CONTENTS CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT PLANS Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................39 Criteria for Determining a Reasonable Range of Alternatives ................................................................39 Actions Independent of the Alternatives .....................................................................................................40 Elements Common to All Alternatives.........................................................................................................40 Structure of the Alternatives.........................................................................................................................41 Alternative 1: No Action..........................................................................................................................................42 Alternative 2: Minimal Management of Habitat and Populations, with Support for Migrations..................44 Alternative 3: Restore Habitat, Support Migration, and Phase Back Supplemental Feeding .....................46 Alternative 4: Adaptively Manage Habitat and Populations (Preferred Alternative)...................................48 Alternative 5: Restore Habitat, Improve Forage, and Continue Supplemental Feeding .............................50 Alternative 6: Restore Habitat, Adaptively Manage Populations, and Phase Out Supplemental Feeding 52 Alternative Comparison by Goal............................................................................................................................54 Goal 1: Habitat Conservation .........................................................................................................................54 Goal 2. Sustainable Elk and Bison Populations............................................................................................63 Goal 3. Numbers of Elk and Bison on the Refuge and in the Park ...........................................................69 Goal 4. Disease Management..........................................................................................................................71 Other Alternatives Considered, But Not Studied in Detail ...............................................................................75 Eliminate Bison from the Refuge and the Park ..........................................................................................75 Eliminate Livestock from the Park...............................................................................................................75 Fence and Haze Bison off the Refuge ...........................................................................................................75 Provide Temporary and Long-Term Winter Feeding of Bison in the Hunter-Talbot Area .................76 Depopulate and Reestablish the Bison Herd from Brucellosis-Free Stock ............................................76 Increase Elk Numbers Wintering on the Refuge through Expanded Feeding......................................76 Fertility Control for Elk .................................................................................................................................77 Alternatives Required to Be Identified by Policy and Estimated Costs .........................................................79 Preferred Alternative .....................................................................................................................................79 Costs of the Alternatives ................................................................................................................................79 Summary Comparisons of Alternatives ................................................................................................................81 Maps Alternative 1 .............................................................................................................................................................43 Alternative 2 .............................................................................................................................................................45 Alternative 3 .............................................................................................................................................................47 Alternative 4 .............................................................................................................................................................49 Alternative 5 .............................................................................................................................................................51 Alternative 6 .............................................................................................................................................................53 Tables Table 2-1: One-time Costs of Alternatives............................................................................................................79 Table 2-2: Annual Costs of Alternatives................................................................................................................80 Table 2-3: Total Costs of Alternatives...................................................................................................................80 Table 2-4: Summary of Bison and Elk Management Alternatives ....................................................................81 Table 2-5: How Well Management Alternatives Fulfill the National Wildlife Refuge System Mission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission-Related Responsibilities, and National Elk Refuge Establishing Purposes....................................................................................................................................83 Table 2-6: How Well Alternatives Would Fulfill NPS Mission-Related Directives and Park Establishing Purposes....................................................................................................................................83 Table 2-7: How Well the Alternatives Meet Management Goals.......................................................................84 Table 2-8: Summary of Potential Long-term Impacts of the Alternatives Relative to Legal Directives, Wildlife Management Principles, WGFD Herd Objective, and Socioeconomic Considerations..........84 Table 2-9: Summary of Potential Long-term Impacts of the Alternatives ......................................................85 ii Introduction CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT PLANS 37 ERROR! NO TEXT OF SPECIFIED STYLE IN DOCUMENT. [This page has been left blank intentionally.] 38 INTRODUCTION Whenever a wildlife management decision is Each alternative is made up of a number of differ- made, a range of options or alternatives needs to ent measurable objectives and strategies that dis- be evaluated before deciding which approach to tinguish one alternative from another. In some implement. The consideration of alternatives is cases the objectives and strategies could be quite further reinforced by the National Environmental similar between the alternatives, or they could be Policy Act, which requires that a reasonable markedly different. Objectives are “what are you range of alternatives be explored and evaluated going to do” statements, and strategies are “how for all major federal actions. The alternatives pre- you are going to get there” statements. sented in this document represent different ap- proaches that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service could implement CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING A REASON- for managing elk and bison on the National Elk ABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES Refuge and in Grand Teton National Park / John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Na- tional Park Service, as joint lead agencies, identi- Development of the alternatives was based on an fied the criteria for determining the range of rea- extensive prescoping and scoping process that sonable alternatives considered and analyzed in involved the public, cooperating agencies and this document. Regulations of the Council on En- partners in this planning process, and USFWS vironmental Quality require that the range of rea- and NPS staff. The public scoping process identi- sonable alternatives be wide enough to facilitate a fied the significant issues to be addressed by the “reasoned decision” by the lead agencies. For this alternatives. Following scoping, additional public document, alternatives were determined to be and interagency workshops and meetings were reasonable if they met all the following tests: held, which allowed the planning team to further 1. They addressed the project’s purpose and develop a range of possible alternatives. Some need. ideas were eventually eliminated from further consideration, and those are discussed later in this 2. They would contribute to the accomplish- chapter. Six alternatives were carried forward ment of refuge and park goals for bison and and are analyzed in detail in this environmental elk management. impact statement. A seventh alternative was con- 3. They addressed the significant issues. sidered but eliminated (see alternatives consid- ered but eliminated). The six alternatives are: 4. They would be technically and economically feasible. • Alternative 1 — No action An alternative’s technical feasibility is based pri- • Alternative 2 — Minimal management of marily on the available technical and scientific habitat