Allowable uses and management actions that may impact riparian/wetland resources include surface-disturbing activities, motorized vehicle use, recreation, livestock grazing, and proactive management actions. Impacts to soil and water, which may impact riparian/wetland resources, are discussed in Section 4.1.3 Soil and Section 4.1.4 Water.
The types of potential impacts to riparian/wetland resources are similar under all alternatives. However, the intensity of impacts would vary by alternative, as described for each.
Implementing any of the alternatives may cause direct and indirect impacts to riparian/wetland resources. Because riparian/wetland areas are limited and often the most productive lands, they are disproportionately affected by humans, livestock, wild horses, and wildlife, compared with the same types or extent of actions in upland areas. The BLM generally avoids, whenever possible, direct impacts to riparian/wetland areas under all alternatives and minimizes impacts from projects or resource uses that involve riparian areas through applying BMPs. In addition, the BLM manages lotic and lentic riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC and the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix N).
Riparian vegetation is more susceptible to grazing impacts during the spring, when soils are wet and more vulnerable to compaction, and during the hot season (July and early August), as livestock is naturally attracted to areas with water and thermal cover. Many grazing management strategies, such as rotation, deferment, rest from use, and the manipulation of season of use and grazing intensity would be implemented to manage vegetation composition, cover, and vigor to maintain or achieve PFC in riparian areas. As the BLM does not practice wild horse relocation in HMAs, year-round wild horse grazing may adversely impact, unless fenced, riparian areas in HMAs and impair the ability to maintain or achieve PFC in these areas.
Changes in water chemistry can affect riparian/wetland areas primarily through changes in plant species composition, which may affect utilization of the area by wildlife and livestock. Indirect impacts caused by changes in water chemistry have not been a major factor in the Planning Area historically and are not expected to be in the future. Impacts caused by wildlife are generally less than those caused by livestock, particularly cattle and wild horses in operational HMAs. As is the case with livestock, wildlife also is attracted to and often congregates in wetland areas; however, the size and foraging habitat of wildlife limits adverse impacts. In localized areas, elk have affected riparian habitats through trampling, wallowing, and grazing. Likewise, the impacts associated with wild horse management activities would be similar to those described for livestock grazing, except localized to the 4,570 acres of riparian/wetlands in existing HMAs.
The management of special status species generally involves restricting activities in the vicinity of special status plants or wildlife either year-round or during specific times of the year. As a result, riparian/ wetland areas in the vicinity of buffer zones of special status species can benefit from the lower level of public use. In addition, efforts at conserving species, such the Ute ladies’-tresses (a wetland species), can directly benefit riparian condition.
Based on the percent cover of this vegetation type and the total projected surface disturbance (Table 4-1), there may be 910 acres of short-term and 118 acres of long-term surface disturbance in riparian/ wetland areas on BLM-administered surface under Alternative A. However, prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water and riparian/wetland areas unless impacts can be mitigated would reduce the acreage of surface disturbance in these areas. Therefore, the principle impacts to riparian/wetland resources associated with surface-disturbing activities would be indirect impacts. Indirect adverse impacts to riparian/wetland resources would be associated with surface-disturbing activities in the watershed. Short-term impacts include increased sediment loading into streams and the potential spread of invasive species. Long-term impacts include loss of habitat due to development. As a summary, Table 4-8 lists the acreages of riparian/wetland areas protected from some common surface-disturbing activities (e.g., ROWs and locatable mineral development) under this alternative.
While most surface-disturbing activity will not be near riparian/wetland areas, these areas may be indirectly impacted due to soil erosion in the uplands, which may increase sediment released into streams. Alternative A would result in short-term and long-term soil erosion rates of approximately 568,166 and 25,167 tons per year, respectively, that may adversely affect riparian/wetland resources (see Section 4.1.3 Soil). Higher sediment loading to a stream may dramatically alter its form and, consequently, the integrity of the riparian/wetland resources adjacent to it. The impact of increased sediment loading depends on the stream’s ability to pass the sediment through the system and largely depends on the size (i.e., discharge volume) of the stream and the channel slope gradient. In segments of a stream that have lower gradients, deposition occurs and the stream channel aggrades (builds), possibly becoming braided and shallow. In some instances, the aggradations of the streambed may cause the stream to down cut or degrade (become more incised) as the stream seeks to restore its equilibrium. The additional material eroded from the upstream channel is transported down to a depositional area and the cycle continues. In such cases, the functionality of the riparian/wetland areas in both the aggraded stream reach, and the incised stream reach, change.
Most of the Planning Area remains open to mineral extraction under Alternative A; the associated surface disturbance would be the second highest of the alternatives. While the BLM prohibits surface-disturbing activity associated with mineral development within 500 feet of riparian/wetlands, this type of activity in the uplands, including well pad construction, pipeline development, and road construction, may increase sediment loading in streams. Under Alternative A, the BLM allows the surface discharge of produced water if it meets State of Wyoming water quality standards. Water production from oil and gas development represents a new water source in a watershed that augments existing water flows. In the event that produced water from CBNG or traditional gas development is disposed of on the surface, riparian/wetland vegetation may be affected. Impacts may be both beneficial (e.g., increased water quantity that may benefit riparian/wetland vegetation or create new riparian/wetland areas) and detrimental (e.g., increased dissolved compounds and water temperature that may adversely impact riparian/wetland vegetation), as discussed in more detail in Section 4.1.4 Water.
Invasive species are particularly undesirable in riparian/wetland areas because they do not have the same high level of soil-binding properties that many native riparian/wetland species (e.g., willows and sedges) have. The proximity of surface disturbances to riparian/wetland areas is one of the primary ways in which invasive species would spread to these areas. Prohibiting surface disturbance within 500 feet of riparian/wetland areas would help reduce the opportunity to spread invasive species to these areas. Invasive species and pest management under Alternative A includes allowing aerial application of pesticides and requiring livestock flushing on a case-by-case basis. Application of chemicals near water may reduce water quality, adversely affecting the health of riparian/wetland resources. Requiring livestock flushing would reduce the opportunity of spreading ingested invasive species seeds or material to riparian/wetland areas.
One of the most prevalent increases in surface runoff caused by human activity is due to an increase in impervious cover (e.g., roads, parking lots, and rooftops). Roads are not only impervious, they also route water. While small increases in surface runoff may have a beneficial impact on riparian/wetland areas because more water may be available for plant growth, they may also cause an increase in channel incision. Channel incision could disconnect the stream from its floodplain (i.e., gully formation) and, if the stream becomes incised enough, alter conditions in associated riparian/wetland areas. For this reason, it is undesirable to have a road close to a stream or crossings where runoff from the road is more likely to reach the stream.
Alternative A permits motorized vehicle use on existing roads and trails across the largest area but would result in the least acres of surface disturbance associated with new road and trail creation, compared to the other alternatives. However, Alternative A allows the use of off-road motorized vehicles to retrieve big game and to access dispersed campsites, which may cause undue environmental degradation and accelerated soil erosion in riparian/wetland areas. Motorized vehicle use and the associated greater access that it grants to recreationists, may adversely impact riparian/wetland resources by introducing invasive species near streams or wetlands and increasing erosion and sediment loading in streams. Recreational activities, such as camping, often occur near riparian/wetland areas and may result in adverse impacts through soil compaction and trash accumulation in or near these areas. More developed recreation areas would increase this potential, although most impacts are expected to be mitigated by managing recreational use to maintain or improve riparian/wetland resource conditions along intensively used streams and reservoirs. Recreation management areas such as SRMAs that restrict surface disturbance in these areas would have a beneficial impact on riparian/wetland resources.
Most of the Planning Area remains open to livestock grazing under this alternative. Concentrated livestock, wild horse, or wildlife grazing would increase runoff in a watershed due to soil compaction and loss of vegetative cover, with the amount of bare ground being the primary factor. Alternative A prohibits the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements within ¼ mile of water, wetlands, and riparian areas, which limits the direct impacts from livestock grazing on these areas. Livestock range improvement projects would distribute livestock over a large landscape, but would also create concentrated use in local areas. Over the long term, these improvements would potentially improve the stability and resiliency of riparian/wetland resources.
Special designations would result in beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland areas when they place additional restrictions on activities that degrade watershed health (e.g., surface-disturbing activities and motorized vehicle use). These restrictions have an indirect beneficial impact on riparian/wetland areas because these areas are not subject to large-scale surface-disturbing activities. Table 4-8 lists the acreage of wetlands in each type of special designation under Alternative A and Section 4.1.4 Water lists the miles of streams within special designations.
Implementing watershed improvement practices in Wyoming’s Bighorn Basin water quality plans to reduce sediment loadings in streams and river segments and, when approved, including them in various BLM activity plans and use authorizations would benefit riparian/wetland resources.
Under Alternative A, the BLM utilizes wildland fires to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels. The loss of vegetative cover from both wildland fires and prescribed fires would increase runoff and sediment to streams and other waterbodies in the short term. A rainstorm following a fire may overwhelm downstream waterbodies by contributing excessive amounts of sediment, large woody debris, and water to the system in a short period. Fires that burn more intensely would cause more adverse impacts to the watershed. Fires of the appropriate intensity generate a vegetation response that may have beneficial impacts on a watershed by helping to recharge water tables and increasing the amount of herbaceous cover, thereby improving livestock, wild horse, and wildlife distribution and lessening erosion.
Management actions under Alternative A designed to protect wildlife and special status species habitat from the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities will also protect riparian/wetland resources from these activities. For example, applying NSO and CSU restrictions in crucial wildlife habitat would reduce the chance of sediment loading into streams in these areas. Other beneficial impacts include performing restoration of streams and fisheries habitat on a case-by-case basis, which would have direct beneficial impacts on riparian/wetlands areas.
Proactive management under Alternative A primarily consists of managing riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC and prohibiting surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of surface water and riparian/wetland areas. This 500-foot buffer would prohibit surface-disturbing activities on 55,586 acres of BLM-administered land adjoining riparian/wetland areas. Management actions that strive to improve streams and conserve riparian/wetland areas generally result in long-term beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland resources. Watershed improvement projects, while potentially causing short-term impacts from surface disturbance, would result in long-term benefits to these areas by reducing sediment loading, improving stream conditions, and facilitating PFC, DFC, or DPC management objectives.
The impacts to riparian/wetland resources under Alternative B from surface-disturbing activities would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities within ¼ mile of all riparian/wetland areas, the largest buffer of all alternatives; therefore, the principle impacts from surface disturbance would be indirect. Alternative B also includes the greatest restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources such as for special designations, crucial winter range, and recreation management areas. Across the Planning Area, the BLM projects that this alternative would involve the smallest acreage of surface disturbance (Table 4-1), which would result in the least impact to riparian/wetland resources. Alternative B is projected to result in the least amount of short-term and long-term erosion (approximately 30 percent less than Alternative A), which would result in the least potential adverse impacts to riparian/wetland resources compared to the other alternatives (see Section 4.1.3 Soil). As a summary, Table 4-8 lists the acreages of riparian/wetland areas protected from some common surface-disturbing activities (e.g., ROWs and locatable mineral development) under this alternative.
The projected amount of surface disturbance associated with mineral development under Alternative B is the lowest of the 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, in the short term, mineral extraction activities would increase the potential for riparian/wetland health degradation. Activities such as well pad and road construction would increase runoff and sediment loading in streams. Alternative B prohibits the surface discharge of produced water on BLM-administered surface, negating the impacts (both beneficial and adverse) present under Alternative A.
The smaller amount of surface disturbance under Alternative B, compared to the other alternatives, will result in the least impact associated with invasive species in riparian/wetlands due to surface-disturbing activities. Alternative B prohibits aerial application of pesticides within ½ mile of riparian/wetland resources but allows exceptions to manage riparian weed species, a beneficial impact. Alternative B allows the authorized officer to require livestock flushing before allowing livestock to move onto or within BLM-administered land. Similar to Alternative A, discretionary livestock flushing will limit the risk of spreading invasive species to riparian/wetland areas from ingested seeds or material.
Alternative B would result in the least short- and long-term surface disturbance from new road creation associated with ROW development in the Planning Area, and therefore the fewest adverse impacts as described under Alternative A.
Alternative B permits motorized vehicle use on existing roads and trails in the smallest area and would result in the second-fewest acres of surface disturbance associated with the creation of new roads and trails for recreational purposes, after Alternative A. Limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails would limit public access and reduce the associated potential impacts to riparian/wetland areas, described under Alternative A. Alternative B also closes the largest area to motorized vehicle use compared to other alternatives. Off-road motorized vehicle use to retrieve big game and access dispersed campsites is prohibited in areas with limited travel designations and would limit erosion and sediment loading from trail proliferation near riparian/wetland areas. Alternative B places less emphasis on developing camping or recreation sites, reducing the potential for adverse impacts associated with concentrated recreational activities.
Livestock grazing management is more restrictive under Alternative B and more area is closed to grazing compared to the other alternatives. A ½-mile buffer prohibiting the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements near water, wetlands, and riparian areas, would provide greater protection for these resources from livestock and native ungulate grazing. Alternative B would result in fewer livestock improvement projects than other alternatives. While this would limit disturbance associated with these activities in the short term, riparian/wetland areas would not receive the long-term benefits of these improvement projects. For example, fewer water development projects may increase herbivory in riparian/wetland areas because livestock, wild horses, and wildlife concentrate near natural water sources.
Compared to all other alternatives, Alternative B proposes more special designations containing riparian/wetland habitat (see Table 4-8 and Section 4.1.4 Water) and places more restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in these special designation areas. Prohibitions on surface-disturbing activities would limit adverse impacts to riparian/wetland resources in these areas.
Developing watershed improvement practices in cooperation with local governments to reduce sediment loading in stream and river systems and, once developed, including them in all activity plans and permitted activities would beneficially impact riparian/wetland resources.
Under Alternative B, the BLM utilizes wildland fires to restore fire-adapted ecosystems for natural resource systems and to reduce hazardous fuels. This utilization of wildland fire under Alternative B would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, but over less area. Therefore, under Alternative B, long-term beneficial impacts from prescribed fire would be less extensive than under the other alternatives.
Management actions designed to protect wildlife and special status species habitat apply greater restrictions on surface-disturbing activities than the other alternatives and therefore have a greater beneficial impact on riparian/wetland resources. Riparian/wetland areas in the Absaroka Front Management Area (444 acres), not identified under Alternative A, would benefit from the restrictions on some resource uses (e.g., mineral leasing and motorized vehicle use). Management actions designed to improve fisheries would also have a greater beneficial impact under Alternative B. The BLM would restore or reclaim important fisheries habitat through upland management and hydrologic function enhancement actions on at least 3 miles of lotic stream system. These restoration activities would result in beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland resources.
Proactive management under Alternative B results in greater benefits to riparian/wetland resources than Alternative A. Alternative B manages riparian/wetland areas to meet DPC and prioritizes those riparian/wetland areas not meeting PFC. Management toward DPC is assumed to exceed the requirements of managing toward PFC and would therefore result in improved functioning and healthier riparian/wetland areas. As noted above, Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities within ¼ mile of all riparian/wetland areas. This is the largest buffer of any alternative and would prohibit surface-disturbing activities on 140,464 acres of BLM-administered land adjoining riparian/wetland areas. Applying an NSO restriction on wetland areas greater than 40 acres would limit erosion and other detrimental impacts associated with oil and gas activity. In addition, Alternative B allows sediment reduction structures on a case-by-case basis, which would further protect riparian/wetland health. Watershed improvement projects under Alternative B are anticipated to disturb the highest number of acres. While these treatments may result in short-term impacts from surface disturbance, they would have greater long-term benefits on riparian/wetland areas than Alternative A.
Unlike alternatives A and B, Alternative C allows surface-disturbing activities in floodplains or riparian/wetland areas and this alternative may therefore result in direct adverse impacts. By allowing surface-disturbing activities on a case-by-case basis, Alternative C is more likely to risk the impairment of riparian/wetland health through the introduction of invasive species and the removal of vegetation. Based on the percent cover of this vegetation type and the total projected surface disturbance (Table 4-1), there may be 1,539 acres of the short-term and 313 acres of the long-term surface disturbance in riparian/wetland areas on BLM-administered surface under this alternative. In addition, Alternative C has the largest projected total acreage of surface disturbance (Table 4-1) and would result in the greatest indirect adverse impacts to riparian/wetland resources from increased erosion and sediment loading. Alternative C is projected to result in the most short-term and long-term erosion (approximately 80 percent and 164 percent more, respectively, than Alternative A) which would result in the greatest adverse impact to riparian/wetland resources, compared to the other alternatives. As a summary, Table 4-8 lists the acreages of riparian/wetland areas protected from some common surface-disturbing activities (e.g., ROWs and locatable mineral development) under this alternative.
The projected amount of surface disturbance associated with mineral development under Alternative C is the highest of the alternatives. Most of the Planning Area remains open to mineral extraction and the RFD of minerals facilities is the greatest under Alternative C, 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, in the short term, surface disturbance associated with minerals development may impair riparian/wetland areas. Under Alternative C, the BLM allows the proper disposal of water produced through mineral production activities. When surface discharge occurs in waterways on BLM-administered land, Alternative C requires the discharge of produced water be done in such a manner as to cause minimal environmental harm, while still contributing to designated uses. Impacts to riparian/wetland resources from the discharge of produced water would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree due to more projected oil and gas activity.
Fewer restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in proximity to riparian/wetland areas under Alternative C would result in greater adverse impacts associated with invasive species than the other alternatives. An increase in invasive species would alter the vegetative communities, introducing species that use more water and lack the same high level of soil-binding properties as native riparian/wetland species. Invasive species and pest management under Alternative C prohibits aerial application of pesticides within 100 feet of riparian/wetlands but allows exceptions to manage riparian weed species. This management practice would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative B. Alternative C does not require livestock flushing, which increases the chance of spreading ingested invasive species in riparian/wetland areas used by livestock.
Alternative C would result in the most short- and long-term surface disturbance from road and trail creation associated with recreational use and ROW development in the Planning Area. More roads in the Planning Area would increase associated erosion and surface runoff, which, in turn, would route water and sediment into nearby streams. As a result, road development under Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts to riparian/wetland resources in the Planning Area.
Motorized vehicle use under Alternative C would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree. Alternative C limits motorized vehicle use to existing roads and trails in most of the Planning Area and closes the least area to motorized vehicle use compared to the other alternatives, resulting in more adverse impacts to wetlands and riparian resources. Alternative C also allows the use of off-road motorized vehicles to retrieve big game and access dispersed campsites, which may cause vegetation damage and erosion in some riparian/wetland areas. If demand warrants, the BLM would develop or upgrade recreation sites and associated amenities, resulting in impacts similar to Alternative A.
Most of the Planning Area would remain open to livestock grazing under Alternative C. The BLM manages livestock grazing to optimize commodity production while meeting rangeland health standards but not specifically to enhance other resource values; therefore, Alternative C would have the fewest beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland resources. In contrast to the other alternatives, Alternative C does not prohibit the placement of salt, mineral, or forage supplements near riparian/wetland areas, resulting in the greatest potential adverse impact to riparian/wetland areas. Concentrated livestock grazing or substantial increases in wild horse use may increase runoff in a watershed due to soil compaction and loss of vegetative cover. In addition, uncontrolled livestock grazing in these areas has a greater potential to introduce invasive species. Alternative C would result in the most livestock improvement projects. In the short term, these projects would result in increased surface disturbance; in the long term, however, these projects would result in the most beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland resources compared to the other alternatives.
Alternative C places the least restriction on surface-disturbing activities in special designations and designates the fewest number of these areas. As shown in Table 4-8 and Section 4.1.4 Water, Alternative C protects the fewest acres of wetlands and miles of streams within special designations. As a result of the limited additional protections provided by special designations, Alternative C would result in the fewest beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland areas.
Alternative C utilizes wildland fires and other vegetation treatment to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and enhance forage for commodity production and to reduce hazardous fuels. This management could result in an increase in wildland fires in the Planning Area, which would result in vegetative cover loss and sediment loading in streams.
Alternative C applies fewer management restrictions on surface-disturbing and disruptive activity designed to protect wildlife and special status species. Riparian/wetland areas in the Absaroka Front Management Area (444 acres) would receive fewer beneficial impacts than under Alternative B since some resource uses (e.g., oil and gas and other mineral leasing) that would be restricted under Alternative B would be allowed under this alternative. Management actions designed to improve fisheries are similar to Alternative A and would therefore result in similar beneficial impacts. Native ungulate grazing is anticipated to cause impacts to riparian/wetland areas similar to Alternative A.
Alternative C manages riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC, giving priority to those areas functioning at-risk with a downward trend or in nonfunctioning condition. Prioritizing areas that do not meet the standard allows the BLM to efficiently allocate management resources to those areas most in need. Alternative C allows surface-disturbing activities in flood plains and riparian/wetland areas on a case-by-case basis. By not prohibiting surface-disturbing activities, Alternative C results in the fewest beneficial impacts compared to the other alternatives. Watershed improvement projects under Alternative C are anticipated to disturb the fewest number of acres. While fewer treatments would result in less short-term impacts in terms of surface disturbance, they would provide fewer long-term benefits to these areas.
Under Alternative D, impacts to riparian/wetland areas from surface disturbance would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree. Based on the percent cover of this vegetation type and the total projected surface disturbance (Table 4-1), there may be 920 acres of short-term and 139 acres of long-term surface disturbance in riparian/wetland areas on BLM-administered surface under Alternative D. However, avoiding surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet, up to ¼ mile if needed to protect sensitive resources, of surface water and riparian/wetland areas would reduce the direct adverse impacts from surface disturbance in these areas similar to Alternative A. Alternative D is projected to result in 3 percent more short- and 17 percent more long-term erosion than Alternative A, with proportional indirect impacts to riparian/wetland resources—though the more stringent reclamation practices under Alternative D, relative to Alternative A, may limit erosion impacts to riparian/wetland areas to a greater degree. As a summary, Table 4-8 lists the acreages of riparian/wetland areas protected from some common surface-disturbing activities (e.g., ROWs and locatable mineral development) under this alternative. Although Alternative D is projected to result in more surface disturbance than Alternative A, with proportional indirect impacts to riparian/wetland areas, Alternative D includes more measures, described below, to limit direct adverse impacts to riparian/wetland areas from surface-disturbing activities.
The BLM projects that Alternative D would result in a similar amount of surface disturbance from mineral development as Alternative A, resulting in a similar degree of adverse impacts. Most of the impacts would be temporary during the life of the operation, with most areas of disturbance reclaimed following closure of operations; however, in the short term, surface disturbance associated with minerals development may impair riparian/wetland areas. Impacts from produced water would be similar to those under Alternative C, although to a lesser degree because the BLM projects fewer new oil and gas wells under this alternative.
Adverse impacts from invasive species spread in riparian/wetland areas would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. Management practices regarding pesticide application and livestock flushing would be similar to those under Alternative A, but applying an NSO on wetlands greater than 20 acres under Alternative D would limit the potential for invasive species spread to a greater extent.
Road development under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to Alternative A.
Under Alternative D, motorized vehicle use would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, but to a lesser degree. Alternative D limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in more areas and closes more areas to motorized vehicle use compared to Alternative A. Localized impacts from opening areas to motorized vehicle use would result in surface disturbance and potential indirect adverse impacts to riparian/wetland areas. Restricting off-road motorized vehicle use to within 300 feet of established roads would limit the extent of the adverse impacts described under Alternative A. Developing recreation sites would result in similar potential adverse impacts to those under Alternative A; however, Alternative D recognizes more SRMAs that contain riparian/wetland habitat, such as the Bighorn River, The Rivers, Canyon Creek, Middle Fork of the Powder River, and Beck Lake SRMAs, which would limit surface disturbance and the associated impacts in these areas.
Livestock grazing management would result in impacts to riparian/wetland areas similar to Alternative A.
Special designations under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland areas as under Alternative A, but to a greater degree. Alternative D proposes more special designations containing riparian habitat (see Table 4-8 and Section 4.1.4 Water) and places more restrictions on surface-disturbing activities in these special designations than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B.
Watershed improvement practices under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland resources as under Alternative B.
Fire and fuels management under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to Alternative A.
Management actions to protect wildlife and special status species under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree. Restrictions on mineral development in the Absaroka Front Management Area, which contains 887 acres of riparian/wetland area, would result in more beneficial impacts than under Alternative C, but less than Alternative B. Restoring streams and fisheries habitat would result in similar beneficial impacts as those under Alternative A.
Proactive management under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative C, but to a greater degree. The BLM manages certain riparian/wetland areas containing streams with unique recreational or fishery values to obtain DFC. Management toward DFC is assumed to exceed the requirements of managing toward PFC and would therefore result in improved functioning and healthier riparian/wetland areas, although not to the degree afforded by management toward DPC (as under Alternative B). Watershed improvement projects would result in impacts similar to Alternative A.