This section divides the analysis of impacts to fire and fuels management from the alternatives into three areas – impacts from restrictions from resources and special designations, impacts from resource uses, and impacts from proactive management actions. This analysis groups special designations with resources because the resource values within the special designations are the reason for management that would limit or restrict fire and fuels management techniques in these areas.
Although certain management of other resource programs and special designations may limit fire suppression tactics, in cases where human life or safety may be at risk, emergency fire suppression tactics would be used and would become a higher priority than any resource protection or management stipulations.
Avoiding the use of waters that contain high-risk aquatic invasive species for suppression activities (except in cases where public and firefighter safety are threatened) may limit fire suppression activities when other sources of water are unavailable or inadequate to meet fire suppression. This would adversely impact wildfire management.
Avoiding the aerial application of fire suppressant chemicals within 300 feet of perennial waters and restricting the use of fire retardant chemicals as appropriate to protect rock art and water quality would limit the potential to effectively control fires in these areas. This would adversely affect the management of wildland fires.
Suppressing fires that threaten greater sage-grouse habitats and crucial winter wildlife habitat within Wyoming big sagebrush communities and conducting fire management activities to minimize overall wildfire size and frequency in sagebrush plant communities where greater sage-grouse habitat objectives are at risk may create adverse impacts to fire ecology by affecting the natural fire regime in the ecosystem. Actions that suppress the natural role of fire in the ecosystem may result in fuels accumulation and eventually lead to larger and more intense fires. However, suppressing fires in these areas may also decrease the incidence of damaging wildfires to sagebrush habitat and greater sage-grouse and enhance the ability to manage fires in these areas. Establishing fuels treatments at strategic locations to minimize the size of wildfire and limit further loss of greater sage-grouse habitat would have long-term benefits to fire and fuels management by reducing the incidence and spread of wildfire in greater sage-grouse habitat.
Under all alternatives, constraints to protect and conserve habitat of special status species, especially the greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush obligate species would influence updating the Northern Zone Fire Management Plan (FMP) and managing consistent with the Northern Zone FMP. Standard operating procedures would influence the way wildfire suppression tactics may take place within habitat deemed important for special status species. If additional species become listed under the ESA, it is likely that the conservation measures developed to protect and restore such species would have long-term impacts on the types and timing of vegetation treatments allowable within their important habitats.
Prohibiting the use of bulldozers in areas of significant cultural resources or historic trails for fire suppression, unless an archeologist is present, may have adverse impacts on fire and fuels management by limiting the ability to effectively fight wildfires in these areas depending on availabilities and response times of archeologists. Assigning an archeologist to all fires with heavy equipment employed beyond minimum impact suppression techniques may delay fire suppression activities and adversely impact fire management.
Under all alternatives, management of vegetation and invasive species would result in long-term impacts to fire and fuels management. Under all alternatives, vegetation that does not meet DPC has the highest risk of losing important ecosystem components. Mechanical treatment in these areas may not be sufficient to diversify fuel conditions and reduce the potential for wildland fire occurrence or spread. Management actions that limit the potential for the spread or establishment of invasive species would generally have a beneficial impact to fire and fuels management. As invasive species dominate plant communities, fuels tend to build up in these areas. In general, invasive species and grasses, such as cheatgrass, are highly flammable and their presence can result in increased incidence and spread of fire. Long-term adverse impacts to fire and fuels management may result from annual increases in invasive species establishment and spread. Establishment and spread of invasive species would result in alterations of the fire behavior and fire ecology in the Planning Area, and may change the management response to fire.
Fire management in Wild Lands would be in accordance with the Northern Zone FMP, which would result in long-term impacts to fire and fuels management in these areas by providing guidance on fire management and fuels treatments.
Under all alternatives, management for wildland fire in special designations would create long-term impacts to fire and fuels management. Typically, areas that include special designations (e.g., ACECs or eligible WSRs) include management that prohibits the use of fire suppression techniques, such as the use of heavy equipment or fire retardant and chemicals, that would affect the resources and characteristics for which the area is designated.
Allowing the sale of permits to meet public demand for personal use of posts, poles, firewood, sawlogs, Christmas trees, and other vegetative products may reduce fuel loading in those areas. The reduction in fuel loading would decrease the complexity of suppression operations and increase firefighter and public safety, but may also result in adverse impacts due to increased unplanned ignition sources (e.g., chainsaws) in woodlands.
Under all alternatives, land tenure adjustments may affect fire and fuels management due to ownership changes and the response to fire and fuels in lands managed by private or state owners. Isolated public land parcels within or near private lands may increase the complexity of BLM involvement in the suppression of wildfires and management of fuels, particularly in wildland urban interface areas. Land tenure adjustments that create larger blocks of public land by reducing inholdings would benefit BLM’s fire and fuels management by decreasing such complexities.
The management of livestock grazing using 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) would maintain enough fine fuels to allow for the use of wildland fire for resource benefit, where appropriate. In addition, adherence to these standards and guidelines would reduce the potential for conversion of healthy rangelands into invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass) dominated systems, which may reduce the frequency and spread of fires. Vegetation management actions to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands would also result in a diversity of age class, cover, and fuel loads in all plant communities that may reduce the size and intensity of wildfires in the long term.
Under all alternatives, the response to wildland fire would be based on the ecological, social, and legal consequences of the potential action; the circumstances under which a fire occurs; the likely consequences to firefighter and public safety and welfare; natural and cultural resources; and values to be protected.
Maintaining and implementing the Northern Zone FMP to address fire management on a landscape scale and to meet DPC objectives and resource management objectives would result in long-term beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management. The Northern Zone FMP defines a program to manage wildland fires based on the RMP and provides for firefighter and public safety; fire management strategies, tactics, and alternatives; and addresses values to be protected consistent with management objectives, activities in the area, and federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Cooperating with other agencies and landowners to conduct landscape level fuel treatments would have beneficial impacts on fire and fuels management by enhancing coordinated fuels management and restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.
Reducing hazardous fuels in the wildland urban interface would result in long-term beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management by limiting the incidence and spread of fires in these areas. Reducing the incidence and spread of fire in wildland urban interface areas would reduce the complexity of managing wildfires that cross ownership boundaries. Protecting homes and other structures from wildfires would result in long-term impacts to fire and fuels management by requiring fire suppression or fuels treatments in these areas.
Achieving a balance between treating areas that have departed from the historic fire regime (FRCC 3) and areas that are functioning within an appropriate fire regime (FRCC 1) would result in beneficial impacts on fire and fuels management. Treatment in FRCC 3 areas to return the fire ecology to the appropriate historic fire regime, along with stabilization and rehabilitation, would help decrease fuel loading in these areas and reduce the potential for future catastrophic fires in areas that have departed from their historic fire regime. Treating areas that are functioning within an appropriate fire regime (FRCC 1) would ensure that fire and fuels management maintains resource objectives within these areas. Balancing treatments in these areas would allow for an effective approach to managing fires based on FRCC and the appropriate fire regime and ecology in these areas. To varying degrees, vegetation treatments under all the alternatives would result in improvement in FRCC in the Planning Area and movement towards DPC for the treated areas.
Surface disturbance results in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management by increasing the potential for invasive species establishment and spread in disturbed areas and, subsequently, the occurrence and severity of unplanned ignitions. Under Alternative A, the BLM projects a total of 136,415 acres of short-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land during the life of the plan (Table 4-1). After reclamation, a total of 15,710 acres of long-term surface disturbance is projected under Alternative A (Table 4-1).
The management actions restricting fire suppression and fuels management discussed below would result in adverse impacts to wildfire management under Alternative A.
Reviewing the impacts of fire suppression to special status plant species on a case-by-case basis may limit fire suppression tactics in these areas, and thus may result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management.
Prohibiting the use of heavy equipment for fire suppression in the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC, the Carter Mountain ACEC, the Five Springs Falls ACEC, and the Little Mountain ACEC would result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management by limiting the available techniques for fire suppression and mechanical treatment in these areas. Management objectives in special designations and SRMAs would help guide the response to wildland fire under Alternative A.
Prohibiting the use of chemical and dye retardants in the Red Gulch Dinosaur Tracksite ACEC would limit the available techniques for fire suppression in these areas, which may result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management by limiting the ability to suppress wildfires in these areas.
Prohibiting the use of motorized and mechanized vehicles to suppress fires in certain WSR eligible waterway segments in the WFO, and prohibiting fire retardant along BLM-administered land within certain WSR eligible waterway segments would result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management. Prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles to suppress fires may limit response times and efficiency of fighting wildfires in these areas and lead to increased wildfire severity and spread. Prohibiting fire retardant within certain WSR eligible waterway segments would result in adverse impacts by limiting fire suppression techniques in these areas.
Managing areas as VRM Classes I (141,110 acres) and II (339,205 acres) may limit the type or location of hazardous fuels reduction techniques when they alter the visual character of the landscape. Such restrictions may lead to an increase in fire size and spread in VRM Class I and II areas and adjacent areas. Fire and fuels management may benefit in VRM Class III and IV areas, where a wider range of hazardous fuel reduction techniques with the potential to alter the visual character of the landscape would be allowed.
Mineral resources development may affect fire and fuels management by developing new facilities and associated infrastructure. Such development may change BLM’s response to wildland fire due to increased human presence (i.e., workers) and the location of facilities in the Planning Area. Mineral exploration and development may also result in adverse impacts by increasing the potential for human caused fires in these areas.
Using wildland fire to revitalize decadent forest stands, improve forest stand density, and increase cover would result in beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management by helping reach DPC objectives and restoring areas to FRCC 1 and 2. Allowing a variety of silvicultural practices and cutting methods under Alternative A would have beneficial impacts on fire and fuels management by increasing the options available for fuels treatments. Managing forests and woodlands to meet forest and rangeland health standards would reduce hazardous fuel accumulations and reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfires.
The designation of utility corridors and authorization of ROWs may have beneficial impacts on fire and fuels management by removing or reducing built up fuels and by serving as fuel breaks and fire lines. Utility corridors and access road ROWs may also result in beneficial impacts by providing access for firefighters and other fire and fuels management activities. Alternately, the designation of ROWs and increased human presence associated with the construction and use of ROWs may increase the potential for unplanned ignitions in the Planning Area.
Travel and transportation management would result in both adverse and beneficial impacts to the management of wildland fires. Travel designations that allow access may result in adverse impacts due to increased incidence of human caused fires. Allowing access to more remote locations may also increase the potential for fire in areas that are more difficult to respond to and where fires are subsequently more difficult control. Alternatively, travel routes may result in beneficial impacts by increasing access, response time, and flexibility in management when responding to fires.
Under Alternative A, management for recreation in the Planning Area would have long-term impacts to wildfires. Recreation use would result in the increased risk of human caused unplanned ignitions from campfires, vehicles, cook stoves, other recreation related activities. The risk of recreation-related wildfire would be highest around campgrounds, trailheads, and recreation management areas where recreational use is greatest.
Livestock grazing management would result in short-term and long-term impacts to fire and fuels management. Livestock grazing primarily affects the distribution, amount, height, and vigor of herbaceous species such as perennial grasses, which can determine fire characteristics. Livestock grazing can contribute to a reduction of fine fuels, which may reduce the spread of wildland fire. A decrease in fire spread may result in an increased accumulation of larger fuel sources such as shrub vegetation between fires, which may contribute to larger fires in the long term. Properly managed livestock grazing may also reduce flame length, fire line intensity, and rate of spread, which would have a beneficial impact on suppression activities. Fire line intensity and flame length are important measures of potential suppression success.
Alternative A bases the response to wildland fire on ecological, social, and legal consequences; the circumstances under which a fire occurs; the likely consequences on firefighter and public safety and welfare; natural and cultural resources; and values to be protected.
Alternative A uses wildland fire to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuels. This use of wildland fire would reduce the need for mechanical fuels treatment and the potential for large-scale fires in the long term, while also helping to meet resource objectives. This would result in beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management. Under Alternative A, the BLM projects approximately 30,000 acres of mechanical fuels treatment would occur during the life of the plan (Appendix T). Mechanical fuels treatments would result in beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management by reducing fuel buildup, the potential for fire spread, and fire severity.
Adverse impacts to fire and fuels management from surface disturbance would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though to a lesser degree. Under Alternative B, the BLM projects a total of 73,919 acres of short-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land during the life of the plan (Table 4-1). Implementing Alternative B would result in a 46-percent decrease in short-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land compared to Alternative A, a 70-percent decrease compared to Alternative C, and a 47-percent decrease compared to Alternative D. After reclamation, the BLM projects a total of 10,882 acres of long-term surface disturbance under Alternative B (Table 4-1). Implementation of Alternative B would result in a 31-percent decrease in long-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land compared to Alternative A, a 74-percent decrease compared to Alternative C, and a 41-percent decrease compared to Alternative D.
Management actions restricting fire suppression, fuels management, or wildland fire planning would result in adverse impacts to wildland fire management. In general, restrictions on fire management for the protection of resource objectives are greater under Alternative B than under the other alternatives.
Alternative B includes similar fire suppression and heavy equipment restrictions as Alternative A, with several exceptions. Alternative B prohibits fire suppression and the use of chemicals within ¼ mile of any known special status plant species population. In addition, restrictions on motorized vehicles to suppress fires and restrictions on the use of fire retardants apply to all WSR suitable waterway segments. Alternative B includes more special designations and recreation management areas, which would restrict the response to wildfire in these areas to protect the resource characteristics for which the areas were designated.
Adverse impacts to fire and fuels management from VRM allocations would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though to a greater extent due to more area allocated as VRM Class I and II under Alternative B.
Under Alternative B, management actions for minerals would have similar impacts as those described under Alternative A, though to a lesser degree due to decreased minerals development under Alternative B.
Using natural processes to revitalize decadent forest stands, improve forest stand density, and increase canopy cover would result in short-term adverse impacts on fire and fuels management by limiting the use of some wildland fire as a fuels management technique. However, using natural processes for fuels management may result in long-term beneficial impacts by returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem.
Identifying specific disposal and acquisition zones may increase the potential for land tenure adjustments that consolidate land ownership and reduce scattered and isolated parcels. This may result in beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management of wildland fires by reducing complexities associated with managing fire and fuels in mixed ownership areas.
Impacts to fire and fuels management from the utility corridors designated under Alternative B would be similar to those under Alternative A, though to a lesser degree as less acreage is designated as ROW corridors. Managing more acreage as ROW avoidance/mitigation and exclusion areas would reduce the prevalence of fuel breaks and fire lines but would also decrease human presence and the potential for unplanned ignitions.
The beneficial and adverse impacts to fire and fuels management from travel and transportation management under Alternative B would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though to a lesser degree due to increased restrictions and less area available for motorized travel.
Management for recreation would have similar impacts to fire and fuels management described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree. Alternative B includes fewer upgrades to sites already developed for recreational use, but the increased area managed as SRMAs—and associated new development—may increase the potential for unplanned ignitions in these areas due to increased recreation activity.
The types of impacts on fire and fuels management from livestock grazing would be similar to those described for Alternative A. However, all these impacts would occur to a much lesser degree because a larger area is closed to livestock grazing under this alternative (1,988,927 acres versus 5,172 acres under Alternative A).
Under Alternative B, response to wildland fires may vary from full suppression in areas where fire is undesirable, to monitoring fire behavior in areas where fire can be used as a management tool, based on resource goals and objectives. Alternative B utilizes wildland fires and other treatments to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels. Mechanical fuels treatments would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though to a lesser degree since only 5,000 acres are projected for mechanical fuels treatments under Alternative B (an approximately 83 percent decrease from Alternative A) (Appendix T). Mechanical fuels treatment under Alternative B would result in fewer beneficial impacts than under the other alternatives.
Although the use of fire suppression under Alternative B is more restricted than under Alternative A, the BLM anticipates that proactive management to employ wildland fire to achieve management objectives and to restore fire-adapted ecosystems would result in long-term beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management throughout the Planning Area. Under Alternative B, the emphasis on restoring the natural role of fire in the ecosystem may result in adverse impacts in the short term as reduced mechanical fuel treatments may result in an increased incidence of fire. In the long term, it is unlikely that beneficial impacts to fire and fuels would result due to historic fire suppression activities, changes to fuel loading, and human occupancy and use of the Planning Area. Long-term restoration of natural conditions is less likely than under Alternative A. The greater restrictions on mechanical fuels treatments and suppression under Alternative B would result in greater potential adverse impacts to private lands as unplanned ignitions, and subsequent wildfires that may spread to private lands, are most likely under this alternative.
Impacts to fire and fuels management from surface disturbance would result in similar impacts as those described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree. Under Alternative C, the BLM projects a total of 245,783 acres of short-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land during the life of the plan (Table 4-1). Implementing Alternative C would result in an 80-percent increase in short-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land compared to Alternative A, a 233-percent increase compared to Alternative B, and a 75-percent increase compared to Alternative D. After reclamation, a total of 41,545 acres of long-term surface disturbance is projected under Alternative C (Table 4-1). Implementing Alternative C would result in a 164-percent increase in long-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land compared to Alternative A, a 282-percent increase compared to Alternative B, and a 125-percent increase compared to Alternative D.
Management actions restricting fire suppression, fuels management, or wildland fire planning would result in adverse impacts to wildland fire management. In general, Alternative C contains the fewest restrictions on fire management for the protection of other resource objectives.
Fire suppression impacts due to special status plant are the same as under Alternative A.
Besides the restrictions and impacts described under Impacts Common to All Alternatives, Alternative C includes no other specific restrictions on fire and fuels management related to resource objectives or special designations. Alternative C would allow for the highest level of fire suppression compared to the other alternatives.
Impacts to fire and fuels from VRM allocations would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though to a slightly area managed as VRM Class I and II.
Management for minerals would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative A, though to a greater extent due to more minerals development under Alternative C.
Using logging and timbering instead of wildland fire and other natural processes to revitalize decadent forest stands, improve forest stand density, and increase canopy cover would result in long-term adverse impacts on fire and fuels management by limiting the natural role of wildland fire in ecosystems. However, logging and timbering would result in short-term beneficial impacts by reducing fuel loads and the possibility of catastrophic fires.
Identifying specific disposal and acquisition zones would result in similar impacts as those described under Alternative B.
Impacts to fire and fuels management from the utility corridors designated under Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a lesser degree because the BLM designates fewer corridors under this alternative, though more than alternatives B and D. ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion acreage under Alternative C would result in similar impacts to those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree.
Impacts to fire and fuels management from travel and transportation management under Alternative C would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree. Alternative C has fewer areas closed to travel and more area open to cross-country motorized travel compared to other alternatives.
Under Alternative C, impacts to fire and fuels management from recreation would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree due to an increase in the development of recreation sites and facilities. Alternative C manages fewer areas as SRMAs compared to the other alternatives. However, based on projected surface disturbance (Appendix T) Alternative C would lead to the development of the most recreation sites and the largest increase in the potential for unplanned ignitions in these areas.
Management for livestock grazing would result in impacts similar to those described for Alternative A.
Under Alternative C, the response to wildfire would be the same as that described for Alternative B.
Under Alternative C, the BLM would use wildland fire to restore fire-adapted ecosystems for commodity production and to reduce hazardous fuels. Alternative C places more emphasis on fire and fuels management for the use of resources compared to Alternative B, which utilizes wildland fire to restore the natural processes of ecosystems.
Impacts from mechanical fuels treatments would be similar to those described for Alternative A, although to a greater degree because 60,000 acres are projected for mechanical fuels treatments under Alternative C (a 100-percent increase compared to Alternative A) (Appendix T). The use of mechanical fuels treatment under Alternative C would be greater than under alternatives A, B, and D.
Impacts to fire and fuels management from surface disturbance would result in similar impacts as those described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree. Under Alternative D, a total of 140,508 acres of short-term surface disturbance is projected on BLM-administered land during the life of the plan (Table 4-1). Implementing Alternative D would result in a 3-percent increase in short-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land compared to Alternative A, a 90-percent increase compared to Alternative B, and a 43-percent decrease compared to Alternative C. After reclamation, a total of 18,443 acres of long-term surface disturbance is projected under Alternative D (Table 4-1). Implementing Alternative D would result in a 17-percent increase in long-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land compared to Alternative A, a 69-percent increase compared to Alternative B, and a 56-percent decrease compared to Alternative C.
Management actions restricting fire suppression, fuels management, or wildland fire planning would result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management. In general, restrictions on fire management for the protection of other resource objectives under Alternative D are greater than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B.
Allowing the application of fire suppression chemicals within ¼ mile of known or documented populations of BLM special status plant species with the consent of the authorized officer would result in the least adverse impact to the use of suppression tactics of any alternative.
Special designations under Alternative D would result in similar adverse impacts to fire and fuels management as those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree. In addition to the ACECs restricting fire suppression tactics that are similarly designated under Alternative A, the BLM restricts the use of heavy equipment during fire suppression operations over important caves and cave passages in the Craig Thomas Little Mountain Special Management Area (SMA). Unlike alternatives A and B, Alternative D does include WSR eligible or suitable waterway segments that would restrict the use of fire suppression techniques along these waterways.
Impacts from allocation of VRM Class I and II areas would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Due to the area allocated as VRM Class I and II, adverse impacts to fire and fuels management from VRM allocations would be greater than those under alternatives A and C, but less than those under Alternative B.
Under Alternative D, mineral resource exploration and development would have similar impacts to those under Alternative A, though to a lesser degree due to decreased minerals development projected under Alternative D. Adverse impacts from management of mineral resources under Alternative D would be greater than Alternative B, but less than Alternative C.
Forests, woodlands, and forest products management under Alternative D would result in similar impacts to those under Alternative A.
Identifying specific disposal and acquisition zones would result in similar impacts as those described under Alternative B.
Impacts to fire and fuels management from the designation of utility corridors under Alternative D would be similar to those described under Alternative A, though to an extent similar to Alternative C as a similar acreage is designated for ROW corridors. Alternative D manages more acreage as ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B, with proportional impacts.
Impacts to fire and fuels management from travel and transportation management under Alternative D would be similar to those described under Alternative A, fewer than under Alternative C, and greater than under Alternative B.
The impacts to fire and fuels management from recreation would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree. Management of SRMAs under Alternative D would result in similar impacts to those under Alternative B, but to a lesser degree.
Livestock grazing management under Alternative D would result in similar impacts to fire and fuels management as those under Alternative A. Emphasizing livestock grazing as a tool to improve resource conditions may result in beneficial impacts if grazing reduces fine fuels in certain areas (Diamond et al. 2009).
Under Alternative D, the response to wildland fire would be the same as described under Alternative B. Fire and fuels management would result in similar impacts, in degree and extent, as those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, emphasizing the use of wildland fires and other vegetation treatments to accomplish resource management objectives may result in additional beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management.