fence would be grazed by cattle along with the Battle Park allotment.

Range Improvements Fences, gates, and cow camps would eventually be removed.

Existing improvements would be maintained and reconstructed as needed. New and trial-basis improvements not currently authorized in an existing allotment management plan would not be developed.

Existing improvements would be maintained and reconstructed as needed. Some existing improvements would be removed, and some new improvements will be built. If the new improvements and management does not achieve the desired conditions, additional improvements listed in the design criteria will be built.

Sagebrush Treatments

The sagebrush treatments would not occur.

The sagebrush treatments would not occur.

Approximately 4,000 acres of sagebrush would be treated, preferably with fire, but also with smaller amounts of chemical or mechanical treatments.



Alternative 1 No Livestock Grazing

Alternative 2 Current Management

Alternative 3 Proposed Action

Livestock Grazing Management

Livestock grazing on both allotments would be eliminated.

Livestock management decisions would be based on achieving forest plan objectives and guidelines, and the desired conditions shown in table 1-2. Permitted numbers of livestock may be adjusted in order to meet or move toward the desired conditions. Rotation utilization guideline in tables 2-2 and 2-3 to be applied.

“Rotation” utilization guideline in tables 2-2 and 2-3 to be applied. Livestock management decisions would be based on achieving forest plan and AMP objectives and guidelines, and the desired conditions shown in table 1-2. Permitted numbers of livestock may be adjusted in order to meet or move toward the desired conditions.

Livestock Grazing Monitoring

Not applicable Alternatives 2 and 3 are the same. Implementation monitoring would occur on the key areas listed in table 1-3. The guidelines are shown in tables 2-2 and 2-3. The specific monitoring items will be in the AOI. The procedures in the Bighorn National Forest Vegetation Grazing Guidelines specify the actions to be taken based on monitoring results. Effectiveness monitoring is shown in table 1-2, and will be used to update the rangeland conditions shown in table 1-3.

Rare Plant Management

No actions specified in this EA. Standard Forest Service and forest plan direction will be followed.

No actions specified in this EA. Standard Forest Service and forest plan direction will be followed.

Terrestrial populations of sensitive plant species would be protected from livestock if they appear to be in a downward trend as a direct result of livestock grazing.

Chapter Alternatives, Including the Proposed...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter Alternatives, Including the Proposed...