In addition to the impacts described above, the following paragraphs provide a general description of potential impacts to forests, woodlands, and forest products that would not differ among alternatives.
Forest management, including timber harvest, would contribute to improving overall forest health throughout the Planning Area. These types of actions would reduce the potential for catastrophic fires, reduce the number of diseased trees, enhance age and species diversity, and reduce the spread of invasive species. Specific proactive management actions common to all alternatives would restore the historic processes, composition, and structures of forests and woodlands, thereby maintaining the desired harvest level.
There would be direct long-term adverse impacts to forest management in localized areas of new significant cultural resources discoveries, because these sites would require protection. Such cultural sites could restrict the location of vegetative treatments and access roads, thereby decreasing the accessibility and the forest acreage available for treatments.
Consolidation of land ownership would have a long-term beneficial impact on forest resources through facilitation of management actions in blocks of forestland. If implemented, forest management activities would not be constrained by ownership boundaries. Easement acquisition and land tenure adjustments would help enhance access and aid in implementing forest management actions. Objectives for acquiring or maintaining access to forested areas would keep these areas open to active forest management. Conversely, land transactions could fragment ownership and impact management of forests, woodlands, and forest products if management objectives are inconsistent; however, the low level of land designated for possible disposal would have negligible impacts on forests, woodlands, and forest products in the Planning Area as a whole.
Short-term impacts regarding the timing or location of vegetative treatments and the availability of forest products could result from temporary CSU restrictions, seasonal NSO restrictions, or no surface development restrictions within buffers for specials status species and raptor nest sites in forests and woodlands. Seasonal restrictions for forest management may apply to existing or newly designated ACECs, WSAs, or Wild Lands.
Alternative A would result in approximately 15,710 acres of long-term surface disturbance that may contribute to the decline in abundance, distribution, or health of forests and woodlands (Table 4-1). The BLM projects 30,000 acres of short-term surface disturbance from silvicultural treatments (Appendix T). Short-term surface disturbance would increase the potential for short-term adverse impacts to forests and woodlands through soil erosion and potential spread of invasive species. The use of BMPs would minimize these impacts. The long-term benefits from silvicultural treatments would reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fire through fuel removal, increase opportunities for natural regeneration, and control insects and disease. The use of silvicultural treatments may also create beneficial impacts by altering forests and woodlands toward DPC. The degree to which these treatments would alter forests and woodlands toward DPC would depend on the location, timing, and other factors of the treatments.
Under Alternative A, oil, gas, and other minerals development would involve 25,390 acres of short-term surface disturbance, a portion of which could adversely impact forests and woodlands by contributing to a decline in abundance, distribution, or health (Appendix T). Under Alternative A, most of the Planning Area remains open to mineral extraction, and the extent of RFD of minerals facilities is second greatest under this alternative compared to the other alternatives. Most of the impacts would be temporary during the life of the operation, with most areas of disturbance reclaimed following closure of operations; however, short-term adverse impacts from minerals development would include forest health degradation and habitat fragmentation.
Alternative A permits motorized vehicle use on existing roads and trails in most of the Planning Area. The level of public access granted from motorized travel may increase the potential for unplanned ignitions, unauthorized woodcutting, and the spread of invasive species. This would result in adverse impacts to forests, woodlands, and forest products. Permitting off-road motorized vehicle use in areas with limited travel designations to access dispersed campsites would result in road and trail proliferation that would increase erosion, degrade vegetation, and increase the potential for unplanned ignitions, adversely affecting forests, woodlands, and forest products.
Special designations could beneficially impact forests and woodlands if they place additional restrictions on activities that contribute to forest decline or degrade forest health (e.g., long-term surface disturbance). Special designations also could adversely impact forests and woodlands and forest products when they restrict vegetation treatments to achieve DPC or limit timber extraction availability or methods. Under Alternative A, the forests and woodlands in ACECs (see Table 4-8) would experience limited beneficial impacts due to restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and motorized travel. However, when restrictions limit certain silvicultural treatments they would adversely affect forests, woodlands, and forest products. Alternative A restricts motorized vehicle use in WSAs, which would reduce the likelihood of unplanned ignitions and could result in beneficial impacts.
Under Alternative A, wildland fire is used to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels. Wildland fire at the appropriate intensity would provide beneficial impacts to forests and woodlands in the short term by reducing hazardous fuels to decrease the chance of stand-replacing fires, and in the long term, by diversifying stand age and improving forest health.
Management actions specific to wildlife and special status species could beneficially impact forests and woodlands if they restrict activities that degrade forest health. Conversely, they could adversely impact forests, woodlands, and forest products if they restrict forest management practices (e.g., vegetation treatments) or extraction activities. Under Alternative A, a seasonal TLS to prohibit all activity within a ¾-mile radius of active special status raptor species nests would restrict forest management practices, which may adversely impact forests, woodlands, and forest products. The BLM restores and maintains 25 to 200 acres of aspen stands per year for wildlife values until the number of managed acres reaches 2,000 to 4,000. This increases woodland abundance. Wildlife grazing and browsing could adversely impact the regeneration of aspen and other trees and shrubs.
Alternative A allows harvesting in commercial forestland in a manner that protects and benefits watershed, wildlife, and riparian/wetland habitat values and emphasizes areas where forest health is a primary concern. This management would create long-term beneficial impacts, both to forests and forest products, by maintaining or improving forest health and improving the quality of forest products over the life of the plan. Under Alternative A, the BLM generally closes timber access and haul roads after completion of timber management, which limits vehicle access and the associated risk of unplanned ignitions and the spread of invasive species. This could beneficially impact forests.
Alternative A allows precommercial thinning in overstocked areas and regenerated timber sale areas when trees reach the 20- to 30-year age class, which would reduce stand density and allow the healthiest trees to grow faster to harvest. This would create long-term beneficial impacts to forest products. In addition, reducing stand density makes forests more resistant to bark beetle infestation (Leatherman et al. 2007), and salvaging infested stands can slow the spread of bark beetles while preventing other safety hazards associated with dead stands (USFS 2007b). Forest management actions under Alternative A slow the spread of bark beetles and result in beneficial impacts to forests.
Precommercial thinning also can benefit forests and woodlands in the long term, if performed at the appropriate intensity, by reducing the fuel load and the chance of catastrophic wildfire. Under this alternative, the BLM manages wildland fire and logging or timbering whenever possible to revitalize decadent stands, improve stand density, and increase canopy cover. This management action would benefit forest health but would not benefit forest products. Alternative A permits clear-cuts of no more than 900 feet in any direction, unless a long-term benefit to habitat results, which would create beneficial impacts to forest products by maintaining timber availability. However, clear-cuts could adversely affect forest health if they are large enough to substantially alter the microclimate or regeneration time of the forest or substantially increase soil erosion.
Planting conifer areas denuded by wildfire or harvesting if they do not regenerate naturally within 15 years of the disturbance would beneficially impact forest products by accelerating regeneration and therefore reducing the rotation time between harvests. Proactive management actions, such as performing woodland treatments in aspen and juniper stands and managing juniper and limber pine stands to improve forest health conditions, would create beneficial impacts to forests and woodlands by improving forest health or increasing the abundance, distribution, and stand diversity of forests and woodlands. Alternative A employs a variety of silvicultural practices (e.g., clear cutting, shelterwood, tree and group selection) to accomplish forest health goals, which, if effects remain consistent with forest health objectives, would beneficially impact forests, woodlands, and forest products.
Alternative B would result in 31 percent less acreage of long-term surface disturbance that may contribute to the decline in abundance, distribution, or health of forests and woodlands than Alternative A (Table 4-1). Alternative B would involve approximately 20,000 acres of short-term surface disturbance from silvicultural treatments, which would have fewer short-term adverse impacts on forests and woodlands than Alternative A. However, because fewer acres would be subject to treatment, Alternative B would have fewer long-term beneficial impacts on forests and woodlands (Appendix T). Under Alternative B, the potential for catastrophic fire would be greater and the ability to reduce insects and disease would be less than under Alternative A. The use of silvicultural treatments would create beneficial impacts of altering forests and woodlands toward DPC as identified similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser degree because of the smaller treatment area.
Under Alternative B, oil, gas, and other minerals development would involve 17,327 acres of short-term surface disturbance (Appendix T), a portion of which may adversely impact forests and woodlands by contributing to a decline in abundance, distribution, or health of these areas. Although most of the Planning Area remains open to mineral extraction, compared to the other alternatives, Alternative B has the least RFD of minerals facilities. Most of the impacts would be temporary during the life of the operation with most areas of disturbance reclaimed following closure of operations. However, there may be short-term adverse impacts from minerals development, including forest health degradation and habitat fragmentation. Alternative B would result in the least adverse impact to forests and woodlands from minerals development.
Alternative B limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in most of the Planning Area, which would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. Restricting motorized vehicle use to fewer travel routes also may adversely impact forest products by limiting access for commercial timber harvest. Prohibiting off-road motorized vehicle use for dispersed campsite establishment in areas with limited travel designations would eliminate the potential for new road and trail proliferation and reduce the impacts from this management action described under Alternative A.
Under Alternative B, the BLM manages a greater portion of forests and woodlands in the Planning Area within special designation areas (see Table 4-8). The BLM designates the Sheep Mountain and Rattlesnake Mountain ACECs, which contain aspen and conifer stands, under Alternative B. These ACECs implement restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and motorized vehicle use, and the BLM manages them as renewable energy and ROW avoidance/mitigation areas. The BLM allows, where feasible, and stipulates vegetation and silvicultural treatments and fuels management in these ACECs. Alternative B closes WSAs to motorized vehicle use. Under Alternative B, BLM restricts minerals development, road construction, and motorized vehicle use, while allowing vegetation treatments and prescribed fire, in LWCs (all of which are designated as Wild Lands under this alternative). These management actions would beneficially impact forests and woodlands in these areas by maintaining their abundance and reducing the chance for wildfire. However, Alternative B also closes LWCs to commercial or personal-use woodcutting, adversely affecting forest products by reducing their availability and eliminating the ability to performing commercial aspen and bark beetle treatments that would improve forest health. Special designations under Alternative B would involve more stipulations and restrictions applied to vegetative and silvicultural treatments and motorized vehicle use than Alternative A, which may result in limited adverse impacts to forest health and the availability of forest products. Overall, special designations under Alternative B would create more beneficial impacts to forests, woodlands, and forest products than under Alternative A by increasing restrictions on activities and resource uses that can degrade forest health or increase the chance of wildfire.
Under Alternative B, the BLM utilizes wildland fires to restore fire-adapted ecosystems for natural resource systems and to reduce hazardous fuels, resulting in similar beneficial impacts to those described under Alternative A. Most of the Planning Area is in FRCC Classes 2 and 3, which have the highest risk of catastrophic fire and of having lost or losing key ecosystem components (see Section 4.3 Fire and Fuels Management). Alternative B emphasizes natural processes that would take longer to achieve forest health objectives compared to the other alternatives. This type of vegetation management would increase the risk, versus the other alternatives, that Alternative B would be inadequate to diversify fuel conditions enough to substantially reduce the risk of catastrophic fire.
Under Alternative B, a TLS to prohibit activity within a 1-mile radius of active special status raptor species nests would have a greater adverse impact on forests, woodlands, and forest products than under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the Absaroka Front Management Area, which is not managed under Alternative A, restricts some resource uses (e.g., mineral leasing and motorized vehicle use) that would reduce the abundance, distribution, or health of the 48,794 acres of forests and woodlands in its boundaries. Management of this area would allow silvicultural/vegetation and fuels treatments that would benefit forest and woodland health and forest products. Silvicultural practices are prohibited in elk parturition habitat under Alternative B, which would adversely impact forests and woodlands, by prohibiting practices that could improve forest health (e.g., fuels reduction) and forest products, by reducing their availability. Alternative B restores 100 acres of aspen stands per year with similar beneficial impacts as identified under Alternative A.
Under Alternative B, the BLM manages forests and woodlands for watershed stability, wildlife habitat, and forest health with an emphasis on natural processes to manage towards achieving forest health objectives. Alternative B permits timber harvesting only where natural processes are unable to accomplish forest health goals, which would result in adverse impacts to forest products by reducing their availability. The BLM closes timber access and haul roads no longer required, which would create beneficial impacts similar to those under Alternative A by limiting motorized vehicle access. Alternative B only allows precommercial thinning for fuels treatment, which would create beneficial impacts to forests and woodlands by reducing fuel loads and the chance of catastrophic fire, and to forest products by improving future harvest quality. However, forest management actions under Alternative B may result in denser, more mature stands with less diverse age structure. Compared to the other alternatives, this would result in the greatest adverse impact by increasing the risk of the spread of bark beetles. Overall, management of precommercial thinning under Alternative B is more restrictive than the other alternatives and would benefit forest products and forest health the least compared to other alternatives.
Alternative B prohibits clear-cuts, which would beneficially affect forest health by preventing potential soil erosion. Conversely, prohibiting clear-cuts would adversely affect forest products by decreasing timber availability and restricting extraction methods, and would eliminate a management tool useful in the regeneration of early successional species (e.g., aspen and lodgepole pine) and treatment of insects and diseases. Additionally, restrictions on timber harvesting on BLM-administered lands may increase harvesting on private or other federal and state lands to make up for decreased availability on BLM-administered lands.
The BLM plants conifer areas denuded by wildfire and harvesting if they do not regenerate naturally within 20 years, resulting in less benefits to forest products than Alternative A, due to the longer rotation time. The BLM limits vegetative treatments and forest management only to areas where natural processes do not achieve forest health goals. The use of primarily natural processes to improve forest health would reduce the potential for erosion and the spread of invasive species, which would be short-term beneficial impacts. However, this practice could slow the rate of fuels production, thereby increasing the risk of catastrophic fire. This would result in long-term adverse impacts to forest health.
Under Alternative B, long-term beneficial impacts to old growth forests would result from managing for no net loss of this forest stand type over a 30-year period and in an appropriate proportion to other timber classes in an HUC Level 4 sub-basin. Such management would be more beneficial for old growth forest stands than Alternative A, where no specific management exists, but would lead to greater adverse impacts to forest products availability and slower production of new timber in areas managed for old growth than under Alternative A.
Alternative C would result in approximately 164 percent more acreage of long-term surface disturbance that may contribute to the decline in abundance, distribution, or health of forests and woodlands than Alternative A (Table 4-1). Alternative C would result in 40,000 acres of short-term surface disturbance from silvicultural treatments (Appendix T). Potential short-term adverse impacts to forests and woodlands from surface disturbance would be greatest under Alternative C. However, compared to the other alternatives, under Alternative C potential long-term beneficial impacts from these treatments are greatest. Long-term beneficial impacts include reducing the risk of catastrophic fire, increasing opportunities for natural regeneration, and reducing the spread of insects and disease. The use of silvicultural treatments would create the benefits of altering forests and woodlands toward DPC similar to Alternative A, although to a greater degree because the treatment area would be larger.
Under Alternative C, oil, gas, and other minerals development would involve 25,771 acres of short-term surface disturbance, a small portion of which could adversely impact forests and woodlands by contributing to a decline in abundance, distribution, or health (Appendix T). Most of the Planning Area remains open to mineral extraction, and the RFD of minerals facilities is the greatest under Alternative C. Most of the impacts would be temporary during the life of the operation, with most areas of disturbance reclaimed following closure of operations. However, short-term adverse impacts from minerals development include forest health degradation and habitat fragmentation. Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts to forests and woodlands from minerals development.
Alternative C would result in impacts from motorized vehicle use similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree. The BLM limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in a larger area, but also opens a larger area to unrestricted off-road use, with impacts comparable those under Alternative A. Permitting off-road motorized vehicle use to access dispersed campsites would case impacts similar to those under Alternative A.
Under Alternative C, the BLM manages the smallest acreage of forests and woodlands in the Planning Area within special designations (see Table 4-8). Only two ACECs are designated under this alternative. Although these designations would provide the least beneficial impact to forests and woodlands by limiting long-term surface disturbance, this alternative would result in the least adverse impact from restricting silvicultural treatments that improve forest and woodland health and generate forest products. Motorized vehicle use is less restricted in WSAs, which could create less beneficial impact in these areas by reducing the risk of unplanned ignitions.
Under Alternative C, the BLM utilizes wildland fires to restore fire-adapted ecosystems for natural resource systems, to reduce hazardous fuels, and to enhance forage for commodity production. This utilization of wildland fire under Alternative C would create beneficial impacts to forests and woodlands similar to Alternative A, and could benefit forest products more if the BLM used prescribed burns to affect forests similarly to precommercial thinning. Under Alternative C, the BLM would use mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments across the landscape as needed to restore vegetative diversity and reduce the risk of larger, more intense fires. This would benefit forests, woodlands, and forest products. Alternative C would present the least risk that vegetation management acreage is inadequate to diversify fuel conditions enough to substantially reduce the risk of catastrophic fire.
Under Alternative C, restrictions around special status raptor nests that potentially limit extraction and management practices are the least stringent, which would result in the least adverse impact to forests, woodlands, and forest products. Limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails subject to seasonal limitations in the Absaroka Front Management Area would create greater beneficial impacts than Alternative A by reducing the risk of unplanned ignitions in the 48,794 acres of forests and woodlands in the area. However, Alternative C allows more oil and gas development in this area that may adversely impact forests and woodlands. The BLM promotes aspen regeneration under all alternatives and focuses woodland treatments on aspen stands under Alternative C. The BLM does not restore aspen woodlands for wildlife habitat or set a targeted annual acreage of aspen stand regeneration (such as under alternatives A and B) under this alternative; therefore, beneficial impacts from aspen regeneration may be less than under alternatives A and B.
Under Alternative C, the BLM manages forests and woodlands to achieve a sustained supply of forest products. Alternative C allows timber harvesting in areas classified as commercial timberland, which would create the greatest beneficial impact to forest products by maximizing their availability. The BLM allows timber access and haul roads to remain open to meet other resource goals or for new recreational purposes, which may result in adverse impacts to forests and woodlands by increasing the potential for unplanned ignitions and the spread of invasive species. Alternative C allows precommercial thinning when trees reach the 10- to 20- year age class or are at least 5- to 15-feet tall. This would benefit forest products more than under the other alternatives by releasing the healthiest trees from competition at the earliest age so that they grow faster to harvest. Forest management actions under Alternative C may also result in less dense stands with a more diverse age structure than other alternatives. This would create the most beneficial impacts to forests and woodlands by slowing the spread of bark beetles. Precommercial thinning also could benefit forests and woodlands, if performed at the appropriate intensity to reduce fuels and the chance of catastrophic fire. Alternative C allows clear cuts up to 100 acres, which would provide greater forest product availability than alternatives A and B and similar availability to Alternative D. Allowing larger clear cuts than under Alternative A may result in more adverse impacts to forests and woodlands, depending on the stand composition and slope of the site, from increasing regeneration time and soil erosion.
Under Alternative C, efforts to retain old growth forest areas at appropriate locations and distribution levels in an HUC Level 4 sub-basin as evaluations occur would result in similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent. The less restrictive management under Alternative C may be less beneficial to the retention of this forest type than under Alternative B, but also would result in less adverse impacts to forest products production.
Planting conifer areas denuded by wildfire and harvesting if they do not regenerate naturally within 10 years would create the greatest benefit to forest products compared to the other alternatives. Logging or timbering before wildland fire and other natural processes to improve stand density would benefit forest products by increasing the availability and health of timber. Alternative C employs a variety of silvicultural practices (e.g., clear cutting, shelterwood, tree and group selection) to accomplish forest health goals, which, if effects remain consistent with forest health objectives, would benefit forests and forest products. In general, Alternative C would create the greatest benefit to forest products and more beneficial impacts to forests and woodlands than Alternative A, as long as managing forests for commodity production can reduce fuel levels without degrading forest health.
Alternative D would result in approximately 17 percent more acreage of long-term surface disturbance that may contribute to the decline in abundance, distribution, or health of forests and woodlands than Alternative A (Table 4-1). Silvicultural treatments would result in impacts to forests and woodlands similar to those under Alternative A. Under Alternative D, the potential for catastrophic fire would be similar to Alternative A, and the ability to reduce insects and disease would be similar to that under Alternative C. The use of silvicultural treatments to manage forests and woodlands toward DPC would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A.
Minerals development under Alternative D would result in impacts to forests and woodlands similar to those under Alternative A. Motorized vehicle use would result in adverse impacts to forests and woodlands similar to Alternative A, although to a lesser degree because the BLM limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in more areas and limits off-road travel for big game retrieval to within 300 feet of established roads. More limitations on motorized vehicle use would benefit forest products less than Alternative A.
Under Alternative D, the BLM manages more forests and woodlands in special designations than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. The BLM designates the Sheep Mountain ACEC, which would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative B, although to a lesser extent because Alternative D applies fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing activities. The impacts from designating some LWCs as Wild Lands (52,485 acres) under Alternative D would be similar to those described under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent. Restricting motorized vehicle use in WSAs would limit the potential for unplanned ignitions. This would create more beneficial impacts than Alternative C, but fewer than alternatives A and B.
Fire and fuels management under Alternative D would result in impacts to forests and woodlands similar to those under Alternative A. Management actions specific to protecting wildlife and special status species and their habitat would result in more adverse impacts to forests, woodlands, and forest products than alternatives A and C, but fewer than Alternative B. Actions to restore aspen woodlands would be similar to those under Alternative C and would result in similar impacts.
Under Alternative D, proactive management actions for forests, woodlands, and forest products would be similar to those under Alternative A, with more beneficial impacts to forest products from allowing clear cuts up to 100 acres, more precommercial thinning, and managing endemic insects and disease with the full range of silvicultural techniques and treatment methods. Management actions to preserve old-growth stands would benefit forests and woodlands more than under Alternative A, which includes no such actions.