Chapter 2 Alternatives Chapter 2 Alternatives Introduction 2-2 Alternative Development 2-2 Changes between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements 2-3 Elements Common to All Alternatives 2-10 Alternatives Considered in Detail 2-13 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives 2-25 Green Mountain National Forest Page 2-1 Alternatives Chapter 2 2.1 ALTERNATIVES response to the issues and need for change. 2.1.1 Introduction The following parameters were used in this process: This chapter describes and compares the five • Congressionally designated areas and management alternatives considered for the special areas will not get smaller Revised Forest Plan for the GMNF. The main • Ski areas and expansion areas will stay focus of this chapter is to sharply define the the same differences between alternatives. Alternatives • Habitats required for species viability provide a framework for analyzing different can’t be eliminated but amounts and ways of meeting the purpose and need and for locations could shift addressing the issues discussed in Chapter 1. These alternatives show a range of options for • The current management (no action) guiding natural resource management activities alternative will not have additional on the GMNF over the next 10 to 15 years. Wilderness Study Areas or Special Areas, and will not use new MAs Alternatives express different desired future • All newly acquired lands (existing MA conditions through different Management Area 9.2) will be assigned a MA designation (MA) allocation. The alternative that is selected except in the current management in the Record of Decision (ROD) will be a alternative management strategy that will guide all natural • There will be more Wilderness Study resource management activities and establish Areas considered and included in at management direction for the GMNF. least one alternative • Developed recreation sites and cross- country ski areas will be located in the 2.1.2 Alternative Diverse Forest Use MA Development • Follow all federal, State, and local laws and legal requirements The alternatives include different options to • Maintain a viable timber program resolve issues and to fulfill the purpose and • Maintain a multiple use and balanced need discussed in Chapter 1. The public, other approach federal, State, and local agencies, as well as • There will be no extremes that overly Forest Service employees, contributed to the emphasize one resource over another identification of five “major” issues that are • Attempt to accommodate existing addressed with alternatives in the FEIS. Special Use Permits Following an interdisciplinary approach, the • Strive to limit tension between Forest Service used the five major issues as management and legal framework the primary basis on which to focus • At a minimum maintain the existing development of five alternatives that have been amount of remote backcountry areas carried forward for detailed analysis in the • Strive to have MA boundaries follow FEIS. While all five alternatives provide a wide identifiable boundaries on the ground range of multiple uses, goods, and services, • Locate MAs based on major emphasis each addresses the issues in different ways. and to the extent possible where compatible uses can be maximized Public participation through local planning • Will not designate new Research group meetings held from 2003 into the Natural Areas (RNAs) but may summer of 2004 helped focus the issues and designate new special areas and scope of needed alternative development. candidate RNAs Following these meetings, Forest Service staff • At least one alternative will use all MAs developed five preliminary alternatives in Page 2-2 Green Mountain National Forest Chapter 2 Alternatives The preliminary alternatives were presented at information, and field verification. The following a series of public meetings in June 2004. Many summary describes the most substantial of the comments received during and after the changes made in the 2006 Forest Plan. A meetings were incorporated into alternative complete list of changes can be found in the design, and led to the final five alternatives that FEIS planning record. were brought forward for analysis in the DEIS. Public comments also identified the need for The alternatives vary by how they: several improvements to the analysis and • Display different combinations of presentation of materials in the FEIS. As a recreation opportunities, potential result, editorial discrepancies, minor recommended Wilderness, and inconsistencies, or gaps in the presentation of recreation and ecological special areas information in the DEIS have been corrected in • Address the public’s concerns about the the FEIS. These changes are noted in the amount of timber harvest, and the failure respective Forest Service responses in the to meet currently planned harvest levels FEIS Appendix H - Response to Comments. • Address ecosystem approaches to management, focusing on ecological processes and landscape patterns CHANGES TO MANAGEMENT • Display different future combinations of AREA ALLOCATIONS plant and animal habitat across the Forest (this will vary by the amount of Diverse Forest Use land allocated to each MA in the particular alternative) Changes to the Diverse Forest Use management area increased this allocation Each alternative would maintain the habitat from 116,737 acres (29%) to 118,717 acres necessary to maintain viable populations of (30%). The changes in the Diverse Forest Use plant and animal species. management area allocations are: 2.1.3 Changes between Bingo Brook Area The Bingo Brook area has been changed from the Draft and Final a Diverse Backcountry (DB) management area to Diverse Forest Use (DFU) management Environmental Impact area. This area has historically been Statements harvested, is very accessible, roaded, and has much recreational use. The Bingo Brook area The Forest Service received well-prepared and is adjacent to a large block of DFU constructive comments on the Proposed management area. With the removal of the DB Revised Forest Plan and DEIS during the three- management area across the ridge, as month public comment period. Both public and described in the Monastery Mountain area internal comments were considered in changes, The Forest Service has decided that preparing the FEIS and 2006 Forest Plan. management would be enhanced and potential conflicts would be reduced by creating a larger Changes made to the Proposed Revised Forest block of DFU management area to include the Plan have been incorporated into the Bingo Brook area. alternatives. No additional alternatives were included for detailed analysis in the FEIS. Changes made ranged from minor editing for improved clarity to changes in Forest Plan goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and MA direction and allocation. Some changes resulted from data corrections, new survey Green Mountain National Forest Page 2-3 Alternatives Chapter 2 Trues’ Store Snowmobile Access Backcountry management area to Remote The Forest Service received public comment Backcountry Forest. This change will provide that the snowmobile access to Trues’ Store greater protection to the Long Trail and create a from the VAST Trail near Little Pond in large area of RBF management area along the Woodford would have to be closed in the draft ridge of the Green Mountains. Preferred Alternative to be consistent with Remote Backcountry Forest management Dorset Mountain Area direction. Forest Service staff determined that The Forest Service received comments this trail is also under a powerline corridor with regarding the fact that we did not reach the an associated Special Use Permit. The area stated 2006 Forest Plan objective to have 5% of south of and including the powerline corridor in all ecological types in an ecological reference Woodford has been changed to a DFU network in the Preferred Alternative, and that management area to accommodate these two future motorized use on Dorset Mountain was uses. not desirable. The Forest Service met the 5% ecological reference network objective in Remote Backcountry Forest Alternative D by allocating Dorset Mountain to the RBF management area. This area contains Changes to the Remote Backcountry Forest the rich transitional zone Ecological Land Unit (RBF) management area decrease this Group (ELUG), the only ecological type that did allocation from 32,763 acres (8%) to 30,930 not have at least 5% allocated to management acres (8%). The changes to the RBF that contributed to the ecological reference management area are: network. Further information has shown that the Dorset Mountain area has a semi-primitive Monastery Mountain Area non-motorized character and that much of the The Forest Service staff conducted field area is unsuitable for timber harvesting and is reconnaissance in the Diverse Backcountry inaccessible. Based on this information, the (DB) management area that bisects the Remote Forest Service has decided to change the Backcountry Forest (RBF) management area in Dorset Mountain area to the RBF management the Monastery Mountain area. The DB area. management area corridor was allocated in the Preferred Alternative to allow for the possibility The decrease in Remote Backcountry Forest is of a locally proposed east-west snowmobile due to additions to the recommended corridor connecting the east side of the Green Wilderness Study Areas in the Glastenbury Mountain ridgeline with the VAST trails on the area described subsequently. west side of the ridge. FS staff