The precise location of surface disturbance in the Planning Area resulting from implementation of the alternatives cannot be determined. Surface disturbance would occur in a variety of vegetation types all used as wildlife habitat by wildlife. Therefore, the BLM projects that the extent of impacts to wildlife from surface disturbance would generally relate to the amount of surface disturbance in the Planning Area. These activities will be evaluated further during project-specific NEPA evaluations before project authorization. As acreages of surface disturbance and human activity levels increase, the quality and quantity of wildlife habitats would decrease. Long-term surface disturbance accounts for reclamation of some lands following short-term disturbance. Although reclamation restores habitats, thereby reducing long-term surface-disturbance acreage, the location of permanent facilities (e.g., roads, well pads, etc.) adjacent to reclaimed areas may reduce the utility of reclaimed habitats. For example, the higher the density of permanent facilities in an area, the more a habitat is fragmented and the more adverse impacts anticipated for wildlife. In addition, reclaimed areas are more vulnerable to establishment of invasive species and would not initially provide the same level of habitat function, forage, or cover that the original vegetation provided. The timing and type of reclamation is also anticipated to result in impacts to wildlife.
As discussed in Chapter 3, habitat fragmentation occurs when a contiguous habitat is intersected, divided, or segmented by surface disturbance. Fragmentation causes a reduction in usable ranges and the isolation of smaller, less mobile species; a loss of genetic integrity in species or populations; and an increase in abundance of habitat generalists characteristic of disturbed environments (i.e., competitors, predators, and parasites) (Harris 1984). As disturbance reduces the size of contiguous habitat patches, density dependency thresholds of suitable habitats for species may be met, which ultimately may decrease population size and increase disease frequency.
The principle impacts to wildlife species (especially big game) from minerals development in the Planning Area would be the reduction in usable wildlife habitat and disruption of migration corridors that link seasonal ranges. In areas with continuous surface disturbance, the adverse impacts would be greater.Impacts from locatable minerals development would include displacement of wildlife from developed areas and avoidance of a larger area around the development because of human presence and noise. Increased bentonite mining, and potentially gypsum mining, along with difficulty in shrub reclamation in the 5- to 9-inch precipitation zone would result in a reduction of sagebrush habitat across all alternatives. Salable minerals extraction would result in short-term, direct impacts to wildlife and associated habitat. Impacts would include displacement and disturbance of animals, removal of vegetation, and loss of habitat. The level of impacts would depend on the size of the salable minerals area and the importance of the altered habitat to wildlife.
Oil and gas development would result in adverse impacts to wildlife habitat. As the number of wells, roads, and facilities increase, habitats in and near well fields, due to degradation, invasive species spread, and fragmentation, may become less suitable until most animals no longer use these areas. Due to prolonged reclamation time, oil and gas development in the 5- to 9-inch precipitation zone may result in long-term impacts from habitat removal and fragmentation. Animals that remain in the affected zones are subjected to increased physiological stress. This avoidance and stress response impairs habitat function by reducing the capability of wildlife to use the habitat effectively. In addition, physical or psychological barriers lead to fragmentation of habitats, further limiting the availability of suitable habitat. An area of intensive activity or construction becomes a barrier when animals cannot or will not cross it to access otherwise suitable habitat. These impacts are especially problematic when they occur within limiting habitat components such as crucial winter ranges and reproductive habitats (WGFD 2009). Studies have shown that actions involving increased human presence have adversely impacted wildlife populations such as mule deer and elk (Freddy et al. 1986; Phillips and Alldredge 2000; Shively et al. 2005).
Many sand and gravel areas are associated with riverine and alluvial plains; their development would impact these areas. The vegetative communities associated with these areas would be affected by the extraction of salable minerals. Salable mineral extraction may lower the water table, resulting in the potential loss of cottonwood communities typically associated with these minerals. Nesting birds such as great blue herons, bald eagles, and habitat for numerous waterfowl and neotropical migrants, and big game during the winter, depend on these communities.
Due to the projected surface disturbance and difficulty in reclamation, especially in arid areas, invasive species would continue to spread under all alternatives. Management actions may prevent the reoccurrence and spread of invasive and noxious weeds to maintain the native vegetative species that provide wildlife forage and habitat. Certain species of noxious weeds are poisonous and potentially fatal to some wildlife species. Prevention and treatment of invasive species would maintain or improve plant community health, thereby benefitting wildlife. Surface disturbance, new road construction, off-road motorized vehicle use, and livestock and wildlife grazing contribute to the spread of invasive species.
Impacts on wildlife from land use authorizations (including ROWs) would depend on (1) the location of the authorizations, and (2) the success of reclamation and mitigation of disturbed lands. Impacts to wildlife habitat would vary with the specific type and location of the requested ROW. There would be short-term impacts from the construction of pipelines, buried fiber-optic lines, and other subsurface actions. However, proper reclamation would restore some level of habitat function in these areas. Depending on the locations of these actions and the long timeframes required for some disturbed sites to return to pre-disturbance vegetation cover, some impacts would be long-term. Aboveground ROW actions, such as communication sites, powerlines, and wind turbines would have long-term impacts. These types of permanent structures are particularly hazardous to avian wildlife because of the potential for collision or electrocution (Erickson et al. 2005).
Unless otherwise specified, motorized vehicle use is limited to existing roads and trails on BLM-administered land. Existing roads and trails may be maintained for continued access. CTTM plans address maintenance of roads, ways, and trails at a site-specific level. Limiting motorized travel to existing roads and trails would result in beneficial impacts to multiple wildlife species by enhancing and increasing security areas where roads are sparse or nonexistent.
Motorized vehicle use management that result in increased human presence would have a localized impact on wildlife. Impacts would include increased displacement of wildlife, increased stress during important time periods (e.g., winter, nesting), and degradation of habitats. Motorized vehicle use may alter the seasonal use patterns of many wildlife species. The use of motorized over-snow travel on winter range may lead to wildlife disturbance, causing additional stress. New roads created from OHV use would result in disturbance to wildlife in areas that normally do not contain human presence and habitat degradation through vegetation loss. Vehicle-wildlife collisions may increase in areas of high wildlife use and high human activity. Closure and reclamation of unnecessary roads would reduce fragmentation and restore habitat integrity while reducing the potential for wildlife disturbance.
Recreational activities (e.g., hiking, biking, camping, hunting, sightseeing) that result in increased human presence would cause localized impacts to wildlife. These activities would result in increased human presence, which may cause habitat degradation or wildlife disturbance (e.g., dispersal or avoidance). Human disturbance of big game may result in increased energy costs for the alerted animal, either from stress (preparation for flight [i.e., locomotion]) or from flight itself. An animal that has fled or is displaced incurs additional costs through loss of food intake and potential displacement to lower quality habitat. The cumulative energy costs of frequent disturbances may affect survival or reproductive success, especially during seasonally sensitive periods (e.g., winter, parturition, breeding, nesting, and early brood-rearing). Phillips and Alldredge (2000) and Shively et al. (2005) demonstrated a 30 percent reduction in elk calf recruitment from an activity as benign as simulated recreational hiking imposed during the calving season. If recreational activities were perform on noncrucial habitats or during seasons when sensitive wildlife species are not present and in compliance with recreation management actions, impacts would be minimal.
Livestock and wild horse grazing affects wildlife habitat due to competition for forage and habitat use and alteration. Stock driveways affect wildlife habitats by reducing vegetation and compacting soils from concentrated high levels of livestock use. Intensive livestock use can cause near-complete removal of vegetation. Due to this concentrated use, stock driveways may no longer provide forage or shelter for wildlife. If grazing occurs during the late or post-growing season, residual vegetation that would be necessary on big game winter ranges may be removed. This may also affect the availability of nesting cover for some birds the following spring. While there may be adverse impacts to some wildlife species from livestock grazing, there are also beneficial impacts to other species. Certain grazing disturbances can enhance forage and habitat conditions for wildlife and regrowth areas may result in increased palatability of forage.
Wyoming Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management and other appropriate BMPs would enhance rangeland health, improve forage for livestock, and meet other multiple use objectives. Appropriate grazing management with an emphasis on 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), especially in the 5- to 9-inch precipitation zone where rangeland health is sensitive to grazing timing and intensity, will be required in all cases and would be beneficial to wildlife species.
Special designations that conserve vegetation and restrict surface-disturbing and other activities that adversely impact special status wildlife species, such as mineral development, motorized vehicle use, and ROW development would result in beneficial impacts by preventing disruptive activities in sensitive habitats, and limiting habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Under all alternatives, WSAs are managed for naturalness, outstanding opportunities for solitude, and primitive and unconfined recreation under the IMP, and loss or alteration of wildlife habitat would be minimized in these areas. WSAs would benefit wildlife and their habitats by restricting surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities and preserving wilderness characteristics. Conversely, managing WSAs requires the use of natural processes to the extent possible and generally does not allow surface-disturbing activities designed to benefit wildlife habitat, such as vegetation treatments; WSAs may, therefore, result in adverse impacts to wildlife habitat that would benefit from such treatments. ACECs also benefit wildlife species by restricting surface-disturbing and other activities. The Spanish Point Karst ACEC, designated under all alternatives, is likely to result in beneficial impacts to special status bat species by restricting resource uses and activities that may impact roost habitat. Further analysis is provided in the discussions for each special designation according to the alternative.
Wildlife are likely to react to management and allowed uses by altering their behavior (e.g., changing migration routes or dispersal patterns). Restricting resource uses and activities in special designations and various management areas on BLM-administered land will have uncertain impacts to private lands from wildlife. Wildlife may leave private lands if BLM-administered lands provide more suitable habitat. However, if habitat protection on BLM-administered lands is sufficient to foster increases in wildlife populations, greater numbers may disperse to private lands.
All alternatives provide some degree of protection to streams, wells, springs, or other water sources by prohibiting or managing surface disturbance within varying distances from water sources. Those alternatives providing the greatest protection of water sources beneficial to wildlife species are anticipated to have the greatest benefit. Wildlife species that use water sources and riparian/wetland habitats in the Planning Area benefit from management actions common to all alternatives that promote the development and enhancement of water sources. The management of riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC and the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix N) would improve habitat conditions for various wildlife species. Areas managed to higher standards (e.g., DPC), would result in additional benefits to wildlife.
Prescribed fire and wildfire would have both short-term and long-term impacts to wildlife. Short-term impacts include displacement from habitats, potential disturbance or loss of life for small game and ground nesting birds, and removal of vegetation and forage. The BLM generally conducts prescribed fires outside of the nesting season (depending on elevation, approximately April 15th through July 15th), which would limit direct impacts to nesting birds. Any fire would cause some loss of less-mobile wildlife and not able to avoid the path of the fire. Fire line construction, use of heavy equipment, and other fire suppression activities would damage or destroy vegetation and habitat for wildlife. Timely rehabilitation of these activities is important to maintaining the quality of wildlife habitats. If rehabilitation is not completed, fire suppression activities can cause erosion or the potential spread of invasive species, which results in long-term adverse impacts to wildlife habitat.
Over the long term, fire would generally improve habitat conditions for most wildlife species. Fire can improve the quality of wildlife habitat conditions by releasing soil nutrients, reducing fuel load, or setting back species such as trees that may be encroaching on other habitats such as grasslands and shrublands. Fire would reduce dense understory that has mixed values for various species of wildlife. In vegetative climax communities, fire would return the vegetative community to an earlier stage of succession, increasing forage and cover for a greater diversity of wildlife. Fire can remove excess dead and dying vegetation, reduce hiding cover for prey species and potential thermal cover in the winter months. However, post-fire log and limb fall would increase horizontal cover and may produce snags important for nesting birds in the long term. The extent of impacts to wildlife from fire depends on the extent of change in habitat structure and species composition the fire causes. Resident and neotropical migrant bird species would be directly affected by loss of habitat from wildland fires. The duration of habitat loss would depend on the types of vegetation removed and the fire severity.
Forest management practices would change the seral stage of the affected stands. Many forest management practices are designed to alter or set back the seral stage of the forest community. These activities may increase wildlife species diversity and richness, depending on different species’ habitat requirements. Properly mitigated commercial forest management may improve big game habitat in the long term by improving forest age class diversity and distribution, edge effect, and forage community diversity. Conversely, commercial forest management may take important habitat components (e.g., snags, dead and down components, and the largest trees) out of the ecosystem and result in adverse impacts to species that depend on these components. Amphibians, reptiles, and other smaller animals depend on these habitat components for survival, while species such as the snowshoe hare are generally harmed through precommercial thinning practices (USFS 2005b). Properly mitigated commercial forest management would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife species that depend on diverse forest seral stages; however, such treatments may also put stands in a stable state where the forest structure does not mimic natural conditions in untreated parcels. Impacts to wildlife from forest management depend on the type of stand – mostly adverse impacts occur in spruce and subalpine fir stands, while mostly beneficial impacts would occur in aspen, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine stands. Habitat loss and fragmentation would be long-term adverse impacts from forest management; displacement of animals, noise disturbance, and increased vehicle traffic would be short-term adverse impacts.
Under all alternatives, the BLM constrains wild horse population numbers to the initial appropriate management level in existing HMAs (Map 36), such that their existing effect to wildlife habitat and populations would be sustained at the current level. Maintaining horse populations at initial appropriate management levels can still result in adverse impacts to wildlife habitat and populations. Wild horses graze areas in the McCullough Peaks and Fifteenmile HMAs on a year-round basis, competing with wildlife directly for some forage species and access to water.
Management actions for cultural and paleontological resources would provide varying degrees of habitat protection by minimizing vegetation loss and erosion and by restricting surface-disturbing activities. If public interpretation facilities generate increased human presence during sensitive seasonal periods (e.g., breeding, nesting, or migration) wildlife could be disturbed.
Wildlife habitat management would prevent or reduce impacts to wildlife species from surface-disturbing and other disruptive activities through implementing mitigation and BMPs, such as timing stipulations and designations of spatial buffers. These stipulations would provide some mitigation for loss of habitat function or habitat value for wildlife species.
Proactive management actions common to all alternatives that would benefit wildlife by conserving or improving habitat quality or reducing the likelihood of disturbance include prohibiting surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in the Bighorn River HMP/RAMP tracts and the BLM-administered tracts in Yellowtail Wildlife Habitat Management Area and applying an NSO restriction as appropriate; maintaining or improving important wildlife habitats through vegetative manipulations, habitat improvement projects, livestock grazing strategies and the application of theWyoming Guidelines for Managing Sagebrush Communities with Emphasis on Fire Management (Wyoming Interageny Vegetation Committee 2002) and the Wyoming BLM Standard Mitigation Guidelines for Surface-Disturbing Activities (Appendix H); and continuing to use the existing West Slope, Bighorn River, and Absaroka Front HMPs, which contain numerous management actions for wildlife habitat enhancement.
Alternative A would result in 136,415 acres of short-term surface disturbance that may degrade wildlife habitat and 15,710 acres of long-term surface disturbance that may result in habitat loss (Table 4-1). Minerals development, fire and fuels management, and silviculture treatments are the largest sources of short-term disturbance, with minerals development being the largest source of long-term disturbance. Alternative A requires that all surface-disturbing activities are analyzed for suitability and impacts and that vegetation cover is reestablished in disturbed areas within 5 years of initial seeding. These management actions would increase the probability of successful reclamation so that disturbed areas can return to suitable habitat in the long term. Heavily eroded or washed out roads are stabilized on a case-by-case basis, but not closed or reclaimed to return to wildlife habitat. Overall, the projected surface disturbance under Alternative A would result in adverse impacts to wildlife habitats, while associated reclamation practices would help to mitigate these impacts.
Minerals development would be the greatest contributor to habitat loss and fragmentation. Under Alternative A, 4,033,195 acres are available for locatable mineral entry, which would result in approximately 10,000 acres of long-term disturbance and habitat loss (Appendix T). Under Alternative A the BLM places constraints on oil and gas leasing and expects the development of up to 1,130 new federal wells. The adverse impacts to wildlife from oil and gas development would be proportional to the actual number of new wells and the imposed constraints.
In general, land acquisition or disposal actions would be performed considering land tenure adjustment criteria with the goal that the exchange, acquisition, or disposal would increase the public benefits of BLM-administered resources, including wildlife resources. Any acquisition of nonfederal surface land that includes high value habitat may result in beneficial impacts to wildlife habitat by allowing for mitigation or restrictions for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities to maintain or enhance the habitat under BLM management. Any disposal of BLM-administered land that contains high value habitat would typically be avoided as this may result in adverse impacts by increasing the potential for development without any required mitigation under BLM authority, and increased human presence would increase disturbance to wildlife utilizing the area. All land tenure actions would be analyzed on a site-specific basis, using a public process, to determine public interest before making a decision. Consolidating land ownership through land tenure adjustments would increase the manageability of lands and result in more contiguous blocks of habitat, which would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife. Under Alternative A, 116,800 acres are identified for disposal by sale, exchange, or other methods, with exchange being the preferred method.
Routing linear ROWs (e.g., pipelines, powerlines, roads) where impacts would be least disturbing would help to minimize fragmentation of sensitive habitats. Routing decisions would be determined with site-specific NEPA analyses before making decisions, and where possible, new utilities would be placed in existing ROW corridors. However, habitat fragmentation would still occur as more ROWs are sited and developed or as an existing ROW corridor is expanded. Under Alternative A, the BLM manages 61,416 acres as ROW exclusion areas, which occur in big game crucial winter range, big game parturition habitat, and greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas (Table 4-9), limiting adverse impacts to sensitive wildlife habitat.
Allowing wind-energy development throughout the Planning Area would create collision hazards for bats, greater sage-grouse, and other avian species. Large wind-energy fields also result in surface disturbance, which would permanently change the habitat structure of the wildlife inhabitants. The number of anticipated wind-energy developments is similar under all alternatives (Appendix T), with the location of wind-energy facilities likely to vary across alternatives. Alternative A considers the development of wind-energy facilities on a case-by-case basis consistent with the Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Record of Decision (ROD), which provides guidance to consider micrositing alternatives, but not broader habitat avoidance efforts, when assessing the impacts of proposed facilities. Based on the lack of general guidelines for siting wind-energy projects outside wildlife habitat or avian concentration areas that would be most affected by new turbines, wind-energy development may result in adverse impacts to wildlife under this alternative, though ROW management would limit these impacts.
Motorized vehicle use restrictions would limit the potential for the proliferation of unauthorized trails and related habitat degradation and wildlife disturbance. Limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails (787,626 acres) and closing areas to motorized vehicle use (59,192 acres) would help to protect wildlife from human-caused disturbances or to sustain habitat integrity and water quality by preventing vegetation loss or soil erosion and compaction. Permitting off-road motorized vehicle use for big game retrieval and access to dispersed campsites in areas with limited travel designations would increase the likelihood of wildlife disturbance and trail proliferation that may degrade and fragment habitat. Overall, motorized vehicle use with restrictions under Alternative A would result in adverse impacts to wildlife.
Recreational facilities may disturb habitat during construction and lead to increased human presence that can cause avoidance behavior in wildlife and subsequent displacement. Under Alternative A, the BLM develops or upgrades recreation sites (i.e., camping sites, interpretive educational areas, day use areas) and the associated amenities and facilities if demand warrants and enhances opportunities for primitive recreation. Alternative A would result in 350 acres of surface disturbance from recreational site development; the increase in human presence and impact to wildlife would be proportional to the amount of surface disturbance.
Managing livestock grazing systems to limit forage competition between livestock and wildlife for forbs, shrubs, and other desirable plants would aid in wildlife survival at crucial times of the year. Limiting forage competition would be particularly important in the spring, when enhanced nutrition is essential following the demands on body reserves during the winter, and the fall, when high nutrient forage is more limited and animals are trying to build fat reserves (Vavra 1992). Livestock grazing can also affect residual grass cover for bird nests and forb diversity to benefit fledglings. Under Alternative A, the BLM manages livestock grazing to provide for protection or enhancement of other resource values and closes several areas, such as the Bighorn River tracts, to grazing. Alternative A prohibits the placement of forage supplements within ¼ mile of water or riparian/wetland habitats to limit potential adverse impacts from concentrated livestock grazing.
A detailed description of the beneficial impacts to wildlife from special designations, where most applicable, is included below. Special designations under Alternative A that would directly benefit wildlife species by conserving habitat include the Carter Mountain and Upper Owl Creek ACECs. ACECs designated under this alternative encompass 32,433 acres of big game crucial winter range and 12,612 acres of big game parturition habitat (Table 4-9). Managing WSR eligible waterway segments to protect their free-flowing characteristics and outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs) would beneficially impact riparian habitat for various wildlife species.
Under Alternative A, the BLM utilizes wildland fire to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels. Alternative A would result in approximately 70,000 acres of surface disturbance from prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatment (Appendix T). These management actions would cause short-term adverse impacts to wildlife through temporary habitat loss and disturbance, but rapid recovery of forage and enhanced palatability would benefit wildlife even in the first few years post fire. A greater long-term benefit from preventing catastrophic fire that may lead to extensive habitat loss would outweigh the short-term impacts. Alternative A would result in long-term beneficial impacts to wildlife from fire and fuels management.
Forest management actions may impact feeding, breeding, and sheltering of raptors and other forest-dependent species. Habitat fragmentation and degradation, increased human presence, and habitat access by competitor species that normally cannot use these areas may all impact these species, depending on whether the action is a harvest or thinning, where the access roads are constructed, the type of equipment used, and the rate of habitat rehabilitation. Under Alternative A, the BLM performs commercial forest management in a manner that protects and benefits, watershed, wildlife, and riparian/wetland habitat values with forest health as a primary concern. Properly mitigated commercial forest management would benefit wildlife by diversifying forest seral stages. The BLM restricts clear cuts to no more than 900 feet in any direction in important seasonal wildlife habitat and closes timber access roads on a case-by-case basis. Forest management under Alternative A would result in adverse impacts to wildlife that depends on old growth trees, snags, and downed trees, but also long-term beneficial impacts by reducing hazardous fuels, diversifying stands, and closing certain timber access roads, which ultimately improves habitat for wildlife.
Vegetation treatments may disturb wildlife and result in displacement in the short term, but in the long term these treatments would benefit wildlife by improving habitat and controlling the spread of invasive species. Under Alternative A, the BLM manages at least 600,000 acres toward DPC objectives that would benefit wildlife and treats 2,000 acres to remove or control the spread of invasive species. The amount of invasive species spread, where seeds or plants are present, would be proportional with the total amount of surface disturbance. Alternative A requires livestock flushing on a case-by-case basis, which may decrease the potential spread of invasive species, especially in grasslands and shrublands.
The BLM manages riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC under all alternatives including Alternative A. Although wildlife habitat would be improved with this management action, because the PFC assessment methodology does not incorporate the habitat requirements of wildlife, additional management would be necessary to ensure that habitats provide conditions suitable to meet the life history requirements of various wildlife species. Alternative A prohibits surface-disturbing activities within 500 feet of water and riparian/wetland areas, which would benefit wildlife by conserving vegetation and valuable habitat for multiple species.
Proactive management measures that would benefit wildlife are described in detail below. Proactive management actions implemented on a case-by-case basis under Alternative A include determining wildlife seasonal protections for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities related to the maintenance and operation of developed projects, addressing traditional migration and travel corridors, and determining the appropriate DPC to manage vegetation in crucial winter range or parturition habitat. Beneficial impacts to wildlife would result from these actions under Alternative A.
As identified in Chapter 3, big game in the Planning Area face certain challenges such as poor habitat conditions, habitat fragmentation, disease, increased development and urbanization, hunter access, and impacts to key forage species from livestock and wild horse grazing. Big game crucial winter range is more sensitive to forest management, road construction, and vegetative change than other seasonal habitats. Since crucial winter range is considered the “limiting factor” to these big game populations, modifications to habitat suitability can impact species survivability and viability (e.g., higher winter mortality, reduced reproductive success), ultimately leading to reductions in population size. This impact would be intensified in areas where crucial winter range is in degraded or poor condition.
Alternative A would result in 27,356 acres of surface disturbance due to minerals development and new road construction, which would result in correlated adverse impacts to big game, relative to the other alternatives. Although Alternative A applies a TLS stipulation to avoid surface-disturbing activities in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat, disturbance is allowed in these areas. Big game have exhibited sensitivity to human activity and disturbance. Mule deer exhibit a stress response to disturbances associated with noise and activity up to 0.29 mile from the source (Freddy et al. 1986). Allowing surface disturbance, including wind-energy development, in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat is likely to disturb and displace species such as mule deer in the short term. The WGFD estimates there would be adverse impacts to pronghorn from oil and gas development on at least 170 acres surrounding each well pad (WGFD 2009). The greater mobility and adaptability of these species to human activity and disturbed areas would prevent long-term population impacts. However, it is feasible that big game behavior or populations may be altered in the long term at some level of development. Alternative A closes approximately 2 percent and 7 percent of big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat, respectively, to locatable mineral entry and 3 percent of big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat to oil and gas development (Table 4-9), limiting adverse impacts in these areas. Alternative A also closes a small portion of big game crucial winter range and big game parturition habitat to livestock grazing (Table 4-9), increasing forage availability in these areas.
Alternative A does not restrict motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in big game crucial winter range or elk parturition habitat, which may adversely affect big game by increasing human access and the probability of disturbance. However, opening areas to over-snow travel on a case-by-case basis is likely to benefit big game by restricting access to areas of big game crucial winter range. As a result of other resource concerns, 15,698 acres and 9,298 acres of big game crucial winter range are managed as closed or seasonally restricted for motorized travel respectively, while 510 acres and 398 acres of big game parturition habitat are managed as such. In these areas, the probability of vehicle caused disturbance would be lower.
Special designations would result in beneficial impacts to big game where they overlap big game habitat (Table 4-9) and restrict resource uses and activities that degrade big game habitat or can potentially disturb big game (e.g., oil and gas development and motorized vehicle use). Alternative A designates the Carter Mountain and Upper Owl Creek ACECs, which contain big game habitat and restrict motorized vehicle use and minerals development.
Proactive management actions under Alternative A result in multiple beneficial impacts to big game by conserving habitat values from potential impacts from oil and gas development (Freddy et al. 1986, WGFD 2009) and potential forage competition from livestock (Vavra 1992). Alternative A applies a TLS to avoid surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in big game crucial winter range (1,313,731 acres) from November 15 through April 30 and a CSU stipulation for big game migration corridors, narrow ridges, overlapping big game crucial winter range, and big game parturition habitat. Alternative A prohibits the following actions unless adverse impacts can be avoided or mitigated: livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat during the birthing season (May 1 through June 30), domestic sheep grazing on pronghorn crucial winter range, and water development for livestock in elk crucial winter range. The BLM restores 25 to 200 acres of aspen stands per year until 2,000 to 4,000 acres are under management under Alternative A, which would especially benefit moose and deer that prefer woody vegetation as forage.
Black bears are most affected by management actions in forest and woodland habitats, which generally are not focused on providing habitat for this species. Management actions under Alternative A that would minimize adverse impacts to this species by conserving habitat values include forest management in a manner that protects and benefits watershed, wildlife, and riparian/wetland habitat values and restricting clear cuts to no more than 300 yards in any direction in important seasonal wildlife habitats.
As cougars are typically found in remote, rugged areas, motorized vehicle use restrictions in WSAs under this alternative would minimize potential adverse impacts to this species (USGS 2007). Although no specific management actions for cougars are identified, cougars would experience impacts similar to mule deer, as cougars generally utilize similar habitats as mule deer—their primary prey.
No specific management actions for furbearing animals exist, but other management actions would affect these species. Badger, bobcat, and weasel are habitat generalists and actions in a variety of habitats would affect these mammals. Impacts to various vegetation types can be found throughout this section. Because there would be as adverse and beneficial impacts to these vegetation types, these wildlife species would experience similar adverse and beneficial impacts.
Under Alternative A, no specific management actions aimed at maintaining old growth forests and woodlands exist to promote habitat for furbearing animals such as the American marten and weasel, although any activities proposed are addressed at the site-specific level before harvest decisions. Alternative A does restore 25 to 200 acres of aspen stands per year, which would benefit the American marten.
Several furbearing species (i.e., beaver, mink, and muskrat) are most affected by management actions that impact riparian/wetland habitat or water availability. Impacts to these species are similar to the impacts discussed below in the Nongame (Neotropical Migrants) section for species that use riparian/wetland habitat. The BLM manages riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC or to make progress toward meeting PFC under all alternatives including Alternative A, which would improve habitat suitability for wildlife.
The BLM does not perform any specific habitat management activities for predatory animals. Regardless, predatory animals will be affected by BLM management actions for wildlife habitats. These animals are largely habitat generalists and actions in a variety of habitat types would affect these animals. Impacts to various vegetation types can be found throughout this section. Some predatory animals (i.e., coyote and red fox) are highly mobile and would be affected by management actions pertaining to motorized vehicle use and projected new road development (USGS 2007) (Appendix T). In addition, predatory animals are vulnerable to motorized vehicle disturbance and collisions.
There are no specific management actions for small game under Alternative A, but other biological resources management actions would affect these species. Habitat fragmentation is an issue for small game populations because they tend to be especially disadvantaged by isolation (Temple 1985). Projected surface disturbance from minerals development and new road construction, second highest under Alternative A (Appendix T), would fragment small game habitat. Cottontail rabbits are habitat generalists and a variety of actions in all habitat types would affect rabbits. Snowshoe hare and red squirrel inhabit forests and woodlands. Allowing precommercial thinning in overstocked areas and regenerated timber sale areas under Alternative A may cause adverse impacts to snowshoe hares (USFS 2005b). Conversely, performing woodland treatments in aspen stands and regenerating 2,000 to 4,000 acres of aspen stands would benefit snowshoe hare by improving or creating more habitat. The northern flying squirrel occurs most commonly in riparian forests. The Nongame (Neotropical Migrants) section describes impacts to these habitats.
The BLM identifies modifying livestock grazing management, prescribed burning, installing water developments, and building roost structures (i.e., structures that provide protection from predators) as methods for improving habitats for upland game birds (BLM 1992b). Under Alternative A, there are no specific management actions for game birds that utilize grassland. Actions in grassland habitats, such as surface-disturbing activities, reclamation, invasive species control, and livestock and wildlife grazing, would affect these species. Adverse impact to game birds in grasslands under Alternative A would be proportional to overall surface disturbance (Table 4-1). Management actions in their preferred vegetation types would affect other game birds. Pheasants generally prefer habitat associated with riparian areas along river and stream corridors. Actions in forested areas and grass or sagebrush habitats would affect ruffed grouse and blue grouse. Actions in river bottoms, pine forests, and foothills habitats would affect wild turkeys. The Nongame (Neotropical Migrants) describes impacts to these habitats.
Although there are no specific management actions for waterfowl, other biological resource management actions, particularly those pertaining to water and riparian/wetland habitats would affect these species. The BLM manages riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC or to make progress toward meeting PFC under all alternatives, but does not consider wildlife life history requirements when managing vegetation. As a result of livestock grazing management practices and existing wild horse numbers in HMAs, some riparian zones on public land adjacent to streams, small reservoirs, and ponds have been trampled. Alternative A closes Bighorn River tracts to livestock grazing and prohibits forage supplements within ¼ mile of water or riparian/wetland areas, which would minimize adverse impacts to waterfowl habitat from livestock grazing in these areas. The BLM can use produced water to develop and enhance waterfowl habitats under Alternative A, which would benefit these species.
The BLM identifies declining habitat quantity and quality as the major causes of decreases in raptor populations (BLM 1992c). Buffer zones around active nests minimize disturbance impacts to raptors in the Planning Area. Under Alternative A, the BLM applies a TLS to prohibit any activity or surface-disturbing activity within ¾ mile of raptor nests from February 1 through July 31; ultimately protecting 338,731 acres surrounding raptor nests. Protective buffers help to minimize, but cannot completely prevent, impacts to raptors because most species are mobile beyond these buffers. The impact from habitat degradation and loss would be proportional to surface disturbance (Appendix T).
Wind-energy facilities can be a source of mortality for raptors because raptors can collide with wind tower blades. High mortality may result if wind towers are placed along a migration path or in nesting areas. Wind-energy facilities also result in habitat loss and human disturbance through construction and maintenance of wind towers and associated facilities. Alternative A manages the location of wind-energy facilities throughout the Planning Area on a case-by-case basis.
The BLM (BLM 1992c) states that viable nongame bird populations and biological diversity can be promoted by improving livestock management, prescribed burning, removal of invasive species, seeding, and erosion control. These actions are managed under Alternative A; however, prescribed burning is limited and the spread of invasive species is expected to continue under all alternatives, including Alternative A.
Wind-energy facilities may adversely affect all neotropical migrants, as discussed for nongame raptors. Wind-energy facilities, and other linear features (e.g., roads, utility corridors), fragment habitat. Fragmentation creates habitat edges, where studies have indicated that the success of nongame bird nests decline (Paton 1994). Livestock grazing management can affect nongame bird habitat. Inadequate livestock grazing management results in adverse impacts to riparian/wetland habitat (Belsky 1999), adversely affecting nongame birds in these areas (Taylor 1986). Likewise, heavy grazing reduces nongame bird species richness in grassland and shrubland habitat (BLM 1978). However, light to moderate intensity livestock grazing can increase plant species diversity (Manier and Hobbs 2007), which may beneficially impact nongame birds in grassland and shrubland communities.
Because of the diversity of bird species and habitat requirements, the descriptions of impacts are categorized under the following habitat guilds listed below: Forest and Woodland Species, Mountain Shrub Species, Sagebrush and Desert Shrub Species, Grassland Species, and Riparian/wetland Species.
Forest and Woodland Species – Alternative A requires forest management in a manner that protects and benefits watershed, wildlife, and riparian/wetland habitat values. Refer to Section 4.4.1 Vegetation - Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products and Table 4-8 for a description of management actions and BLM-authorized activities that would impact forests or woodlands and would similarly affect neotropical migrant habitat in these areas. Allowing clear cuts up to a 900-foot radius would adversely impact neotropical migrant species that prefer closed canopies by reducing potential nest sites and fragmenting habitat; however, other species preferring open canopies or forest edges would benefit. The creation of early successional habitat, as a result of clear cuts or wildland fire, can result in replacement of a mature forest bird community with a young forest bird community (Thompson III et al. 1993). There is evidence that the juxtaposition of different aged stands, which creates increased amounts of edge in a forest, may have an adverse impact by reducing the reproductive success of neotropical migrants (Thompson III et al. 1993).
Alternative A allows harvest of some old-growth forests and allows salvage of dead stands with appropriate levels of snag retention to benefit wildlife following site-specific review under NEPA. Overall, forest management practices under Alternative A would result in long-term beneficial impacts to neotropical migrants in forest and woodland habitats that would outweigh the short-term adverse impacts.
Mountain Shrub Species – Under Alternative A, the BLM manages mountain shrub communities toward DPC objectives that emphasize watershed protection, and livestock grazing. This management action would improve habitat conditions for neotropical migrants that depend on mountain shrub habitats in these areas. Adverse impacts to mountain shrub communities would result from surface disturbance and invasive species spread, and would be proportional to projected surface disturbance.
Sagebrush and Desert Shrub Species – Species that utilize or depend on sagebrush habitats benefit from management actions for greater sage-grouse, as discussed in Section 4.4.9 Special Status Species - Wildlife. Alternative A applies a CSU restriction for ¼ mile around occupied greater sage-grouse leks and a TLS for nesting or early brood-rearing habitats within 2 miles of occupied greater sage-grouse leks. Because the breeding season and habitat of greater sage-grouse and neotropical migrants tend to coincide, many species of neotropical migrants benefit from this restriction.
Under Alternative A, the BLM manages salt desert shrub and basin grassland/shrub communities toward DPC objectives to emphasize watershed protection and livestock grazing. Surface-disturbing activities may result in habitat loss and fragmentation and reduced habitat quality, especially in the 5- to 9-inch precipitation zone due to the difficulty of successful reclamation and the potential spread of invasive species. Refer to Section 4.4.1 Vegetation - Grassland and Shrubland Communities and Table 4-8 for a description of management actions and BLM-authorized activities that would impact shrubland communities and would similarly affect neotropical migrant habitat in these areas.
Grassland Species – These species would be affected by actions in grassland habitats, such as surface-disturbing activities, reclamation, invasive species control, and livestock and wildlife grazing. Under Alternative A, the BLM manages foothills-mountain grassland/shrub and basin grassland/shrub communities toward DPC objectives to emphasize watershed protection and livestock grazing. Livestock grazing practices, though managed in accordance 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, may not create the vegetation heterogeneity necessary to increase habitat suitability for neotropical migrants (Derner et al. 2009). However, habitat quality would be maintained in these areas to benefit neotropical migrants that depend on these habitats. Refer to Section 4.4.2 Vegetation - Grassland and Shrubland Communities and Table 4-8 for a discussion of management actions and BLM-authorized activities that would impact grasslands and would similarly affect neotropical migrant habitat in these areas. Due to its projected long-term surface disturbance and reclamation requirements, Alternative A would result in habitat loss and degradation in grasslands.
Riparian/Wetland Species – There are no specific management actions for neotropical migrants that use riparian/wetland habitats. However, other biological resource management actions, particularly those pertaining to water and riparian/wetland habitats, such as surface disturbance restrictions, livestock grazing and riparian area management, and special designations would affect these species. Refer to Section 4.4.3 Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources and Table 4-8 for a description of management actions and BLM-authorized activities that would impact wetlands and riparian areas and would similarly affect neotropical migrant habitats in these areas.
Although there are no specific management actions for nongame mammals, other biological resource management actions would affect these species. Nongame mammals are found in a variety of habitats and are affected by management actions in the preferred vegetation type of each species. Impacts to the various vegetation types are described above for nongame neotropical migrants and are expected to similarly impact nongame mammals.
Although bats can utilize a variety of habitats, caves and abandoned mines are important features for most species. Bats that use caves for roosting, maternity colonies, or hibernation may be affected by recreational caving and surface-disturbing activities near caves, cliffs, or other rock features. Habitat alteration and modification, loss of roosting habitat, and toxic chemicals are threats to bat species in the Planning Area (Keinath 2004; Gruver and Keinath 2006; and Luce and Keinath 2007). Generally, the BLM manages natural caves to meet recreational demand while conserving cave resources and allows activity in abandoned mine land (AML) sites on a case-by-case basis under Alternative A. The Little Mountain ACEC designated under Alternative A would conserve important habitat used by bats, and the use of heavy equipment is restricted over important caves and cave passages in the Little Mountain ACEC to minimize disturbance. Pesticides (specifically insecticides) can result in direct bat mortality, adversely affect reproduction, and reduce the insect prey base (Keinath 2004; Gruver and Keinath 2006; and Luce and Keinath 2007). Aerial application of insecticides under Alternative A may result in direct and indirect adverse impacts to bats as these species are at risk from poisoning by insecticides due to their diet, high metabolic rates, high rate of food intake, and high rate of fat mobilization.
There are 43,114 acres of identified “badlands/rock outcrop” on BLM-administered land in the Planning Area that may contain potential bat habitats. These areas include the Medicine Lodge and Trapper Creek WSAs, where motorized vehicle use is limited to designated roads and trails under Alternative A, reducing the potential for wildlife disturbance in these areas. No specific management actions for abandoned mines exist under Alternative A. Wind-energy development would affect bats similar to neotropical migrants. Overall, Alternative A would limit adverse impacts to bats by protecting cave resources and conserving potential bat habitat.
Implementing and/or stipulating appropriate management guidelines in Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Northwestern U.S. and Canada, PARC Technical Publication HMG-4 (Pilliod and Wind 2008), and similar future guidance for activities that may impact amphibian/reptile habitat will benefit amphibians and reptiles by preventing, minimizing, or mitigating adverse impacts to these species. Retaining riparian vegetation when removing sediment from reservoirs would also benefit amphibian and reptile species such as aquatic turtles and amphibians in these areas by preserving their habitat. Biological resource management actions in other habitats also would affect reptiles and amphibians. Snakes occur in a variety of habitat types, while lizards typically occur in the drier habitats, particularly those with rock outcrops and cliffs. Impacts of management actions to these habitat types are discussed throughout this section.
Alternative B would result in approximately 73,919 acres of short-term surface disturbance that may degrade wildlife habitat and 10,882 acres of long-term surface disturbance that may result in habitat loss (Table 4-1). Minerals development, fire and fuels management, and silviculture treatments are the largest sources of short-term disturbance, with minerals development being the largest source of long-term disturbance. Alternative B requires that all surface-disturbing activities are analyzed by mapping soils to a series level, collecting soils samples for analysis, and evaluating erosion conditions. This alternative also requires reclamation plans before disturbance, topsoil salvage, and establishing 50 percent of pre-disturbance vegetative cover within three growing seasons and 80 percent pre-disturbance cover within 5 years of initial seeding. These management actions would result in the greatest probability of successful reclamation, compared to the other alternatives, so that disturbed areas can return to suitable wildlife habitat in the long term. Alternative B requires the stabilization of all heavily eroded or washed out roads, and closes and reclaims these routes if alternative roads and trails are available. Overall, the projected surface disturbance and associated reclamation practices under Alternative B would result in the least short- and long-term adverse impacts to wildlife compared to the other alternatives.
Minerals development would be the greatest contributor to habitat loss and fragmentation. Alternative B has the fewest acres available for locatable mineral entry, compared to the other alternatives, and is projected to result in approximately 5,000 acres of long-term disturbance that would cause habitat loss (Appendix T). Alternative B also places the most constraints on oil and gas leasing for which 509 new federal wells are projected. Alternative B would result in the least adverse impact to wildlife from minerals development, relative to the other alternatives.
Impacts to wildlife habitat from lands and realty management actions would be similar to those described under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, there would be more emphasis on retaining and acquiring lands in the Absaroka Front and certain ACECs. All acquisitions would be from willing sellers, and while increased acres have been identified, there is no certainty of acquisitions. Under Alternative B, the identification of specific land tenure adjustment zones may increase beneficial impacts to wildlife by identifying specific zones where land can only be disposed of or acquired if the transaction increases resource values, including the protection of wildlife resources (Zones 1B and 1C). Alternative B includes the largest amount of land in zones identified for retention, acquisition, and special disposal that may benefit wildlife resources.
Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage more land as ROW exclusion areas (225,750 acres) compared to the other alternatives, including 109,839 acres of big game crucial winter range and 18,359 acres of big game parturition habitat (Table 4-9). The ROW exclusion areas identified under this alternative would reduce powerline occurrences and lower the risk of raptor electrocution. Alternative B would result in a greater consolidation of ROWs that would cause less habitat fragmentation. ROW management under Alternative B would result in the least adverse impacts to wildlife, relative to the other alternatives.
Under Alternative B, the BLM avoids locating wind-energy projects in big game crucial winter range. Alternative B provides the greatest Planning Area-wide guidance for the location of wind-energy project development resulting in the least adverse impact to wildlife, compared to the other alternatives.
CTTM designations would limit the potential for the proliferation of unauthorized trails and related habitat degradation and wildlife disturbance. Under Alternative B, the BLM closes the greatest area (136,474 acres) to motorized vehicle use and restricts motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in the greatest area (2,054,228 acres). These restrictions would result in the greatest protection of wildlife from human-caused disturbances and sustain habitat integrity and water quality by preventing vegetation loss or soil erosion and compaction. Overall, motorized vehicle use with restrictions under Alternative B would result in the least adverse impact to wildlife, relative to the other alternatives.
Under Alternative B, the BLM does not develop or upgrade recreation sites unless otherwise called for in an SRMA or RMZ. Alternative B would result in more surface disturbance from recreational site development than alternatives A and D, but less than Alternative C (Appendix T); the increase in human presence and impact to wildlife would be proportional.
Under Alternative B, the Planning Area is open to livestock grazing where it does not conflict with other resource management objectives. Crucial winter range for elk and bighorn sheep—to prevent forage competition and possible displacement (Scolvin et al. 1968; Coe et al. 2004; Stewart et al. 2002)—and greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas are closed to livestock grazing and pronghorn crucial winter range is closed to new domestic sheep grazing. The BLM apportions additional sustained yield forage for wildlife, which would have the greatest beneficial impact to wildlife, compared to the other alternatives, by reducing the potential for competition with livestock (Vavra 1992 and Scolvin et al. 1968).
A detailed description of the beneficial impacts to wildlife from special designations is included below. Special designations under Alternative B that would directly benefit wildlife species by conserving habitat include the Carter Mountain and Upper Owl Creek ACECs and their expansions, the Little Mountain ACEC expansion, and the Chapman Bench, Clarks Fork Canyon, Rattlesnake Mountain, and Sheep Mountain ACECs. Additionally, the Absaroka Front Management Area would be specifically managed to protect and enhance wildlife habitat under Alternative B. Managing WSR suitable waterway segments to protect their free-flowing characteristics and ORVs would result in similar beneficial impacts as those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree as Alternative B applies greater protective measures around these segments to protect riparian habitat.
Under Alternative B, the BLM utilizes wildland fire and other vegetation treatments to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and to reduce hazardous fuels. Alternative B would result in approximately 25,000 acres of prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatment (Appendix T). These management actions would cause fewer short-term adverse impacts to wildlife through temporary habitat loss and disturbance than Alternative A, but fewer long-term benefits because more area would remain in FRCC 2 and 3, more susceptible to catastrophic fire, and ultimately less fire adapted habitat would be restored. Based on the amount of vegetation treatment, Alternative B would result in the least long-term beneficial impact to wildlife from fire and fuels management, as in certain habitats fire is documented to improve the palatability of wildlife forage and provide age class diversity to habitats (BLM 2007f).
Under Alternative B, the BLM prohibits clear cuts and perform forest management only where natural processes are unable to accomplish forest health goals. Roads not required for other existing uses are closed, which would reduce human presence and the risk of unplanned ignitions in forestlands in the short term, and augment habitat and reduce habitat fragmentation in the long term. Forest management practices under Alternative B would result in the least short-term adverse impact to wildlife from disturbance and displacement. Wildlife in spruce and subalpine fir stands would experience mostly beneficial impacts from prohibiting commercial forest management to let natural processes determine forest structure, while species in aspen, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine stands would mostly experience adverse impacts due to the lack of fuels reduction and stand diversification. Closing timber access roads would benefit wildlife species in all types of forest.
Under Alternative B, the BLM manages toward achieving 75 percent of Historical Climax Plant Community and manages large, contiguous blocks of land by maintaining or enhancing important plant communities. The amount of invasive species spread would be proportional to the total amount of surface disturbance (Table 4-1) in areas where invasive species seeds or plants are present. Alternative B would treat far less acreage to remove or control the spread of invasive species. Alternative B allows the authorized officer to require livestock flushing for 72 hours, which would reduce the potential for invasive species spread to a greater extent than Alternative A. The lesser extent of vegetation treatments under Alternative B would result in less short-term adverse impact to wildlife than Alternative A from disturbance, but less long-term beneficial impacts by enhancing habitat conditions and controlling the spread of invasive species.
The BLM manages all riparian/wetland areas to meet DPC under Alternative B. This management would ensure to the greatest extent, compared to the other alternatives, that riparian/wetland habitats provide conditions suitable to meet the life history requirements of various wildlife species. Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities within ¼ mile of water and riparian/wetland areas and applies an NSO restriction on wetland areas greater than 40 acres, limiting habitat loss and fragmentation in these areas and benefiting wildlife that depend on these areas the most, compared to the other alternatives.
Proactive management actions under Alternative B include applying wildlife seasonal protections for surface-disturbing and disruptive activities related to the maintenance and operation of a developed project when the actions are determined to be detrimental, identifying and preserving traditional migration and travel corridors for big game and migratory birds, and managing vegetation in areas identified as habitat for special status species and big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat to the most beneficial DPC while considering the habitat needs of other species. Based on their emphasis on implementation for both habitat protection and enhancement, proactive management actions under Alternative B would result in the most beneficial impact to wildlife, compared to the other alternatives.
Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing activities and applies an NSO restriction in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat. The BLM avoids locating wind projects in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat as well. Alternative B closes the greatest area in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat to locatable minerals and oil and gas development (Table 4-9). Overall, restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and motorized vehicle use under Alternative B would result in the least adverse impact to big game.
Alternative B places the most restrictions on motorized vehicle use and prohibits over-snow vehicle use in big game crucial winter range and elk parturition habitat, which would provide additional protection from human disturbance of wildlife compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 53,822 acres and 55,583 acres of big game crucial winter range are managed as closed or seasonally restricted for motorized travel respectively, while 3,950 acres and 41,184 acres of big game parturition habitat are managed as such. Special designations would result in beneficial impacts to big game where they overlap big game habitat and restrict resource uses that degrade big game habitat or may disturb big game (e.g., oil and gas development and motorized vehicle use).
Alternative B expands the Carter Mountain, Upper Owl Creek, and Little Mountain ACECs that contain important big game habitats, migration corridors, and bighorn sheep populations, and ACECs designated under Alternative B encompass more big game crucial winter habitat and parturition habitat than Alternative A (Table 4-9). In addition to restrictions that exist under Alternative A, the Carter Mountain and Little Mountain expansion is unavailable to oil and gas leasing and withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. The Chapman Bench, Rattlesnake Mountain, and Sheep Mountain ACECs are also designated under Alternative B, which all contain important big game habitat and restrict motorized vehicle use and/or minerals development. Designating all LWCs as Wild Lands and managing them to protect primitive recreation and outstanding opportunities for solitude, and the associated restrictions on resource uses and activities, would benefit big game, as 246,064 acres of crucial winter range and 37,900 acres of parturition habitat lie within these lands (Table 4-9).
Proactive management actions under Alternative B result in multiple, primarily beneficial impacts to big game by conserving habitat values from potential impacts due to oil and gas development, reducing competition from livestock, and minimizing human-caused wildlife disturbance. Alternative B prohibits surface-disturbing and disruptive activities in big game crucial winter range (1,313,731 acres) and closes the Absaroka Front Management Area to mineral leasing, geophysical exploration, and motorized vehicle use in certain areas. The BLM limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails with seasonal closures in big game crucial winter range and elk parturition habitat. Alternative B prohibits livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat during the birthing season (May 1 through June 30), domestic sheep grazing on pronghorn crucial winter range, and livestock grazing on crucial winter range for elk and bighorn sheep (Table 4-9) to increase forage availability, reduce forage competition and prevent possible displacement of these wildlife populations (Scolvin et al. 1968; Coe et al. 2004; Stewart et al. 2002). Furthermore, prohibiting water developments for livestock in elk crucial winter range unless no adverse impacts to wildlife can be demonstrated reduces the probability of concentrated livestock areas that may compact soil, damage vegetation, and increase the chance of invasive species spread. Conversely, closing elk habitat to livestock grazing entirely removes this resource use as a potential management tool to improve habitat through enhancing forage palatability and may result in adverse impacts to elk in these areas (Frisina 1992; and Anderson and Scherzinger 1975).
The BLM restores 100 acres of aspen stands per year over the life of the plan under Alternative B (for a total restoration similar to that of Alternative A), which would especially benefit moose and deer that use habitats with woody vegetation for forage. All of these actions protect habitat for big game and reduce habitat fragmentation and disruptive activities.
Due to the adverse impacts from projected surface disturbance and motorized vehicle use, and the beneficial impacts from proactive management actions and special designations under this alternative, Alternative B would result in the least adverse impact to big game, compared to the other alternatives.
Black bears are most affected by management actions in forest and woodland habitats. Management actions under Alternative B that minimize adverse impacts to this species by preserving habitat values include forest management, when natural processes cannot achieve forest health goals, and prohibiting clear cuts.
As cougars are typically found in remote, rugged areas, the motorized vehicle use restrictions in WSAs under Alternative B would minimize potential adverse impacts to this species the most in these areas, compared to the other alternatives (USGS 2007). Under Alternative B, the BLM also designates all LWCs as Wild Lands, manages them to protect wilderness characteristics and restricts minerals development and motorized vehicle use in these areas. Alternative B would benefit cougars the most compared to the other alternatives by minimizing the potential of human disturbance in the greatest amount of remote area and providing the most beneficial impact to big game, including mule deer.
Forest management actions under Alternative B maintain old growth forests and woodlands, which would benefit the American marten. Several furbearing mammal species (i.e., badger, beaver, mink, and muskrat) are most affected by management actions that impact riparian/wetland habitat or water availability. Impacts to these species are similar to those described below in the Nongame (Neotropical Migrants) section that use riparian/wetland habitat. Under Alternative B, the BLM manages all riparian/wetland areas to meet DPC, ensuring consideration of habitat requirements for wildlife. Alternative B would result in the smallest number of new oil and gas wells, and therefore may result in the least adverse impact to furbearing mammal species from altering water availability.
Alternative B actions that would benefit different vegetative types in the Planning Area are anticipated to benefit habitat generalists, such as predatory animals. Motorized vehicle restrictions and projected new road development under Alternative B are expected to cause the least adverse impacts to predatory animals such as the coyote and red fox.
Alternative B actions benefiting forests, woodlands, riparian areas, and other habitat types would proportionally benefit the habitat generalist cottontail rabbit, and more habitat-specific species, such as the snowshoe hare and red squirrel. Preventing precommercial thinning except for fuels treatment would benefit snowshoe hare (USFS 2005b), as would regenerating aspen stands for wildlife values. Management actions to retain old growth forests in HUC Level 4 sub-basins would beneficially impact red squirrels by conserving their habitat.
Under Alternative B, management actions that enhance grassland and shrubland habitat, manage toward DPC in riparian/wetland areas, and control invasive species spread in shrub and grassland communities would provide the greatest benefit to greater sage-grouse, chukar, and gray partridge, compared to the other alternatives. Alternative B actions benefiting forests, woodlands, riparian areas, and other habitat types would proportionately benefit other game birds, such as the ruffed grouse, blue grouse, wild turkey, and pheasant that prefer these habitat types. Impacts to these habitats are discussed below under Nongame (Neotropical Migrants). Late brood-rearing greater sage-grouse would benefit from alpine habitat conserved in the Carter Mountain and Owl Creek ACECs designated and expanded under Alternative B.
Although there are no specific management actions for waterfowl, other biological resource management actions, particularly those pertaining to water and riparian/wetland habitats, would affect these species. Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage all riparian/wetland areas to meet DPC with consideration of habitat requirements for wildlife. Alternative B prohibits forage supplements within ½ mile of water or riparian/wetland areas, which would further minimize adverse impacts to these areas from livestock grazing, compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative B, the BLM would not use produced water to develop and enhance waterfowl habitats, resulting in less area of suitable habitat for waterfowl and less beneficial impact from produced water than under the other alternatives. However, the risk of high water temperature or impaired water quality adversely affecting waterfowl would be less under Alternative B.
Under Alternative B, the BLM applies a TLS to prohibit any activity or surface-disturbing activity within 1 mile of raptor nests from February 1 through July 31 or until young birds have fledged and a year-round CSU to protect the actual nest site from disturbance. The protective buffers around raptor nest sites under Alternative B (543,945 acres) are the largest and would minimize adverse impacts to raptors the most, compared to the other alternatives. Avoiding locating wind-energy projects in raptor concentration areas would minimize the potential for collision mortality and displacement.
Alternative B management actions pertaining to minerals development and motorized vehicle use restrictions; wind-energy development; forest management; management of sagebrush, grassland, and riparian/wetland habitats toward DPC; invasive species control; and fire management would result in the greatest beneficial impact to nongame neotropical migrants, compared to the other alternatives. Although the short-term impacts from prescribed fire and fuels treatments would be less under Alternative B, the increased risk of catastrophic fire that may completely destroy woodland and sagebrush habitat would be greater under this alternative.
Designated under Alternative B, the Chapman Bench, Rattlesnake Mountain, and Sheep Mountain ACECs conserve migratory bird nesting habitat.
Forest and Woodland Species – Alternative B closes the most area in forests and woodlands to locatable minerals and oil and gas development (Table 4-8). This alternative prohibits clear cuts and performs forest management only when natural processes cannot achieve forest health goals. BLM actions for silviculture treatments, forest products, and fuels reduction under this alternative would result in the least short-term disturbance but also pose the greatest risk for catastrophic fire. Planting conifer areas denuded by wildfire if they do not regenerate naturally within 20 years would result in a longer time before habitat is restored, compared to the other alternatives but retaining old-growth forests and requiring with appropriate levels of snag retention during salvage would benefit wildlife. Overall, forest management practices under Alternative B would result in the least short-term impacts, but the long-term adverse impacts posed by the risk of wildfire are greatest under this alternative.
Mountain Shrub Species – Under Alternative B, the BLM manages mountain shrub communities toward achieving 75 percent or more of Historical Climax Plant Community, which would provide the greatest benefit to neotropical migrants, compared to the other alternatives, by enhancing habitat in these areas. Designating the Rattlesnake Mountain and Sheep Mountain ACECs would conserve mountain shrub habitat from disturbance.
Sagebrush and Desert Shrub Species – Species that utilize or depend on sagebrush habitats benefit from management actions for greater sage-grouse as discussed in Section 4.4.9 Special Status Species - Wildlife. Alternative B applies the largest buffers around greater sage-grouse leks and in nesting or early brood-rearing habitats to conserve sagebrush habitat. .
Under Alternative B, the BLM manages salt desert shrub and basin grassland/shrub communities toward 75 percent or more of Historical Climax Plant Community. Alternative B would result in the least surface disturbance that may result in habitat loss, especially in the 5- to 9-inch precipitation zone, and has the most stringent requirements for reclamation, which would result in the least impact to neotropical migrants that depend on sagebrush and desert shrub habitats.
Grassland Species – Actions in grassland habitats, such as surface-disturbing activities, reclamation, invasive species control, and livestock and wildlife grazing would affect these species. Under Alternative B, the BLM would manage grasslands toward achieving 75 percent or more of Historical Climax Plant Community, which would provide the greatest benefit, compared to the other alternatives, by enhancing habitat for neotropical migrants in these areas. However, closing crucial winter range for elk and bighorn sheep and greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas to livestock grazing would limit the use of livestock grazing as a tool where it may create vegetation heterogeneity that enhances habitat for grassland neotropical migrants (Derner et al. 2009). Refer to Section 4.4.2 Vegetation - Grassland and Shrubland Communities and Table 4-8 for a discussion of management actions and BLM-authorized activities that would impact grasslands and would similarly affect neotropical migrant habitat in these areas. Due to its projected long-term surface disturbance and reclamation requirements, Alternative B would result in the least habitat loss and degradation in grasslands compared to the other alternatives.
Riparian/Wetland Species – The restrictions on minerals development and other surface-disturbing activities in riparian/wetland areas and within WSR suitable waterway segments under Alternative B would result in similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative A, but to a greater degree by further limiting degradation of riparian habitat. Refer to Section 4.4.3 Vegetation – Riparian/Wetland Resources and Table 4-8 for a description of management actions and BLM-authorized activities that would impact wetlands and riparian areas and would similarly affect neotropical migrant habitat in these areas. Based on these management practices, Alternative B would result in the greatest beneficial impacts to neotropical migrants that depend on riparian/wetland habitat.
Although there are no specific management actions for nongame mammals, other biological resource management actions would affect these species. Nongame mammals are found in a variety of habitats and are affected by management actions in the preferred vegetation type of each species. Impacts to the various vegetation types are described above for nongame neotropical migrants and are expected to similarly impact nongame mammals.
Generally, the BLM places the greatest restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and motorized vehicle use to conserve cave resources under Alternative B. Activities are prohibited within ¼ mile of AMLs, which would reduce the opportunities for disturbances to bats in these areas. The BLM closes the Medicine Lodge and Trapper Creek WSAs to motorized vehicle use under Alternative B, minimizing human presence and the opportunities for wildlife disturbance in these areas. Little Mountain and Clarks Fork Canyon ACECs designated under this alternative would protect bat habitat. Alternative B places the greatest restrictions on the aerial applications of pesticides reducing potential adverse impacts to bat species. Wind-energy development would affect bats similar to neotropical migrants. Overall, Alternative B would result in the greatest beneficial impact to bats by protecting cave resources and conserving potential bat habitat.
The impacts to reptiles and amphibians under Alternative B would be similar to those under Alternative A, although to a lesser extent. Alternative B similarly applies management guidelines identified in Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Northwestern U.S. and Canada, PARC Technical Publication HMG-4 (Pilliod and Wind 2008). The adverse impact to these animals would be correlated with surface disturbance (Appendix T) and beneficial impacts would result from habitat conservation and enhancement measures described throughout this section. Alternative B applies a larger buffer around riparian/wetland areas to prohibit surface-disturbing activities, which would benefit amphibians and reptiles such as aquatic turtles in these habitats. Alternative B would result in less adverse impact to reptiles and amphibians than Alternative A.
Alternative C would result in approximately 245,783 acres of short-term surface disturbance that may degrade wildlife habitat and 41,545 acres of long-term surface disturbance that may result in habitat loss and fragmentation (Table 4-1). Minerals development, fire and fuels management, and silviculture treatments are the largest sources of short-term disturbance, with minerals development also being the largest source of long-term disturbance. Alternative C requires that all surface-disturbing activities are analyzed by mapping, collecting, and evaluating soil on a case-by-case basis and that reclamation plans and topsoil salvage are performed on a case-by-case basis. The BLM requires 30 percent desired vegetative cover within three growing seasons, but does not specify a long-term vegetative cover requirement. These management actions would result in the least probability of successful reclamation, compared to the other alternatives, so that disturbed areas would be less likely to return to suitable habitat in the long term. Under this alternative, stabilization, but not closure or reclamation, is required for all heavily eroded or washed out roads. Overall, the projected surface disturbance and associated reclamation practices under Alternative C would result in the greatest short- and long-term adverse impact to wildlife.
Minerals development would be the greatest contributor to habitat loss and fragmentation. Alternative C makes the most acres available for locatable mineral entry, compared to the other alternatives, projected to result in approximately 20,000 acres of long-term disturbance that may result in habitat loss and fragmentation (Appendix T). Alternative C also places the least constraints on oil and gas leasing for which 1,257 new federal wells are projected. Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impacts to wildlife from minerals development, relative to the other alternatives.
Impacts to wildlife habitat from lands and realty management actions under Alternative C would be similar to those described under Alternative A, however, more area is identified for disposal (including disposal with restrictions and disposal for specific uses) than under the other alternatives. The impacts of identifying land tenure adjustment zones would result in impacts similar to those described for Alternative B. However, less land is included in Zones 1B and 1C, which require that land transactions improve the protection of wildlife resources, and disposal is allowed only in exchange for lands with higher resource values.
Under Alternative C, the BLM manages the least land as ROW exclusion areas (7,762 acres), including 1,007 acres in big game crucial winter range. Alternative C would result in the least consolidation of ROWs and the greatest habitat fragmentation. ROWs under Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impact to wildlife, relative to the other alternatives.
Under Alternative C, the BLM allows wind-energy projects in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat, raptor concentration areas, and greater sage-grouse nesting, brood-rearing, and winter concentration areas on a case-by-case basis. Alternative C provides more Planning Area-wide guidance for wind-energy project locations and turbines than Alternative A, but allows for their construction in wildlife habitat that may be sensitive to impacts. Wind-energy development under Alternative C would result in the second-greatest impact to wildlife, compared to the other alternatives.
CTTM designations would limit the potential for the proliferation of unauthorized trails and related habitat degradation and wildlife disturbance. Under Alternative C, the BLM closes the least area (10,636 acres) and opens the most area (14,873 acres) to motorized vehicle use, which would result in the greatest potential for human-caused disturbances, vegetation loss, and soil erosion and compaction. Permitting off-road motorized vehicle use for big game retrieval and access to dispersed campsites would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A. Overall, motorized travel designations under Alternative C would result in less adverse impact to wildlife than Alternative A, due to the larger area with seasonal restrictions.
Under Alternative C, the BLM develops or upgrades recreation sites (i.e., camping sites, interpretive educational areas, day use areas) and the associated amenities and facilities if demand warrants. Alternative C would result in the greatest amount of surface disturbance from recreational site development and OHV play areas; the increase in human presence and impacts to wildlife would be proportional.
Under Alternative C, the BLM closes a similar amount of acreage to livestock grazing as under Alternative A, but manages livestock grazing to optimize commodity production while meeting rangeland health standards. Alternative C allows the placement of forage supplements to maximize livestock use, regardless of habitat sensitivity to potential vegetation impacts. As cattle are more likely to concentrate around forage supplements (Bailey 2001), their placement may increase the impact of livestock grazing on vegetation and soil in these areas that may impact wildlife. The potential for adverse impacts to wildlife from livestock grazing would be greatest under Alternative C.
As only two ACECs are designated under Alternative C (neither of which is proposed to protect wildlife values), this alternative would result in the smallest beneficial impact to wildlife habitat from special designations (Table 4-9). Alternative C does not recommend WSR eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and, therefore, would not protect riparian habitat in these areas to benefit wildlife as under alternatives A and B. Alternative C also places the least restrictions on motorized vehicle use in WSAs, which would result in the greatest potential for human disturbance of wildlife in these remote areas.
Under Alternative C, the BLM utilizes wildland fire and other vegetation treatments to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, to enhance forage for commodity production, and to reduce hazardous fuels. Alternative C would result in approximately 140,000 acres of surface disturbance from prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatment (Appendix T). These management actions would cause the greatest short-term adverse impact to wildlife through temporary habitat loss, fragmentation, and disturbance, compared to the other alternatives, but would potentially result in the greatest long-term benefit from preventing catastrophic fire and restoring fire adapted habitat. Alternative C would potentially result in the greatest long-term beneficial impact to wildlife from fire and fuels management if management practices consider wildlife habitat needs.
Under Alternative C, the BLM allows forest management in areas classified as commercial forestland without specific regard for wildlife habitat values and allows clear cuts up to 100 acres, which is a larger area than allowed under Alternative A. Not retaining appropriate numbers of snags in salvage operations would adversely impact amphibians, reptiles, birds, and other small animals that depend on snags and downed wood for habitat. Forest management under Alternative C would result in the potential for altered forest structure that does not mimic natural conditions, which would adversely impact wildlife. The BLM allows spur roads to remain open to meet other resource objectives or for new recreational purposes, which would result in short-term adverse impacts from increased human presence and the risk of unplanned ignitions in forestlands, and long-term adverse impacts from habitat loss and fragmentation. Forest management practices under Alternative C would result in the greatest short-term impact to wildlife from disturbance, displacement, and habitat loss. Alternative C may also result in the greatest long-term beneficial impact to species in aspen, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine stands by reducing hazardous fuels, if short-term impacts do not result in permanent habitat loss or displacement and forest structure is not substantially altered from natural conditions.
Under Alternative C, the BLM manages toward achieving the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix N) and performs habitat enhancement vegetation treatments in sagebrush communities as opportunities and funding allow. The amount of invasive species spread, where invasive seeds or plants are present, would be proportional with the total amount of surface disturbance (Appendix T), and limited by vegetation treatments to remove or control invasive species spread on 4,000 acres. The BLM does not require livestock flushing under Alternative C, which increases the likelihood of invasive species spread that would degrade wildlife habitat, especially in grasslands and shrublands. The greater projected vegetation treatments and prescribed fire under Alternative C would result in the greatest short-term impact to wildlife. Despite treatment measures, surface disturbance and the associated establishment of invasive species would degrade the most habitat and result in the greatest adverse impact to wildlife under Alternative C due to the projected surface disturbance. Long-term benefits to wildlife would be realized only if vegetation management practices consider wildlife habitat needs along with other resource objectives.
The BLM manages all riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC under Alternative C without considerations for wildlife life history requirements. Alternative C allows surface-disturbing activities in flood plains or riparian/wetland areas on a case-by-case basis, which would potentially result in the greatest adverse impact to wildlife species in these areas from habitat degradation or loss.
Proactive management measures that would result in beneficial impacts to wildlife are described in detail below. Proactive management actions under Alternative C include identifying and developing management for traditional migration and travel corridors for big game and migratory birds and managing vegetation in areas identified as habitat for special status species, crucial winter range, or parturition habitat for big game to the DPC that benefits all grazing/browsing animals. Proactive management actions under Alternative C would result in the fewest beneficial impacts to wildlife, compared to the other alternatives.
Alternative C exempts Oil and Gas Management Areas (568,168 acres) and ROW corridors (133,284 acres) from discretionary wildlife seasonal stipulations. The BLM allows wind-energy development in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat on a case-by-case basis. Alternative C would result in the greatest acres of surface disturbance due to minerals development and new road construction, which would result in proportional adverse impacts to big game, relative to the other alternatives. Alternative C closes motorized vehicle use on the smallest acreage of big game crucial winter range (8,068 acres) and seasonally restricts travel on the largest area (55,649 acres). This alternative closes a larger area of big game parturition habitat to motorized vehicle use than Alternative A and seasonally restricts the largest area (1,430 acres and 41,875 acres respectively) of any alternative. The limited restrictions on surface-disturbing activities would result in the greatest adverse impact to big game, compared to the other alternatives, but the seasonal restrictions on motorized vehicle use under Alternative C would limit adverse impacts to big game more than under Alternative A. The areas closed to livestock grazing under Alternative C are similar to those under Alternative A. Special designations under Alternative C would protect the least amount of big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat from surface-disturbing activities (Table 4-9).
Proactive management actions under Alternative C result in the fewest beneficial impacts to big game by providing less habitat protection to potential impacts from oil and gas development and competition from livestock due to prioritizing livestock forage allocation over wildlife. The BLM limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails with seasonal closures in the Absaroka Front Management Area to minimize big game disturbance; however, big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat is afforded the least protection from surface-disturbing activities and potential disturbance under Alternative C (Table 4-9). Proactive management actions would result in the fewest beneficial impacts to big game under this alternative.
Due to the adverse impacts from projected surface disturbance and motorized vehicle use, and fewer beneficial impacts from proactive management actions and special designations under this alternative, Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impact to big game, compared to the other alternatives.
Black bears are most affected by management actions in forest and woodland habitats. Forest management practices under Alternative C result in the greatest short-term adverse impact to black bears from disturbance and displacement, but may result in the greatest long-term benefit, if displacement is not permanent, by improving stand diversity and preventing catastrophic wildfires.
Alternative C places fewer restrictions on motorized vehicle use in WSAs than alternatives A or B, which would result in the greatest potential for human-caused disturbance of cougars in these areas. Management actions affecting big game would have similar impacts on cougars.
The BLM manages forestland under Alternative C for more forest production, resulting in a greater amount of activity that would disturb and displace wildlife. However, old growth forest areas are retained at appropriate locations and distribution levels, which would benefit the American marten in these areas.
Under Alternative C, the BLM manages all riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC without consideration of habitat requirements for wildlife. Alternative C would result in the most new oil and gas wells, and therefore may result in the greatest adverse impact to furbearing mammal species by contributing to the depletion of these rivers. Habitat degradation and loss would be greatest in riparian/wetland areas under Alternative C, and therefore would result in the greatest adverse impact to furbearing animals in these areas.
Alternative C actions that would impact different vegetative types in the Planning Area are anticipated to impact habitat generalists, such as predatory animals. Motorized vehicle use restrictions and new road development under Alternative C are expected to cause the greatest adverse impacts to predatory animals such as the coyote and red fox (USGS 2007).
Alternative C actions affecting forests, woodlands, riparian areas, and other habitat types would have proportionate impacts on generalists like cottontail rabbits, as well as more habitat-specific species, such as the snowshoe hare, red squirrel, and flying squirrel. Precommercial thinning practices under Alternative C would result in similar adverse impacts to snowshoe hare, yet to a greater extent, than under Alternative A. Alternative C would result in no beneficial impacts from regenerating aspen stands, as is so under alternatives A and B.
Alternative C would result in the greatest potential habitat loss and spread of invasive species in shrubland and grassland communities due to surface disturbance and the greatest potential habitat loss and degradation of riparian/wetland areas due to surface disturbance and concentrated livestock grazing. Alternative C actions affecting forests, woodlands, riparian areas, and other habitat types would have proportionate impacts on other game birds, such as the ruffed grouse, blue grouse, wild turkey, and pheasant that prefer these habitat types. Impacts to these habitats are discussed below under Nongame (Neotropical Migrants). Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impact to game birds. Although using produced water to enhance wildlife habitat may beneficially impact some game bird species, Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impact to game birds from habitat loss in shrubland and grassland communities and potential habitat degradation in riparian/wetland areas.
Although there are no specific management actions for waterfowl, other biological resource management actions, particularly those pertaining to water and riparian/wetland habitats, would affect these species. Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage all riparian/wetland areas to meet PFC without consideration of wildlife life history requirements. Alternative C would result in a greater impact from concentrated livestock grazing than the other alternatives, because the BLM would place forage supplements to maximize usage without regard for sensitive habitat. Similar to Alternative A, Alternative C uses produced water to develop and enhance waterfowl habitats in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, which would have beneficial impacts to waterfowl.
Under Alternative C, the BLM applies a TLS to avoid disruptive or surface-disturbing activity within ¼ mile of active raptor nests during specific species nesting periods, or until young birds have fledged. The protective buffers around raptor nest sites under Alternative C (53,336 acres) are the smallest and do not prohibit disruptive activities, which would result in the greatest potential adverse impacts to raptors compared to the other alternatives.
Allowing wind-energy projects in raptor concentration areas on a case-by-case basis would result in greater potential adverse impacts from displacement and collisions than alternatives B and D, but less than Alternative A.
Alternative C actions pertaining to minerals development and motorized vehicle use restrictions; wind-energy development; forest management; management of sagebrush, grassland, and riparian/wetland habitats; invasive species control; and fire management would result in the greatest impact to nongame neotropical migrants. Alternative C would result in the greatest short-term adverse impacts to these species from prescribed fire and fuels treatments; however, the risk of catastrophic fire would be smallest under this alternative.
Alternative C does not designate any ACECs specially designed to protect wildlife values, such as migratory bird nesting habitat.
Forest and Woodland Species – Alternative C closes the least area in forests and woodlands to locatable minerals and oil and gas development, allows for the most disturbance in forests and woodlands from silviculture and fuels treatments and permits the largest clear cuts. Under this alternative the BLM rest ores forests denuded by wildfire in the shortest time period and retains old-growth forests, but not snags used by neotropical migrants for nest sites. Refer to Section 4.4.1 Vegetation - Forests, Woodlands, and Forest Products and Table 4-8 for a description of management actions and BLM-authorized activities that would impact forests or woodlands and would similarly affect neotropical migrant habitat in these areas. Overall, forest management practices under Alternative C would result in the greatest short-term impacts from habitat loss, disturbance, and displacement, but the long-term adverse impacts posed by the risk of wildfire are reduced under this alternative.
Mountain Shrub Species – Under Alternative C, the BLM manages mountain shrub communities toward achieving the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands (Appendix N), which would result in less habitat enhancement, compared to the other alternatives, to benefit neotropical migrants in these areas.
Sagebrush and Desert Shrub Species – Species that utilize or depend on sagebrush habitats benefit from management actions for greater sage-grouse as discussed in Section 4.4.9 Special Status Species - Wildlife. Alternative C applies the smallest buffers around greater sage-grouse leks and in nesting or early brood-rearing habitats.
Under this alternative, the BLM manages salt desert shrub and basin grassland/shrub communities toward achieving the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, which would result in less habitat enhancement, compared to the other alternatives, to benefit neotropical migrants in these areas. Alternative C would result in the most surface disturbance that may result in habitat loss, especially in the 5- to 9-inch precipitation zone, and has the least stringent requirements for reclamation. The associated loss of habitat and potential spread of invasive species would result in the greatest adverse impact to neotropical migrants that depend on sagebrush and desert shrub communities.
Grassland Species – Actions such as surface-disturbing activities, reclamation, invasive species control, and livestock and wildlife grazing in grassland habitats would affect these species. Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage foothills-mountain grassland/shrub and basin grassland/shrub communities to achieve Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands, which would result in the fewest beneficial impacts to neotropical migrants from habitat enhancement in grassland communities. Focusing livestock grazing practices on commodity production would not likely create heterogeneous vegetative cover to enhance habitat for grassland neotropical migrants (Derner et al. 2009). Due to its projected long-term surface disturbance and reclamation requirements, Alternative C would result in the most habitat loss and degradation in grasslands compared to the other alternatives.
Riparian/Wetland Species – Under Alternative C, the BLM allows surface-disturbing activities in flood plains and riparian/wetland areas as well as the placement of forage supplements to maximize usage, without regard for habitat degradation. Alternative C does not recommend WSR eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS and, therefore, would not result in additional beneficial impacts to riparian habitat for neotropical migrants. Based on these management practices and the potential water depletion due to oil and gas development, Alternative C would result in the fewest beneficial impacts to neotropical migrants that depend on riparian/wetland habitat.
Although there are no specific management actions for nongame mammals, other biological resource management actions would affect these species. Nongame mammals are found in a variety of habitats and are affected by management actions in the preferred vegetation type of each species. Impacts to the various vegetation types are described above for nongame neotropical migrants and are expected to similarly impact nongame mammals.
Generally, the BLM places the least restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and motorized vehicle use to protect cave resources under Alternative C, and manages known caves for recreational opportunities. Activities are allowed in AMLs, creating opportunities for bat disturbance in these areas. The BLM allows motorized vehicle use on designated roads and trails in the Medicine Lodge and Trapper Creek WSAs under Alternative C, increasing human presence and the opportunities for wildlife disturbance in these areas. There are no ACECs designated under Alternative C that would conserve bat habitat. Restrictions on the aerial applications of pesticides would be more than alternatives A and D, but less than Alternative B, with correlated impacts to bat species. Wind-energy development would impact bats similar to neotropical migrants. Overall, Alternative C would result in the fewest beneficial impacts to bats by protecting cave resources and conserving potential bat habitat.
Based on implementation of management guidelines identified in Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Northwestern U.S. and Canada, PARC Technical Publication HMG-4 (Pilliod and Wind 2008) on a case-by-case basis, the projected surface disturbance under Alternative C (Appendix T), and the allowance of surface-disturbing activities in riparian/wetland areas, Alternative C would result in the greatest adverse impact to reptiles and amphibians, compared to the other alternatives.
Alternative D would result in similar short- and long-term surface disturbance as Alternative A, with proportional impacts to wildlife from all surface-disturbing activities in various resource programs. To minimize long-term habitat loss from surface disturbance, Alternative D imposes greater erosion prevention measures and reclamation requirements to disturbed areas than Alternative A. Alternative D requires reclamation plans, stipulations, or measures before surface disturbance, the reestablishment of healthy native or DPCs based on pre-disturbance species composition, and the use of temporary protective surface treatments, such as weed-free mulch, to facilitate reclamation. Overall, the projected surface disturbance under Alternative D is slightly more than under Alternative A, but the impacts to wildlife habitat would be mitigated to a greater extent.
Alternative D would result in similar short- and long-term surface disturbance as Alternative A, with proportional impacts to wildlife from all surface-disturbing activities in various resource programs. To minimize long-term habitat loss from surface disturbance, Alternative D imposes greater erosion prevention measures and reclamation requirements to disturbed areas than Alternative A. Alternative D requires reclamation plans, stipulations, or measures before surface disturbance, the reestablishment of healthy native or desired plant communities based on pre-disturbance species composition, and the use of temporary protective surface treatments, such as weed-free mulch, to facilitate reclamation. Overall, the projected surface disturbance under Alternative D is slightly more than under Alternative A, but the impacts to wildlife habitat would be mitigated to a greater extent.
Impacts to wildlife habitat from lands and realty management actions under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative A; however, less area is identified for general disposal than alternatives A and C. The impacts of identifying land tenure adjustment zones would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative C. Under Alternative D, more land is included in Zones 1B and 1C, which require that land transactions result in improved protection of wildlife resources, and disposal is allowed only in exchange for lands with higher resource values.
Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage more lands as ROW exclusion areas than under Alternative C, of which 9,961 acres are in big game crucial winter range (Table 4-9). ROWs under Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts than under Alternative B, but less than under alternatives A and C, based on the total acreage managed as ROW avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas.
Renewable energy development under Alternative D would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative C, although to a lesser extent because the BLM avoids wind-energy projects in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat and raptor concentration areas, and mitigates renewable energy development in greater sage-grouse Key Habitat Areas. Alternative D manages the most lands as renewable energy avoidance/mitigation areas and the second-most lands as renewable energy exclusions areas. Renewable energy development under Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to wildlife habitat than under Alternative B, but less than under alternatives A and C.
Alternative D limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in more area than alternatives A and C and closes a similar amount of acreage as Alternative A to motorized vehicle use, protecting more wildlife habitat in the Planning Area than these alternatives. Permitting off-road big game retrieval would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A, but to a lesser extent because off-road travel is limited to 300 feet from established roads. Overall, CTTM under Alternative D would cause more adverse impacts to wildlife than under Alternative B, but less than under alternatives A and C.
Impacts to wildlife from recreational site development and livestock grazing management would be similar to those under Alternative A.
Beneficial impacts to wildlife from special designations under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater extent. Greater minerals development restrictions and ROW stipulations in the Carter Mountain, Five Springs Falls, Little Mountain, and Upper Owl Creek ACECs, and designating the Clarks Fork Canyon and Sheep Mountain ACECs would result in greater protective measures for wildlife habitat than Alternative A. Similar to Alternative C, Alternative D does not recommend WSR eligible waterway segments as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS, resulting in no additional beneficial impacts to wildlife by preserving riparian habitat.
Overall, impacts to wildlife from fire and fuels management and forest, woodlands, and forest products management under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative A. Allowing larger areas to be clear cut would result in more habitat loss for wildlife species that prefer closed canopies; however, maintaining the structure and composition of old growth stands would benefit wildlife species that use this habitat type, such as the American marten.
Beneficial impacts to wildlife from grassland and shrubland community management under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative B, although to a lesser extent. Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage to achieve or make progress toward achieving 65 percent – instead of 75 percent under Alternative B – or more of Historical Climax Plant Community, resulting in less beneficial impact to wildlife habitat than under Alternative B. However, the BLM would treat more area for invasive species than Alternative B, providing greater long-term beneficial impact to wildlife by preventing the spread of invasive species that may degrade wildlife habitat. Livestock flushing practices would result in similar beneficial impacts as those under Alternative A.
The management of riparian/wetland vegetation under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts as those under Alternative C, but to a greater extent. Managing streams with unique recreational or fishery values to obtain DFC may increase habitat values in these areas more than under Alternative C, but additional management would be necessary to ensure that habitat meets life history requirements for various wildlife species. Alternative D applies more stipulations to surface-disturbing activities near riparian/wetland areas than Alternative C, limiting adverse impacts from surface disturbance, and applies an NSO restriction on all wetlands greater than 20 acres, protecting the most wetland habitat compared to the other alternatives. Overall, beneficial impacts to riparian/wetland habitat for wildlife under Alternative D would be greater than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B.
Proactive management measures that would benefit wildlife are described in detail below. Similar to Alternative A, the BLM modifies identified hazard fences in accordance with appropriate wildlife needs, prohibits domestic sheep grazing on pronghorn crucial winter range unless adverse impacts can be mitigated, and addresses traditional migration and travel corridors for big game wildlife species and migratory birds on a case-by-case basis under Alternative D. Similar to Alternative B, the BLM pursues land tenure adjustment authorities for the acquisition of, and interest in, lands for the improved management of important wildlife habitat and applies minerals development restrictions, although to a lesser extent, in the Absaroka Front Management Area. Similar to Alternative C, the BLM performs habitat enhancement vegetation treatments in sagebrush communities as opportunities and funding allow, uses produced water to develop and enhance wildlife habitat, and exempts Oil and Gas Management Areas from discretionary wildlife seasonal stipulations. Overall, proactive wildlife management actions under Alternative D would result in greater beneficial impacts to wildlife than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B.
Alternative D exempts Oil and Gas Management Areas (134,214 acres) from discretionary wildlife seasonal stipulations similarly to Alternative C. However, Alternative D does not exempt ROW corridors from seasonal stipulations and avoids wind-energy projects in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat and raptor concentration areas, resulting in less adverse impacts than Alternative C. Impacts from minerals development and new road construction under Alternative D would be less than those under Alternative A because of the additional restrictions applied to the Absaroka Front Management Area and the greater portion of big game parturition habitat administratively unavailable for oil and gas development (88 percent).
As a result of other resource concerns, 16,739 acres and 31,687 acres of big game crucial winter range are managed as closed or seasonally restricted for motorized travel, respectively, while 482 acres and 9,526 acres of big game parturition habitat are managed as such. Based on these acreages, impacts to big game from potential disturbance would be second-least under Alternative D. Overall, impacts to big game from motorized vehicle use would be less than under alternatives A and C, but more than under Alternative B.
Special designations under Alternative D would protect more big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat than under alternatives A and C, but less than under Alternative B. The BLM designates the Sheep Mountain ACEC and manages the Chapman Bench Management Area and 52,285 acres if Wild Lands with additional resource use restrictions that would benefit big game. Designating the Carter Mountain, Upper Owl Creek, and Little Mountain ACECs would result in similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative A.
Proactive management actions under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts to big game as under Alternative A, but to a greater extent. The BLM would apply various restrictions and stipulations on minerals development in the Absaroka Front Management Area (130,895 acres) that would benefit big game more than alternatives A and C. Avoiding livestock grazing in elk parturition habitat unless adverse impacts can be avoided or mitigated would limit potential adverse impacts to elk, while allowing for the use of livestock grazing as a management tool that can improve forage palatability for elk (Frisina 1992 and Anderson and Scherzinger 1975). The BLM avoids wind-energy projects in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat under Alternative D as well, minimizing the potential for disturbance and displacement. Allowing the temporary closures of designated roads in big game crucial winter range and parturition habitat would limit adverse impacts to big game due to disturbance from motorized travel.
Adverse impacts to black bears under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater extent as clear cuts are allowed up to 100 acres. Alternative D places more restrictions on motorized vehicle use in WSAs than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B, resulting in proportional adverse impacts to cougars from potential disturbance. Alternative D also designates 52,485 acres of LWCs as Wild Lands, resulting in similar beneficial impacts to trophy game as Alternative B, but to a lesser extent. Based on big game management actions, the beneficial impact to cougars under Alternative D would be less than under Alternative B, but greater than under alternatives A and C.
Based on forest management actions, beneficial impacts to furbearing animals under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative A, but to a greater extent. Based on projected surface disturbance, reclamation and restoration practices, and vegetation management, habitat generalists such as the badger, bobcat, and weasel would be adversely impacted under Alternative D more than under Alternative B, but less than under alternatives A and C. Management actions in old growth stands under Alternative D would benefit the American marten similarly to Alternative B, but restoring aspen stands only when opportunities and funding allow would result in less beneficial impact than alternatives A and B for the American marten and other furbearing mammals in this habitat. Furbearing species most affected by management actions that impact riparian/wetland habitat or water availability (badger, beaver, mink, and muskrat) would be beneficially affected less than under Alternative B, but more than under alternatives A and C.
Alternative D actions that would impact different vegetative types in the Planning Area are anticipated to impact habitat generalists such as predatory animals. Motorized vehicle use restrictions and new road development under Alternative D are expected to cause less adverse impacts to predatory animals, such as the coyote and red fox, than under alternatives A and C, but more than under Alternative B.
Alternative D actions affecting forests, woodlands, riparian areas, and other habitat types would have proportionate impacts on the habitat generalists like cottontail rabbits, as well as more habitat-specific species, such as the snowshoe hare, red squirrel, and flying squirrel. Precommercial thinning practices under Alternative D would result in similar adverse impacts to snowshoe hare as under Alternative C, with the potential for limited beneficial impacts to this species from aspen restoration, if opportunities and funding allow.
Alternative D would result in less habitat loss and less potential for invasive species spread in shrubland and grassland communities than alternatives A and C (Table 4-8), with correlated impacts to game birds. Alternative D actions affecting forests, woodlands, riparian areas, and other habitat types would have proportionate impacts on other game birds, such as the ruffed grouse, blue grouse, wild turkey, and pheasant that prefer these habitat types. Impacts to these habitats are discussed below under Nongame (Neotropical Migrants). Using produced water to develop and enhance wildlife habitat may beneficially impact some game bird species if the created habitat is suitable.
Although there are no specific management actions for waterfowl, other biological resource management actions, particularly those pertaining to water and riparian/wetland habitats, would affect these species. Riparian/wetland management actions under Alternative D would result in less beneficial impacts to waterfowl than under alternatives A and B, but more than under Alternative C. Prohibiting forage supplements within ¼ mile of water, wetlands, or riparian areas and applying an NSO restriction to wetland areas larger than 20 acres would result in beneficial impacts similar to Alternative B, but to a greater extent. Special designations under Alternative D, including the Sheep Mountain ACEC, would restrict resource uses and activities, conserving migratory bird habitat. Using produced water to develop and enhance wildlife habitat may beneficially affect some game bird species if water quality is not impacted and the created habitat is suitable.
Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to raptors than Alternative B, but less than alternatives A and C. Although Alternative D seasonally protects less area (86,550 acres) around active raptor nests than Alternative A, it applies a year-round CSU stipulation to protect raptor nest sites and avoids wind-energy development in raptor concentration areas.
Alternative D management actions pertaining to minerals development and motorized vehicle use restrictions, wind-energy development, vegetation management, invasive species control, fire and fuels management, and special designations would result in more beneficial impacts to neotropical migrants than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. The Chapman Bench Management Area and Sheep Mountain ACEC, designated under Alternative D, would conserve migratory bird nesting habitat.
Forest and Woodland Species – Management actions in forest and woodland habitat under Alternative D are similar to those under Alternative A and would, therefore, result in impacts to forest and woodland neotropical migrant species similar to Alternative A. Alternative D closes more area in forests and woodlands to minerals development than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. Protecting old growth stands and leaving appropriate levels of snag retention to be used by neotropical migrants as nest sites would result in similar beneficial impacts to those under Alternative B. Alternative D allows larger clear-cuts than Alternative A, which would result in a greater beneficial impact for neotropical migrant species preferring open habitat but may reduce the reproductive success of some neotropical migrant species (Thompson III et al. 1993)..
Mountain Shrub Species – Under Alternative D, managing mountain shrub communities toward achieving 65 percent or more of Historical Climax Plant Community would result in similar beneficial impacts, although to a lesser extent, than under Alternative B. Designating the Sheep Mountain ACEC would restrict resource uses and activities that may disturb or displace neotropical migrants, benefitting mountain shrub species in this area.
Sagebrush and Desert Shrub Species – Species that utilize or depend on sagebrush habitats would benefit from management actions for greater sage-grouse as discussed in Section 4.4.9 Special Status Species - Wildlife. Alternative D applies more resource use and activity restrictions in greater sage-grouse habitat than alternatives A and C, with proportional limitations in adverse impacts to neotropical migrants in sagebrush habitat. Based on the restrictions on minerals development in sagebrush and desert shrub habitat (Table 4-8) and the reclamation requirements under Alternative D, this alternative is likely to result in fewer adverse impacts to neotropical migrants in these habitats than under alternatives A and C, but more than under Alternative B.
Grassland Species – Based on projected surface disturbance and management actions to restrict resource uses and activities in grassland habitat, vegetation management actions, reclamation practices, invasive species control, and livestock grazing management, Alternative D would result in less habitat loss and degradation in grasslands than alternatives A and C, but more than Alternative B, affecting neotropical migrants proportionately. Allowing livestock grazing in areas closed to grazing as a tool to maintain or improve resource conditions may beneficially impact neotropical migrants in these areas, if grazing practices create vegetation heterogeneity to benefit these species (Derner et al. 2009).
Riparian/Wetland Species – Vegetation management practices and the management of WSR eligible waterways under Alternative D would result in similar impacts to neotropical migrants as those under Alternative C, but neotropical migrants may benefit more from managing certain riparian areas to obtain DFC and prohibiting livestock forage supplements within riparian/wetland areas. Alternative D would also restrict surface-disturbing activities in more wetland areas. Overall, Alternative D would result in more adverse impacts to neotropical migrants in riparian/wetland habitat than Alternative B, but less than alternatives A and C..
Although there are no specific management actions for nongame mammals, other biological resource management actions would affect these species. Nongame mammals are found in a variety of habitats and are affected by management actions in the preferred vegetation type of each species. Impacts to the various vegetation types are described above for nongame neotropical migrants and are expected to similarly impact nongame mammals. Special designations and restrictions around AMLs under Alternative D would result in similar beneficial impacts to bat species as Alternative B, although to a lesser extent. Adverse impacts from aerial pesticide application would be similar to Alternative A. Wind-energy development would affect bats similar to neotropical migrants.
Impacts to reptiles and amphibians under Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative C, although to a lesser extent. Greater surface-disturbance restrictions in riparian/wetland areas than under Alternative C, avoiding reservoir work during amphibian mating and metamorphosis periods, and retaining riparian vegetation to benefit habitat values when cleaning or removing sediment from reservoirs would limit adverse impacts to reptiles and amphibians.