Soils on BLM-administered surface lands and federal mineral estate could be disturbed under each alternative by activities proposed across a variety of resource programs. In disturbed areas, the WEPP model predicts an erosion rate of 4.165 tons per acre per year in the short term, which, after reclamation, would decrease to 1.602 tons per acre per year in the long term. This base erosion rate remains constant under each alternative. The intensity of impacts from erosion would vary under each alternative based on the area of projected surface disturbance. The intensity of impacts to soil resources from surface-disturbing activities under all alternatives is anticipated to be similar to the reasonable foreseeable actions identified in Appendix T.
Actions such as mineral resources development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation that disturb the soil surface can increase runoff and erosion, resulting in adverse impacts. The BLM utilizes various methods to minimize impacts to soil resources under all alternatives. BMPs, watershed enhancement projects, conservation practices, Storm Water Discharge Plans, and reclamation plans are designed to reduce impacts to soil, resulting in more successful reclamation, reduction in impacts during the time that soil is bare, as well as reduced runoff, soil erosion, and sediment yield. The BLM mitigates impacts from surface-disturbing and disruptive activities through the application of the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing and Disruptive Activities (Appendix H).
Motorized vehicle use can compact the soil surface and remove vegetative cover that would protect soil from runoff events. Management that limits motorized vehicle use to existing roads and trails would prevent route proliferation and vegetation removal that may increase erosion. In addition, management actions that restore plant communities would enhance soil resources by restoring infiltration, organic matter content, productivity, and reducing erosion.
Wild horses can adversely affect soils, especially in Herd Management Areas (HMAs) where concentrated year-round grazing can occur. Studies have shown that areas with wild horses experience increased compaction of the soil surface, especially in areas with finer-textured soils (Beever 2003; Beever 2006). Horse-occupied sites also have been shown to have a lower abundance of grass and shrub cover on rangeland compared to sites where horses have been removed (Beever 2006). Horses tend to use only a few trails to get water, which concentrates their movement and defecations and results in a greater impact to soil resources in these areas (Beever 2003). The impacts to soils from wild horses will likely be similar across all alternatives since the initial appropriate management levels for the HMAs do not vary.
Livestock, on the other hand, unless they are near a water source, tend to distribute themselves more uniformly across the landscape when grazing, thereby distributing the impacts. The BLM utilizes the Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for the Public Lands Administered by the BLM in the State of Wyoming (Appendix N) to protect and improve rangeland health, which is generally effective in managing the impacts to soils from livestock grazing.
Prohibiting the disposal of topsoil within the Planning Area would result in beneficial impacts to soil resources, because this management action would prevent the removal of soil at the startup of surface-disturbing activities or the loss of soil through disposals as a mineral materials resource via sale, permit, or free use to qualified entities.
Actions that restrict surface disturbance in the Planning Area occur under all alternatives and generally are considered to have a beneficial impact on soil resources. For example, withdrawals that close areas to operation of the public land laws would reduce the potential for impacts to soil from surface-disturbing activities.
Projected short-term disturbance from all BLM actions under Alternative A would affect 136,415 acres, resulting in erosion rates of 568,166 tons per year. After reclamation, long-term erosion rates would average 25,167 tons per year. Standard BMPs and mitigation guidelines combined with the restrictions on development on slopes greater than 25 percent are generally effective in mitigating impacts to soil and water resources under normal conditions.
Surface-disturbing activities associated with mineral development expose soils to increased erosion potential in both the short term and long term. With projected initial disturbance of 25,390 acres for mineral resource development, short-term erosion rates would average 105,749 tons per year under Alternative A (Appendix T). Once these sites are stabilized and reclaimed, erosion rates would drop to 20,776 tons per year. Increases in surface disturbance related to mineral development may result in a proportional increase in impacts to soils.
Alternative A designates 116,800 acres of BLM-administered surface land available for disposal. Uncontrolled surface-disturbing activity would adversely affect land transferred out of federal control. Alternative A withdraws the second most acreage from operation of the public land laws in the Planning Area. Land withdrawn from operation under the public land laws would reduce the potential for impacts to soil from surface-disturbing activities. The greatest long-term disturbance from ROW development would be from roads and other ROW facilities (typically associated with oil and gas facilities and mineral development). The projected initial erosion rate from disturbance associated with other ROW facilities would be 875 tons per year, which would decrease to 336 tons per year after reclamation. With the projection of 1,966 acres of disturbance associated with road construction (primarily related to oil and gas development and other local demand), short-term erosion would be 5,217 tons per year (Appendix T). Once new roads are stabilized, long-term erosion rates would average 2,608 tons per year.
Comprehensive travel and transportation management (CTTM) under Alternative A restricts motorized vehicle use in the majority of the Planning Area to existing roads and trails. The BLM anticipates an increase in motorized vehicle use in the Planning Area over the life of the plan. Increased motorized vehicle use on more user-created trails would accelerate degradation of the soil resource by removing vegetative cover and increasing erosion in more areas. Short-term disturbance associated with the creation of new roads and trails in areas open to cross-country motorized travel is predicted to disturb 1,233 acres, with erosion rates of 5,135 tons per year. Once these areas are stabilized, long-term erosion rates would average 1,338 tons per year (Appendix T).
Most of the Planning Area would remain open to livestock grazing under this alternative. Concentrated herbivory can result in adverse impacts when adequate vegetation does not remain to protect the soil resource. Excessive vegetation removal can cause soil compaction that reduces infiltration, increases runoff, and hampers reclamation. Livestock grazing management under Alternative A provides for protection or enhancement of other resource values, which would provide beneficial impacts to soils. Alternative A prohibits the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements within ¼ mile of water, wetlands, riparian areas, and reclaimed or reforested areas, which would reduce vegetation removal and soil compaction from concentrated livestock grazing. Rangeland improvement projects, including spring development, pipeline development, reservoir/pit development, fence development, well development, and reservoir maintenance development, are predicted to result in an initial disturbance of 370 acres and erosion rates averaging 1,541 tons per year (Appendix T). Revegetation would usually occur within several growing seasons and long-term erosion rates would average 34 tons per year.
Alternative A places constraints and restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in certain special designation and other management areas where surface disturbance is minimized. Such areas, including Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) (143,974 acres), Wild and Scenic River (WSR) eligible waterways 27,483 acres), and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) (71,5297 acres), include restrictions that limit surface disturbance, resulting in beneficial impacts to soil resources within these areas. The Carter Mountain ACEC (10,867 acres) and Upper Owl Creek ACEC (13,057 acres), designated under Alternative A, include specific management prescriptions designed to protect fragile soils.
Fire and fuels management may have an adverse impact as well as a beneficial impact on soil resources. Fire in the Planning Area can affect soils in the short term by removing vegetation and exposing soils to water and wind erosion. Under certain conditions, intense fires can create hydrophic soil conditions (i.e., resistance to water infiltration), whereby runoff and erosion are increased. Wildfires in the Planning Area are estimated to result in 117,620 acres of surface disturbance, which is not anticipated to vary by alternative, and an average erosion rate of 489,887 tons per year. In the long term, however, provided vegetative recovery is successful, fire can have a beneficial effect on soil resources by reducing long-term erosion and the risk of catastrophic fire.
Suppression and rehabilitation activities can also have the potential to affect the soil resource in both the short and long term. Activities such as firebreak construction, clearing vegetation, and use of heavy equipment would disturb the soil surface and increase erosion in the short term. For example, fire lines constructed during suppression efforts can channelize surface runoff, which can result in gully erosion. In the long term, however, successful stabilization efforts can increase cover with a subsequent reduction in the natural rate of erosion.
Alternative A utilizes wildland fire to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels. The BLM anticipates that fire management would result in 40,000 acres of short-term disturbance from prescribed fire and 30,000 acres of short-term disturbance from mechanical fuels treatment on BLM-administered land in the Planning Area (Appendix T). This disturbance would result in an average erosion rate of 166,600 tons per year for prescribed fire and 124,950 tons per year for mechanical fuel treatments. The BLM does not anticipate long-term surface disturbance or associated erosion from prescribed fire or mechanical fuels treatments following reclamation.
Management actions under Alternative A designed to protect wildlife and special status species habitat from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities also would protect soil resources from these activities. Management actions such as applying no surface occupancy (NSO) restrictions within big game crucial winter range and applying a controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation within ¼ mile of occupied greater sage-grouse leks would reduce the chance of erosion. However, prohibiting livestock grazing, although not a surface-disturbing activity, in certain areas such as in elk parturition habitat could have the effect of concentrating livestock grazing and degrading the soil resource in other areas. Vegetation management in crucial wildlife habitat is an additional beneficial impact for soil resources.
Existing management actions intended to protect soils include analyzing all surface-disturbing and disruptive activities for suitability and impact, seeding areas impacted by surface-disturbing activities, and reestablishing vegetative cover within 5 years of initial seeding. The use of native plant species under Alternative A would not have a substantial impact on runoff and erosion. Under Alternative A, the BLM considers topsoil salvage and the stabilization of heavily eroded or washed out roads on a case-by-case basis. The BLM also implements watershed improvement practices to reduce sediment loadings in streams. This includes seeding, riparian/stream restoration, travel management, head cut control and sediment capture and containment projects. This alternative requires stabilization of existing watershed improvement projects where they have failed to promote, enhance, or improve watershed stability. However, Alternative A does not require reclamation plans. Reclamation plans can improve the effectiveness of the reclamation process and reduce the risk of additional soil degradation. Due to the increase in off-road motorized vehicle use in the Planning Area, two-track trails and unimproved roads are a substantial source of runoff and sediment. The lack of mandatory action to stabilize heavily eroded or washed out roads increases the potential for degradation of watershed health.
Alternative B includes the least acreage subject to surface-disturbing activities through management actions for other resources; therefore, surface disturbance under this alternative would result in the least impact to soils compared to the other alternatives. Under this alternative, projected short-term disturbance from all BLM actions would affect 73,919 acres. Erosion rates for short-term disturbance under Alternative B would be 307,873 tons per year. Following reclamation of disturbed sites, the projected long-term erosion rates would average 17,432 tons per year, which is less than the other alternatives.
Alternative B includes the greatest restrictions on surface-disturbing activities, compared to the other alternatives, for the protection of other resources such as special designations, crucial wildlife habitat, and recreation management areas.
With the projected initial disturbance of 17,327 acres for mineral resource development, short-term erosion rates would average 72,167 tons per year under Alternative B (Appendix T). After these sites are stabilized and reclaimed, erosion rates would drop to 9,960 tons per year, the lowest of all alternatives.
Under Alternative B, the impacts of disposal and retention would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 24,267 acres are identified for disposal (including disposal for specific uses), which is less than under Alternative A. Disposing of potentially less land may decrease the potential for uncontrolled surface-disturbing activities and soil resource degradation. Withdrawals under Alternative B would close the most land to operation under the public land laws relative to the other alternatives. The projected initial erosion rate from disturbance associated with other ROW facilities (typically associated with oil and gas facilities and mineral development) would be 396 tons per year, which would decrease to 152 tons per year after reclamation, which is less than the other alternatives. With the projection of 1,229 acres of disturbance associated with road construction (primarily related to oil and gas development and other local demand), short-term erosion would be 3,261 tons per year (Appendix T). Once the roads are stabilized, long-term erosion rates would be 1,632 tons per year, the least of all alternatives.
Alternative B designates the majority of the Planning Area as limited to designated road and trails for motorized vehicle use, reducing the potential for new route proliferation and providing more protection to soil resources than the other alternatives. Compared to Alternative A, which designates the most acreage in the Planning Area as limited to existing roads and trails, and although inappropriate use of vehicles may still occur in areas limited to designated roads and trails, Alternative B would allow greater management control over motorized vehicle use and help limit the impacts to soils. Alternative B also designates the largest area as closed to motorized vehicle use compared to alternatives A, C, and D. Short-term disturbance associated with new road and trail creation in areas open to cross-country motorized travel under Alternative B is predicted to disturb 2,776 acres, with erosion rates of 11,562 tons per year (Appendix T). Once these areas are stabilized, long-term erosion rates would average 1,711 tons per year, which is higher than Alternative A, but lower than alternatives C and D.
Under this alternative, a large portion of the Planning Area is closed to livestock grazing (1,988,927 acres). A ½-mile buffer prohibiting the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements near water, wetlands, riparian areas, and reclaimed or reforested areas would provide greater protection of soil in these areas compared to the other alternatives. Short-term erosion rates associated with rangeland improvement projects in the Planning Area would average 771 tons per year based on an initial disturbance of 185 acres. After reclamation, long-term erosion rates would average 17 tons per year.
Compared to all other alternatives, Alternative B places more restrictions on surface-disturbing activity within special designations and other management areas where surface disturbance is minimized. Many of these areas designated and managed under Alternative B, including ACECs (299,954 acres), Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and Recreation Management Zones (RMZs) (936,386 acres), WSAs (143,974 acres), WSR suitable waterways (27,483 acres), and lands with wilderness characteristics (LWCs) designated as Wild Lands (571,288 acres), include restrictions such as NSO, mineral withdrawals, and prohibitions on surface-disturbing activities that would, subject to applicable laws and regulations, result in long-term beneficial impacts to soil resources within these areas. Similar to Alternative A, the Carter Mountain ACEC (16,573 acres) and Upper Owl Creek ACEC (32,777 acres) include specific management prescriptions designed to protect fragile soils. However, the beneficial impact would be greater under Alternative B because the two ACECs include a combined additional 25,426 acres more than the same two ACECs under Alternative A.
Fire and fuels management under Alternative B utilizes wildland fire and other vegetative treatments to restore fire-adapted ecosystems for natural resource systems and to reduce hazardous fuels. The BLM anticipates that management will result in 20,000 acres of short-term disturbance from prescribed fire and 5,000 acres of short-term disturbance from mechanical fuels treatment on BLM-administered land in the Planning Area (Appendix T). This would result in an average erosion rate of 83,300 tons per year for prescribed fire and 20,825 tons per year for mechanical fuel treatments, the least for all alternatives.
Alternative B applies greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities designed to protect wildlife and special status species habitat than alternatives A, C, or D and therefore has a greater beneficial impact on soil resources. Vegetation management in crucial wildlife habitat is an added beneficial impact for soil resources.
Of all the alternatives, the management prescriptions on lands administered by the BLM under Alternative B are the most protective of soil resources. Proactive management actions under this alternative include taking inventory of erosion rates and analyzing impacts from surface-disturbing activities by mapping soils, collecting samples, and evaluating current conditions. Site-specific data would result in better project design, BMP implementation, and better reclamation.
Proactive management also includes reestablishing native plant communities in disturbed areas, requiring topsoil salvage for all surface-disturbing activities, and requiring photo point monitoring of all channel crossings and all surface disturbance greater than ½ acre. The BLM would improve watershed health through the development of watershed improvement practices including seeding, riparian/stream restoration, travel management, head cut control and sediment capture and containment projects in cooperation with local governments and by stabilizing watershed projects if they are no longer meeting source objectives to prevent the release of stored sediment. Protecting watershed health will help to reduce the incidence of runoff and erosion.
Successful reclamation efforts following surface disturbance reduce the chance of long-term impacts to soil. Under Alternative B, higher reclamation standards and greater proactive management would improve reclamation success. Requiring reclamation plans before any authorized surface-disturbing activity leads to more successful reclamation efforts, which would benefit soils. A temporary protective surface treatment (such as mulch, netting, or tackifiers) used for the reclamation of all mechanically disturbed areas would, on average, reduce erosion rates in the short term by 2.97 tons per acre per year in these areas. Alternative B requires a more stringent reclamation standard than the other alternatives by requiring 50 percent pre-disturbance of desired vegetative cover within three growing seasons and 80 percent pre-disturbance vegetative cover within 5 years of initial seeding. While providing a beneficial impact to soils by reestablishing vegetative cover, the use of native plant species in disturbed areas would not have a substantial impact on runoff and erosion.
Alternative B mitigates the impacts to soil from the increase in off-road motorized vehicle use in the Planning Area by closing and reclaiming eroded roads and trails if alternative roads and trails are available and stabilizing or relocating these roads and trails if alternative routes are not available. Applying proactive management actions under this alternative would provide the most beneficial impacts to soils of any alternative.
Alternative C places the fewest restrictions on resource uses with the result that more acreage is subject to surface-disturbing activities than the other alternatives. Under this alternative, projected short-term disturbance from all BLM actions would affect 245,783 acres, the most of any alternative. Erosion rates for short-term disturbance under Alternative C would be 1,023,686 tons per year. Following reclamation of disturbed sites, the projected long-term erosion rates would average 66,555 tons per year, over twice as high as under Alternative A.
As with the other alternatives, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., water, biological resources, and special designations) may provide additional protection for soil resources.
With the projected initial disturbance of 25,771 acres for mineral resource development, short-term erosion rates would be 107,336 tons per year under Alternative C. Once these sites are stabilized and reclaimed, erosion rates would decrease to 21,018 tons per year, slightly more than under Alternative A.
Alternative C identifies the most acreage of all alternatives for disposal of BLM-administered surface lands (117,961 acres), resulting in greater uncertainty of future land uses and impacts to soil. Alternative C designates the fewest acres for withdrawal from the operation of the public land laws than the other alternatives, which increases the potential for adverse impacts to soil. The projected erosion rates from surface disturbance associated with other ROW facilities (typically associated with oil and gas facilities) are the highest of any alternative, averaging 970 tons per year in the short term and 373 tons per year in the long term. With the projection of 4,638 acres of surface disturbance associated with road construction (primarily related to oil and gas development and other local demand), short-term erosion rates would be 12,307 tons per year (Appendix T). Once the roads are stabilized, long-term erosion rates would average 6,154 tons per year, the highest of all alternatives.
Alternative C limits motorized vehicle use to existing roads and trails in the majority of the Planning Area, resulting in similar impacts as those described under Alternative A. Alternative C closes the fewest number of acres to motorized vehicle use and opens more acreage to cross-country motorized travel than any other alternative, resulting in the least protection of soil resources in sensitive areas. The areas open to cross-country motorized travel, such as Basin Gardens Play Area SRMA and Lovell Lakes “Motocross” area, would have a higher probability of erosion and long-term soil degradation than areas that close or limit motorized vehicle use. Partly because more acreage is open to cross-country motorized travel, short-term disturbance associated with the creation of new roads and trails for recreational purposes (12,907 acres) is projected to be higher under Alternative C than under the other alternatives. The creation of these roads and trails would result in erosion rates of 53,758 tons per year in the short term, the highest of all alternatives (Appendix T). Once these areas stabilize, long-term erosion rates would average 20,401 tons per year.
Under Alternative C, the majority of the Planning Area is available for livestock grazing. The BLM manages livestock grazing to optimize commodity production while meeting rangeland health standards but not specifically to enhance other resource values. Management under Alternative C also does not prohibit the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements, and increases the potential for adverse impacts to soil near water, wetlands, riparian areas, and reclaimed or reforested areas. This alternative focuses on rangeland improvement projects to mitigate impacts to resources. Short-term erosion rates associated with rangeland improvement projects in the Planning Area would be 3,082 tons per year based on an initial disturbance of 740 acres. After reclamation, long-term erosion rates would decrease to 74 tons per year, higher than the other alternatives.
Compared to other alternatives, Alternative C prescribes fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activities for a smaller number of special designations and other management areas where surface disturbance is minimized. Alternative C designates two ACECs (12,144 acres) which provide protection for the soil resource by limiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities. Alternative C also manages the 10 WSAs (143,974 acres) in accordance with the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review: Update Document H-8550 (IMP) to maintain the non-impairment standard, and therefore provides protections for soils within these areas. Alternative C, in contrast to Alternative B, does not include special management prescriptions for WSR eligible waterways or LWCs that would provide additional protection for soils.
Fire and fuels management under Alternative C utilizes wildland fire and other vegetative treatments to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, to enhance forage for commodity production, and to reduce hazardous fuels. The BLM anticipates that management would result in 80,000 acres of short-term disturbance from prescribed fire and 60,000 acres of short-term disturbance from mechanical fuels treatment on BLM-administered land in the Planning Area (Appendix T). This would result in an average erosion rate of 333,200 tons per year for prescribed fire and 249,900 tons per year for mechanical fuel treatments, which are the highest erosion rates of all alternatives. In comparison, wildland fires in the Planning Area are estimated to result in 117,620 acres of disturbance, which is not anticipated to vary based on alternative, and an average erosion rate of 489,887 tons per year.
In contrast to the other alternatives, Alternative C applies fewer management restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activity designed to protect wildlife and special status species. The absence or reduction of these restrictions results in greater potential for adverse impacts to soil resources.
Proactive management under Alternative C is similar to Alternative A. However, unlike Alternative A, Alternative C reestablishes plant communities in disturbed areas to increase commodity production and requires reclamation plans on a case-by-case basis. The use of reclamation plans can increase the use of BMPs to better protect the soil resource and improve overall reclamation success. Alternative C sets a lower vegetation restoration standard than alternatives B and D. Alternative C requires 30 percent desired vegetative cover within three growing seasons compared to Alternative A, which does not specify the degree of cover to be restored. Low vegetative cover increases the chance of erosion and nutrient loss, which increases the difficulty of achieving successful final reclamation. On a case-by-case basis, watershed projects are stabilized if they are no longer meeting resource objectives, resulting in a beneficial impact to soil and watershed health by preventing the release of stored sediment. Other management actions beneficial to soil resources under Alternative C include stabilizing heavily eroded or washed out roads and collecting site-specific data through mapping, collecting, and evaluating current erosion conditions on a case-by-case basis. Site-specific data would result in better project design, BMP implementation, and better reclamation.
Impacts to soil from surface disturbance under Alternative D are projected to be greater than under alternatives A and B but less than under Alternative C. Projected short-term disturbance from all BLM actions would affect 140,507 acres (Table 4-1), resulting in an erosion rate of 585,214 tons per year. After reclamation, the long-term erosion rate would average 29,546 tons per year, which is slightly greater than Alternative A.
Under Alternative D, the projected amount of surface disturbed by activities associated with minerals development (24,896 acres) is greater than under Alternative B but less than under alternatives A and C. The predicted average erosion from surface disturbance would be 103,692 tons per year in the short term, reducing to 20,179 tons per year after reclamation and stabilization. Proper reclamation in accordance with an approved reclamation plan, stipulations, or measures, which are required under Alternative D, would help improve reclamation success and reduce long-term impacts to soil.
Alternative D identifies 66,022 acres for disposal of BLM-administered surface lands, more acres than under Alternative B but fewer than under alternatives A and C. Impacts to soil resources in areas disposed from federal ownership would be similar to those described for Alternative A. The erosion rate predicted from disturbance associated with other ROW facilities and road construction would be the same as under Alternative A.
CTTM under Alternative D would protect soil from motorized vehicle use on more acreage than alternatives A and C through closures and limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails, but would also designate the second most acreage as open to cross-country motorized travel (5,941 acres). Partly because more acreage is open to cross-country motorized travel and partly due to a higher projected rate of yearly new road and trail creation under this alternative, disturbance associated with the creation of new roads and trails (5,820 acres) is projected to be higher under Alternative D than under alternatives A and B but less than under Alternative C. Creating these roads and trails would result in erosion rates of 24,240 tons per year in the short term and 6,313 tons per year in the long term (Appendix T).
Livestock grazing management is conducted in a similar fashion as Alternative A, resulting in similar impacts to soils. Alternative D is projected to disturb the same acreage from rangeland improvement projects as Alternative A and result in the same amount of erosion.
Alternative D designates several special designations and other management areas that would minimize surface disturbance and provide a beneficial impact to soil in these areas. Management prescriptions for ACECs (103,128 acres), WSAs (143,974 acres), and LWCs designated as Wild Lands (52,485 acres) can provide additional protection for soils from surface-disturbing activities. Alternative D protects a greater area in these special designations from surface-disturbing activities than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. Management of certain SRMAs would only allow surface-disturbing activities if the impacts could be avoided or mitigated, thereby reducing the impacts to soil in the long term. Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D does not include special management prescriptions for WSR eligible waterways that would provide additional protection for soils. Similar to Alternative A, the Carter Mountain ACEC (10,867 acres) and Upper Owl Creek ACEC (13,057 acres) include specific management prescriptions designed to protect fragile soils.
Fire and fuels management under Alternative D would utilize wildland fires and other vegetation treatments to restore fire‐adapted ecosystems, reduce hazardous fuels, and accomplish resource management objectives. Under Alternative D, prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments are projected to disturb the same acreage as under Alternative A and would result in the same erosion rate and similar impacts to soils.
Management designed to protect fish and wildlife, special status species, and other biological resources would provide benefits to soil by limiting surface-disturbing activities and other actions that could degrade soil health. The beneficial impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A except that several areas would require avoidance of surface-disturbing activities. In these areas, surface-disturbing activities would be prohibited unless the impacts could be mitigated, thereby limiting long-term adverse impacts.
Overall, proactive management actions under Alternative D would provide soil resources with greater protection and improve reclamation efforts more than alternatives A and C but less than Alternative B. Stabilization of existing watershed improvement projects would prevent the release of stored sediment and the degradation of watershed health. In disturbed areas, the reestablishment of healthy native or desired plant communities (DPCs) would benefit soils by increasing vegetative cover and reducing runoff. Soil would also benefit from the reclamation standards under Alternative D, which considers final reclamation to be achieved if conditions are equal to or better than pre-disturbance site conditions. When appropriate for the site and situation, Alternative D would require temporary protective surface treatments such as weed-free mulch, matting, netting, or tackifiers to facilitate the reclamation of disturbed areas, which would result in beneficial impacts similar to those described for Alternative B.