CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES

North Elkhorns Vegetation Project DEIS

April 2001

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter contains information, including management practices and mitigation measures, relative to the Action and No Action Alternatives. Chapter 2 also provides the documentation on how the alternatives were developed and the reasons for excluding some alternatives from detailed analysis. A comparison of the alternatives can be found at the end of Chapter 2.

ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Alternatives are developed based on the purpose and need for the project, the scope of the project, public comments, scientific information, and interdisciplinary team (IDT) review.

Public Participation

Formal public involvement for this project began by mailing an information packet and comment sheet to potentially interested parties on December 1, 2000. In addition, a news release was submitted on December 2 to the Helena Independent

Record. The “Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement” appeared in the Federal Register on December 11, 2000. This started a 30-day comment period.

The information packet provided a summary and map of the Proposed Action, the purpose and need for the action, tentative issues and background information. It also included background information about the ecology of the area and indicated the type of analysis to be completed, as well as the time frames for submitting written comments.

By January 20, a total of 16 written comments were received. These included comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality, as well as several environmental groups.

Private individuals submitted the remaining comments. Many of the comments expressed support for the project. All public comments are available for review in the Project File located at the Helena Ranger District, Helena, Montana.

A field trip with interested publics to the treatment areas was held on February

26, 2001. Five people and a Forest Service representative attended.

Issues

Public comments were reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to identify public concerns and issues relative to the Proposed Action. On January 26, 2001,

4/17/20 Chapter 2 Page 2-1


April 2001 a summary of public comments was mailed to all parties who submitted written comments. This summary, which includes information on how the ID Team used the comments, is found in Appendix D.

The public comments were separated into 3 categories as follows:

1.

Comments with issues that could be resolved through the development of an alternative

2.

Comments that could be resolved through the use of mitigation measures

3.

Comments, which could be addressed in the effects analysis.

Issues That Framed Alternatives

Issues related to this project include concerns about ecosystem health and the effects of the activities associated with the project (e.g. timber harvest, prescribed burning) on various resources. Some issues helped frame alternatives. Those issues included:

 Use of prescribed fire in drought conditions

 Use of commercial timber harvest in a Wildlife Management Unit

 Expansion of the project area and size of treatments to the entire Elkhorns

 Disturbance on big game winter range

 Disturbance to black bear dens

 Engraver beetle outbreaks

 Noxious weed spread

 Disturbance to possible goshawk nests

Other Issues

Many of the issues helped frame management practices and mitigation measures.

These are detailed later in this chapter.

The IDT summarized the comments to be considered in the environmental analysis into issue statements, which form the outline for Chapter 3 in the EIS.

These statements follow.

Issue 1. Watershed Concerns

How would the project affect soils in the area? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of soil productivity, soil compaction, changes in organic matter, and estimates of erosion.

How would the project affect water in the project area? Sediment delivery will be the index of measurement used to compare the alternatives, as well as an indication of how the agency would protect beneficial uses of Prickly Pear Creek (a



April 2001 state listed “Water Quality Limited Segment” of which Strawberry Creek is a tributary).

How would the project affect fish in the project area? Sediment delivery will be the index of measurement used to compare the alternatives, as well as an indication of how fish habitat and fry (young fish) and egg survival are affected.

Issue 2. Forest Ecosystem Sustainability

Why would the project be a unique opportunity in the Elkhorn Mountains?

The index of measurement will include an analysis of the acres of ponderosa pine/Douglas fir habitat types in the project area as well as the acres of other forest types in the Elkhorn Mountains.

How would the project affect the risk of stand replacement fire? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of current and predicted fire behavior and intensities via a model that uses fuel loading and tree crown spacing.

What effect would the project have on forest health? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of current and expected levels of insects and disease, competition, and nutrient availability.

What effect would the project have on aspen? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of current and expected levels of regeneration, health of the aspen clones, and predicted longevity of aspen in the project area.

What effect would the project have on understory vegetation? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the current conditions and expected results and will include consideration of the effects of future livestock grazing.

What effect would the project have on old growth? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the current characteristics of the forest in the project area and the characteristics of old growth for this habitat type based on Northern Region definitions.

Issue 3. Noxious Weeds

What effect would the project have on noxious weed distribution and spread? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the current level and distribution of weeds and the expected acres of increased infestations resulting from timber harvest, roadwork, burning, as well as the potential cumulative effect resulting from other activities (e.g. livestock grazing) in the area.

Issue 4. Wildlife



April 2001

What effect would the project have on elk vulnerability? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the current level of habitat security and the change in security areas resulting from implementation of the project, as well as the implications of any changes on hunting season and hunter opportunities.

How would Forest Plan standards for hiding cover and open-road density, motorized disturbance on winter range, and thermal cover on winter range be met?

A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the timing of the project relative to winter range, hiding cover and thermal cover values and open road densities in the area in comparison to Forest Plan standards. The predicted effect (acres) of the project on hiding and thermal cover, and the validity of Forest

Plan standards will also be addressed.

What effect would the project have on denning bears? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the timing of the project and predicted effects on bears.

What effects would the roads associated with the project have on wildlife? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the short and long-term effects of roads as they relate to fragmentation, corridors, and landscape connectivity.

What species would benefit from this project and which would not? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of species associated with dense forest versus those that need open areas and aspen stands, and will address present and expected trends in distribution and abundance.

What effect would the project have on interior forest species? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the acres of habitat available in the

Elkhorn Mountains and within the project area, as well as the expected effect of the project on forest habitat fragmentation.

What effect would the project have on Management Indicator Species (MIS),

sensitive, and threatened or endangered species? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of which Management Indicator Species, Sensitive, and

Threatened and Endangered species occur in the project area and how the project would affect the distribution and abundance of those species. A more in depth analysis will be provided for goshawks and flammulated owls, including the amount of current foraging and nesting habitat and an estimation of how the project would reduce or increase the number of available territories.

What effect would the project have on Lynx? The project is not in lynx habitat and there will be no effect on lynx habitat or lynx populations. A brief discussion of lynx is found in Appendix B.



April 2001

What effect would the project have on snag-associated and old growth-

associated wildlife? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the treatments and mitigation measures and a prediction of the expected trends in these species based on snag availability.

Issue 5. Recreation

How would the project affect trails and non-motorized recreation

opportunities? A comparison of the alternatives includes a discussion of the shortterm (while project is being implemented) and long-term effects (if the new trail is built, how will recreational use, including hunters and hunting recreation be affected?).

Issue 6. Livestock Use

How would the project affect livestock distribution? A comparison of the alternatives includes a discussion of the livestock grazing strategy during project implementation and predicted changes in movement patterns of livestock on this allotment.

Issue 7. Fire

How would the project affect the risk of stand replacement fire? A comparison of the alternatives includes a discussion of the current and expected post-treatment fire behavior.

How would the project affect fire suppression in the urban interface? A comparison of the alternatives includes a discussion of how effective fire fighting would be under the current and post-treatment scenarios.

How would the project affect air quality? A comparison of the alternatives includes a discussion of how state and Federal standards are met.

How would the project affect private landowners? A comparison of the alternatives includes the potential for a prescribed fire to escape and affect adjacent private lands.

Issue 8. Economics

What costs and benefits are associated with the project? A comparison of the alternatives will include a discussion of the costs of the project versus the predicted benefits.



April 2001

A comparison of the alternatives relative to statutory requirements and Forest

Plan consistency for heritage resources and scenery is included in Appendix B.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

For those comments with issues that could be resolved through an alternative to the proposed action, the IDT developed four preliminary potential action alternatives. These included a “no fire”, “fire only”, “non-commercial thinning/fire” and “expanded project” alternatives. The IDT analyzed each of these alternatives relative to the purpose and need for the project and also to determine if they were reasonable. They concluded that there were sufficient reasons for not analyzing these additional alternatives in detail. Therefore, the analysis is focused on the No

Action and Proposed Action Alternatives. The rationale for dismissing the other alternatives is documented at the end of this chapter.

Several significant issues involved the timing of logging activity. These included the potential for disturbance on big game winter range and bear dens, engraver beetle outbreaks, noxious weed spread, and disturbance to goshawk nests. To address these issues, two alternatives were considered for implementing the proposed action. These include a winter logging alternative (December 1 to March

31) and a summer logging alternative (May 16 to October 14).

MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES RELATIVE TO

ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Actions listed below that are not part of the timber sale contract would be made part of the “Sale Area Improvement Plan” and KV (timber sale trust fund) dollars would be used to finance activities as available. An alternative to KV funding would be to implement the North Elkhorns Vegetation Project as a “stewardship” contract, where the bidder on the timber sale contract would factor in all mitigation measures and other improvements or projects. The government may pay the bidder to perform the work if the cost of the work is greater than the value of the timber. Under this concept, the money generated by the value of the timber is available for improvements on the ground and does not go into the general treasury. There is currently limited authority for these types of contracts and this would be a decision made by the Northern Region Office of the Forest Service.

Soils and Watershed

1. New temporary road construction would be reclaimed to contour. In addition, all areas of disturbance would be seeded (with native seed), fertilized and protected with mulch or ground cover.



April 2001

2. Seeding with a mix of native grasses and forbs, with a small component of cereal rye, would be accomplished following prescribed burning. This seeding would be implemented in areas that had thick mats of pine needle duff and plant litter prior to burning. It is anticipated that this treatment would primarily be needed in portions of treatment units on south-facing slopes above Strawberry

Creek, and not needed in treatment units within the Maupin Creek area. However, post-burning evaluation would determine the exact extent of seeding that is needed. The reason for seeding is to accelerate recovery of native grass and forb understory plants where the native seed source or rootstocks are not sufficient to provide rapid regrowth (native plant rootstock or seed are typically lost over time with thick accumulation of needle duff and plant litter). This quick recovery of native understory plants would limit short-term soil erosion and speed site recovery for forage use by wildlife and livestock. Cereal rye in the seed mix would serve as a nurse crop for native plant recovery, provide immediate soil cover, and inhibit encroachment or expansion of noxious weed populations until native plants are established. Seeding should occur before a surface crust has formed on ashes remaining after prescribed burning or soil scarification would be needed to prepare the seedbed. This treatment would meet the intent of Best Management

Practice 13.04, “Revegetation of Surface Disturbed Areas” (Soil and Water

Conservation Practices Handbook, USDA Forest Service, 1988).

3. Woody debris retention (following both harvest and burning) would range from six to ten tons per acre in areas treated. The timber sale contractor would leave the large trees and trees less than five inches at diameter breast height (DBH) on site. The trees less than five inches DBH would be slashed following burning to provide ground cover. The contractor would also be required to leave one to two trees per acre, at least ten inches DBH, but still within the diameter limit for harvest. These trees would be felled upon completion of burning to provide coarse woody debris and cover for small mammals.

4. Replacing the existing electric fence with a new permanent barbed-wire fence would protect the riparian vegetation on either side of Strawberry Creek.

5. In areas where road fills are within 50 feet of a live stream channel and reconstruction activity is to occur, silt fences or other erosion control methods would be required. When the temporary roads are reclaimed, slash would be placed over the bare ground and the roadbed seeded and fertilized. If roads were needed for more than one year, temporary erosion control and barriers would be used to prevent erosion and to effectively close roads.

6. Road cuts, fills or prisms would be fertilized and spot seeded (mulch if needed) as needed to sustain vigorous plant cover. This follow-up would apply to recontoured roads as well as to closed roads.

7. All road reconstruction work in Strawberry Creek would be done in accordance with Montana SMZ laws, and site-specific prescriptions developed by the ID Team.



April 2001

If the required stream zone buffer is not possible, the Helena National Forest would apply for a site-specific exemption and implement necessary protective measures.

8. Soil moisture limitation for tractor ground would be accomplished by defining a normal operating period, and by direction for limiting operations when soils are moist or there is surface water runoff. All tree skidding would be done using tractor skidding (dozers and/or rubber tire skidders).

Fire/Fuels/Air Quality

9. Roads used by the timber sale contractor that are to be returned to pretreatment travel status, converted to trail, or have a rock barrier installed, would be left in a drivable condition until prescribed fire, weed treatments, and other project activities were completed. Metal gates would be used to prohibit unauthorized motorized vehicles from entering the road.

10. Air quality would be maintained at a level that is adequate for the protection and use of National Forest System Lands and adjacent private lands, and that meets or exceeds federal and state standards. Prescribed burning objectives would be met within the constraints established by the Montana and Idaho

Airshed Group's Memorandum of Understanding. Timing of ignition would be adjusted so that smoke dispersal is maximized (generally in the spring).

11. The timber sale contractor would leave four tons/acre of slash less than three inches in diameter to facilitate low intensity prescribed fire. Where needed, removal of logging debris or natural fuels (e.g. common juniper) within a five to ten foot radius of the “leave” trees would be done to protect these trees from burning.

Noxious Weeds

12. Prior to its use on the National Forest, all equipment operating off roads would be power scrubbed or steam cleaned and inspected to prevent importing weed seed.

13. Noxious weeds would be treated in the area during and after project implementation. Spot application of picloram and 2,4-D would be used in areas of soil surface disturbance. Continued noxious weed treatment would be scheduled and conducted for two to five years following project completion.

14. Native seed (see #2) would be used for all revegetation efforts. Following prescribed burning, livestock would be kept off treated areas for at least two growing seasons.

Wildlife



April 2001

15. The timber sale contract or timber harvest portion of a Stewardship contract would be limited to 2-3 years to reduce the period of disturbance associated with timber harvest and other activities. If a winter logging option were selected, a survey would be conducted prior to harvest activities to locate potential occupied bear dens. If occupied dens were located, harvest activity would be modified to protect a reasonable area (one to ten acres) around the den site.

16. All lodgepole pine stands would be retained to provide vegetative diversity and wildlife cover patches. A 50-100 foot buffer of untreated forest would be retained along the Warm Springs Road #226 to provide screening for big game.

17. Standing dead trees (snags) that are greater than 9” DBH would be retained

(unless deemed a safety hazard). In addition to isolated snags, all snags within untreated areas would be retained. Most of these untreated reserves would occur around boulder outcrops and would range in size from less than an acre to 25 acres in size.

18. Goshawks have been surveyed in the area and no nests have been located.

However, if the summer logging option were selected, a survey would be conducted annually prior to harvest operations. If any nests were found, harvest activity would be excluded within a 30-acre area around nest locations.

19. All conifers, except those marked specifically for retention, would be removed from within aspen stands and for a distance of about 200 feet around the periphery of the stand. At least two of the aspen treatment areas (see Appendix E) would be fenced to preclude use by livestock and ungulates, using a seven-foot high buck and rail fence would protect regeneration for a period of 8-10 years.

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants

20. There are no known threatened or endangered plant species in any of the proposed treatment units. No sensitive plants were located during field surveys; however, potential habitat was identified in an area unlikely to be disturbed by the

Proposed Action or any of the alternatives. The Biological Evaluation for plants concludes that there would be no effects to listed threatened or endangered plant species nor to sensitive plants known to occur on the National Forest lands.

Therefore, threatened, endangered and sensitive plants are not discussed in

Chapter 3. The Biological Evaluation for plants is in the Project File.

Visual Quality

21. Unit boundaries would be irregular in shape and mimic natural stand size, pattern and texture. Stand reserves of untreated vegetation would be retained within treatment areas. A map showing approximate size and locations of the untreated areas is located in the Project File.



April 2001

22. Where feasible, all stumps should be cut low to the ground (four to six inches).

The timber sale contractor would be required to lop broken leaning, submerchantable trees damaged during harvest operations.

23. Whenever possible, trees to be left uncut would be designated by DBH without the use of tree marking paint. If paint is to be used to mark trees, it shall be yellow or orange so as to be less visible to visitors to the project area, except that blue paint and/or posters may be used to mark harvest unit boundaries and reserve clumps. All visible paint marks would be painted brown at the conclusion of the project.

Recreation

24. Harvest activities would be prohibited during holidays and from Friday (1:00 p.m.)-Sunday (midnight) during the operating season to minimize conflict with recreation traffic. In addition, no harvest activity would take place from October

15 th to November 30th to avoid conflicts with the big game hunting season. Dust control would take place on Road #226, if needed.

25. Timber harvest activities such as log landing operations and skidding would be excluded from the meadow at the head of Strawberry Creek and along Warm

Springs Road #226.

26. Temporary gates, which are used to control access on roads that currently have rock barriers, would be metal gates. The gates would be kept locked for the duration of the project to inhibit unauthorized motorized vehicle use. Following project activities, gates would be removed and rock barriers would be replaced.

Cultural Resources

27. A full cultural resource inventory of the selected Alternative would be completed prior to implementation of this project to comply with the National

Historic Preservation Act. The full inventory would augment the sample-inventory completed in 1996-1997. In consultation with both the State of Montana and

Tribal (Salish-Kootenai, Blackfeet) Historic Preservation Officers, all project activities would be designed to avoid adverse effects to all identified heritage resources, unless the sites are deemed insignificant. Specifically, known prehistoric or historic sites in treatment units would be flagged, buffered, avoided and monitored during all project activities. These measures would effectively eliminate all direct impact to heritage resources during this project.

Indirect impacts, such as vandalism and artifact theft caused by increased site access, would be closely monitored during and after the project. Standard timber sale contract clauses would be invoked to provide protection for heritage resources, including newly discovered sites exposed by mechanical timber harvest and related activities.



April 2001

Transportation System

28. No changes in the existing travel plan would occur within the scope of this project. An analysis to satisfy the requirements of the Road Management Rule and Administrative Policy at the project level would be completed prior to a decision, and would become part of the Project File.

29. Work to make roads (presently functioning as National Forest system nonmotorized trails) useable by logging equipment would be limited to the existing road prism unless necessary to ensure safety or resource protection. Relatively rough existing road surfaces would be acceptable if equipment operating conditions are deemed reasonably safe. Additional drainage structures, which are added for use in conjunction with timber haul, would help minimize road surface disturbance. For example, belted cross drains would be used instead of drain dips.

30. The mile and a half of reconstruction includes the northerly most section of the Warm Springs Road #226. This segment of road would be reconstructed to improve site distance and drainage. The road would have ditches and cross drain culverts designed to avoid concentrating water. The ditches would be lined with four inch and smaller diameter rocks to reduce downcutting. The road surface would be covered with crushed aggregate to reduce erosion.

31. Best Management Practices would be employed during all road construction and maintenance activities. A complete description of Best Management Practices is in the Project File, and a summary is found in Appendix C. Currently, there are no stream crossings with any of the temporary roads. However, in the event streams or wet areas are encountered, Soil and Water Conservation Practices, as identified in FSH 2509.22, would be applied. Any construction activities within perennial or intermittent streams would also require a Stream Preservation Act

Permit application (124) be filed with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks.

Public Safety

32. In the interest of public safety, areas with active timber harvesting activities, prescribed burning, or weed control would be temporarily closed to all public use.

Guided field trips would be scheduled to observe operations if there is public interest.

33. The public would be notified of treatment activities, both timing and duration, through local news or press releases. Residents in the area would be notified (by phone or in writing) prior to beginning prescribed burning in the area.

34. When log hauling occurs, travel routes would be signed to indicate the presence of log truck traffic.



April 2001

35. To minimize conflicts with children and buses going to and from schools in the area, log hauling would be restricted to the late morning through the early afternoon.

Contracts

36. Standard timber sale contract provisions and specifications would be used for timber harvest and associated activities. These contract provisions are projectspecific prescriptions that the contractor would perform as protection and mitigation of site resource values. Performance bonds would be collected and contract administrators appointed to ensure compliance. Similar or identical clauses and requirements would be included in a Stewardship contract.

ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, none of the actions identified in the Proposed Action would occur.

The No Action alternative provides a baseline from which to compare the amount and rate of change of each of the action alternatives and an opportunity to analyze the environmental and social effects of not treating vegetation in the area.

Ongoing routine and recurrent management activities, such as noxious weed treatments, fire suppression, road maintenance, and range improvements would continue.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action With Winter Logging

This Alternative would restrict the timber harvest activities in the area to the period from December 1 to March 31. This Alternative responds to the issue of soil disturbance and the potential for noxious weed spread. It also minimizes the potential for disturbance of nesting goshawks. Lastly, this Alternative may have fewer conflicts with recreational uses in the area.

This alternative proposes to commercially thin about 755. Within those 755 acres, about 100 acres would focus on aspen enhancement. With the exception of reserves and untreated areas, low intensity fire would be applied over much of the project area following thinning.

This Alternative would require approximately one mile of temporary road construction. The use of several existing roads (see Figure 2) would require minor improvements such as grading, water bars, and drainage improvements. Most of this work would take place within the existing road prism. Except for work



April 2001 needed to decrease erosion, all existing roads, which are not open to motorized use under the 1995 Elkhorn Travel Management Plan, would be returned to their pre-treatment condition following completion of the project. One route, the primitive road that parallels Strawberry Creek, would be converted to a trail and about 1.4 miles of new trail would be constructed to provide a non-motorized

“loop” trail around Strawberry Butte.

Proposed improvements of Forest Road #226 include reconstruction and drainage improvement (ditching, culverts) on those portions of the road from Strawberry

Creek to the intersection with the Crystal Creek Road (Forest Road #1470).

Alternative 3 – Proposed Action With Summer Logging

This Alternative would restrict the timber harvest activities in the area to the period from May 16 to October 14. This Alternative responds to the issues of disturbance of big game winter range and the potential to disrupt black bears during the denning season. It also responds to the issue of engraver beetle outbreaks. Engraver beetles are present in the area at endemic levels. With summer logging, there is less potential for the beetle outbreak, because of the limited time that the slash would remain “green” and be available to the beetles for multiple reproductive cycles.

RESTORATION TREATMENT DESCRIPTIONS

Commercial thinning followed by low intensity fire: The objective of this treatment is to create a sustainable stand structure, to cycle nutrients, and to stimulate grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Reducing stand crown closure (crown connectivity) through tree density reductions, raising lower crown heights, and removing ladder fuels would reduce the risk of a fire being able to move from the ground surface into the crowns of the trees. A combination of timber harvest and prescribed fire would be used to achieve this objective. Timber harvest would be based on diameter limits by tree species. Under this technique, trees having commercial value (including pulp) that are smaller than a specified diameter would be harvested. In general, trees less than 15 inches DBH (down to about five inches

DBH) would be harvested, and trees 15 inches and larger would be left. This would create a visually pleasing forest stand with variable tree spacing and densities (see Figure 5). Some areas would be quite densely stocked (60 to 80 trees per acre), while other areas would be more open (15 to 25 trees per acre).

The detailed silvicultural prescriptions are found in the Project File.

Following removal of the specified conifers, the entire area would be treated with prescribed fire under conditions that favor a low-intensity fire. Given variations in fuel conditions, the fire would be expected to burn over 70-80% of the area in a mosaic pattern. Overall, the result would be a more open forest stand with highly variable spacing, but generally ranging from 20-80 trees per acre (Figure 4).

Canopy closure would range from 10 to 40 percent.



April 2001

Aspen manipulation: Most of the distinct aspen stands in the area were inventoried using information from a recent aspen symposium (Grand Junction

Colorado, June 2000; abstracts located in the Project File). The inventory forms and photos of the stands are located in the Project File. A summary of aspen ecology and the proposed aspen treatments in the project area are found in

Appendix E. In general, aspen groves begin to decline when conifers both within and around the grove shade them. The objective of aspen treatments is to reduce shading from conifers and to stimulate regeneration of aspen via root suckering.

This would be primarily accomplished by removing conifers within and around the aspen stands. Where stands are highly decadent and diseased, they would be burned. Following treatment by fire, at least two aspen stands would be fenced.

This fencing would be maintained for approximately 8-10 years or until aspen sprouts are about one inch DBH.

Untreated Reserves: There are two patches of lodgepole on the east side of Road

#226 that would be left untreated. Unit perimeters undulate on the landscape to leave a mosaic of untreated areas to provide hiding cover and shelter for a variety of wildlife species, and to reduce sharp unit edges. Some smaller untreated areas occur around boulder outcrops in the area. Fire would not be intentionally ignited within the reserve or untreated areas. Where necessary, efforts would be taken to protect these areas from fire.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

1. NO FIRE ALTERNATIVE

This alternative responds to a comment expressing concern about the risk of escape of prescribed fire (which is related to the drought conditions experienced in

1999 and 2000), and concerns about meeting air quality standards. This alternative would feature only mechanical removal of fuels with no follow up prescribed fire treatments. There would still be a need to burn slash associated with mechanical treatments. Slash piles are normally burned in October-

November with adequate snow cover, and the smoke produced by this burning would last for 3-5 days because of the concentration of fuel. In contrast, prescribed burning occurs in the spring when smoke generally disperses within 24 hours.

The purpose and need for the project is to restore the structure, composition, and function of this ponderosa pine/Douglas fir forest ecosystem. The structure of the stand would become more sustainable with mechanical treatment since crown densities would be reduced and ladder fuels removed; however crown heights would not be increased without a very intensive and expensive limbing (cutting branches from the lower portion of the tree) effort. Increasing crown heights is more efficiently accomplished through scorching during the application of lowintensity fire.



April 2001

Part of the purpose and need for the project is to reintroduce fire. Low intensity fire is an important natural process in this type of forest. Historically, fire functioned to increase crown heights, reduce ladder fuels, stimulate shrubs and grasses, remove duff and recycle nutrients. These latter functions are needed to create and maintain a vigorous plant community in under the forest.

Mechanical treatments without fire would not provide the increase in understory vegetation, since the thick duff layer would not be removed and nutrients would not be recycled. Aspen, shrubs, forbs, and grasses would not be stimulated under this alternative because of the shading and acidic contribution of decaying needles to the soil.

Without the use of prescribed fire, concentrations of unmerchantable conifers would be mechanically treated (felled, limbed, lopped and scattered). This would actually increase the fire hazard for two to four years, or until the evergreen needles die and fall from the tree limbs. In addition, the thick duff and needle layer that currently characterizes the project area would remain.

Monitoring in the Big Belt Mountains of a “mechanical” only treatment in ponderosa pine showed that without burning, the duff layer contained a viable seed bank that regenerated following thinning, and actually increased the ladder fuels in the stand.

The IDT concluded that this alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project, and recommended that this alternative be dropped from further consideration.

2. FIRE ONLY ALTERNATIVE

This alternative responds to the issue of using commercial timber harvest. Under this alternative, only prescribed fire would be used to thin conifers and reduce fuel loadings. The preference would be to use fire exclusively in this area. However, given the proximity to the urban interface and the fuel loadings that have resulted from many decades of fire suppression, the use of fire alone is not a responsible option at this time. Once fuels are reduced, fire can be used as a stand-alone tool to maintain open stand conditions.

Several different treatments were compared, including fire alone, relative to meeting desired conditions in ponderosa pine forest in the Bull Sweats Project, Big

Belt Mountains (USFS 1999). The comparison showed that using fire alone did not result in a measurable change in stand conditions and the effects were less predictable and less precise. It is very difficult to selectively kill trees with fire, and also difficult to control fire intensity under dense stand conditions.



April 2001

We know, based on the fire history of the Elkhorn Mountains (USFS 1992), that the lower elevation forests are more out of balance because of fire suppression and other human actions than the mid-high elevation forests. The goal of vegetation management in the Elkhorns is to restore and maintain the full diversity of wildlife habitats and to allow ecological processes to play a more natural role. The

Elkhorn Fire Management Guidebook (USFS 2001) outlines the conditions and options for allowing natural fires to burn in certain portions of the Elkhorn

Mountains, and also outlines where and how aggressively fires would be suppressed. As an indication of the high risk in this area, the guidebook outlines that all wild fires in the project area, because of the close proximity to residences, would be aggressively suppressed.

The Forest Plan management direction for the project area allows for the use of timber management to enhance wildlife habitat and to increase vegetative diversity. Because of this safer, more predictable option, the ID Team concluded that a fire only alternative was not reasonable at this time in this area.

3. NON-COMMERCIAL THINNING AND PRESCRIBED FIRE

This alternative addresses the issue of using commercial logging in a Wildlife

Management Unit. The Forest Plan direction for Management Area E-4 where the project occurs includes an allowance to use commercial timber harvest to improve vegetative diversity and wildlife habitat. To create a sustainable forest structure and to allow enough sunlight to the forest floor to stimulate the re-growth of understory plants, thinning the forest so that the crowns are at least 10 feet apart

(NRCG – Living With Fire) is required. This roughly equates to a 20-30% crown closure and tree densities of between 20-80 trees per acre. A non-commercial contract would require the Forest Service to pay for someone to remove wood products that have commercial value and to then dispose of those products, presumably by burning them in piles. This is not a reasonable alternative socially or economically, and has high air quality costs as well. A Stewardship contract however, could address the concern that drove this issue in part because timber values are exchanged for other improvement activities.

The team also considered an alternative that would remove only the trees without commercial value (less than six inches DBH depending on the pulp market).

While this alternative might help reduce ladder fuels, it would not meet the purpose and need in terms of reducing crown spacing to create a sustainable forest and facilitating the reintroduction of low-intensity fire into the area. In addition, this type of mechanical treatment would not effectively remove the conifers that are shading aspen stands in the area. Therefore, this alternative was not considered further.

4. EXPANDED PROJECT



April 2001

This alternative responds to a comment suggesting that the project area be expanded to the entire Elkhorn Mountain Range. The purpose and need for this project specifically addresses the unique ponderosa pine community and potential wildlife habitat, which is found mostly in the project area and does not occur elsewhere in the Elkhorn Mountains (see Figure 4). Therefore, this alternative was not considered further.

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

The effects of the Alternatives are compared in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. Summary of the effects of the Alternatives by resource issue.

Issue Alternative 1-No

Action

Alternative 2 –

Winter Harvest

Alternative 3

– Summer

Harvest

Soils and Water 71 tons sediment

Fisheries 35% fines (spawning gravel)

1 ton over baseline

Slight increase in fines.

3 tons over baseline

Same as Alt. 2

Risk of stand replacement fire

Aspen

Understory vegetation

Noxious Weeds

High under drought conditions.

High under normal conditions.

Continued deterioration of clones. Little or no regeneration occurring.

Suppression due to needle mats and degeneration.

Old-growth forest Existing forest at risk of stand replacement.

Increase in numbers.

Elk vulnerability No change. However, if stand replacement fire occurred, vulnerability would increase.

Denning bears

Forest Plan standards for big game

No disturbance.

Not applicable.

Moderate under drought conditions.

Low under normal

Conditions.

Proactive efforts to revitalize and protect regeneration

Reduced needle mats, promotes rejuvenation of forbs, grasses, and shrubs.

Promotes old growth structure over the long term.

Minor increase, can mitigate.

Small decrease in security areas; not predicted to affect vulnerability.

Potential disturbance.

Need site-specific amendment for winter logging on winter range; all other standards met.

Same as Alt. 2

Same as Alt. 2

Same as Alt. 2

Same as Alt. 2

Low to moderate increase, can mitigate.

Same as Alt. 2

No disturbance.

Meets all standards.



April 2001

Fragmentation Existing roads create current fragmentation.

Potential future wildfires would increase fragmentation.

In short-term, further fragmentation for a few species. A minor effect only for interior forest obligates.

In long-term, benefits for more species. Sufficient blocks of unfragmented forest habitat exist in the

Elkhorns

8 species decline

32 species increase

28 species little change

Same as Alt. 2

Same as Alt. 2 Number of wildlife species that benefit

Issue

TES, MIS effects

Lynx

Interior Forest species

Snag associated and old growth wildlife

Trails and nonmotorized recreation

Livestock distribution

Economics

(benefit/cost

29 species decline

15 species increase

25 species little change

Table 2-1 Continued

.

Alternative 1-No

Action

No Effect

See fragmentation.

Currently no old growth and low snag levels

Increased trend in recreationists over the long-term..

No change. 3-pasture restrotation system between the Maupin, Strawberry, and Willard Pastures.

Fire suppression No change – aggressive suppression.

NA

Alternative 2 –

Winter Harvest

Alternative 3

– Summer

Harvest

Same as Alt. 2 Reduced nesting potential and foraging habitat for goshawk.

Same as Alt. 1

See fragmentation.

Fire will create some additional snags. Longterm potential to create old growth conditions and favor some species like flammulated owls

Short-term displacement of winter recreation. Longterm, the trail creates a loop opportunity, which may increase use in this area above the baseline increase.

Same as Alt. 1

See fragmentation.

Same as Alt. 2

Short-term displacement of mtn. bikers, hikers, horseback riders during harvest activities.

Long-term increase in recreationists.

Same as Alt. 2 Willard Pasture will not be rested while project is implemented. Only 1/3 stocking is possible for one year when both Maupin and Strawberry pastures are rested.

More effective and less costly. If trail increases recreational use, there is the potential risk for more people-caused fire starts.

2.82

Same as Alt. 2

3.06



April 2001 ratio)


CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

Related documents

Products

Support

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES