Managing prescribed fires to comply with Wyoming DEQ air quality standards and smoke management rules may result in adverse impacts to the management of prescribed fires by limiting the scale and extent of prescribed fires necessary to achieve fuel reduction targets and other resource objectives.
All alternatives bring forward the District FMP. Maintaining and implementing this FMP, the Northern Zone FMP, consistent with this RMP to address fire management on a landscape scale and to meet DPC objectives and resource management objectives would result in long-term impacts to the management of prescribed fire.
In order to implement and document a prescribed fire, NEPA compliance requires an interdisciplinary team to conduct site-specific analysis, including ESA and NHPA consultation. In accordance with current BLM Prescribed Fire Management Guidelines (H-9214), a Prescribed Fire Plan is required for prescribed fires. The Prescribed Fire Plan is a site-specific implementation document containing specific resource objectives, prescription criteria, and provisions for suppression if the fire escapes. The presence of resources identified during surveys (e.g., cultural sites, sensitive species habitat) would determine the parameters of prescribed fires in these areas and may prohibit prescribed fire or require specific mitigation or BMPs to ensure prescribed fire is implemented consistent with resource objectives. Additional restrictions on surface-disturbing activities (which include mechanical fuels treatments and prescribed fires) for the protection of resource values identified in the alternatives would further limit the use of prescribed fire in certain areas.
The use of prescribed fire would result in long-term beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management by moving areas towards DPC, reducing fuel loading, and reducing the potential for future catastrophic fires. However, through the removal of existing vegetation and exposure of soil, prescribed fire may increase the potential for the establishment and spread of invasive species (such as cheatgrass) which may increase the incidence and spread of fire.
Taking into account invasive herbaceous species, Fire Regime Groups, and FRCCs when considering treatments, including prescribed fire, would result in beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management. Planning prescribed fires in consideration of invasive species may limit the potential for invasive species establishment and spread, which may decrease the potential for fire incidence and spread and reduce the potential for future prescribed fire or other treatments. Implementing prescribed fires based on FRCC would concentrate prescribed fire activity in areas that would benefit from treatments, and may help return areas to their historic fire regimes.
Designing prescribed fire treatments to protect and improve greater sage-grouse habitat would encourage the design and implementation of prescribed fires to meet resource objectives for greater sage-grouse. This would result in beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management.
Under current BLM policy, areas where prescribed burns occur are generally deferred from livestock grazing for at least two consecutive growing seasons, based on management objectives consistent with 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). The BLM may adjust the two-growing-seasons deferment requirement based on environmental conditions and management objectives. Prescribed burns generally are not possible where domestic livestock producers are unable to absorb the cost of the deferral period. This policy may restrict the ability to use prescribed fire as a management tool in certain areas. This may adversely affect the management of prescribed fire. Wild horses in HMAs also could adversely affect burned areas.
Surface disturbance can result in the establishment of invasive species, which increases the potential for fire occurrence and spread. In areas where invasive species become established or spread after surface disturbance, the BLM may use prescribed fire as a management tool to reduce these fuels. Section 4.3.1 Wildfire describes total surface-disturbance acreages and compares alternatives.
Implementation of Alternative A is projected to result in 40,000 acres of short-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land from prescribed fire. No long-term surface disturbance is projected (Appendix T).
Closing all BLM-administered land in WSR eligible waterway segments to vegetative treatments (including prescribed fire) would result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management. Prohibiting prescribed fire in these areas would limit the tools available to manage hazardous fuels in these areas, which may increase the potential for larger-scale fires.
Restrictions on heavy equipment and fire suppression activities identified for wildland fire under Section 4.3.1 Wildfire would apply to prescribed fires in WSR eligible waterway segments. These restrictions would require other techniques for the control of prescribed fires, if the BLM implemented prescribed fires in these areas.
Management that prohibits or limits surface-disturbing activities for the protection of resources values would result in adverse impacts to fire and fuels management by prohibiting or limiting prescribed fires in these areas. Restrictions on prescribed fires (and other mechanical fuels treatments) may result in the accumulations of fuels and the potential for large-scale catastrophic fires in these areas, which may result in greater adverse impacts in the long term to the resource values for which restrictions are applied. Restrictions for the protection of resources that would limit or prohibit prescribed fire under Alternative A such as prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water, TLS in big game crucial winter ranges, and CSU restrictions within ¼ mile of occupied greater sage-grouse leks would result in adverse impacts.
Management of ROWs and minerals that increases the amount of roads and the linear clearing of vegetation may result in beneficial impacts to prescribed fire. These linear clearings can serve as fire breaks or fire lines for the control of prescribed fire and reduce the need to clear additional vegetation for the control of prescribed fire.
Under Alternative A, and in accordance with the Northern Zone FMP, the BLM would use prescribed fire to meet other resource management objectives (e.g., wildlife habitat or range condition) and to reduce hazardous fuels. The BLM would implement prescribed burns on 150 to 500 acres of BLM-administered land per year (totaling approximately 40,000 acres), based on the potential for initial burns, and then as needed to maintain historic vegetation and disturbance regimes.
As described in the Northern Zone FMP, the BLM would perform baseline and post-treatment monitoring following prescribed fire. Post-treatment monitoring is required to determine the accomplishment of direct treatment objectives and resource management objectives. Direct treatment objectives usually are attributes such as plant mortality, fuel consumption, burn pattern (mosaic), and total acreage. Resource management objectives usually concern post-treatment vegetation attributes such as cover, frequency, production, density, and stocking level of a desired species (see BLM Handbook H-9214).
Implementation of the Northern Zone FMP would result in long-term impacts to fire and fuels management by requiring the following activities following a prescribed fire:
Pre and post Fire Regime and Condition Class evaluation
At least one photo point location, which can be returned to, preferably taken in four opposing directions both pre- and post-treatment
A North Zone Fuels Treatment Monitoring Form completed and filed in the Range Improvement Projects project file
A geographic information system (GIS) database that includes a completed attribute table and pre- and post-treatment shape files of the treatment perimeter
In addition, the BLM will evaluate a representative number and type of treatments to document the effectiveness of modifying fire behavior. For example, the zone fuels specialist may calculate pre- and post-treatment fire behavior for at least each fuel model treated in the zone.
These activities would provide appropriate evaluation and documentation of prescribed fire activities, which may increase the efficiency and effectiveness of future prescribed fire activities to meet resource objectives and reduce fuel loading.
Surface disturbance may result in the establishment of invasive species, which increases the potential for fire occurrence and spread. In areas where invasive species become established or spread after surface disturbance, the BLM may use prescribed fire as a management tool to reduce these fuels. Section 4.3.1 Wildfire describes total surface-disturbance acreages and compares alternatives.
Implementing Alternative B is projected to result in 20,000 acres of short-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land from prescribed fires (Appendix T). Short-term surface disturbance from prescribed fire would be less than under the other alternatives. No long-term disturbance is projected.
Restrictions that limit or prohibit prescribed fire for the protection of resource values would result in similar impacts to those described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree. In general, management under Alternative B focuses on the protection and conservation of resources and resource values. Under Alternative B, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of resources that would limit or prohibit prescribed fire would be greater than under alternatives A and C.
Under Alternative B, the BLM seasonally stipulates fuels treatments (including prescribed fire) in the Chapman Bench, Clarks Fork Canyon, Rattlesnake Mountain, and Sheep Mountain ACECs, as well as the Absaroka Front Management Area. Seasonal stipulations may adversely affect fire and fuels management by limiting prescribed fire as a tool for fuels reduction in these areas.
Closing all WSR suitable waterway segments to prescribed fire would result in the same impacts as those described under Alternative A.
Restrictions on heavy equipment and fire suppression activities identified for wildland fire under Section 4.3.1 Wildfire would apply to prescribed fires in WSR suitable waterway segments. These restrictions would require other techniques for the control of prescribed fires, if the BLM implements prescribed fires in these areas.
Alternative B also prohibits surface-disturbing activities within ¼ mile of, or within riparian/wetland areas, which would limit the use of mechanical vegetation treatments and prescribed fire necessary to restore ecosystem health in some kinds of riparian systems. This would result in a greater impact than Alternative A which limits surface-disturbing activity within 500 feet of riparian/wetland areas.
Alternative B includes the greatest amount of special designations where management is prescribed for the protection of resource values. As a result, prescribed fire and other fuels treatments are decreased in these areas more than under the other alternatives.
The restrictions on prescribed fire use under Alternative B would likely result in greater adverse impacts to private lands, as the potential for wildfires starting in heavily fuel-laden areas spreading onto private lands would be greater under Alternative B, compared to the other alternatives.
Impacts to prescribed fire from management for ROWs and minerals would result in similar impacts as those described under Alternative A, though to a lesser degree due to decreased mineral activity and more acreage managed as ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas. Designating less area for utility corridors than Alternative A would result in similar beneficial impacts, but to a lesser degree.
Under Alternative B, the BLM would use prescribed fire and other vegetative treatments to restore fire-adapted ecosystems for natural resource systems and to reduce hazardous fuels. Prescribed fire would reduce fuels and the potential for future large-scale catastrophic fires. This would result in beneficial impacts to fire and fuels management. Under Alternative B, the BLM would use habitat enhancement treatments (including prescribed fire) in sagebrush communities on at least 200 acres of BLM-administered land per year; prescribed fire would occur on a total of approximately 20,000 acres over the life of the plan.
Management identified in the Northern Zone FMP for prescribed fire monitoring may be carried forward under Alternative B, consistent with management under this alternative. Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative A.
Surface disturbance may result in the establishment of invasive species, which increases the potential for fire occurrence and spread. In areas where invasive species become established or spread after surface disturbance, the BLM may use prescribed fire as a management tool to reduce these fuels. Section 4.3.1 Wildfire describes total surface-disturbance acreages and compares alternatives.
Implementing Alternative C is projected to result in 80,000 acres of short-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land from prescribed fires (Appendix T). Short-term surface disturbance from prescribed fires would be greater than under alternatives A, B, and D. No long-term surface disturbance is projected.
Seasonally stipulating fuels treatments in the Absaroka Front Management Area would result in the same impacts as those described under Alternative B.
Restrictions that limit or prohibit prescribed fire for the protection of resource values would result in similar impacts to those described under Alternative A, though to a lesser degree. In general, Alternative C reduces restrictions for the protection of resources, allowing greater use of prescribed fire compared to the other alternatives.
Impacts to prescribed fire from minerals development under Alternative C would result in similar impacts as those described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree. Alternative C is projected to result in the greatest amount of oil and gas development, and the amount of roads would increase proportionally. Alternative C designates the second-largest area for utility corridors, which would result in proportional beneficial impacts to prescribed fire. Impacts from ROW management would result in similar impacts to those under Alternative A, although to a lesser degree because the BLM would manage more acreage as ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas.
Utilizing prescribed fire to restore fire-adapted ecosystems would result in the same impacts as those described under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, the BLM would implement prescribed fire and other treatments in sagebrush communities as opportunities and funding allow; prescribed fire would occur on approximately 80,000 acres.
Management identified in the Northern Zone FMP for prescribed fire monitoring may be carried forward under Alternative C, consistent with management under this alternative. Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative A.
Surface disturbance may result in the establishment of invasive species, which increases the potential for fire occurrence and spread. In areas where invasive species become established or spread after surface disturbance, the BLM may use prescribed fire as a management tool to reduce these fuels. Section 4.3.1 Wildfire describes total surface-disturbance acreages and compares alternatives.
Implementing Alternative D is projected to result in the same acreage as Alternative A of short- and long-term surface disturbance on BLM-administered land from prescribed fire.
Restrictions that limit or prohibit prescribed fire for the protection of resource values would result in similar impacts as those described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree. Under Alternative D, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of resources that would limit or prohibit prescribed fire would be greater than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B.
Seasonal stipulations on fuels treatments under Alternative D would result in similar adverse impacts to fire and fuels management as those under Alternative B in the Absaroka Front Management Area, but to a lesser degree overall as it designates fewer ACECs with seasonal stipulations.
Restrictions on heavy equipment and fire suppression activities identified for wildland fire in Section 4.3.1 Wildfire would also apply to prescribed fires. These restrictions would require other techniques for the control of prescribed fires, if the BLM implemented prescribed fires in these areas.
Alternative D also avoids surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet, or ¼ mile of sensitive habitat, of waters of the state, perennial surface water, and riparian/wetland areas, which would result in impacts similar to those described for Alternative B, but to a lesser degree. This would result in a greater impact than Alternative A, which limits surface-disturbing activity within 500 feet of riparian/wetland areas.
Management of special designations under Alternative D would result in similar impacts to those under Alternative B, but to a lesser degree because there is less acreage within special designations. Overall, the restrictions on prescribed fire under Alternative D would result in similar adverse impacts to private lands as under Alternative B, but to a lesser degree because Alternative D stipulates fuels treatments in less area and performs mechanical fuels treatments and prescribed burns on more acreage (Appendix T).
Minerals development under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts to prescribed fire as those under Alternative A, but to a lesser degree because less acreage is available for oil and gas development. Utility corridors designated under Alternative D would result in beneficial impacts similar to those described under Alternative A, but to a greater degree than Alternative B. Alternative D manages the second-largest area as ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas, which would result in proportional adverse impacts to prescribed fire.
The BLM would use prescribed fire under Alternative D to a similar extent as under Alternative A, but with a greater emphasis placed on using prescribed fire to accomplish resource management objectives.
Management identified in the Northern Zone FMP for prescribed fire monitoring may be carried forward under Alternative D, consistent with management under this alternative. Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative A.